
Shuhei Yoshida noted in an interview this week that the reason for Tokyo-based developer Japan Studio’s closure was because the market for AA games has disappeared.
Sony’s much-loved internal studio produced a variety of smaller-scale PlayStation exclusives over the years, including Patapon and Gravity Rush. It also played an important role in bringing externally developed titles to Sony’s consoles, like Everybody’s Golf from Clap-Hanz and Tokyo Jungle from Crispy’s.
But it wasn’t just Japan Studio that was so prolific in this category: through the PS3 and PS4 era, Sony found enormous success publishing a wide-range of smaller games around the world, from Invizimals to Sound Shapes to Fat Princess and everything in between.
These titles – aside from a few notable exceptions like perhaps LEGO Horizon Adventures and Sackboy: A Big Adventure – have been effectively removed from PlayStation’s portfolio. It’s one of the reasons, along with cross-gen releases, why we believe fans have been less satisfied with PS5’s output than previous consoles.

But what has changed?
Well, the most obvious thing is that the cost of games has gone through the roof. A single AAA title from Naughty Dog, like Intergalactic: The Heretic Prophet, costs hundreds of millions of dollars these days, dramatically eating into the platform holder’s budget.
But these rising costs also apply to the smaller games as well. With higher costs involved across the board, it’s perhaps easier to greenlight guaranteed hits; God of War Ragnarok may have cost many magnitudes more to make than, say, Gravity Rush 2 to make – but it also sold over five million units in a week.
The other big difference is that the indie space has grown immeasurably. In the early days of the PS Store, an average week would see one or two new titles to release; these days you’re looking at 20 to 30 fresh games per day. That’s a lot of competition, and many of these indie games have budgets which rival AA titles; Kena: Bridge of Spirits, Stray, and Sifu have largely occupied that space.

Sony would perhaps argue that it hasn’t abandoned AA entirely, it’s just changed its approach. The three abovementioned titles were heavily marketed by PlayStation, and while not true first-party exclusives, they filled an important role in its portfolio.
But those are the success stories.
Yoshida explained how after completing Gravity Rush 2, creator Keiichiro Toyama approached him with a variety of concepts for new games, all of which were interesting. But given the state of the market, the platform holder passed on all of them, and Japan Studio was eventually closed.
Toyama later founded Bokeh Game Studios and released Slitterhead, a kind of spiritual successor to the Siren series. While we don’t have official sales numbers for the game, we know it sold fewer than 5,000 units at retail in Japan and peaked with less than 800 concurrent players on Steam.

In fact, there have been countless tales of AA disappointments in recent years. The critically acclaimed Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden from Don’t Nod disappointed commercially, as did Jusant.
Meanwhile, the team behind the highly recommended Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown was disbanded, while Capcom’s Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess failed to meet expectations for Capcom as well.
There are countless examples which support Yoshida’s comments, and it’s reflected across all of the big publishers. It’s true that Nintendo is still a bastion of AA titles, but its position is unique in that it has some of gaming’s most iconic brands under its umbrella; most other companies can’t fall back on the pure pulling power of franchises like Super Mario, Donkey Kong, and The Legend of Zelda.

One other point that we haven’t touched upon is the rise of live service games, like Fortnite and Genshin Impact. These titles are so broad and engaging that many may prefer to invest in V-Bucks or Primogems than purchase brand new AA titles they don’t have time to play.
And with subscriptions like PS Plus Premium offering hundreds of titles on demand, there may just not be the appetite from some consumers to show up for AA titles like they used to in generations past.
It’s a shame because AA does seem to solve an emerging issue that’s been worsening for a while: blockbuster games simply cost too much money and take far too long to make.
But AA titles are not immune to these issues either, and the market doesn’t appear to be supporting them in the quantities required to make creating them worthwhile.
Do you think the AA market on PS5 has disappeared? Are you still hungry for this smaller-scale games and willing to show up to buy them day one? Does it all depend on the type of experience being offered? Let us know in the comments section below.
Do you still buy AA games regularly? (785 votes)
- Yes, I'm a big fan of smaller-scale software
- Sometimes, it really depends on the game
- No, I generally don't buy AA games anymore
Comments 91
AA/indie>AAA 😎 I play more smaller games these days they're more fun in general
If gravity rush 2 is a double a game, ill definitely need more of those
Imo, there should be a tier system for game prices, lot of indie games being priced at 69.99 or similer shouldn't be a thing. Especially indie games. I waited until ghosts of new eden was on sale, got it for 25. Wouldn't pay mare than 35 quid for a 20 hour or less game
What's classed as AA, as I would class most of Nintendos output to be AA as they don't have the budget and allocated man power as AAA games on Playstation/Xbox seem to have. So yeah I think there's still a market for it, but it has to be unique to do well or based off a popular IP and not just a copy and paste of other successful games.
What's the difference, to the players, between AA and indie any more?
Sifu, Hades, Kunitsu Gami, PoP: The Lost Crown, Stray, Kena, Hollow Knight, Concrete Genie... I'd put all these in the same bucket of "smaller but still substantial titles". I think Shuhei is right that, from the consumer's perspective, there is not really a difference between a good indie game and a smaller project from a large scale publisher.
