Larian Do you Consider Larian an AAA game Studio?

[Couchpotato]

Just a simple poll. I remember the old Larian where each game almost bankrupted the developer. Though it seems with the release of the Original Sin games the developers fortune has changed. Multiple studios and hundreds of employees. Hope it doesn't collapse.

 

[Redglyph]

There's no doubt about that.

If we speak about budget, the time and the resources, it's all there.

 

[JDR13]

This would have been a question to ask during Divinity: Original Sin 2 perhaps. It's not even debateable now.

 

[Couchpotato]

Sure whatever Debbie downer the poll is in response to another thread, and I'm trying to get people to post. Though it seems only a few people post in obscure forum threads.

 

[Couchpotato]

There's no doubt about that.

If we speak about budget, the time and the resources, it's all there.

Truly it's baffling how large the studio has gotten. Makes you wonder how much money was from past sales of the Original Sin games, and other interested investors.

I miss the blog posts which have all but stopped from Swen. I hate twiiter updates.

 

[bkrueger]

I voted "Yes" since I love their games and wish them to be successful.
In general I couldn't care less whether a studio is called "AAA" or not. If I like a studio's games I like them and if I don't I don't.
(Edit: Wording.)

 

[wolfgrimdark]

I consider Larian AAA but not Owlcats yet.

I don't decide what I buy based on developer status though, merely answering the question.

 

[Couchpotato]

Yeah that was brought up in the Olwcat thread about their latest game only selling one million copies. While BG III has sold over three million, and it's not even released yet.

Also someone compared Pathfinder to D&D and wondered why it didn't sell more.

So yes studio size does matter though and A.I tools will revolutionize the industry.

 

[Silver]

For me AAA Studios are defined as the type that is into monetisation and report to shareholders. Where the game is secondary to the money. I don't consider Larian in that club.

 

[bkrueger]

For me AAA Studios are defined as the type that is into monetisation and report to shareholders. Where the game is secondary to the money. I don't consider Larian in that club.

With this definition I surely agree to you. But we should be careful with such definitions: It is like in the music business. That somebody has mainstream commercial success, doesn't neccessarily imply that they are a sellout, even if the risk is there.

 

[Silver]

With this definition I surely agree to you. But we should be careful with such definitions: It is like in the music business. That somebody has mainstream commercial success, doesn't neccessarily imply that they are a sellout, even if the risk is there.

Its true that there are exceptions. As a rule through its rarely wrong.

 

[Stingray]

Not yet, because I think BG3 is their first AAA budget game and it isn’t out yet. Once it’s out and we see what their next project is, maybe I’ll change my mind.

 

[JDR13]

Why does it need to be out?

 

[Stingray]

It's a studio that has a 25-year history of making a bunch of great games, none of which are AAA. They are working on a project now that has a AAA budget, but also has gameplay unlike any AAA game in the last 15+ years. So in some ways, it's even hard to think of the game as AAA, even though technically it is. On top of that, the game series belongs (or belonged) to someone else as well. So, I'd say for historical and other reasons, it's hard to think of Larian as an "AAA studio" right now, but once this is out, and we see what their future holds (decades-long Baldur's Gate sequel churnage? sign me up, I guess) then that opinion can begin to change.

 

[JDR13]

Their past games have nothing to do with the question though. We're talking about the Larian of today not 10 years ago.

BG3 is obviously AAA, and I think it's close enough to completion at this point for most people to recognize that.

 

[Stingray]

Yeah, but the question is about the studio not the game.

I guess your implication is that if a studio makes one AAA game (or their last game was AAA) then they're automatically an "AAA studio"?

 

[bkrueger]

I don't need a game to be more "AAA" than DOS or DOS:2. Therefore I would rather see games in the same kind than games, where (unnecessary) energy is put in more polishing or optics etc.

 

[JDR13]

Yeah, but the question is about the studio not the game.

I guess your implication is that if a studio makes one AAA game (or their last game was AAA) then they're automatically an "AAA studio"?

The question is are they a AAA studio not have they been a AAA studio in the past. What else would define their present state besides their current project?

Are there other games they're working on right now that I'm not aware of?

 

[Stingray]

The question is are they a AAA studio not have they been a AAA studio in the past.

Currently working on a AAA game doesn't automatically make a long-time studio an "AAA studio" in my book. Couch didn't define "AAA studio" for the purposes of the poll, but if he had, and had defined it as "a studio currently working on an AAA game", then I would have voted yes.

Are there other games they're working on right now that I'm not aware of?

Personally, I suspect they probably are. Even if it's just pre-production for BG4 (which, of course, would make them lean more towards "AAA studio"). But I don't think there's any public info.

 

[JDR13]

Currently working on a AAA game doesn't automatically make a long-time studio an "AAA studio" in my book. Couch didn't define "AAA studio" for the purposes of the poll, but if he had, and defined it as "a studio currently working on an AAA game", then I would have voted yes.

Fair enough, although I find it odd that you would assume he isn't talking about present time.