• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why aren't there more AAA PC exclusives?

Why aren't there more AAA PC exclusives?

  • lack of first party games from companies like Valve or Epic

    Votes: 38 19.3%
  • consoles are more popular

    Votes: 74 37.6%
  • not enough people on PC with powerful enough hardware

    Votes: 52 26.4%
  • other (comment below)

    Votes: 33 16.8%

  • Total voters
    197

EDMIX

Member
the answer is simple, its not profitable. thats all companies need. profit. nothing else matters.
Pretty much.

I love the freedom of a modular set up, but most PC gamers simply want low end PC and thus you don't see much support for those types of builds. PC AAA exclusives are pretty much done. Anything made on PC now that is even AAA simply has plans for console versions like PS5 and Series X later on anyway when those install bases go up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....the number of people that will own next gen systems will be more then the number of people that own high end PCs BEYOND the spec of Series X and PS5. Cause you can own a PC more powerful, doesn't mean that is 100% of the PC install base, yet 100% of the PS5 install base...clearly owns the exact same fucking specs, thus a developer can freely exploit those features on Series X and PS5, they can count on everyone having those features, they simply can do that on PC and I'd argue PC has gotten more casual over the generations and the few hardcore PC gamers still building rigs, seem to be doing so not to play some demanding game, but just to get 8K of crappy ports lol So you'll see that install base keep shrinking as even myself, I'm looking for a decent set up, not I'm no longer seeking some high end thing. If all the fucking games coming to PC, will just be ports of shit on PS5, I see no reason for me to even waste time chasing the best GPU on the market.

To play what exactly? Ports? Nah. I was looking to upgrade to a 3090 and it looks more and more likely that I'll probably get a 3060 or something and call it a day. I just don't see anything even coming out that would really need me to have some beast system like back in the day where you actually really needed a powerful system to run some PC exclusive stuff.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
For those of you saying PC has pirating so devs shy away, I agree on that point too. Doesnt Rockstar gimp their PC release dates? Sometimes they launch on console first raking in the sales and then port a PC version later?

Also, modding is something some devs dont like.

That's why some EA Sports dont even launch on PC anymore. Modders will figure out a way to adjust the players, stats and logos so they never have to buy a new version until much later when the game changes a lot and it's worth buying a new copy. The sports leagues probably hate it too.
 

Kenpachii

Gold Member
Pretty much.

I love the freedom of a modular set up, but most PC gamers simply want low end PC and thus you don't see much support for those types of builds. PC AAA exclusives are pretty much done. Anything made on PC now that is even AAA simply has plans for console versions like PS5 and Series X later on anyway when those install bases go up.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....the number of people that will own next gen systems will be more then the number of people that own high end PCs BEYOND the spec of Series X and PS5. Cause you can own a PC more powerful, doesn't mean that is 100% of the PC install base, yet 100% of the PS5 install base...clearly owns the exact same fucking specs, thus a developer can freely exploit those features on Series X and PS5, they can count on everyone having those features, they simply can do that on PC and I'd argue PC has gotten more casual over the generations and the few hardcore PC gamers still building rigs, seem to be doing so not to play some demanding game, but just to get 8K of crappy ports lol So you'll see that install base keep shrinking as even myself, I'm looking for a decent set up, not I'm no longer seeking some high end thing. If all the fucking games coming to PC, will just be ports of shit on PS5, I see no reason for me to even waste time chasing the best GPU on the market.

To play what exactly? Ports? Nah. I was looking to upgrade to a 3090 and it looks more and more likely that I'll probably get a 3060 or something and call it a day. I just don't see anything even coming out that would really need me to have some beast system like back in the day where you actually really needed a powerful system to run some PC exclusive stuff.

Consoles have tons of different versions the same as with PC's these days.
No dev cares about PS5 exclusivity unless sony pays heavily for it out of there pocket. It makes absolute no sense to drop 100m pc users and 200m console users or whatever many there are just to focus on 15m PS5 people and the same goes when they drop last gen, why remove xbox series S and X and PC that all could buy your game, makes no sense.

Consoles are not imuum towards this.

AAA single player market died out on PC because nobody cared for it anymore. I moved from The Sims, to world of warcraft and never looked back. Online is massive on PC and there are tons of exclusives this way. Consoles where stuck with offline single player games for the longest time because they where behind the curve which resulted in most traditional devs that would choose single player games to move to consoles entirely.

Honestly everybody when i was in college was playing world of warcraft or counterstrike all of them, nobody gave to shits about the next silent hill.