And from Sony's perspective, they don't just think "will we make a profit if we spend our development dollars here?", they also have to think "... but would we make more profit with the same development dollars if we put them over here?". And when you ask that second question, being in the "AA" space doesn't really make sense these days.
Definitely. There hasn't been a car breakdown service game for years.
No the market hasn't disappeared entirely but it's more competitive than ever and harder to make a success.
Much like movies it's easier to see a return on investment either on the tiny indie-like projects or massive blockbusters, the ones in the middle just don't sell enough often enough to make financial sense in all but a small number of cases.
I think Indië and AA games have a different feel. Indie games are more like A or B level .
That said I do make a point of buying AA games at full price if they get reasonable reviews and i want to support the developer. I did that with Banishers (its amazing) and Outcast: new beginnings (not played yet).
I don't tend to buy AAA games at release because I expect/hope they get wider support from the community
I get all the business reasons to an extent but I also think that Sony and other publishers are missing out on understanding what a broad portfolio does to a platform.
The games market is over saturated, that's for sure. Getting anything noticed outside of AAA gaming space is hard and often needs some kinda hook, be it previous pedigree, some marketing interest or a lead from a platform. Plus yes, AA games cost more now then they used to and the quality of the indie space has blurred the lines.
That said, when you are a platform holder trying to entice people into your eco system, it is about more than just a few unique AAA titles of 1 or 2 a year. Sackboy or Kena Bridge of Spirits would never sell the same number of titles as say, Spiderman or GoW but they show investment in an eco system.
There is clearly a place for AA titles as the market has supported a number of them. Sony just had one with Astrobot. I'd argue Space Marine 2 was closer to AA then AAA. The majority of Nintendo games are budgeted closer to AA then AAA in comparative terms.
So my gut feeling is that yes, there is a market for AA games but they will only ever be modest successes compared to the AAA market in terms of units sold. SO it comes down to strategy really. Is the aim to make as much per release across platforms? Is it to be build a compelling case why someone should invest in one eco system over another? Is it bung content on a sub service? I feel that no one in the games industry quite knows what they want.
I play only AAAA games because they are two times better than AA ones
I think Sony problem with their AA games wasn’t that the market disappeared but that no one bought them.
I also don’t think the AA market has disappeared at all on the PS5 it’s booming. It’s just really hard to classify what counts as a AA game anymore.
“ subscriptions like PS Plus Premium offering hundreds of titles on demand, there may just not be the appetite from some consumers to show up for AA titles “
“ Do you still buy AA “
I feel like this article is totally missing the point that is staring it right in the face and therefore never asks the right questions.
Basically:
Show up for <> buy day 1
A better survey would have been -
How do you feel about AA games?
1. AA is all I play
2. I like AA but not at AAA prices
3. AA are great little bites between AAA main courses
4. AA on sale or in a subscription
5. AAA all the way
6. I’m holding out for AAAA
@rjejr Interesting points. There is definitely less day 1 excitement for AA titles but the good ones still sell quite well on Nintendo over time. Perhaps the way sales are measured should change for the small scale games.
Personally, I love a good smaller scale game since I don’t have much time to play anymore. But yeah, the average PS player is more interested in sports and their favorite live service game or the big AAA games with state-of-the-art graphics.
@Rudy_Manchego While I do agree to an extent, it just seems a bit mad to keep funding games they know are unlikely to move the needle, even if they do add to the overall portfolio.
I think they’d probably argue they’re better off investing that money elsewhere.
I think the AA space is much more easily successful now with the rise of ballooning budgets because the reason I feel like games like Gravity Rush 2 didn't end up as successful (besides it being a sequel if a Vita game), was that Sony didn't market them when they were placed somewhat close in packed release schedules of bigger titles with less than proper marketing. Sony is in a huge release drought of titles, so having smaller, cheaper titles like Astro Bot being able to get spaced out between bigger releases would allow Sony to make them look like a much bigger release, and thus more people would check it out. I think that could help a lot if Sony is gonna keep endlessly committing to how they currently develop their triple A titles
@rjejr Yeah that’s fair, I’ll do a better poll next time. I suppose there are people who will wait for sales etc so are interested just don’t necessarily want to pay full price.
But that’s part of the problem I guess.
The issue is there are too many games coming out.
According to a quick google search the entire PS3 catalog was around 2,000 total games.
From 2014-2025 there were 3,479 games released for PS4.
From 2020-2025 there has been 3,194 games released for PS5. With all the trash that gets put on the store the average consumer isn’t going to buy smaller titles because of the risk associated with buying really crappy games. Pair that with live service which takes up so much time and you have the answer.
That market is saturated and a large subset of people either don’t buy games at all or just wait until games drop in price substantially and get a better experience anyway because it’s content complete.
It’s not sustainable and seems like every time we’ve seen a studio lay people off a new studio pops up so the problem is getting worse.
I play a game if I think that I'll like it. Doesn't matter how many As it has
I find the indies and smaller games more fun. Been playing metal suits counter attack and berserk boy recently, both superb 😉
Theyre still aa games on ps5 its just that the exclusive games are mostly aaa.i would say astro bot is a aa game.and look at kingdom come deliverance 2.thats a aa also.word up son
@Czar_Khastik So you only play Skull and Bones
I love the AA stuff. Concrete Genie, Everybody’s gone to the rapture are two of my all time favourite titles.
