Related
Sony Interactive Entertainment seems to be strategically shifting away from active AA game development.
Some of thebest AA games of all timeare as memorable as many AAA games.
The studio was “good at making AA titles,” but Sony wanted bigger releases.
This meant development and scale had to get “bigger and bigger.”
Pushing the limits of the consoles was not something AA was known for.
- Shuhei Yoshida
The core issue stems from the perceived risk associated with mid-budget games.
Custom Image by Jorge Aguilar
The potential for significant losses on smaller investments is what creates an environment where risk aversion takes precedence.
This is known to stifle ideas and focus on what works instead of experimenting.
Several critically acclaimed and commercially successful mid-budget games prove that AA can be worth it.
The success of AA games demonstrates that innovation and artistic vision can thrive even with limited resources.
When studios don’t invest in AA, innovation tends to suffer.
If Sony doesn’t make it, then people with creativity and dreams will.
Indie development can avoid certain corporate stresses while having the potential to reach blockbuster levels of success.
The primary motivation behind AAA is the potential for enormous and sometimes unreal financial returns.
However, the great cost can mean the end of a studio, as seen withConcord.
Sony shut down the studio behindConcordafter losing a lot of money on it.
This was a AAA game that should have done well on paper, but in practice, it failed.
It is understandable whyPlayStationwants to go all in on AAA development.
Sources:AV Watch,MP1st