As the gameplay u got out of a mmo was far superior money a hour then what u would get from a single player game, single player games suddently also became far far far to expensive in PC gamers eyes. Why pay 60 euro's for a 20 hour game that's what 3 euro's a hour. I play wow for 15 bucks and play about 4 hours a day with lots of friends that's 120 hours. Doesn't take a genious to see why single player market died on PC. Single player got outmatched on every front.

Yet what did devs do? they asked more and more money because sales tanked hard on single player games to compromise the losses, and they basically became extinct soon after.

Atleast gaben understood the concept of to expensive, so he created steam and trojan horsed it through counterstrike on everybody's PC which was far more populaire then that fortnite was today. I hated steam being forced upon me because it ate hardware cycles. But eventually u give in because it matures + faster hardware and its easier at the end specially when everybody tagged along with it.

This is why asking 80 euro's on steam for a single player game is beyond laughable and anybody defending this shit simple has no experience in the PC space and its market. We already saw the same shit happen once before.

Back to your console stuff, the only reason spiderman 2 is a PS5 exclusive is because sony pays them to do so. There is absolute no reason for them to limit there sale market even remotely. The same as star citizen is PC exclusive because there backers are all PC gamers that backed it, they would create a shit show with the people that pay them if it goes multiplatform ( diablo immortal "don't you got a mobile" is a good example ), but the moment the backers are no longer important they will move to other platforms simple as that.
 
Last edited:

Wohc

Banned
Too expensive. Sony can afford spending 100s of millions on a game + marketing, because they can also sell subs and get a cut from 3rd party games and Nintendo's games ar not that expensive to make and they also make money with the hardware. Huge exclusive Pc AAAs are only possible if backers are paying for it.
 
Last edited:

winjer

Member
The thing is there are fewer and fewer exclusives. be it on PC or consoles.
Microsoft is releasing all it's games on PC and consoles. And even Sony is releasing a several of it's exclusive games on PC.
The only hold out in Nintendo, but they always do their own thing.
 

EDMIX

Member
Consoles have tons of different versions the same as with PC's these days.

Not really, they have different skus, they still have the same base. So having a PS5 or PS5 digital or something isn't going to fuck up development like a PC where everyone will have different set ups.

I'd argue even Pro and Series S and shit is still better then some free for all where everyone has different set ups.

It makes absolute no sense to drop 100m pc users

? I agree it makes no sense but good thing I never said anything like that. This is about PC AAA exclusives no longer being a thing, not about PC games being dropped in general or something.

AAA single player market died out on PC because nobody cared for it anymore.

nah, those that fund those games are the ones that need to "care", they are the ones that control if they make some PC exclusive or not, so them not caring has more to do with publishers, not consumers. I'm sure many cared about those titles, many gamers still exist on PC today btw, simply that most don't have some huge high end system.

That is what publishers cared about, everyone or most having specs to support even funding some big AAA exclusive project. Once that market continued to get more and more casual, it just made no sense to make some AAA exclusive out of such a small market of hardcore PC users.


The rest of your post literally has nothing to do with the point I made lol

Regardless, PC being a free for all with anything goes set ups is one of the biggest reasons why we no longer see AAA PC exclusives. More own systems to play Fortnite then some beefy 3090 powered title or something.

winjer winjer agreed, but even Nintendo is still doing all that mobile stuff still.
 
Last edited:

ScHlAuChi

Member
You're completely ignoring the fact that even if there were enough money to be made going PC only and every single PC gamer was willing to pay full price at launch, there'd still be a huge financial incentive for devs and publishers to go multiplat, because then you could make even more money. And since there is no platform overlord on PC that could bribe the devs in exchange for exclusivity like there is on consoles, everyone is going to go that route.
Im not ignoring that, in fact it supports my argument why there isnt PC AAA exclusives!
 
I remember building PC's to play PC games with dedicated servers, mod support, and the latest cutting edge graphics that were lightyears ahead of consoles.

After PS360 released (after Crysis in 2007), the whole idea of PC AAA exclusive no longer exists.

PC gamers buy 3080/3090s to play console games, LOL.
This. It's really sad.
 

JackSparr0w

Member
As a PC gamer I want everybody to enjoy the games that start exclusively on PC regardless of platform even if you're getting the gimped experience on a console.

PC gaming is the best and most popular platform of core gaming so it doesn't even need "forced" exclusives to beat the competition.

