Seeing how some studios close down before they release a game (The Initiative, etc) or release a crappy AAA game does it make sense for team building reasons that the first project be a big budget AAA game? Shouldn't it be a smaller title just for the experience before you tackle something AAA.
Should a brand new studio's first project be a AAA project?
- Thread starter FMX
- Start date
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
What was the last game that was AAA releasing from a brand-new studio? It seems to happen so rarely that kinda tells you it's a bad idea typically.
Clair Obscur is kinda close (better than most AAA games in my opinion) but it's scope and pricing was obviously aimed in the AA space - and they had help with funding from Microsoft / Game Pass.
Clair Obscur is kinda close (better than most AAA games in my opinion) but it's scope and pricing was obviously aimed in the AA space - and they had help with funding from Microsoft / Game Pass.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Was going to say Callisto Protocol, but I think they refered to that one as AAAA.
yurinka
Member
There are new studios of all sizes, build to make different types of games.
Some of them are built to make AAA games, and most of their staff (particularly the one in top and lead positions) are very experienced people who normally know what they are doing.
But to make games is very hard, and even more to be successful. Specially when you don't have a big brand for the game IP or the studio name.
Mostly experienced AAA staff (most of them are ex-Ubisoft), the game credits have around 400 people and this is considering they didn't credit the outsourcing teams who did work on it.
Some of them are built to make AAA games, and most of their staff (particularly the one in top and lead positions) are very experienced people who normally know what they are doing.
But to make games is very hard, and even more to be successful. Specially when you don't have a big brand for the game IP or the studio name.
Clair Obscur is an example of new studio making a 'small' AAA game.
Mostly experienced AAA staff (most of them are ex-Ubisoft), the game credits have around 400 people and this is considering they didn't credit the outsourcing teams who did work on it.
AAA teams always have experienced people in charge who already proven their value. Publishers and investors don't pay AAA game budgets to random people who never made a AAA game before.
Last edited:
AmuroChan
Member
That's already the case most of the time. Most new studios are small independent studios. The ones you are referring to are the ones that are backed by giant publishers and receive huge budgets. Those are the minority. You just don't hear about the other ones because many of them are small startups or one person teams dabbling in mobile and PC games.
diffusionx
Gold Member
A brand new studio just did this, it was called Mindseye and everyone loved it.
StreetsofBeige
Member
No.
But every big company will still try. It can happen to great success though like Clair 33.
By the looks of it, it seems the chances of success are like rolling an 11 or boxcars. Overall low chances, but you'll always have some gamblers betting their kid's college fund on it.
But every big company will still try. It can happen to great success though like Clair 33.
By the looks of it, it seems the chances of success are like rolling an 11 or boxcars. Overall low chances, but you'll always have some gamblers betting their kid's college fund on it.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
It kinda matters imo. Big budget = lots of people working there = lots of management
Ever heard the phrase "too much cooks spoil the broth"? I think that applies to videogames, and quite a lot, which (again imo) is why indies and AA games do so well nowadays but AAA are suffering, specially in western companies which I'd guess have different management practices than our eastern AAA bros which are doing much better.
I'm working on a game on my own, and I have a very clear idea of how it's going to be and could play it in my mind no problem almost from start to finish. Meanwhile the people working on that MS canceled game, Everwild, had no fucking clue of what the games was all about.
I really agree with you when you say that fun should be the primary focus, but imo the way to reach that is either AAA western companies scale down to the days of the PS3 (their peak if you ask me) or completely change the way they manage their projects.
Last edited:
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
I mostly talking about perspective of us players, I think we should focus less on a game being AAA or not and more focus on if the game is fun or not.
There are people who only pay attention to AAA and nothing else and if the game turns not being AAA they downright dismiss it which to me pretty stupid.
DreamcastSkies
Gold Member
Apparently it definitely shouldn't be a AAAA project.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Danjin44
The nicest person on this forum
Dont get me wrong I also get excited for AAA games like upcoming RE9 and Onimusha but if I only play AAA games and nothing else then that would be fucking miserable.
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
Agreed, a better thread might be "What new team could be formed that would support a AAA budget for their first game"
Like a team of Level-5, Platinum combined etc.
If the team never made a game, I don't see why anyone would trust them with a AAA budget, we've seen flops from teams that have been around for decades.
TintoConCasera
I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
Understood you perfectly my man.
But yeah, you are right. I wish people broaded their tastes a little bit more and took non AAA games into account more often. A lot of times I've gone out of my comfort zones and was pleasantly surprised at the stuff I would find there. Hell man, I wasn't sure if I would like Persona 5 when I bought it back in 2016 and look at my avatar now.