I think a perfect example of a good AA game that I have played recently is Eternal Strands. That game was just the right length for its price. And it was a bucket load of fun as well.
Absolutely yes
@Fighting_Game_Loser It would be very interesting to see how something like Gravity Rush 2 performed now, if it was released in a fairly quiet period and marketed strongly
@Oram77 No other game has or will reach that level
It’s a tough space with the quality some indie titles are bringing. 40-50$ titles with sometimes less quality/content than a 5-20$ title is a tough sell. My two longest playtimes of any games ever were Valheim and Project Zomboid and I got both of them for less than the price of Gravity Rush 2 at retail. Vampire Survivors can keep someone occupied for 100 hours or more probably for the 100% play through and I spend more on coffee before noon most days.
Suppose it depends on the definition of AA? Did that include Everybody's Golf or was that AAA? Was something like Control AA or AAA?
One of the best games I've played in years is the hilarious pixelated madness that is Broforce which was probably an A. Gameplay is key - nice visuals are welcome but they don't necessarily make or break a game.
Indie games and AA games are mostly gamers over a certain age. 25-30 or so I’d say. I teach in high school and every year I hear about students playing Spider Man 2 or NBA 2k or Genshin Impact. I never hear about indies or smaller titles. Maybe I get one student every 3 years who knows what something like Persona is, and I’d argue that is more AAA than any other title I could mention that isn’t AAA. So you have a generation who aged out or kept playing but is replaced by a generation that is only aware of the biggest titles.
@TedLassoNikes I mean if the GR2 remaster rumor from a while back comes true, then I think we will be able to test that with Sony's current line-up
What changed was the gaming media.
You are driven by clicks and likes and not by quality and fun.
Your desire to push stories based on engagment breed a userbase that simply doesn't care about the AA space.
The gaming media is not solely to blame though, engagment farmers on social media also helped drive this.
All my favourite games combined have smaller budget then GoW Ragnarok.
If a game isn’t AAA then it’s highly unlikely I’ll buy it these days. I’m sure there are people who enjoy the smaller experiences indie and AA developers put out but I have found most that I have given a chance have ended up being boring, bland and empty.
I'm personally of the opinion that the smaller games might not make a splash, but they're important in that together they contribute to the overall vibe of the ecosystem. In the past, PlayStation produced games like Vib Ribbon, PaRappa, Tokyo Jungle, Gravity Rush - weirder, smaller titles that might not have sold like Horizon but gave the PlayStation brand a cool, quirky identity.
That wackier side of the PlayStation brand has all but disappeared, and instead what we're left with is lots of polished third person games. And I like those games. But without the weirder stuff it does feel like the PlayStation brand is a lot more clinical, and kinda soulless, and that we're all the poorer for it.
Not everything has to sell 10 million copies. Sometimes, just being a part of the portfolio, a part of the greater whole can be an important contribution. Plus, you never know when something will be a surprise hit.
Still, we can't really be surprised that the company that thought Concord was going to be a banger can't see the value in smaller titles that actually have things like art design and cool characters and personality and charm etc.
@RenanKJ Well people should be more excited about AAA than AA. No one should be spending $600-$700 on a console to only play AA games. But that doesn’t mean Sony should get rid of AA games. They should be on Gamepass, PS+ and Apple Arcade where they belong. Though Apple Arcade may be mostly A, I wasn’t impressed during my 3 month free trial.
It’s like doing a poll - Which holiday is the best: Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, Memorial Day- and then afterwards saying OK we’re only celebrating Christmas now nobody cares about the other holidays everyone back to work.
Well in the US we’ll have 2 holidays, Christmas and King Trump’s birthday.😝
The threshold for profitability is so tight between indie and AAA. There’s success to be had but I think you need a separate division that manages a highly curated portfolio of releases via partnerships with external studios. Sony already basically does this but it would be beneficial to change their marketing angle.
@ErrantRob “ I hear about “
You’re probably already aware of this since you’re a HS teacher but what you hear about isn’t necessarily what everyone is playing, it’s the lowest common denominator that people can talk about so you can hear it. You probably also hear people talking about Marvel movies and Taylor Swift but that doesn’t mean they also aren’t listening to other music on YT and watching other movies w/ their friends. It’s just harder to talk about niche stuff in large gatherings. AA is niche. It’s why everyone talks about the weather instead of nuclear fission, we all know about the weather.
Plus it’s HS so peer pressure is a thing. No straight white boy is outing themselves playing Infinity Nikki, or “kiddie” stuff like Fortnite. It’s just easier to go along. I’m playing both of those but if anyone asks me at a party I’m saying GoW:R, just easier.
Yes I’m self aware enough that I realize I didn’t mention any AA games so I’ll throw out GotY (underservedly so, I’ve played it) It Takes Two. And a lot of people seem to like Balatro, which may be more A, or A- even.