It's also the platform that genres are born, trends are set and esports flourish.

The funny thing is even if PC has no major corporation funding exclusives, it still has more high quality exclusives than all consoles combined.
 
Last edited:

ScHlAuChi

Member
And no third party publisher is doing console AAA exclusives either, so you may as well use your silly theory against consoles too.
Yes becasue they care about money, and doing a PC only or console only AAA game doesnt make enough - how exactly is that a silly theory?
The thread creator talked about PC AAA exclusives, so I gave the answer in that context.
You got triggered and thought this was an attack on PC gamers, which it never was!
No one in the games industry cares about silly console or PC waring, they only care about the facts and money!
 
Last edited:

Haggard

Member
AAA exclusives are there for ONE reason, and ONE reason alone. To lure people into an ecosystem to make more money off of them in the future.
The PC is not an ecosystem with an owner so nobody has any interest in keeping stuff to themselves or paying publishers to withhold stuff from other platforms.
Therefore the sheer notion of forced exclusivity on PC is nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
One thing these threads often reveal is the amount of people completely out of touch with the current pc gaming market.

"muh something something pirating"
"Oh so few powerful gaming pcs"
"no gaems, just console ports"
"Only a few thousand people using SSDs. 100k if we're lucky."


Really? For real?
 
Last edited:
The only motivation for making something exclusive has historically been either:

1) You want to force people onto your platform
2) The game is only possible on one platform

1 does not apply to PC and the last time we saw 2 was Crysis and maybe Ashes of the Singularity.
 
Im not ignoring that, in fact it supports my argument why there isnt PC AAA exclusives!
Oh come on. You must be fucking trolling at this point. Your argument was literally that developers aren't making AAA exclusives for PC because PC gamers are unwilling to pay for them:

It doesnt matter how many players own a PC that is powerful enough for high end games.
What matters is how many of those players are willing to pay full price for such AAA games.
The majority of those PC players think:
"I just spendt thousands on this machine, I buy the games cheap in a Steam sale!"
This obviously doesnt finance modern AAA games which need to make back their investment quickly.
As I and a bunch of other posters here have demonstrated, there would still be a strong financial incentive for developers and publishers not to make a PC game exclusive, even if the PC gaming market were large enough for exclusives to be profitable.

You said it yourself:

1. Publishers care about making lots of money.
2. Publishers do whatever is needed to make lots of money.
3. If there is a market out there where lots of money can be made - publishers will go there.
Given these three points, why would any AAA publisher ever choose to develop exclusively for PC? They want to make money. Consoles are a market where lots of money can be made. Publishers will target that market, because, as you pointed out, "Publishers do whatever is needed to make lots of money."

Given this, it's clear that going PC exclusive is never the sensible choice, regardless of how big the market and potential profit for such a game would be, because the market for multiplatform games is always going to be even larger.

How the hell does that support your "argument" that there aren't any AAA exclusives for PC because PC gamers are unwilling to pay for them?
 
Last edited:

JimboJones

Member
Consoles need exclusives to sell so there is financial incentive to pour money into creating them for USP reasons.
I think PC exclusives back in the day was the gulf in hardware between consoles and PC was massive , today not so much.
You do see a lot of experimental indie stuff on PC though just because of the ease of development.
 

ScHlAuChi

Member
How the hell does that support your "argument" that there aren't any AAA exclusives for PC because PC gamers are unwilling to pay for them?
Because in the past that was the case!
in the 90s there was lots of AAA (at the time) exclusive games for highend PCs!
There was an incentive to make games targetting that audience because it generated enough money to be worth it!

With rising production costs, the number of PC gamers needed to spend money to make such exclusive productions worthwile became too small.
So either the number of PC players had to rise, or they would have to spend more money. I dont understand how this is controversial?
 

Wildebeest

Member
Please give me a reason why you wouldn't want to release your game on consoles?
Normally, now, it is because a game require too much reading, typing, fiddling with UI, or other complex control. There are a variety of "boring dad games" that console gamers just wouldn't want to bother with even if they were ported, most pc gamers don't care about them even if they are highly rated.
 

RJMacready73

Gold Member
i'm more why arent there more games or even any games on PC that take advantage of all that horsepower over the next gen consoles and render the games more like cutscenes, anything ive run on my PC maxxed is just a higher rez'd, more fluid version of what i can play on my PS5, why cant they get the games to run with that filmic quality of lighting that games switch into when on a cutscene and simply keep it like that on PC if you have the horsepower?
 
