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?

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.

He is making something else, Haunted Chocolatier.

It looks like he's effectively using Stardew Valley as a testing ground for features to see how they might work in that game.

So, not a direct sequel, but not a completely unrelated game either.

The cozy-game genre specifically is a relatively recent category, even if there are plenty of older games that could fit into it.

It definitely isn't a term you would have seen back when Stardew Valley was released.

And then it says the reason that Hades 2 has resource gathering is because stardew valley influenced it…

That's not how you should read this section of the article.

Though Stardew Valley did not invent the farming genre – and obviously took a lot of inspiration from Harvest Moon – it certainly triggered the avalanche of similar farming games that followed. On top of that, numerous games have farming and other life sim elements in them now, regardless of genre.

"On top of that" phrasing implies they are making a separate point.

Though Stardew Valley did not invent the farming genre...

Seems to say the exact opposite from what you are claiming?

Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal. But it's just stupid as a developer to act like this.

I often ask about risk vs reward in these situations. What were they going to gain by acting like this and what were they going to risk by acting like this?

Decentralization is expensive too judging by some of the sentiment I've seen around running Mastodon and Lemmy/Kbin instances.

So, Google is clearly paying lots of money directly to maintain their lead in the search engine market.

Bad look for Apple as well. They say they take privacy seriously, but are selling their user's data to Google, one of the last companies you would want getting your information if you were concerned about privacy.