Avid Reading Horse
Member
Should start with a small group of technically competent people prototyping out a gameplay concept that does something new or better than what's on the market. At which point it should be clear how many As ya need. And hey, if your shit is good and you're short an A or two well just leave those As for a sequel. If you have not achieved perfection by the first sequel then your game was probably lame and gay. So either way you should stop and make something new. Now, if at this point you have too many As on your payroll.. you just rent them out for a few months to make ships for Chris Roberts while you knock out your next prototype.
Magic Carpet
Gold Member
The more logo's at the start of the game the bigger the budget.
bender
What time is it?
Battery manufacturers and battery consumers.
Angry_Megalodon
Member
To scam investors that's the way to go.
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
That dependends... Do you want to get tons of investment and sell the studio to the big player's for truckloads of money before you even announce the game? Then go for a AAA game right away. Do you want to build a business that everyone that works on it can live of it? Then no.
Probably not a good idea to go for a high budget game right out of the gate. I would have had The Initiative remake the first Perfect Dark game with modern graphics and controls and release that on multiple platforms so people get to remember why they were nostalgic for it while also introducing it to new audiences. If that went well and made some money then use that experience to scale up and go for something bigger.
It sounds simple and logical to me but clearly I'm not a big dick executive who makes all the money :\
Zannegan
Member
Probably not, but if they do, they should probably start with visual remakes/overhauls of beloved or at least well-reviewed games that are limited in both scope and complexity. It's a good way to learn the hardware and solidify the team while limiting feature creep and endless reboots. Put out the same game with better visuals and a few QoL fixes in a couple of years, then collect your paycheck and start planning something more ambitious.
The Cockatrice
I'm retarded?
A studios project should be good. Thats it lmao. Budget =/= good.
Durin
Member
I think it takes people who have previous experience doing AAA games to take the chance on one.
Otherwise, just go AA or smaller...especially given some AA projects today are basically the same cost + team size as early AAA 360-era games were. If I remember right, Gears 1 was estimated at like 10-12 million using under 100 people (including support staff).
Otherwise, just go AA or smaller...especially given some AA projects today are basically the same cost + team size as early AAA 360-era games were. If I remember right, Gears 1 was estimated at like 10-12 million using under 100 people (including support staff).
MrCunningham
Member
It is such a weird thing. Because most upstart 'AAA' development houses are made up of people who have previously worked on AAA games, and generally speaking the team does know how to work with large budgets. It is hard for me to say. I guess a game franchise can be released as a AA game to test concepts and ideas before fleshing them out with bigger budgets. But that could also lead to a Duke Nukem Forever scenario. 3D Realms were doing good job producing AAA games like Max Payne 1 and Prey.
MrRibeye
Member
We shipped an excellent game as a team, and then got split up across multiple projects. Through this I learned that the brilliance of individuals, of competent programmers and designers and artists, shines dull until they as a team discover each other's way of working, and through coffee breaks and game jams learn to interpret that when Mike says "I appreciate the effort" he actually means something is bad. And when Paul says it will take him a week to implement controller rumble, he actually means two, because he always underestimates.
That's why shipping a smaller project first is a good investment.
That's why shipping a smaller project first is a good investment.
Paasei
Member
Could just be me, but I find the A's system a little confusing. I have completely lost the definition of this system.
Is a game good and fun to play, or is it not? That's what I'm going with.
I guess A are indie = independent studio, so no publisher attached.
AA = I'm lost here to be honest.
AAA = Studio's of major publishing companies.
Mostly based on overall budget and not quality. I think.
Is a game good and fun to play, or is it not? That's what I'm going with.
I guess A are indie = independent studio, so no publisher attached.
AA = I'm lost here to be honest.
AAA = Studio's of major publishing companies.
Mostly based on overall budget and not quality. I think.
Hypereides
Member
If its a studio made up of industry rookies? absoltuely not. If its a studio entrepreneured by industry vets? Maybe.
But, still, going in with an AAA budget mindset from the get-go is a huge gamble and very risky. So, no. Start in the low-mid tier range first, establish a name for yourselves with a solid title, then take it from there if the opportunity arises. With all that said, I'd strongly advise against going the AAA route. Do fiscally responsible budgets compounded with wise and smart creative decision making. It'll probably last you longer. Not to mention, it'll lend you more creative autonomy over your vision.
But, still, going in with an AAA budget mindset from the get-go is a huge gamble and very risky. So, no. Start in the low-mid tier range first, establish a name for yourselves with a solid title, then take it from there if the opportunity arises. With all that said, I'd strongly advise against going the AAA route. Do fiscally responsible budgets compounded with wise and smart creative decision making. It'll probably last you longer. Not to mention, it'll lend you more creative autonomy over your vision.