Normally, now, it is because a game require too much reading, typing, fiddling with UI, or other complex control. There are a variety of "boring dad games" that console gamers just wouldn't want to bother with even if they were ported, most pc gamers don't care about them even if they are highly rated.
Good point but they managed to port Baldur's Gate 2 to console.
I guess if developers really want to they can get it working on a controller.
 
Because in the past that was the case!
in the 90s there was lots of AAA (at the time) exclusive games for highend PCs!
There was an incentive to make games targetting that audience because it generated enough money to be worth it!
That's only half the picture. Ports simply weren't an option for 99% of PC releases back then, especially at launch. If Valve or Epic had wanted to do console ports of Half-Life and Unreal in 1998, what consoles would they have put them on? The N64 with its 32 MB cartridges? The PS1 or Saturn with their whopping 2 MB of RAM and 30 MHz CPUs? Get outta here.

If the conditions of today (x86-based consoles with huge install bases that are trivially easy to port to) had existed back then you can bet your ass those games would have gotten ports day one.

With rising production costs, the number of PC gamers needed to spend money to make such exclusive productions worthwile became too small.
So either the number of PC players had to rise, or they would have to spend more money. I dont understand how this is controversial?
You're once again leaving out the most crucial part of your original claim here, and at this point I'm pretty sure it's intentional. You specifically said that PC exclusives weren't profitable because PC gamers were unwilling to pay full price for games at launch. That's what people are taking issue with, and you're doing your damnedest to ignore it. Stop it. Either provide some supporting evidence, admit you pulled it out of your ass, or get lost. No more fucking around.
 

ScHlAuChi

Member
You're once again leaving out the most crucial part of your original claim here, and at this point I'm pretty sure it's intentional. You specifically said that PC exclusives weren't profitable because PC gamers were unwilling to pay full price for games at launch. That's what people are taking issue with, and you're doing your damnedest to ignore it. Stop it. Either provide some supporting evidence, admit you pulled it out of your ass, or get lost. No more fucking around.
The only one taking issue with this is you! Let me quote a user right from this thread here:
"This is why asking 80 euro's on steam for a single player game is beyond laughable and anybody defending this shit simple has no experience in the PC space and its market. We already saw the same shit happen once before."

I linked publicly available evidence earlier - yes it was only data for indie games, but it isnt significantly different for bigger games.
Wether you believe that or not isnt my problem!
 

Wildebeest

Member
Good point but they managed to port Baldur's Gate 2 to console.
I guess if developers really want to they can get it working on a controller.
A main thing holding a lot of these games back then was the amount of readable text you could put on screen. Baldur's Gate could always have just been turn based for better control, even though Bioware chose to go the other way and just make highly simplified third person action games, but I don't know how awkward it is to play with a controller as is. The real impossible challenge would be for someone to play pro level Starcraft with a controller, but mostly in games it is just the convenience of sitting closer to the screen to read text, and using a mouse for UI elements.
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Weird that this thread is still going. It’s such a one and done answer for anyone with a half working brain.

It’s the same reason why console players pay for online and have ads running on their UI. It’s why they can only use one approved controlled on their device, and need patches in order for their new hardware to run games better.

It’s all because each console is controlled by a single entity. One that needs to create their own special games so you buy their closed box over the competition’s closed box.
PC isn’t controlled by anyone. But it’s so alluring that we’re getting your “exclusives” too. The benefits of an open platform. We don’t even need exclusives, but we certainly have them.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Weird that this thread is still going. It’s such a one and done answer for anyone with a half working brain.

It’s the same reason why console players pay for online and have ads running on their UI. It’s why they can only use one approved controlled on their device, and need patches in order for their new hardware to run games better.

It’s all because each console is controlled by a single entity. One that needs to create their own special games so you buy their closed box over the competition’s closed box.
PC isn’t controlled by anyone. But it’s so alluring that we’re getting your “exclusives” too. The benefits of an open platform. We don’t even need exclusives, but we certainly have them.

Exactly right. Exclusives are paid for by the platform owner. There is no platform owner for PC.
 
The only one taking issue with this is you! Let me quote a user right from this thread here:
"This is why asking 80 euro's on steam for a single player game is beyond laughable and anybody defending this shit simple has no experience in the PC space and its market. We already saw the same shit happen once before."
And? So there's a guy who thinks 80 Euro games won't sell well on Steam. Even if he's right, what does that prove? AAA PC exclusives died years and years ago, long before games broke the 60 Euro mark, so that can't be the reason behind their disappearance.