AA is something you play then walk away. It isn’t a marriage, it’s a weekend in Vegas. And what happens in Vegas…
@get2sammyb “ But that’s part of the problem I guess.“
The problem is big game companies only work for their shareholders but when things go awry they blame the gamers. Has a single head of any company thrown themselves on the proverbial sword over the fiasco that was Concord, or did they just throw gamers under a bus for not being smart enough to pay $60 for a great free to play game?
We live in a world that is all blame, no responsibility, run by greed. The gaming industry is no exception. 🤑
Don't Care how many A's a game get. If it's a good game, I will play it.
I agree with this article. And loved Banishers, Jusant, and a litany of other “failed” AA titles, so it’s hard to see the narrative of the AA space continue to be so negative, as much as it’s true.
It’s really frustrating to me, but it feels like the AA space is shrinking year after year and honestly the AAA space is shrinking too. I find myself in a place where I know there’s more games than ever before, but fewer games I’m interested in and that could be a me problem, but if that were true, why are so many others feeling the same way?
I have made a top 10 list end of year every year for about 20 years at year end, and I’ll admit some years are great and some years aren’t, but this generation has felt off since the start of it (outside the fantastic year of 2023… what a year!). Whether it’s the change of the AA market, the end of the indie boom, a shift to live service, AAA taking so much longer to develop, or the persistence of last generation to remain pertinent, I’m not sure, but things feel off for me and many others.
I do think part of the issue too is that Nintendo largely had a quiet year last year preparing for Switch 2, and even as a predominantly PlayStation gamer, I feel like I felt the year last year having less Nintendo. Donkey Kong Country Returns felt positively fresh to replay earlier in the year for me, even if it’s practically ancient now. I’ve said it elsewhere but it was the most fun I had in gaming since Astro Bot.
I hope it’s just a blip in time that we’re experiencing this. As of right now, I’m interested in so few upcoming games compared to how I felt in other years. I usually purchase 30-40 games a year and play through about the same amount. I may not be buying V-bucks or whatever, but I invest a lot into gaming and I just suppose the industry wants money from others instead of me now. 2024 was my lowest gaming spend in my adult life though (by far too) and it doesn’t look like 2025 will be different.
On the plus side though, there are still games I am looking forward to. Things could be worse.
Of course there's a market for AA. The problem is the corporations would rather chase all the money (GaaS) as opposed to a tidy profit. it's a problem with the economy across numerous industries at this point and it causes incredible volatility. You either hit it big or go broke and get acquired by your competitor, no in-between.
Aside from Horizon 2 (which came packaged with my console, so not my choice) I haven't bought a single 1st party AAA release from Sony this generation. Is Stellar Blade AAA or considered a Sony game? If so, that one counts too. I have borrowed a few like GOW2, Spidey 2 and Veilguard but ultimately opted not to purchase. Looking at my shelf right now I don't have many 3rd party AAA either. No Ubi, no Activision. Mostly JRPGs and more Switch games overall than PS5.
Personally I've found western AAA offerings to either be awful (Concorde, Veilguard) or inferior to their predecessors (GOW2, Spidey 2) this generation. I'd love to see a wider variety of AA games offering different gameplay styles. It's the primary reason I've favored Switch over PS5 this generation.
@get2sammyb Sure and you are right, depending the metric. I just feel that Sony is caught in the same existential crisis as a lot of the games industry, as xbox is evidencing right now. The issue is profit versus exclusivity. It's the xbox quandary - games cost a huge amount to make and market. Therefore to make the most ROI you need to do sell as many units as possible, which means ideally cross platform. At the same time, the majority of Sony's PS revenue is based on people buying into an exclusive ecosystem. What makes that ecosystem viable? Content and pricing. But Sony can't afford to make much content because it costs so much and takes so long so... back to the first point. Big expensive games will potentially sell gang busters if given to the biggest audience possible. That contravenes exclusivity, which in turns drives their revenue. Exclusivity is based on loyalty and content.It's all a viscious circle in a way.
As much as I DON’T want to comment on one of these articles. I might as well throw my two cents in.
I feel, and I myself only observe and don’t play games a whole lot, BUT for me and my brother think personally is that most people only care about whatever big name, overhyped, insane graphics game comes out lately. Stellar Blade (disappointed), Baldur’s Gate 3, Kingdom Come Deliverance II. You know things like that. I feel that’s all anyone talks about anymore. But the two of us like simpler games. Especially anime-style. BUT I also feel that maybe there isn’t a market for in on PS5, because…PS4 is still so widely supported? My brother bought the newest Neptunia for PS4 instead of 5, because it’s still supported, and because the Switch game was censored, that’s another subject entirely.
Personally for the two of us there is still a market for AA games. Idea Factory games or even something like Yook-Laylee (No I don’t consider that indie in anyway) are what we enjoy. The only two games I have on Switch are One Piece games, which would be AA. It mostly just comes down to everyone’s preference. I personally have never saw much appeal to indie games and everyone seems to love those. I will say I do like Nintendo’s first party offerings which to me is the best of any AAA, especially lately.
Side note: If say Call of Duty is AAA and these are AA, then what would a single A game be? Indie?
