The demise of the "AA" tier of video games is not a new topic of discussion; it's something that has been pointed out and/or lamented for well over a decade at this point, with the Xbox 360 era often pointed to as being both the swansong and the beginning of the steep decline for lower budget, more quickly developed, and usually more rapidly discounted AA titles.
The gap this has left in the market, however, has been thrown into even sharper relief by a handful of recent events. The move to $70 price points for AAA games has made consumers very conscious of how many self-styled AAA games are actually just AA-tier games tottering around in heavy make-up and their older sister's high heels.
Meanwhile the notion of an "AAAA" game has been trotted out by some executives (most notably at Ubisoft, although Microsoft seems to actually be responsible for the coinage), essentially responding to the same issue from the other side of the field by trying to differentiate titles in the increasingly overcrowded and broadly defined "AAA" category.
At the heart of the problem is the way in which the industry's output has effectively been polarised; at one end there are AAA games priced at $60, and now increasingly at $70. At the other end there are indie games usually priced below $20.
There's precious little in the middle – while some games do launch at mid-range prices, they're relatively uncommon, and almost all projects from major publishers and studios find themselves bracketed in the AAA category. Whether that's based on genuine market research suggesting that mid-range price points don't work well, or simple vanity, is hard to say.
It's probably a little of both in some cases, but it's also fair to say that many developers aren't happy with pressure to label everything they work on as AAA and launch it at a $70 price point. There's strong interest in exploring other price points (with all that entails, including stricter budget controls on projects), but also a sense that doing
Read more on gamesindustry.biz