I mean, I can also just quote someone from this thread. He's is referring to you, by the way:

"Jesus I missed that guys post. Where do they come up with this drivel?"

Plenty more where that came from, too. So what now? Do my quote and yours cancel each other out? Do I win if I post another quote disagreeing with you? Because as I said, I've got plenty.

I linked publicly available evidence earlier - yes it was only data for indie games, but it isnt significantly different for bigger games.
Wether you believe that or not isnt my problem!
Where in that "publicly available evidence" does it say that PC gamers are less likely to pay full price for a game? And how do you know it's not significantly different for bigger games? And why do sales predictions for non-AAA, non-exclusive indie games count as evidence, but sales data for actual AAA games like Elden Ring and Cyberpunk doesn't? You said it was because they aren't exclusives, but neither are those indie games, right?

If what you're saying is true and PC gamers are cheap bastards while console gamers are not, then where are all the third party AAA exclusives on Playstation? How many can you name that Sony had no involvement in beyond allowing the game on their platform?
 
Last edited:

Jigsaah

Gold Member
Hadn't noticed. Too busy having fun/hating my life playing Valorant.

There are games taking advantage of cutting edge tech. I know this is gonna bring some groans from some of the folks here. Star Citizen is technically exclusive to PC though it's not "out" yet.

What they are getting ready to release is "server meshing", a technology that essentially will allow multiple servers to split the load of a game made on a grand scale. Should this be perfected, it will be the first time we actually have what has been called a "Super Game". To put it in perspective, it's like having a battle royale run like Apex Legends, but be on a map several times the size of Apex, with hundreds, if not thousands of players.

Star Citizen is just the type of game that needs this kind of technology to realize it's true potential. Until I heard of this I kept wondering if "next gen" only meant more pixels and better graphics. No...THIS is next gen.
 
Last edited:

ScHlAuChi

Member
"Jesus I missed that guys post. Where do they come up with this drivel?"
Plenty more where that came from, too. So what now? Do my quote and yours cancel each other out? Do I win if I post another quote disagreeing with you? Because as I said, I've got plenty.
He can call that drivel all he wants, he isnt the one making those decisions.
You "win" if you think your posts have any impact on the people making those decisions.

Where in that "publicly available evidence" does it say that PC gamers are less likely to pay full price for a game? And how do you know it's not significantly different for bigger games? And why do sales predictions for non-AAA, non-exclusive indie games count as evidence, but sales data for actual AAA games like Elden Ring and Cyberpunk doesn't? You said it was because they aren't exclusives, but neither are those indie games, right?
I get it, it doesnt matter what data there is, and even if it is, it isnt fitting data - you made up your opinion and nothing will change that!
So I was wrong and PC Players are more than happy to pay full price! You won! Lets see if publishers see it the same way!

If what you're saying is true and PC gamers are cheap bastards while console gamers are not, then where are all the third party AAA exclusives on Playstation? How many can you name that Sony had no involvement in beyond allowing the game on their platform?
Please re-read what I already wrote in my very first post - PC is still a very lucrative secondary market where you make money by selling larger volumes!
I never claimed PC gamers are "cheap bastards", those are your words - but it seems you interprete everything critical as an attack on the PC platform even when its not!
In fact I could care less about exclusives, I own every platform - best of all worlds!

Im backing out of this discussion now, and let you continue fighting your pointless war.
 
Last edited:

winjer

Member
AAA PC exclusives died years and years ago, long before games broke the 60 Euro mark, so that can't be the reason behind their disappearance.

Really, what about the Arma series. Total War. Anno series. Tropico. Company of Heroes. Crusader Kings. Europa Universalis.
And several MMOs.

I could understand if you said you didn't like these types of games, but these are big games, exclusive on PC.
 
Last edited:
It makes no financial sense. Why would a studio spend years and a big budget making a game, only to cut off the entire console audience?
 
Check out Steam charts and see for yourself how many PC gamers have a 3090.
Like the other guy said a PS5 can match a 3060.
Connect the dots.
 
Please re-read what I already wrote in my very first post - PC is still a very lucrative secondary market where you make money by selling larger volumes!
You mean the post where you also wrote this?
What matters is how many of those players are willing to pay full price for such AAA games.
The majority of those PC players think:
"I just spendt thousands on this machine, I buy the games cheap in a Steam sale!"
This obviously doesnt finance modern AAA games which need to make back their investment quickly.
There is a real problem here, and you're refusing to address it: the situation on consoles is no different. Non-moneyhatted AAA third party console exclusives were common in the 90s, now they're more or less unheard of. I asked you to name some in my last post, and you didn't. I think we both know why.

