'Quantum Break' Is Financially Risky Because It's a AAA Game You Can Finish

[Mr Puggsly]

naruball said:

Mr Puggsly said:

Instead of saying making, lets say releasing. Releasing bad games is a great way to ruin trust. Sega for example has obviously released numerous games knowing they were objectively bad. Fewer polished releases would have been more worthwhile then a lot of crap. For what its worth, crappy games hitting the market is less of an issue.

However, lets take into consideration good and great games fail as well. Games stuggling to make money isn't exclusive to bad games.

Out of curiosity, do you consider Sega games AAA games? Because I don't. Beyond, Zelda, Halo, Tomb Raider are AAA for me. Puppeteer, Yakuza, Sonic games, not as much. At least in terms of budget.  A good example would be Assassin's Creed: Unity being a good AAA game, released in a bad state.

Well I look at NIntendo stuff and its hard to gauge what kind of money Nintendo spends on game development. I mean they aren't heavy on story telling, cutting edge visuals, etc. If anything, maybe they spend AAA budgets making sure their products are polished. I wouldn't be surprised if this new Zelda game is NIntendo's biggest budget title ever. A lot of Sega games last gen have been kinda ambitious but fail on gameplay.

I think Sonic games have AAA money put into them, they often just suck. But I assume NIntendo helped fun those awful Wii U games.

Sega isn't really in the AAA arena anymore. Total Warhammer might be an exception. Alien Isolation was AAA but I don't get the impression Sega wants to do more of that. Sega is fine though, doing niche stuff seems to be working for them and sometimes they make a gem like Sonic Transformed (but 3rd party developed).