@rjejr while I agree I also tend to see (on a semester system) 150 students or more a semester, so 300 a year over years adds up. And while they are only a small segment of a larger population their interests tend to align with the PS charts every month as well. There is a more hardcore gaming audience out there for sure, but they aren’t in high school. For every 10 kids playing 2K I get one or two playing Undertale, which I still think tracks when magnified to millions. So while I do only hear things I engage a lot and none of them have heard of games like Persona 5 or Kingdom Come, but they all know about Elden Ring or Black Myth, which they do talk about.
Again I’m aware of who my audience is and how small of a sample they are but I also know these are future audience of PlayStation as we age up and even with a full digital storefront, they stick to AAA games because they don’t care for much else. That may change as they age (it did for me) but that won’t help the current state of the AA space now (so maybe a renaissance will be in order).
@bluemage1989 You just described how I feel about AAA games…
I would say yes in the sense that people aren’t buying these games. However I feel gaming needs these games to survive.
I am sure some of it is sales expectations adjustments need to be made but the big publishers need to be able to greenlight their smaller studios to make games and not shut them down after each one or stop making those games.
That being said I am loving the AA space. Big publishers are making fun games (Zelda:EoW, Prince of Persia) medium Publishers are making fun games (Banishers), and indies are making fun games (I am loving Coral island…which is still in active development). The problem is it feels like only Nintendo maybe capcom and indies with kickstarter money can afford to just make those games snd not fire everyone or pivot away from making more of them in the first place.
Game development is still too expensive imo and we don’t have enough stable indie devs to make consistently good to great lower budget games. So we still need big publishers to fill that void but for them it is more risk. Feels like a perfect storm of cost (including salaries), shareholder expectations, consumer expectations, and dev time. And it is punching a hole in the AA gaming boat.
@mariomaster96 That’s exactly what I think we should all do. Not just give in and play whatever game is constantly in the news or shoved down our throats.
I really wish Clap Hanz released a new Everybody's Golf for the PS5.
I played the demo for PGA 2K25, and while it seems like a great game of golf, it's just so sterile and devoid of fun when compared to the Everybody's Golf series.
I still regret selling my physical copy of Everybody's Golf on the PS4.
Helldivers II is (or rather was?) an AA title, and it carries the GaaS strategy of former Sony management on its back. Also, the double AA area is partially taken by indie devs
@Rudy_Manchego PlayStation’s Q4 2024 revenues were up 16%, driven mostly by record PS5 sales and software revenue growth from non-first party games. All this from an incredibly quiet period of time from PlayStation first party. Astro Bot was a great portfolio piece but a comparatively (to other first party output) low selling property, albeit now with huge growth potential.
I really wonder if a focused and curated approach to the AA space, structured as a separate division/initiative through partnerships with external studios, would be both a safer investment opportunity and better marketing angle. The AA space needs its own approach.
I like AA games. I tend to enjoy them way more than AAA. My problem is the pricing. Wet was cheap, Matt Hazard was cheap, gregory horror show, Mr Mosquito etc...
I would think theres a massive market for games at a £25/£30 price bracket.
I bought Warriors Abyss because it appeals, is cheap and i will have a lot of fun with it. Im currently playing Xuan Yuan Sword VII and its brilliant fun, great gameplay, im enjoying the story and it was cheap
I never pay 'attention' to if it's indie, AA, AAA, or AAAA anymore. My time and money is so limited, I'm usually only playing one or two games at any given time. I've never really seen a game and though WELL THAT LOOKS COOL TOO BAD IT'S NOT AAA... it's usually just looking at a game and saying I won't have time for that because of X game I'm playing instead.
PS+/Gamepass changed the AA sphere, everyone just waits for them to inevitably hit the service
AgentMantis wrote:
Sadly I think there's SOME truth to this, but it's not always so simple. There's definitely a lot of games I never would have bought but played on PS+ or Game Pass and then recommended to people which created more sales. These services CAN act as great advertising for some titles and sometimes a second chance to find an audience.
Astro Boy says otherwise.
need to scale prices to game length no one want to spend 70+ for 10 to 15 hours of game play
i think a simple online set up like in the ps3 era can give a smaller game legs like a PVP or PVE of the same map and systems
It has on PlayStation because they stopped making them.
In the meantime Nintendo has cleaned up with quirky, fun, humorous, colourful, family friendly, local multiplayer, moments of escapism.
Sony could compete. They don’t want to.
The industry needs to make AA games right now to be sustainable. If that means AA entries in existing, successful franchises then so be it. But the AAA death spiral will just continue if that's all publishers fixate on. It's simply not sustainable. I hope that we see more AA games that are smaller, take more risks, and have shorter development cycles (imagine getting a sequel to a great AA game in just a couple of years?). Time will tell. But something's gotta give or the industry will just collapse again.
I don't know that I agree with this. I think the AA term is very hard to square. There have been a lot of notable failures, but it seems like there have been successes as well. I think differentiating what is an "indie" game and what is a "AA" game is very murky.
The fact that publishers like Don't Nod are still releasing games points to the fact there are AA games. I don't think their games havent met sales expectations is a lack of market, I think it's a visibility issue.
Dunno if this has been addressed but what many think of as a "AA" game in say the 2000's still cost millions of dollars to make. Very different from an indie studio with a few people at most.