If the absence of third party AAA exclusives on PC is due to gamers being reluctant to pay full price at launch, then why is the same thing happening on consoles where, according to you, people are more loose with their money? Could it be that third party publishers are just really, really down on the idea of limiting themselves to just one platform in general, unless they get paid handsomely for it? Seems like a much more reasonable explanation, doesn't?

Really, what about the Arma series. Total War. Anno series. Tropico. Company of Heroes.
And several MMOs.

I could understand if you said you didn't like these types of games, but these are big games, exclusive on PC.
I guess it comes back to ye olde "What makes a game AAA?" discussion. There obviously is no clear-cut answer to that question, but personally I don't think any of those games would qualify, and I'm fairly sure most people on this board would agree with that assessment.
 

winjer

Member
I guess it comes back to ye olde "What makes a game AAA?" discussion. There obviously is no clear-cut answer to that question, but personally I don't think any of those games would qualify, and I'm fairly sure most people on this board would agree with that assessment.

Of course they qualify. They have big budgets and sell millions of copies.
They have top of the line graphics, sometimes with features that consoles don't have.
Some have good stories, others allow the player to make their own story.

AAA games aren't just the cinematic adventure type game. There is much more to the world of videogames.
 
Of course they qualify. They have big budgets and sell millions of copies.
What counts as a big budget, exactly? And what were the budgets for the games you listed?
As for sales, I'm not sure if they should even factor into it. AAA games can flop, just like indies can sell millions.

They have top of the line graphics, sometimes with features that consoles don't have.
I mean they aren't exactly hideous to look at, but what's top-of-the line about the graphics of Crusader Kings, Tropico or Company of Heroes?

Some have good stories, others allow the player to make their own story.
You could just as easily say that about indie games. Don't really see why that should even matter.

AAA games aren't just the cinematic adventure type game. There is much more to the world of videogames.
I'd say that AAA games are generally designed to broadly appeal to a mainstream gaming audience. Maybe not the average person, but certainly, say, the average Playstation or Xbox owner. Cinematic, narrative-heavy games and open world shooters/RPGs are one tried-and-tested way of doing that, but it's not the only way. Sports and racing games are other obvious alternatives. Games like Total War, ARMA or Crusader Kings, though? Those are in niche genres even on PC.
 

winjer

Member
What counts as a big budget, exactly? And what were the budgets for the games you listed?
As for sales, I'm not sure if they should even factor into it. AAA games can flop, just like indies can sell millions.

As in with big teams and several million budgets.
And in this field, the PC has the biggest exclusive, with Star Citizen.
I mean they aren't exactly hideous to look at, but what's top-of-the line about the graphics of Crusader Kings, Tropico or Company of Heroes?

Company of heroes 1 was top of the line when it came out. Well above what any console at the time could do. And Company of Heroes II also has great graphics.
Crusader Kings and all of Paradox games forgo graphics for highly intricate game mechanics.
Total War saga has always had some of the best graphics out there. Hundreds of units, rendered in high detail, in combat. Nothing on the consoles can match the scale of the battles in these games.
Anno games always had great graphics.
And several of these games have unique features not on consoles, like PhysX, HBAO+, DLSS, etc.

You could just as easily say that about indie games. Don't really see why that should even matter.

I'd say that AAA games are generally designed to broadly appeal to a mainstream gaming audience. Maybe not the average person, but certainly, say, the average Playstation or Xbox owner. Cinematic, narrative-heavy games and open world shooters/RPGs are one tried-and-tested way of doing that, but it's not the only way. Sports and racing games are other obvious alternatives. Games like Total War, ARMA or Crusader Kings, though? Those are in niche genres even on PC.

Seems to me you have a very unique way of describing AAA games. Maybe to pull a straw man.
 
Last edited:

Majukun

Member
once you develop for pc, porting to console is easy enough that it doesn't make sense to cut yourself off an huge slice of the market, unless your game is in a genre that is very pc specific
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
once you develop for pc, porting to console is easy enough that it doesn't make sense to cut yourself off an huge slice of the market, unless your game is in a genre that is very pc specific
Exactly.

Ok, if a dev wants to make a turned based war sim based on the Civil War with endless spreadsheets to manage or an RTS where you need a mouse/kb to play well, then ya make it PC only, but most games can be covered on consoles and PC.

