There is a fundamental business challenge at work -- games these days are "worth less".
Not having no value, but being of less worth to investors and companies to invest in. This is simple fundamental economics, since game prices are not growing as fast as their input costs. For example, I spent $30 for Atari video games in the 1980s and it was a lot less expensive to produce. That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
If your costs are increasing and you can't raise your price then your industry is being commoditized, or at least in a real quandary about how to move forward. AI could be a way to slow the huge, up-front costs that go into AAA games and help limit the risk to making new ones.
This fundamentally misunderstands why modern AAA games are expensive.
A single person can make an game. In fact, there's a chance a single person can make a good game. The problem is that the correlation between good and successful is very weak. You basically need a massive marketing machine to break a new IP. Games cost a lot to make but that's by design.
The strategy that AAA studios apply is to go as big as possible and cast a wide net because you can't put a dozen smaller games on every Mountain Dew can. AI is not going to change that.
Making games a bit cheaper is always a plus but the game will grow to fill the budget. It will not mean more games at the top and it will probably not even mean less cost to the studio.
AI tooling will be used but I doubt it will change the way blockbuster games (or movies)_operate beyond the usual progression of industry tech.
In fact we have modern examples of a single person making a game that's not just much better from a technical standpoint, but actually sells more units, generates more buzz, and moves game design forward.
What those games, games like Stardew Valley, Undertale, or Animal Well can't do is create an endless income stream in the billions, and right now that's the goal of some big "AAA" publishers. They don't want to make good games, they don't want to make any sort of game really, they want to create an addictive platform for further transactions. They want GTA Online, F2P Gachas, and E-Sports.
They don't want to make Stardew Valley no matter how many units it sells, they want to make the next Fortnite. As a result they keep dumping absurd amounts of money into really sketchy projects (Concorde, Anthem, etc) and they can't seem to figure out why people aren't biting. When in doubt if you're an MBA and you see money flying out of the door and the expected return isn't being generated, it must be almost instinctive to raise prices and lay people off.
> You basically need a massive marketing machine to break a new IP.
Of course there are some exceptions. Like Balatro selling 5 million copies (1 developer + 1 composer), the Touhou Project series (solo dev), Slay the Spire (two devs, ), and Terraria (11-person studio, 9'th best selling game of all time with 60,700,000 copies sold as of November 2024).
The big studios seem to like spending a ton of money on games, but there continue to be new IPs created without a massive budget or marketing campaign.
Wish I could be even 1/10th as succinct as this comment. Kids love surprises, but businesses don't like uncertainties. Mildly disappointing high-budget games are all but unpredictable, so professional business operations move towards that direction. The system just inherently prefer de-risking over costs.
I think in the context of parent comment, it might be true that games just isn't a great business. Gamers don't like low-risk AAA slop. Adjectives for games such as good, successful, praised, lucrative, don't align each others well. Deltarune(Undertale 2) is to launch on Switch 2 for $10 or thereabouts, literally built by one guy, most likely without any use of AI, and it'll undoubtedly sell containers after containers of Switch 2 units totally irrespective of incoming tariffs. That almost make me feel sorry for AAA title publishers such as EA and Epic. I can only assume that they resemble insurance companies than any others.
> For example, I spent $30 for Atari video games in the 1980s and it was a lot less expensive to produce. That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
And the Nintendo Switch has sold 5x as many consoles as did Atari. Likely a similar scale for games sold. Nintendo very likely makes more in total than Atari did, even with lower prices.
I don't know, maybe. The economies of scale and 40 years of iteration make it hard to compare apples to apples like that. As well as the fact that Nintendo's game team went from maybe 5-10 Japanese designers that can fit in a garage (well, not a Japanese garage) to multiple thousands of employees focusing on different sectors of the business.
The main surprise is that they can bs surprisingly lean with their core development teams to this day. Apparently Super Mario Wonder had a core team of around 20 devs.
Anything that can be copied infinitely for free has a market value of 0, and is in a bubble whenever its price is above 0. This doesn't mean that video games have no value, but that markets aren't suited for finding it.
> Not having no value, but being of less worth to investors and companies to invest in. This is simple fundamental economics, since game prices are not growing as fast as their input costs.
Economics that are not that old and that have been reinforced via a 'tailor made' customer culture. Marketing and business culture fucked up consumers beyond any recognition, then quantified them and keep optimizing via peer-flagellation and sociopathic feedback loops.
John, this isn't a power tool. This is a copy machine.
And while I don't have anything against copy machines per se, that's not how it's being sold to the public. The public is being told this copy machine is a really good power tool that can do lots of things. So what creatives are hearing is "your work is interchangeable with a slightly smarter copy machine, so stop paying creatives and just rip them off".