Interesting article, but I found three important points were missing from the discussion:
1. Risk: reduced costs reduces the risk, giving AA Publishers/Devs more possibilities for
2. Experimentation: since you don't have to cater to the biggest crowd you can become weird and niche, which however requires
3. Exposure: having great AA games swim in the mess of psn shovelware while the tripleA titles float above with huge banners sets them up for failure. AAA will always take front and center due to budget but you could create a better space through rules and curation.
Sony's problem was they couldn't market their AA games, which isn't the same thing as the market disappearing. Shuhei is missing the mark here.
@Fighting_Game_Loser I think there's a lot of truth to that. Nintendo doesn't make much difference in marketing between a smaller budget game like Pikmin and a bigger budget game like Zelda. And because Nintendo is always cognizant of release schedules those smaller budget games end up doing really well. I remember when Gravity Rush 2 came out. I had to go out of my way to find information on it. It also came out within a few months of Nier Automata, Breath of the Wild, and Horizon Zero Dawn. That's what the problem is.
The foremost issue with this topic is even defining what 'AA' is supposed to mean. While AAAA seemed entirely ludicrous, it's not as though AA or AAA make much more sense. I would describe — note my diction use of vague 'describe' rather than 'define' — AAA as the most expensive games in the industry. We're talking sub-billion dollar games developed by several different teams, with marketing budgets that could afford the Superbowl. Your Call of Dutys, The Last of Uses,etc.
So, already, if we want to talk about the viability of the AA market, let's consider not-COD level games that weren't abject commercial failures. Is Yakuza/Like a Dragon AAA? Sonic the Hedgehog? Any Nintendo game besides, maybe, tentpole Zelda? It Takes Two? Dragon Ball Sparking Zero? Space Marines 2? Even Helldivers II or Astro Bot — did those really have comparable budgets to Call of Duty? How's the market's viability looking, then?
Of course, you could describe AA games differently. Maybe it's about originality. Hence, established mega-franchises like Sonic and Warhammer could only be AAA. Unless...that recognizability is offset by apparent budgetary restrictions; I doubt anyone would be arguing Sonic Mania and Boltgun are AAA. Maybe the budget doesn't have to be at Assassin's Creed's level. But then, at what point does it go from AA to AAA? Once it hits 10 million (keep in mind, It Takes Two was allegedly 3.7 million)? If BlOps 6 is 700 million, does it really make sense to consider both AAA? Does it even make sense for it to be only one weight class above It Takes Two?
I can expound ad infinitum about the nebulous nature of these identifiers, but I mostly just want to posit that you need a very specific, not necessarily sensible definition of AA to question its viability. To bring it back to Sony specifically, I want you to remember Souls-like started as a Sony produced game and arguably the best one (Bloodborne) is owned by them. Yet, under Sony management, Demon's and Blood only achieved cult status — maybe modest success in the case of the latter, though Sony's treatment of the IP would imply otherwise. Now, those same developers with the same design philosophy also made MEGA-successful darling Elden Ring (is Elden Ring even AAA?). Now, there's a lot of minutia to the difference between Demon's, Blood's, and Elden's success. But, without writing another 5 paragraphs about it, I want you to just think about how these games must've had the potential to reach Elden's success, yet didn't come close. Think about how, if Sony knew what they had on their hands and worked with them through their establishing years, Elden Ring could've been a Playstation game. Now consider how many other modest successes could've blossomed into something as grandiose if Sony knew how to capitalize upon a novel, cheaper release instead of chasing big budget, high-fidelity experiences.
@Orpheus79V Also Gravity Rush 2 came out within three months of Resident Evil 7, Zelda Breath of the Wild, Nier Automata, and Horizon Zero Dawn. If it had come out at a less busy time with decent marketing it would have done much better.
As someone that wants gameplay design to improve not stagnant/repeat history for 20+ years. Yes I love smaller games when they put the effort in.
Most hooks are graphics/story/bland worlds to recreate and boring missions so yeah you can tell why I want more gameplay exciting as their hooks are terrible these days.
Game + game or memorable not be 'this' and then it's this + that. Make it stand out, it's a product. Make an impact.
Why should I care about their products, why should I a boring city, boring movesets, boring no playground feeling of your game.
Marketing that's good too not lazy and too formulaic either.
Besides too many rhythm shooter, adventure etc. games. Or bad marketing or audiences have too high expectations. Audiences are to blame as much as lazy Devs/publishers expectations of sales or game design are. Apex was generic so shadow drop. Hi fi rush is good too strange but good.
Audiences are picky or nerd to understand your game. It's why no one understands me I'm too strange yet I understand the strange games. XD I ask too many questions/suggestions and everyone else doesn't.
Sigh can't have a dev like mind here it's too much for people.
I find more song structure gimmicks compelling then games. That's saying something.
Not being an art teacher going nope put more of yourself into it, so I get annoyed with over Indies laziness to mould it more.. just inspiration/nostalgia, weak effort to prototype a bit longer. Put the effort in not copy paste.
Make your nostalgic title have more structurally.
Have more to not be nostalgic and dense and make it stand out.