But you'll get that counter argument theory from fan warriors saying if you support PC with games, their console base will dump their console and buy a big rig PC and never come back.
 
As in with big teams and several million budgets.
And in this field, the PC has the biggest exclusive, with Star Citizen.
Most non-indie games have sizeable teams and budgets in the millions these days. And Star Citizen isn't even a game, it's a scam. You're not doing PC any favors by using it as a positive example for anything.

Company of heroes 1 was top of the line when it came out. Well above what any console at the time could do. And Company of Heroes II also has great graphics.
Xbox 360 was out by then. I'm sure it could have handled that game just fine.

Crusader Kings and all of Paradox games forgo graphics for highly intricate game mechanics.
Again, you could easily say that about many indie games.

Total War saga has always had some of the best graphics out there. Hundreds of units, rendered in high detail, in combat. Nothing on the consoles can match the scale of the battles in these games.
Yeah, it's easily the prettiest of the bunch, but I think the lack of similar games on console can mostly be blamed on the fact this type of game wouldn't work very well there to begin with.

Seems to me you have a very unique way of describing AAA games. Maybe to pull a straw man.
Is it really that unique? If you read through this thread you'll find that no matter which side of the various arguments posters are on, they largely seem to agree that AAA exclusives aren't really a thing anymore on PC. This being the case, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they wouldn't consider those games you listed AAA games either?
 

Mozzarella

Member
I believe its all of the above, i dont particularly care for exclusives, but making AAA PC title is risky, you have to make sure the hardware is fine, i mean look at Cyberpunk, the high end requirements did a number on it. Couple that with consoles being more popular nowadays for the AAA gaming scene and then you need to take into account revenue, developer vision and you would be insane to gamble a huge budget on a PC exclusive.

Also one more thing i will get blasted for: PC GAMERS
They are one of the reasons, today a huge portion of PC gamers are people who chase the latest "LE survival open world game" "LE battle royale game" "LE shooter multiplayer competitive game" "LE Moba or niche indie quirky game"
When you have a gaming audience like that, it would be crazy to invest a bunch of millions into the platform, when its obvious that 70-80% of PC gamers are chasing multiplayer games.
Old School PC gamers are not the same as today's PC gamers who are obsessed with the latest RTX 7070TAI Ultra 19K graphics to achieve their 9999 fps on Call of Duty Warzone.

I love my old school PC games, i still have a lot of them, if a developer creates a game like System Shock in today's game for PC exclusively, chances are it will sell poorly. OR you just have to cave in, make cartoonish fortnite graphics, insert corny marvel dialogue and put some multiplayers mods in.
 

winjer

Member
Most non-indie games have sizeable teams and budgets in the millions these days. And Star Citizen isn't even a game, it's a scam. You're not doing PC any favors by using it as a positive example for anything.

Call it what you will, but it has lots of people playing it and supporting it.

Xbox 360 was out by then. I'm sure it could have handled that game just fine.

The fact that there is nothing comparable on the X360, is proof that the console could not handle such a game.

Again, you could easily say that about many indie games.

Just because it' graphics are simplistic, doesn't mean it's not a AAA game. It sells a lot, has a huge fanbase, big dev team, and it's a high quality product.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a AAA game.
Is it really that unique? If you read through this thread you'll find that no matter which side of the various arguments posters are on, they largely seem to agree that AAA exclusives aren't really a thing anymore on PC. This being the case, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they wouldn't consider those games you listed AAA games either?

Here is the definition from wikipedia.
As you can see, the agreed definition is not what you said.

In the video-game industry, AAA (pronounced and sometimes written triple-A) is an informal classification used to categorise games produced and distributed by a mid-sized or major publisher, which typically have higher development and marketing budgets than other tiers of games.
 
Call it what you will, but it has lots of people playing it and supporting it.
You can say the same thing about NFTs. It's still a scam.

The fact that there is nothing comparable on the X360, is proof that the console could not handle such a game.
Or maybe it's just proof that devs are smart enough to realize that real time strategy and controllers aren't exactly a match made in heaven?

Just because it' graphics are simplistic, doesn't mean it's not a AAA game. It sells a lot, has a huge fanbase, big dev team, and it's a high quality product.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a AAA game.
Uhh... where did I say I don't like it? I have a pretty favorable opinion of most of the games you've mentioned so far, with the notable exception of Star Citizen. I just don't think they're AAA games.

