My understanding is AAA is literally just a buzzword in the vein of AAAA. It doesn't relate to budget, team size, publisher/no publisher, kind of same as indie at this point.
It maybe made a little more sense when it was a publisher descriptor? EA, Activision, Ubisoft were publishing games at a different scale than Midway, Acclaim, THQ, etc. But still, as far as I understand is more of a marketing term as opposed to designating anything specific.
I tested it for a bit and am very excited to play the whole thing. My only full playthrough of the game was on a bad laptop on Project64 as a kid, and playing with full M/KB support now feels amazing.
I also got it working with Special K's HDR feature and it looks great too.
Valve being a private company is probably the thing that allows them to focus on putting out good products w/o dealing with shareholders demanding more.
And they make a ton of money doing right by their core consumer base, I would be very surprised if we see any of that change.
If Valve were any other company they would have laid off half their staff and coasted on that 30% from Steam. They're not perfect, but maybe the only company I feel good about giving money to, consistently.
I've been using Nobara after messing with Manjaro, and it's been my go-to distro across multiple computers now.
Handles games incredibly well, built in fixes for Resolve, rock solid otherwise. It's based on Fedora so very well supported on that front as well.
Like the other commenter discussed, I think objective when it comes to reviews is a very tricky idea. My ideal solution to it is having multiple perspectives on a game from an outlet, not necessarily in a review score, but in other formats. That's part of what I loved about Giant Bomb, I'd typically like what Jeff did, but might not be as into a Brad or Dan game all the time.
I don't think the idea of objectivity makes a ton of sense at this point, but an authentic perspective can serve that role.
I think a large part of why so many outlets sell out is due to the idea of infinite growth and/or revenue dropping from Youtube/Twitch/etc. taking more of a cut. Ideally this would be solved by remaining small, focused, and less dependent on revenue sources that can change on a whim.
Would you be interested in perspectives on it from developers themselves?
Very interested in the topics you point out, I think for myself I'd cover them mostly in writing. There's a larger amount of that style of content popping up these days, but largely in longer video essays that end up being released more sparsely. I used to turn to podcasts for this sort of coverage, but I'm not as aware of gaming podcasts right now.
Totally agree with you. The hype cycle has killed a lot of interest in recently released titles for me as well, the first 2 weeks it's the best thing ever, then the tide begins to turn.
Also agree on the Steam point. I've been trying to check out more indie games on Steam since it's maybe the only platform that has decent discovery for them now, outside of Itch. It's also so hard for indies to get any traction with how journalism and marketing functions outside of paying for it in one way or another.
I agree with you on keys/access. Part of why I think being beholden to the release calendar for content is such a problem. It was one thing when previews meant something, now that every publisher/developer promotes directly to their audience and being critical gets you on their bad side, there's not a huge point to it.
Guests are a good point! That's been something I've wanted to focus on, similar to Giant Bomb at Nite and the Interview Dumptruck. Doing post-mortems with developers could be really interesting.
I hear you on the dead community point as well. Kind of want to encourage discourse happening outside of the big platforms, but using the larger ones to help build an audience.
That's what killed it for me. I really enjoyed the Lawbreakers beta, but paying $30 for a game that would either die at a fixed price or quickly shift to F2P made no sense.