WoW is among one of the extremely rare set of video games that cost more than $50 million by current standards to develop prior to release. Keep in mind the actual development cost is probably much higher.

And, in general, if you check the list you'll notice that the vast majority of the list are ones that have a PC release. And with the release of Playstation Now, the list of non-PC releases has shrunk quite a bit. Looks to be Destiny and games like E.T. that no one wants to play.

You would have to play the game in launch state and the game now to see the difference.

A massive amount of the budget has gone into rebuilding the engine. WoW's launch engine was "Bethesda reject for being too buggy" bad. They had to rebuild the entire PvP portion of it near launch because of how terrible the engine was. They've rebuilt the rest of the engine in the time since, and actually switched from 2.5D to full 3D models for most of the world. Assuming they haven't revamped the area yet (it's on their list, but not a high priority), compare the Blood Elves starter zone with the latest content to see how far the game has come graphically.

A lot of engine tweaks have also been anti-cheating and anti-bot measures.

I will admit you don't see the evidence of how much they've spent in the art department, but that's because of the art style being inherited from WoW's RTS ancestors. Some of the cinematics give you an idea of what the game would look like if they tried a more realistic art style, but the cartoony art style is more popular among the fanbase. And after the multiple cases of low-grade cyberterrorism by shaman players due to Blizzard ignoring their complaints about class balance, Blizzard got the idea that not-easily-seen-in-pictures changes to the game engine are much more valued than art style upgrades...

So, anyway, you're not seeing it because the money was mostly spent behind the scenes rather than on art.

A couple of us are liberals who see this move for the dumbassed mistake that will hurt conservatives massively in the long run that it is. About the only way conservatives benefit in the long term is if liberal political power implodes before 2024.

The ones quoted are not exclusives.

Also, I'm wondering how long exclusives will last. Sony seems to be going the route of Microsoft with their recent outreach to PC players. It's increasingly looking like Nintendo is about the only company that will make any effort to maintain their console exclusives, which is rather odd.

But we will see. Right now, Sony is about the only console maker left trying to compete for top spots with exclusives; Microsoft is going exclusiveless and Nintendo is showing signs of having instead carved out a niche for themselves. Sony may end up winning by default simply by being the only ones left competing.

*sigh*

Okay, to put this in perspective for everyone:

This entire topic is basically a rehash on old arguments about hate speech in America, specifically it being allowed or not, with the two sides being reversed on their positions. I'm seeing the exact same arguments used, only it's the opposite sides using them.

And the one thing that I'm noticing those who oppose this are forgetting: Getting a proper President in office means this will protect both sides, but clamp down harder on the hate speech and incitement of violence. After all, federal oversight means that a lot of social media sites that simply sit back and do nothing about inciting terrorism will have to actually do something for once. It'll also make services likle Cloudflare less willing to step in and protect them.

About the only reason I can see for liberal opposition to this is if you cannot see any way to get a Democrat as President within the next twelve years.

That would make the Atari E.T. game a AAA game, since it is still (when adjusted for inflation) one of the most expensive video games to ever develop. Disney Infinity, Crysis 3, Deadpool, the entire Gears of War franchise, and the original Shenmue would make the cut. God of War, Spiderman, Skyrim, Fallout 4, every Nintendo game, and so on wouldn't.

Of course, part of the problem is that we don't know production values for many games (such as God of War). Sales are a more reliable measure. It's far better to rely on sales, since that can be factually argued.

@boxrekt said:

Nice damage control rant.

Meanwhile

You're the one who nominated that train wreck as your example of a high quality, graphically impressive AAA PC exclusive.

All I did was check on the random PC title you brought up to compare against current gen AAA console exclusives.

Now you're making excuses for the fact that it's just another low qulaity, graphically underwhelming, glitchy and unpolished PC shovelware title.

@boxrekt said:

High profile, graphically impressive, AAA PC exclusives IS indeed something PC fans are starved of. There desperation to have these titles is displayed by Star Citizens continued support.

You may not agree but this is how I see it. Outside of Star Citizen, can you name me any other PC exclusive titles that fit it's description that have actually released this gen???

The fact that you even nominated that game validates this above point more than you'll ever realize.

You tried and your efforts have only served to reinforce my argument. Good job.

Awards don't make a game AAA. Sales do. Also, awards don't indicate lack of bugs; Skyrim, a known bugfest even to this day, is also an award-winning game. So using the idea of awards as though they mean something is bullshit.

And don't think I didn't notice how you tried to project the idea of damage control onto me. Nice attempt at dodging. Accusing me of doing it to cover the fact you were doing it is a nice example of outright lying.

Oh, and I notice you still can't counter the fact that GoW's developers made a video that brings up their favorite bugs from the game. That game is so damned buggy that they have favorites. Not even Bethesda produces games that low of quality.

And, let's face it: The rest of your post, where you accuse the game of being shovelware, is bullshit. Because, as that video I posted showed, GoW is the same level of buggy and that's according to the people who made GoW.

So, the fact you have to move the goalpost for Starpoint Gemini Warlords and not move it the same amount for GoW makes your stance extremely dishonest to the point that it would be dishonest not to call you a liar. After all, at this point you are practicing 1984-levels of doublethink.

Also, the fact you tried to claim victory like this? All you're doing is proving you're just here to troll, not to have an honest discussion or be a poster worth keeping around.

Yeah. It's always funny to see someone confuse "sells extremely well" (what the AAA classification really means) with "of high quality" (what it was originally intended to mean, but a definition almost no one ever uses).

@boxrekt said:

Ok, let me check.

Give me a second..

literally the first review I ran by

Loading Video...

..."The problem with the game is it lacks a certain amount of polish, it is buggy as all hell, and the control system is god awful...and I mean god awful"

Damn, lol so this is an example of one of your high quality, graphically impressive? blockbuster AAA PC exclusives?

Guess you shut me all the way down.

You do know that Bethesda, known and routinely mocked for their endless bugs, is a AAA developer... right? Fallout 4 is still considered unplayable on many cutting-edge PCs unless you disable the god rays.

Don't get me started on the endless bug complaints that GTA V has been subjected to, to the point it's still sometimes ranked as unplayable. Yet, it's also a AAA game.

And, hell, let's talk about the bugpack that is God of War:

Yep. GoW's own developers acknowledge it's got a load of bugs.

So, really, if you're going to use the presence of bugs or some person complaining about them as an example of why a AAA is bad quality... all you will end up doing is unwittingly arguing that AAA games are not worth the rating as a whole.

Of course, it might help if you knew what the AAA category was to begin with. Here's a hint: It's mostly a measure of sales, not of actual quality.