Anyone who argues that LLMs are "just stochastic parrots" fundamentally doesn't understand what neural networks do. The power does not come from sampling from a distributions over words but from the multi-dimensional representation. And it is that that enables LLMs to be more than just mechanisms that produce copies of material previously seen in training.
The specific AI technology being demonstrated isn't an LLM, it's a different kind of model that renders Quake from memory. It's very much trained to copy Quake.
You're still just saying that while stealing a lot from one person is wrong, stealing only a little but from many people would be OK.
And the people who are stolen from don't agree with you.
It's a power tool. And like other power tools, it's easy to hurt yourself (or others) with it if you don't know what you're doing and it takes quite a bit of experience and skill to really get the most out of it.
It's a power tool in hat you can say a copy machine is a power tool. You'd think it'd be hard to hurt yourself on a copy machine, but life finds a way.
When an artist trains by studying the masters and prior art, and even imitation, they are not acting as copying machines. Unfortunately for your interpretation, these are not copy machines neither on a technical nor philosophical level.
Separately, whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate.
Comparing the way the human brain synthesizes information with their experience and how a computer does it is already a futile point. Take the following point here: humans tend to be very poor at perfectly regurgitating copies of anything. Even well trained copycats will have different muscle memory, different interpretation of theory they apply, different means of coloring and shading, etc.
As we've seen, poke an LLM enough and it may simply just spit out a near identical recreation. As of now, it definitely proves that this data isn't just "seen". they very much store it on their databases, and we should treat it as such.
>whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate
There's nothing nuanced about it in my eyes. Especially if some artists explicitly do not want their art trained upon. Not even 3 years ago Microsoft won a court case via LinkedIn regarding the scaping of their website data. How is this phenomenon any different?
Unless we want to destroy Copyright as we know it, it's pretty cut and dry copyright infringement. But we need to tear it down first and just say we don't like current laws.
“I think you are misunderstanding what this tech demo actually is, but I will engage with what I think your gripe is — AI tooling trivializing the skillsets of programmers, artists, and designers.
My first games involved hand assembling machine code and turning graph paper characters into hex digits. Software progress has made that work as irrelevant as chariot wheel maintenance.
Building power tools is central to all the progress in computers.
Game engines have radically expanded the range of people involved in game dev, even as they deemphasized the importance of much of my beloved system engineering.
AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Yes, we will get to a world where you can get an interactive game (or novel, or movie) out of a prompt, but there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
The world will be vastly wealthier in terms of the content available at any given cost.
Will there be more or less game developer jobs? That is an open question. It could go the way of farming, where labor saving technology allow a tiny fraction of the previous workforce to satisfy everyone, or it could be like social media, where creative entrepreneurship has flourished at many different scales. Regardless, “don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.” - John Carmack
It's only a problem if we live in a society where people's perceived value, and thus capability of living a healthy, full life, is tied to their productivity to produce profit for an increasingly shrinking pool of people and organizations.
Which is what we have, hence the problem.
Yes, AI has the potential to screw things up royally. But do not mistake its' exacerbation of symptoms as the true illness.
When you click a button in Unity or Roblox or whatever to generate a new texture, the thing that gets generated comes from a model that could not have been built without using IP. But because it all got chucked into a blender and turned into an anonymous slurry -- and because AI is a politically important growth industry -- the people whose work went into the slurry will not benefit, at all. They'll never see a dime, while the companies selling the slurry will get billions. A lot of those people are the exact ones whose job will be replaced, which is extra painful when you know it was your own work that was used to replace you.
Although in a sense it's pointless to bring up because that milk is already spilt, and it ain't gonna get back into the container.
I’m trying not to sound elitist but maybe this is just plain elitist. But it seems like lowering the barrier to entry to some skills too much just gets us too much crap, _and_ worst of all changes the economics so you can’t get anything good anymore. See: the movie industry.
And actually, the problem is not that my neighbor who’s passionate about video game design but makes bad games. I’m glad social media is full of that. It’s the highly capitalized content farms that flood the zone.
This comparison suffers from what I call “the scale fallacy”.
You can’t compare disrupting technologies like this as if the scale of their impact plays no role at all.
How many people’s livelihood depended on monks writing books by hand?
> What’s your opinion of Youtube? We were better off when just a few could create and distribute video at scale?
Yes, I think I would make that argument.
But also I think I’m making a different argument. The game market already seems to be pretty flooded. I think many people see it as “we get more great indie games”, but I wonder if we don’t get less. That it creates more of a bipolar distribution. Triple-A relatively unaffected, and more vaporware games but it hollows out the middle.
