When I first saw the launch with "System One" and "noul" I already knew they had some marketing person pushing this internally because you can swap it all for "classifier" and "boolean".
I do kind of believe this is the "end game" at this point.
"Friend-slop" has already proven wildly successful, and significantly lower effort than AAA games.
Combine this with the fact your game will be stolen and put into Roblox, it really feels like we're approaching a era of just rapidly produced games that live for weeks rather than years.
Yeah agreed, I was talking to a friend few years ago when Google first wiped out blogging by taking over the blog content and showing snippets instead of real links.
Obviously the end-game is for the companies to automate all the text, games, and software so you just go to their feed and pay them a monthly instead of individuals making making this content.
There's multiple reasons people play games. Some people are competitive and play a game thousands of hours to get better at it. So there's always a market for longer lasting games.
Gamers have to be one of the most interesting groups of people. I'll define "gamers" as people who spend more than 40 hours a week playing games, and probably overlaps significantly with streamer consumption.
Extremely needy, demanding, and simultaneously spineless.
Riot releases a $500 skin and make a million dollars, GTA6 has a $400 edition that doesn't include the game, and of course the OG horse armor.
Outrage after outrage, yet they keep on buying.
Additionally, 99% of them have no clue how hard it is to build a game, at any scale really. They don't understand where corners have been cut, and that it's possible to use AI without cutting corners.
They quite literally demand the world despite having never created a single thing themselves, blindly consuming, never producing.
Personally, it makes no sense to build a game without AI. A lot of code is needed and you need to iterate on it, perfect use case for AI.
Art, buttons, sprites, and models, often need rounds of iteration, why not start with a basic set and work on it?
There's nothing wrong with iterating, there is plenty wrong with slop (like the 6 fingers in the trailer). So let's be mad at the slop, not the AI itself.
> I'll define "gamers" as people who spend more than 40 hours a week playing games
I'll define "human" as "person with six fingers". Here's my disertation about why they keep complaining about the glove industry.
Billions of people spend money on games. You're picking a ridiculously small subsection of the gamer populace, pinning all kinds of assumption on them, and then judging them for it. This is barely even a strawman argument, it's what strawmen dream about (or more likely, rant about on LinkedIn).
If people put up with horse armour but not gen AI stuff, that means there's a big difference in their perception. If you don't see that difference, don't assume it's their skill issue and not yours.
> They quite literally demand the world despite having never created a single thing themselves, blindly consuming, never producing.
This is referring to the people who object to writers and artists getting ripped off, right? Not to the people who built giant systems to slurp up all the things they haven't produce and can't produce themselves, to produce an average approximation they then think they "made"?
So iterate then. Make things, then train software on the things you made to made more things like that. Nobody would ever get "mad" about that, at worst they wouldn't like it.
> I'll define "gamers" as people who spend more than 40 hours a week playing games, and probably overlaps significantly with streamer consumption.
Does anyone else in the world share this definition? This seems very contrived because the vast majority of people who care a lot about games are not going to be putting a full time job's worth of time into it. It's like defining being employed as working over 70 hours per week.
The only reason I can see for jacking the requirement up so high is to try to narrow your scope so you can merge people into one group and define a single average 'gamer' opinion that everyone apparently has, so you can then come in and demonstrate their insane hypocrisy.
Would you be surprised if I said that the person complaining about $400 special editions is actually less likely to buy it? Gaming is mainstream. When you're talking about controversies in games with millions of users, there will always be a proportion of people who really care about it, but in spite of that there are always many thousands of people who won't, and will keep buying the thing they like without much thought given to it.
> They quite literally demand the world despite having never created a single thing themselves, blindly consuming, never producing.
If the chef brings you a meal that tastes horrible, should you be shunned for complaining about it? You've never made something 1/10th of that level of culinary sophistication. Even if you're the one paying for it.
What's even funnier is that in this case, 'the world' means 'making games the exact same way they've already been made for over 40 years to enormous success'. And the developer says "Yes, we will continue to do what has been successful for us for decades". If even the developer agrees and you still find an issue with it, it seems that the real problem for you isn't that gamers are demanding something of developers, it's that the developers aren't using the big new thing you really like. Which is immediately proven by your next sentence.
> Personally, it makes no sense to build a game without AI. A lot of code is needed and you need to iterate on it, perfect use case for AI.
Again, games have been built without AI for decades. Some of the best gaming experiences have been created in that way. And yet, genAI comes along, and after a brief few years it's suddenly unthinkable that anything good can be created the old way? And besides, if we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater - where are those AI-first masterpieces that top the old games? Where are the games with loads of AI code and assets that people love and regard as highly-polished, one of a kind experiences?
From a technical standpoint, AI is a less good fit for games anyway. We have basically solved 95% of all products people would ever need to put out on the web. For any problem you have, there is probably already a combination of high-quality solutions someone has made. AI has vast amounts of training data on web stuff and will probably produce something that doesn't stand out from the pack. But games are highly variable, have very unique problems, are very sensitive to optimization and can involve some of the most complex fields of computer science. Simple games may fare better, but anything large or really unique needs a solution made with purpose. Something that's just 'almost good enough' and not 'good enough' in a high-quality game will be immediately noticeable, especially in terms of gameplay.
Love this framing, most industrial warehouses easily use 500kw in power (the EU level for self reporting water consumption), but nobody is drumming up a water war on them.
For whatever reason people have clung onto this idea that the "Gotcha" to slow down AI is to worry about water consumption, and it's an idiotic gotcha.
reply