No. Hence why it’s a buzzword. The CEOs don’t know how it works, just that it somehow reduces payroll. For AI to do what you want it to do, you have to train it on hundreds of thousands of relevant data points over many weeks/months/years. That takes manpower, and consequently, payroll.
Also, games are supposed to be art. An expression of the humans creating it. Automating the games industry would make any MBA grad jizz in their pants, but it’s antithetical to the survival of the medium and, consequently, the industry. You want nothing but freemium games meant to milk kids of their parents money? Nothing but shitty mobile games and live services from now on then.
I mean all the shitty mobile games for the past decade or so are very much human generated garbage. What’s wrong about having AI doing the repetitive work and have human do the creative part? I mean I get it that you are worried the companies are going to use it wrong, but you can also agree there are good ways to use it yes? Or you are fundamentally against using AI entirely?
The problem with mobile games is that they are driven by marketing and investors rather than developers and designers, and those won’t be removed from the picture by AI. If anything, it will be worse because there will be less people with creative passion to push back against the money-grubbing intent.
With games likes Monument Valley, The Room and 80 Days you can’t really say that there is no creative passion there. If someone wanted to just make money they wouldn’t become game developers and artists to begin with. There are much better options for that.
Maybe more good mobile games would exist if the whole market wasn’t stuck on this trend of conditioning compulsion to game algorithms and exploit addicts. Seems like mobile games can either do that, or get buried by someone who does, because mobile users would rather play games for “free” and get tricked into spending $1,000 than pay $10 upfront.
But why not? If an industry isn’t already fully automated, AI can be considered no?
No. Hence why it’s a buzzword. The CEOs don’t know how it works, just that it somehow reduces payroll. For AI to do what you want it to do, you have to train it on hundreds of thousands of relevant data points over many weeks/months/years. That takes manpower, and consequently, payroll.
Also, games are supposed to be art. An expression of the humans creating it. Automating the games industry would make any MBA grad jizz in their pants, but it’s antithetical to the survival of the medium and, consequently, the industry. You want nothing but freemium games meant to milk kids of their parents money? Nothing but shitty mobile games and live services from now on then.
I mean all the shitty mobile games for the past decade or so are very much human generated garbage. What’s wrong about having AI doing the repetitive work and have human do the creative part? I mean I get it that you are worried the companies are going to use it wrong, but you can also agree there are good ways to use it yes? Or you are fundamentally against using AI entirely?
The problem with mobile games is that they are driven by marketing and investors rather than developers and designers, and those won’t be removed from the picture by AI. If anything, it will be worse because there will be less people with creative passion to push back against the money-grubbing intent.
Creative passion? In mobile games? What are you on?
With games likes Monument Valley, The Room and 80 Days you can’t really say that there is no creative passion there. If someone wanted to just make money they wouldn’t become game developers and artists to begin with. There are much better options for that.
Maybe more good mobile games would exist if the whole market wasn’t stuck on this trend of conditioning compulsion to game algorithms and exploit addicts. Seems like mobile games can either do that, or get buried by someone who does, because mobile users would rather play games for “free” and get tricked into spending $1,000 than pay $10 upfront.