I also think that “we objected to earlier progress and it turned out ok, therefor all objections to progress are bad” is a logical fallacy.
Or maybe the music industry? I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact. It doesn't seem like it's gotten better with easier accessibility to tools, just there's a lot more options for you if you are a fan of a certain genre.
I can see games being similar, maybe a few creative people invent new genres never seen before, or mix elements in creative ways with AI tools, but I'm guessing it will more likely mean a lot of slight variations of games that bring in money churned out quickly.
Good points, but it is worth considering that in both of those scenarios you listed the content within the end product is fully created by a human and not generated by a machine.
> There was similar criticism to yours when the printing press was invented.
A similar thing was discussed in the past, checkmate.
We have this commonsense whig-history where everything became a little bit better century by century. But one could argue that the printing press makes propaganda possible. From that you get thought control by the elite. Now you ironically get an elitist outcome, or an elite-benefiting outcome.
Was the printing press a net good? Maybe it’s more complicated than “more books good”.
Yeah this is where my own internal conflict is too. May be this cheap flooding is required to bring down the cost of creation so the truly high quality games/content creates by the top 1% will be valued more (though finding would be much harder?)?
There's a valid argument to be made there though. We possibly were better off when tastemakers managed to filter out the lowest common denominator.
When you think of Youtube, you might think of pretty decent stuff but you have to remember the absolute slop like Spiderman/Elsa videos, crude ripoffs and near porn gets many, many more views than the good stuff.
I'm not saying strict gatekeeping is necessary, but open systems are an absolute minefield for humanity. That's clear to me after the last 10 years or so.
I think it's ok to add selective pressure whenever spammy, unethical, low-quality content starts flooding the system. Books has copyright laws and resistive book distribution channels, YouTube has Likes and moderation systems, etc.
With hindsight, one of silent assumptions very common of both pro- and anti-AI arguments up to this point was as follows: because AI is potentially superhuman in arts, the existing selective pressures could inversely punish desired creativity if AI outputs were not unfairly treated. Pro-AI arguments assumed that warping the system is wrong, anti-AI assumed allowing the system go down is worse. IMO, superhuman AI didn't happen anyway, and so now AI slop problem is just spam control problem.
No one was ever against punishing spams and unethical actors. It's fine and safe. We're at a postmortem phase during which we'd patch the bugs in laws and law enforcement that allowed AI companies do outlandish hacks like torrenting books and redistributing it as lossy compressed 500GB GGUF.
We've been lowering the barrier to entry for decades now. Where is the line? Some would say digital. Some have pointed to electric. Some have pointed to cars. And on and on and on.
But older entertainment doesn't instantly make it better. Will there be more crap? Sure, but that's always been the case. But that also means more stuff of quality.
That could mean it's hard to find the quality stuff, but that's a different issue entirely, and one mostly solved with old school stuff (reviewers, just find reviewers you mostly agree with).
But in the end, good games are still released every year. And many/most of these good games wouldn't exist if the barrier to entry wasn't lowered.
How is the movie industry an example of this? There are great movies still coming out every year, and the main commercial trends have been around IP exploitation that may or may not be reducing movie quality but certainly not due to lower barriers to entry.
There are other forces acting on the movie industry. The rise of streaming killing DVD sales, YouTube and tiktok competition for attention etc. lowered their revenue a lot leading to a lot less ability to take risks on new ideas that may or may not sell well
Actually the opposite of what you think might come to happen. If you lower the barrier to entry for creating a movie, we might see a lot more creative ideas coming from people that would never have the chance before
Another example is fast fashion. It’s almost impossible to get clothing in a store that will last, say, 10 years. While in earlier decades, that was pretty normal.
What's the correlation between programming skill and video game design skill? It's probably not 0 but certainly well under 1. We want good video game designers making games, not just good programmers.
I get the feeling that Balatro is not a well coded game. It was coded by one person. Yet it's a great game. The world will be better with more Balatro's.
I assert we get less Balatro’s this way(I don’t know Balatro specifically, but I imagine it’s a stand-in for indie-game by one developer), perhaps counter intuitively.
This is a question I’ve been pondering post-2000, where are all the new Kevin Smiths?
Where are all the great counter-culture indie movies?
That Market has certainly not exploded post YouTube the way you might think.
we already hit that point as is. At this point, I just want proper ethics around this rampant scraping going on. It's simple consent, but it seems tech still has problems reminiscent of the old games industry.
Using AI tools in a professional code base, currently, seems a bit dangerous to me. However I have changed my mind on using it for vibe coding.
I used to type in program source code from magazines and had no idea what I was doing until something broke then I had to fix it. If I am honest, that was how I learned how to code.
