Goronmon

I meant more that a restaurant owner isn't going to see or really get any value from an open source solution vs closed source specifically. They are just choosing a platform at a price point that works for them.

Restaurant owners don't care about Open Source.

Because there aren’t developers working those jobs realizing that workers are being worked to the bone because of businesses refusing to add limits to how much demand can come through their door.

I'm not sure why you believe game developers would be better suited to this than people who actually do business software development. And it's less about what the developers want to do with software than it is about what the people to are buying the software want to do with that software.

This gen felt like a waste of money to me, with only minute differences at a huge cost.

Nah, SSDs are a massive upgrade, even ignoring everything else.

I could never go back to the spinning disk hard drives.

I feel like your post was being overly dramatic and then I noticed your comment about Starfield being a one out of ten game, and at that point it's hard to take you seriously.

The second strike was Fallout 76, crazy how disappointing his game was and even to this day is still broken and in disarray.

Fallout 76 may not be an amazing game, but they've turned it into something pretty enjoyable to play, and from my experience a couple years ago "broken" as an adjective doesn't really make sense as the game ran and played perfectly well.

They failed spectacularly with Fallout 4, which took the gaming industry by surprise after seeing how poorly developed it was, and the extreme low quality of the story, how unfinished the game was, how simply broken many areas and features were, I could talk about it for hours.

So, clearly you are just trying to push an agenda for some reason and are just making things up whole cloth at this point. I'm not sure what fantasy world you are living in but this isn't based in reality. It's just something you've made up in your head.

Also, I don't see the point in doom-posting about a game that's years away from release. What's the reason for fantasizing about a game's failure? Is it that people enjoy drama like the recent Concord release and are trying to look for future games to chase the same high?

Patch notes for anyone interested: https://www.nomanssky.com/2024/09/aquarius-update/

My PS3 can play at most a decade worth of games. It is obsolete.

Sure, but so is the PC that someone bought around the time the original Doom was released.

I think the more likely relation is to credit ratings or something similar, since the "AAA" is based around budgets and financial investments.

he games expected to be GotY contenders would be marked AAA, AA for otherwise decent games, A for more niche games and B for “this is a starshot, we’re hoping it will sell enough to justify production costs”.

Is there any evidence of this being the case? Personally, I don't remember anything other than "AAA" back in the day, with other variations coming about much later as budgets grew and people wanted more specific delineations.

It's been funny seeing the Playstation controller slowly morph into an Xbox controller. Which is great because I definitely preferred the Xbox controller since the 360.

I still prefer the offset sticks on the Xbox controller though.

Haha, yup. I knew something looked off.

To elaborate a bit more than just budget/marketing, AAA games used to be distinguished from AA titles.

To be a bit of a pedant, "AAA" was basically the marketing term to denote a game with a larger budget. The term "AA" came around afterwards as a way to distinguish games that fell between smaller indie games, and larger budget AAA games.

Edit: Corrected spelling.