I don't want fan games as products I want an actual product with passion behind it.
Something I struggle to say because I live in a world where suggestions like that are confusing to people and their story/characters/world priorities come first not gameplay.
AAA get too high budgets, delusional to make up their mind and fit the budget in a split studio or the same awkward demanding publishers, too ambitious as in for boring things not actually ambitious but just recreations of garbage reality for casuals to go wow and people like me to go yeah moving on, seen better or wanted something else, or can't commit to them.
Even Psycho Mantis I was like it's cool but primitive and easy to guess the limits. Could be expanded but also doesn't need to.
Foam stars could have had more modes but they went let's pick the easy option and do nothing original just tweak it slightly yeah what competition idiots. As bad as any modern racing game it was. A racing game can have more modes and just rally, just open wheels, probably is they are too dream cars/motorsport limited.
Why not like kart racers offer planets or ships or whatever landscapes no leave it on earth and replicate something easier they do. Pathetic. How did anti grav racers come to be again?
Sony wants big, they flop oh no. Their fault for nothing to fall back on. Or get the audience willing to say hey smaller games are good, we want those stories, those budgets, those gameplay experiments not the same visuals/stories and bland gameplay so I won't buy games.
If a game as good as Hi-Fi Rush couldn't sell well on PS5, yeah I think the AA market may be cooked.
@Dragon83 Ghosts of New Eden isn't an indie game lol, it's published by focus. Y'know, publishers of Space Marine 2? Not an indie game.
Now's a better time than ever for AA successes. Smaller budget games with a lower price tag in a period where AAA games are consistently tripping over themselves.
Just, you know, actually try to sell the damn games rather than cripple them out the gate with poor marketing.
@dodgykebaab Not their fault for going where the market is. The real problem is there are so many gamers out there that only care about the biggest, most popular stuff and couldn't care less about smaller releases, even if they're high quality.
Casuals don't care as long as it's easy to find or reppresents enough clear to them of sports, youtubers talking about them, or close to reality. It's why I hate pop culture/bland worlds and want better ones in movies. But we get easy bland garbage to cover up instead. It's why Illumination succeeds and animation fans hate them.
Hooks are easy for casuals and their small world, for gamers it varies between all of us.
I'd love better world building but it doesn't happen. As its too complex. I don't mean politics and things I mean truly original, but that won't happen. Too much for people to understand let alone think up.
Ideas like roguelikes have either been done to death now, too close to other better ones or new to those who played Last of Us 2 or God of War Ragnarok for example. Wider audience experience no or smaller game audiences played before and ok with them or sick of them and big studios try their hand where they can off these ideas then they used to just try anything before. It's safe adding off others now. Sigh.
Marketing for Greedfall 2 at events was so bad. They aren't getting new customers if they have a really bad showcase of features and things people new don't care about, fans yes, newcomers no.
Or like Infamous Second Son side content is for hardcore, story is for casuals. Fair balance there of those that dig deeper and those that don't.
Racing Sim.fans are picky. Some of us enjoy a mix of arcade and others, others want their dream cars, teams etc. Some don't want anything but realism, some of us are ok with 2D smoke trails and cell shading something a 15+ years (what's normalised/creative/forgotten/newcomers expectaions) gap does to people since the last time it is as done. Auto Modellista or GT Cube/Pro Series. Or NFS Nitro I guess. I prefer more modes not straightforward and boring. Shooters some thing after do many enemies and bland level design or fun swapping they need more to them. So vehicles I enjoyed in them they got taken out. Make them a side thing then.
Among other things. Audiences wants, Devs ideas, their ideas being from smaller teams, failed games, etc.
PS1/2 better competition, better new ideas. Why else would I buy Glover N64 then a AAA video game.
PS3/360 competition was there but mechanics were still going for shooters not just the making one oversaturated it was yes. They still are all good games to play it's why I'm buying them not modern ones.
Tactics/hack n slash are hit and miss these days. Racing are trash and vary in ideas of AAA or Indie weak execution/bad audience & lackluster progression. All Indie/AAA Platformers trash. Other genres vary.
PS3/360 had the ideas, 8/9th gen are PS3/360 cut down, saturated or other priorities and it's boring.
Let alone multiplayer maps be static, or QTEs/dialogue or even in action things happen. Games are too scripted and boring nowadays.
Even besides someone that researched AI can still go that's good. Not oh that's overdone or just plain bad.
Push square audience doesn’t represent the masses. most PlayStation players only play AAA sports games and free to play
I think I only really play Indie and AA games these days. And a lot of Nintendo games. I’m not sure I’d class Nintendo games as AA or AAA, they’re just Nintendo games.
What would Shadow of the Colossus and The Last Guardian be classed as? I love those games, but in my head they’re not AAA games.
For me, I associate AAA games these days as Open World, 50+ hour games filled with crafting, skill trees and/or menu management. And that’s precisely the reason I don’t play them.
@Bigmanfan never said indie but said is an AA game and only about 20 hours long but saber is an indie studio
@Czar_Khastik I only play AAA games because the batteries are cheaper.
