Fascinating piece of analytics.
I think the central conclusion is directionally right: post-inflation budget growth is not simply a story of "the same games becoming more expensive".
A major part of the problem is that the industry keeps building broader, denser, harder-to-coordinate games.
That said, I would treat "scope" with some caution as an analytical category.
In AAA production, scope is not just content volume. It is not only the number of quests, hours, systems, platforms, cinematics, or supported languages. Those things matter, of course. But the deeper cost driver is dependency density: the number of systems, teams, assets, pipelines, approval layers, platform requirements, and content promises that must remain synchronized.
That is why the team decomposition section is, to me, the strongest part of the article.
Large games do not simply add more developers. They add more interfaces between developers. More handoffs. More reviews. More integration risk. More production management. More "coordination tax" you mention.
This is exactly the "kitchen sink game" problem you mention (and I can't agree more on the example chosen). The cost of a feature is not only the cost of that feature alone. It is the way that feature increases pressure across design, engineering, art, animation, QA, localization, certification, marketing, and live-ops readiness.
So I agree with the article’s broad framing, but I would phrase the conclusion slightly differently:
"AAA scope should be treated less as content volume and more as dependency density. And dependency density is ultimately a complexity governance problem".
There are also some methodological limits, which the article mostly acknowledges.
"Scope" has to be proxied through observable features, but many expensive AAA drivers are difficult to capture from public data: animation fidelity, systemic interdependence, quest reactivity, engine debt, production restarts, outsourcing complexity, cinematic density, management friction, anad so on.
The "other unobserved drivers" bucket is therefore important. It may contain real efficiency gains from tooling and pipelines, but it may also hide unmeasured scope expansion, technical debt, or production resets.
I would also separate "S-Tier" from AAA in future analysis. GTA VI and Call of Duty-scale projects operate under different capital-recovery, platform, franchise, and marketing logic than "ordinary" AAA games. They are not just larger AAA. They are a different strategic category.
Overall, though, this is a very useful analytical frame. The assumptions are stretched in places, and some classifications are necessarily rough, but the conclusion is valuable: modern game budgets are a scope-governance problem, not merely a labor-cost or inflation problem.