Sach4life

Never understood the logic of that statement by Phil. Made absolutely no sense in the overall scheme of things. It might lead to more sales on rare occasions for smaller titles but in general, the statement doesn't make sense.

Ughhh, thanks god i waited..

IT 2 was terrible. Haven't felt this bored in a movie hall in a long long time.

I know a AAA game isn't determined based on the marketing budget in a single region. My point was that definition of a AAA needs to change in terms requiring a specific marketing budget. Development budget i can understand, but in today's time, you can make a relatively high budget game belonging to a niche genre and not spending a lot on marketing and still succeed. A niche game like Dark Souls or Persona are not going to require high marketing budget simply because it is not going to make a lot of difference. They will market in a different way, which would be lot more effective and efficient as compared to a traditional AAA western game.

Good

I never said anything about quality anyway. What i said was marketing has nothing to do with a game being AAA in today's time, as simple as that.

I am just saying that games like Dark souls or Monster Hunter or Persona are AAA. It was pretty clear. Nothing more, nothing less. Amount of support GTA gets has nothing to with its budget. GTA 5's cost was around $300 million total at launch. Nobody knew the amount of support it was going to get in the future and that amount didn't include costs for future support either.

Except that 20 years back, you didn't have the means you have now to promote games. A game like Dark souls can be made on a big budget and still sell well to its target without spending huge on promotions because of online promotions. It doesn't need to rely on word of mouth as compared to a game made 20 years ago. It is an informal definition, not a bookish one. So, i fail to see how its going to reflect in wiki pages. It literally makes no sense in today's time to use marketing budget as a means to determine whether a game is AAA or not. A game like Monster Hunter is going to be marketed 50 times more heavily in Japan, than a game like AC or Uncharted. I guess that means Monster Hunter is more than AAA than them in Japan, right? Fifa is going to be promoted more than many higher budget games, eith much bigger scale, in Europe. I gues it is more AAA by that logic. Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Again, just because a game is more focussed in its scope and efficient in its development, doesn't make it AA. Every game doesn't need vast open worlds or lines and lines of voice acting to be called AAA. Talking about GTA, it is around 10 times more expensive (cost plus marketing) than something like UC4. Doesn't make it any less AAA. A game like Persona doesn't need to have a higher budget than it already has. A game like Monster Hunter is as AAA as a game can get. There is absolutely nothing in it that says AA. Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Definitions change over time. Stuff like Monster Hunter or Persona or even Bloodborne/Dark Souls don't need marketing as heavy as a game like GTA or COD or AC. They are lot nore niche and there is literally no point in them marketing to casual crowd. Using marketing budget as a barometer to define a game AAA or not makes no sense in today's time.

Marketing has nothing to do with a game being AAA. Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Marketing doesn't define AAA games. Only reason thy they are bot marketed so much is because they are not of mainstream genres. Also, just because a dev team is efficient in their development, doesn't mean a game is not AAA. They look great graphically, don't look gimped in any way and are $60 titles. They are AAA. Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

How are Persona, Yakuza or Monster world not AAA titles?

I have a Galaxy S7 at home and it still works perfectly. Mind telling me how would S10e be done in 2 years?

1-2 tb i can understand. But saying 3 tb is less because you use 15tb monthly for torrents is lolworthy