Felessan
Member
Sorry but no
E33 might be a good game but it's production quality is meh
West switching to "democracy" in teams increased problem as it increased creativity but drastically reduce manageability of a team (team size) increasing management burden and reducing it's efficiency
East as far as I understand stick with their work culture that is highly authorian with limited windows of discussion and feedback, that allows one manager to handle more people and whole structure is more flat
In what ways? has better cutscenes than most AAA games, better voice actings with huge names like andy serkis, top tier music.
If you didnt know and people thought it was made by a AAA studio you'd instatly believe it. It doesnt have the production quality of like naughty dog. but the majority of AAA games? Yes it does
I mean i'd argue that it has better production quality than even something like elder scrolls which is really a sum of it's parts but it's production doesn't really stand out in any particular aspect. Quantity over quality. Graphics are mid, animations are mid, voice acting is mid, maybe music is high quality, i dont remember. And no one would argue Elder Scrolls isn't AAA because production quality is meh.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
Starting with AAA is fine.
Starting with GaaS on the other hand shows they're just in it for money and have zero passion for gaming.
Starting with GaaS on the other hand shows they're just in it for money and have zero passion for gaming.
Felessan
Member
Clunky animation, models are average at best and a lot of shortcuts in filling the world with assets, like houses are just empty cubicles
Yes they put a lot of efforts in secondary stuff but when you look at graphical side of things there are obvious budget constraints visible by naked eye
And that's abnormal for the average AAA game?
Skyrim is meh at everything, it's just quantity but nothing stands out as being high quality.
Felessan
Member
Skyrim is an 2011 game, not 2025 game
E33 even have UE5 for better assets pipeline, still have things that looks like it's still PS3 era
Im not comparing it to 2025. Skyrims graphics, animations, models, voice acting were meh in 2011.
PeteBull
Member
We will know answer to this likely in 2 years(game is sheduled for 2026 but like always inevitable delay to 2027 gonna happen).
Game will be full price(if delayed to 2027 then probably not even 70 but 80$) but think of it like AA witcher3 x vampires, u could experience that kind of AA game with robocop rogue city not that long ago, was from another polish studio.
So technically its AAA but its obviously nowhere near witcher4/gta6 in scope, ofc compared to most other AAA even tho its not super pretty u will get 30h+ of content at least from it so it wont be crazy short by any means, especially if we count in multiple paths/replayability value, but still, not a blockbuster AAA lvl of scope nor graphic fidelity either, simply budget/headcount of devs in the studio isnt there, even maxed out on pc
For comparisions how big rebel wolves dev studio is, according to wiki
en.wikipedia.org
In terms of storytelling/game systems and overall gameplay/fun it can be really good ofc, studio is lead by industry veterans, but again, that game will likely be definition of solid AA title, from 7 to 9/10 depending on how much u like setting/genre(dev studio is in poland and relatively small/poor so at least u can be sure none of the precious cash will be spent on bullshit woke agenda, i know for many of us its big plus/prerequisite 
).
Game will be full price(if delayed to 2027 then probably not even 70 but 80$) but think of it like AA witcher3 x vampires, u could experience that kind of AA game with robocop rogue city not that long ago, was from another polish studio.
So technically its AAA but its obviously nowhere near witcher4/gta6 in scope, ofc compared to most other AAA even tho its not super pretty u will get 30h+ of content at least from it so it wont be crazy short by any means, especially if we count in multiple paths/replayability value, but still, not a blockbuster AAA lvl of scope nor graphic fidelity either, simply budget/headcount of devs in the studio isnt there, even maxed out on pc
For comparisions how big rebel wolves dev studio is, according to wiki
The Blood of Dawnwalker - Wikipedia
).
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Member
I think they should focus on making ultra polished 10 hour games. If it hits, expand and make sequels.
There is so much competition for people's time, give them something that you think will get their attention but if it doesn't won't fucking waste 8 years of your life and close a studio.
Hypereides
Member
I'll give that some lipsynch with voice over animations may appear off, but, other than that, lol. Expedition 33 didn't need some extreme high end "production values". What they accomplished with the ressouces they had is very commendable and impressive. It has very solid and strong art direction which attributes to how important that aspect is to carry a game. A game with bland, or creatively corporate mandated/vetoed, "art direction", but "high production values" isn't going to have a long mainstay in the public awareness or mindshare.
Pretty high fidelity graphics these days have a wow factor that wears off pretty quickly, if there's nothing else beneath it to support it.
Felessan
Member
Wtf are you taking about?
To be called AAA it should have some level of production value (and budget associated with it). Otherwise it's not AAA but AA, A or indie.
This stuff is brainrot when people replace actual meaning (and AAA is a level of budget) with some fantasies "I see it this way"