In recent years, AAA (Triple-A) games have been rocked by a collection of failures and controversies, leaving gamers questioning the future of titles released by big gaming companies. From unfinished releases plagued by bugs to countless predatory monetization practices, the once enchanting world of AAA gaming has found Itself stuck In a hole.
recent years, AAA (Triple-A) games have been rocked by a collection of failures and controversies, leaving gamers questioning the future of titles released by big gaming companies. From unfinished releases plagued by bugs to countless predatory monetization practices, the once enchanting world of AAA gaming has found Itself stuck In a hole.
To start off with the many problems that plague AAA games: bugs. AAA games have been faced with increasing criticism for launching highly anticipated games with many glitches and technical issues. This is often attributed to games having rushed development cycles, which results in gamers encountering bugs that ruin their experience with the game, and sometimes making it unplayable. The best example of this would be “Cyberpunk 2077”. Produced by CD Projekt RED and released on December 10, 2020, “Cyberpunk 2077” was immediately trashed for the countless amount of glitches and technical issues that afflicted the game. Many players encountered things like non-player-characters, (NPCs) not rendering in, invisible walls that randomly block the player, the character falling through the map and the most apparent one: the game constantly crashing. Due to these issues, “Cyberpunk 2077” became well known for all its bugs, but CD Projekt RED has acknowledged their mistakes with the game, and through many updates, they’ve fixed it and made the game more playable. Despite the game’s redemption, “Cyberpunk 2077” will be a prime example of how companies should ensure a game is finished and polished before release.
Another problem with most AAA games is the rushed development. Many AAA games seem to be developed under tight deadlines, sometimes driven by financial expectations. “Fallout 76” is a good example of a game that faced multiple critics for its rushed development. Developed by Bethesda, “Fallout 76” was marketed as an innovative online multiplayer game set in the Fallout universe, which left many fans excited as this was the first multiplayer game in the franchise. However, it was evident there were issues with the development of the game upon its release. One of the key signs that this game had a rushed development cycle was the game’s development timeline. The game was announced a few months before its release at E3, 2018, an event that advertises upcoming games, hardware, and merchandise, which left a very short window for the developers to test and develop the game. Along with the fact that Bethesda uses the same engine for all their games and they’re all single-player, this required significant reworking of their engine. As a result, “Fallout 76” launched with a myriad of gameplay issues and technical problems, along with fans of the Fallout franchise dunking on the game for the online elements, which they feel took away the magic of the franchise’s single-player experience. Much like CD Projekt RED, Bethesda acknowledged their mistake and through many patches, fixed the performance of the game, but its troubled launch has left a lasting impact.
The gaming industry has witnessed a shift towards prioritizing profit over player experience, leading to many gamers being outraged. One prominent example of this is the gaming company EA. EA has been widely criticized as a company for many reasons. From releasing a rushed game with barely any content like “Battlefield 2042”, or releasing the same game every year with hardly any new content and a new number in its name, like the FIFA franchise. However, the biggest issue with EA is its greed. “Star Wars Battlefront II ‘’ was a highly anticipated game due to its use of the famous Star Wars franchise, and the promise of a fun and engaging multiplayer option; However, when the game was released back in October of 2017, it was immediately met with controversy many gamers despise: loot boxes. Through loot boxes, which could be bought with real money, players can get rewards that can customize their character, and gameplay-affecting items, like powerful weapons, or strong abilities for your character. Due to this, many accused the game of being pay-to-win, as people who spent money on the loot boxes had significant advantages over those who didn’t pay money for loot boxes. Due to the backlash, EA temporarily removed microtransactions from the game but were later added back, but this time, they only had cosmetics, instead of gameplay-affecting items. Due to this, “Star Wars Battlefront II” highlighted the risk of prioritizing profit over player experience, but sadly, this kind of lesson was never learned from another company.
A lot of games nowadays have seen a rise in in-game stores. An in-game store is a feature in some games where you can spend real money to buy cosmetics for your character. This is mainly seen in games like “Fortnite’’, which is a free game so it isn’t an issue. However, it is an issue when you get a full-priced game and see an in-game store awaiting you on the main menu. “Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League”, developed by Rocksteady Studios, and released late January of this year, is a game that has a price tag of $70, which is a problem considering that a full-price game has an in-game store. Even the once-great Call of Duty franchise has been infected with this problem. This left many gamers upset, as they shouldn’t need to spend more money if they want to customize their character in a game that is $70.
The last issue is a rather simple one, which is that the final product of many AAA games is flat-out bad. If it is the issues mentioned above, the fact you need wifi to play some games, which happen to be single-player, or that the final product has little content, and/or is boring to play. The best example of this is an entire company called Ubisoft. Ubisoft has created many good games, but they have just as many bad games, two of which are prime examples of bad products. “Assassin Creed Mirage ‘’, released in early October of last year, was a game that they built up to be a back-to-basics of the franchise but ended up being just like the newer Assassin’s Creed games, which many fans dislike. Another one is “Skull and Bones”, which Ubisoft went out of its way to say would be the first AAAA (Quadruple-A) game, but it doesn’t feel like one. The game has been criticized for being repetitive and boring and makes you wonder if Ubisoft loves public humiliation as they hype up their upcoming releases, only for those said releases to be poor products.
Despite all of these problems with AAA gaming, does this mean gaming is dead? Maybe AAA gaming, but not gaming as a whole. Games produced by companies that aren’t AAA have been the center of attention for many. Games like “Palworld”, and “Helldivers 2” have been praised for their amount of Content, how much fun they are, and the fact they are well-made games. Indie games have always been praised for being crafted with love and passion by a small team of people, like “Hades” and “Stardew Valley”. Even games produced by non-AAA game companies that have a budget of one, like “Baldur’s Gate 3” have been praised for the same reasons “Palworld’’ and “Helldivers 2” were given.
While AA (Double-A), and indie games are thriving, AAA games find themself in a hole that many hope they will be able to get themselves out of.