@Dragon83 Now I'm extremely confused. Do you mean Saber Interactive? Cause Saber Interactive isn't an indie studio. Like, not remotely close. They've made large games for IPs like the quiet place and Warhammer. That is certainly not what I would consider indie level. (But like feel free to let me know if I'm missing something here, cause I'm mostly really confused lol).
I think PS+ and Gamepass are definitely a factor, I think another challenge AA games face is that due to the ubiquity of digital distribution and the fact that all time classic games are now effectively available indefinitely and being remastered all the time, AA games are having to compete with essentially the greatest hits of the last 30 years of gaming available at the same price point or lower. I mean let’s say I’m a relatively young/new gamer looking to buy a horror game for $40, would I buy Slitterhead or say the Resident Evil 2 remake - a game so well known that it’s part of “cultural consciousness” at this point and I probably would have heard of it before.
Basically older AAA games still being readily available at lower price points, playable on current systems, and still feeling relatively modern due to the unavoidable slowing pace of evolution in both technology and game design as the format matures have taken up the market space that used to be filled by AA games.
@johncalmc the issue is Sony is a business and there is no reason to gamble on small games when the over saturated market can do it for you.
They collect a 30% rip on the AA market right now and with games constantly coming out the chances of them making that type of money back on an investment is very small. Let someone else gamble and make the 1% smash hit - gamble small win small.
If they are going to make games from here on out it’ll be either known entities that are sure things or massive gambles like Concord. Thats it - and it’s because it makes 0 financial sense to invest in anything else.
I read this while I'm wearing a Patapon shirt. I wish they'd do something smaller scale! Tokyo Jungle, Fat Princess, there are so many great ones lost! They can have a small team at a studio or a smaller studio just do something for $20 or something like they used to for PSN on PS3. JUST TRY IT ONCE AGAIN, SONY!
@Bramble Sony didn’t develop Helldivers 2. Arrowhead isn’t a 1st party studio.
Why would Sony invest in a smaller game with in house assets, take on the associated risks with employment, overhead etc to develop AA games at this point when they can outsource and publish or just collect 30% rips on the stuff that gets dumped into PSN?
They are only going to use their studios for known quantities / sure things or big gambles that might pay off massively like concord (bad gamble).
Also, I didn't realize Slitterhead finally released. They just stopped talking about it. They had zero marketing and will probably say it didn't do well. I don't play much horror, but was excited for others to play it.
I would rather play a small AA RPG rather than any god of war, horizon, Spider-Man or any other AAA games from sony. AA games aren't failing because people aren't interested. I think Maybe it's because the games they made aren't that appealing.
@Bigmanfan
"Not their fault for going where the market is."
Utter boot licking rubbish.
Their job is not cheerleading, it's to inform. And they spend way too much time informing people about the biggest AAA games.
Grown up and time poor, I don't do any AAA at all, but I buy loads of shorter games.
Last AAA I got was jedi survivor last week, and it will do me until the end of the year via microdosing
A further comment - I think Sony will "re-evaluate" their strategy when steam console enters the chat, and everyone who wants anything other than AAA jumps aboard that ship.
Honestly I think the problem isn't lack of desire for AA games. I think the problem is a combination of massively bloated budgets and insanely high expected returns on games.
Personally yes, but I believe anecdotally people have lost the stomach for paying for them.
They've got to be on a service like Plus or they're just not getting played. I frequently see people complaining that 20 hour tripleA titles like Spiderman don't offer enough hours of gameplay, so what chance does a less polished, smaller scaler 10 hour game have against that mentality?
There is always a place for AA but, like indies, the games have to be priced accordingly. $40-50 dollar experiences to accompany the full-priced AAAA releases each year.
Half the money wasted on the live service initiative this gen could've been used to save Japan Studios. Damn shame.
Too be fair as much as I miss sony's AA games, I think they've adapted the right approach: instead of making those games, publish them instead.
In reading the comments and also thinking on the subject myself, I think there’s a vagueness of what constitutes a AA game vs a AAA and vs an A game or indie game.
I know it all boils down to budget, developer team size and scale, and production time. But I don’t know if there’s a consensus cut-off point. I think I saw somewhere that a game will graduate into AAA territory around the $50 million production cost point…? It was several years ago but I think Witcher 3 was originally made on a budget around that neighborhood, which blows my mind.
Unfortunately, a lot of game budgets are just not made public, so there’s guesstimates and inferring that has to occur.
So depending on the definition, some of my favorite games like Control, the A Plague Tale games, Hellblade, Returnal, are likely considered AA even though they look AAA on the screen.
However it’s defined, I really think the mid-tier gaming budget space (call it AA if you’d like) is critically important. It’s really where creativity and innovation meets fidelity and polish. Games like Disco Elysium, Nier Automata, Inscryption, and the games from medium sized teams like Remedy, Housemarque, Team Ico/GenDesign, etc are really essential for keeping gaming fresh and progressive.
@dodgykebaab They're not spending "way too much time" if those articles on AAA games are what the most people want to read. If anything don't blame the website, blame the players out there who refuse to play anything other than the newest AAA slop. (And for the record I agree with what you would like to see from the side, more smaller game coverage and a more critical view towards the shady aspects of the AAA business, but I know I'm not in the majority there.)
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...