As you can see, the agreed definition is not what you said.
It's not the agreed definition just because it's on Wikipedia. And note how it's not what you said either. It doesn't even mention 90% of the stuff you've brought up so far to justify the AAA status of the games on your list. No sales, no team size, no fanbase, no graphics, no intricate game mechanics. Just the size of the publisher and the budget, and not even that is defined in absolute terms. As long as you can come up with an arbitrary group of other games that cost less, pretty much any game published by the companies on those two lists could be defined as an AAA game.

Conversely, this definition also makes it impossible for some of the games on your list to be AAA games. Take ARMA 2 and 3, for example. Bohemia Interactive self-published them, and they are obviously neither mid-sized nor major as a publisher, so they can't possibly be AAA games under this definition. Will that cause you to change your mind about these games? I doubt it. So why should it change mine?
 
Last edited:

winjer

Member
You can say the same thing about NFTs. It's still a scam.

Quite a bit different things.
I can't say I like Star Citizen, but I would never put it in the same camp as NFTs.

Or maybe it's just proof that devs are smart enough to realize that real time strategy and controllers aren't exactly a match made in heaven?

Strategy games usually require CPUs, with good branching and good OoO. There is a lot to calculate the AI in these games with many units interacting with each other.

Uhh... where did I say I don't like it? I have a pretty favorable opinion of most of the games you've mentioned so far, with the notable exception of Star Citizen. I just don't think they're AAA games.

It's not the agreed definition just because it's on Wikipedia. And note how it's not what you said either. It doesn't even mention 90% of the stuff you've brought up so far to justify the AAA status of the games on your list. No sales, no team size, no fanbase, no graphics, no intricate game mechanics. Just the size of the publisher and the budget, and not even that is defined in absolute terms. As long as you can come up with an arbitrary group of other games that cost less, pretty much any game published by the companies on those two lists could be defined as an AAA game.

Conversely, this definition also makes it impossible for some of the games on your list to be AAA games. Take ARMA 2 and 3, for example. Bohemia Interactive self-published them, and they are obviously neither mid-sized nor major as a publisher, so they can't possibly be AAA games under this definition. Will that cause you to change your mind about these games? I doubt it. So why should it change mine?

But they all have higher development and marketing budgets and they are published mid-sized or major publisher.
Bohemia Interactive was independent for a few years. For some time they published under Codemasters.
But just because they are independent and publish their own games, doesn't mean they are a small company.
 

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
Why would anyone make a PC exclusive?

Ever heard of Valorant? Escape from Tarkov? Bannerlord? Total War?

These games are hugely popular, but aren't discussed here because they're not 3rd person cinematic action adventure games.
 

Fbh

Gold Member
All of the above?

As much as people on gaming forums like to default to high end builds when talking about "PC" as a platform, the truth is that most PC players have a mid or low tier build. According to the steam survey the 1060 is still the most popular GPU and there's more people still rocking a 1050ti than any of the 3000 rtx series.

Making AAA games is expensive. If you are making a game for PC you'll probably want to be able to sell it to a wide audience so you'll make something that will run on a mid to low tier build....at which point it will also run on consoles so why not also offer it those tens of millions of potential customers?

Making a game that's exclusive to not just PC but only high end builds would be a big financial risk that no one wants to take on. You'd need to get a company like Nvidia to start developing or publishing games as a form of sales tactics for their high end products.
 
Quite a bit different things.
I can't say I like Star Citizen, but I would never put it in the same camp as NFTs.
Yeah, I suppose NFTs aren't quite as bad as Star Citizen. At least you can sell them and get some of your money back.

Strategy games usually require CPUs, with good branching and good OoO. There is a lot to calculate the AI in these games with many units interacting with each other.
I played and beat the first CoH on an absolute trash fire of a PC that was definitely worse than an Xbox 360 in just about every way. It ran fine.

But they all have higher development and marketing budgets and they are published mid-sized or major publisher.
You keep going on about how these games have higher development and marketing budgets, but do you actually know the numbers for any of them? If the answer is no, how do you know how high or low their budgets were compared to other games? Are you just guessing?

Bohemia Interactive was independent for a few years. For some time they published under Codemasters.
But just because they are independent and publish their own games, doesn't mean they are a small company.
I mean, they only ever publish their own games. 13 in total over the past decade. To put things into perspective, Devolver Digital, one of the publishers Wikipedia lists as mid-sized, published that many games in 2022 alone. They are a small publisher, and that's being generous.
 
Top Bottom