AI will either teach that kind of thing to the new generation, or coding will become irrelevant. Either way, I think that’s good.
But I still don’t want my bank or airplane guidance software using it.
100%. I am not a fan of AI generating code in a professional context (for a number of reasons), but for side projects and as a learning tool I’ve become less yells-at-clouds about it.
>My first games involved hand assembling machine code and turning graph paper characters into hex digits. Software progress has made that work as irrelevant as chariot wheel maintenance.
Given the importance even today of understanding assembly compilation towards low level game performance, I'm surprised he'd say this. It wasn't rendered obsolete, it was abstracted away from most of the stack. Meanwhile you need to understand assuembly even more intimately to look under the hood of a modern day game or game engine. esoteric does not mean outdated.
>AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Okay, I'll believe it when I see it. You said the same about Oculus. I'm not even doubting that VR will evolve to a revolution one day. But technology's march can be slow at times.
And that's one of my top 3 problems; I think like VR's hardware barrier, AI is hitting barriers on how iterations with LLMs work. It seems industry's been brute forcing it and we clearly hit a wall already. But we haven't rethought the approach yet. We're just promising and prpmising.
>there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
Depends on how legal proceedings go. At least Quake is Open Source and kinda free ( I think). The vast majority of games probbaly won't let you train that easily. They spent decades making it as hard as possible to back them up, after all.
>“don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.
If industry is going to fire you anyway, it's the only move. If industry worked on fostering workers instead of replacing them, they wouldn't be worried. Instead it's finally starting to unionize to protect itself.
I'm more confused but why seems to be ignoring (or just being modest?) the technical feats of Quake and Quake 2 and (what I read to be) some sort of "well we just somehow made it work, but the game development (maybe artistic) was the thing" - and I mean, he wrote them - but for Q1 and Q2 working so flawlessly, not crashing, good netcode... for the huge amount of multiplayer I think the revolutionary tech was more important than the art style, even if it pains me to say it. We also played it long after better looking games had come out.
I doubt you'd get the easy moddability into an engine with AI, one of the huge points for the longevity.
Readit News
Not having no value, but being of less worth to investors and companies to invest in. This is simple fundamental economics, since game prices are not growing as fast as their input costs. For example, I spent $30 for Atari video games in the 1980s and it was a lot less expensive to produce. That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
For a comprehensive breakdown, see https://www.gamesindustry.biz/are-video-games-really-more-ex...
If your costs are increasing and you can't raise your price then your industry is being commoditized, or at least in a real quandary about how to move forward. AI could be a way to slow the huge, up-front costs that go into AAA games and help limit the risk to making new ones.
If this subject interests you, there is a great long-form interview with Matthew Ball on Stratechery: https://stratechery.com/2025/an-interview-with-matthew-ball-...
Anyway, Carmack is right on the money on this one.
A single person can make an game. In fact, there's a chance a single person can make a good game. The problem is that the correlation between good and successful is very weak. You basically need a massive marketing machine to break a new IP. Games cost a lot to make but that's by design.
The strategy that AAA studios apply is to go as big as possible and cast a wide net because you can't put a dozen smaller games on every Mountain Dew can. AI is not going to change that.
Making games a bit cheaper is always a plus but the game will grow to fill the budget. It will not mean more games at the top and it will probably not even mean less cost to the studio.
AI tooling will be used but I doubt it will change the way blockbuster games (or movies)_operate beyond the usual progression of industry tech.
What those games, games like Stardew Valley, Undertale, or Animal Well can't do is create an endless income stream in the billions, and right now that's the goal of some big "AAA" publishers. They don't want to make good games, they don't want to make any sort of game really, they want to create an addictive platform for further transactions. They want GTA Online, F2P Gachas, and E-Sports.
They don't want to make Stardew Valley no matter how many units it sells, they want to make the next Fortnite. As a result they keep dumping absurd amounts of money into really sketchy projects (Concorde, Anthem, etc) and they can't seem to figure out why people aren't biting. When in doubt if you're an MBA and you see money flying out of the door and the expected return isn't being generated, it must be almost instinctive to raise prices and lay people off.
Of course there are some exceptions. Like Balatro selling 5 million copies (1 developer + 1 composer), the Touhou Project series (solo dev), Slay the Spire (two devs, ), and Terraria (11-person studio, 9'th best selling game of all time with 60,700,000 copies sold as of November 2024).
The big studios seem to like spending a ton of money on games, but there continue to be new IPs created without a massive budget or marketing campaign.
I think in the context of parent comment, it might be true that games just isn't a great business. Gamers don't like low-risk AAA slop. Adjectives for games such as good, successful, praised, lucrative, don't align each others well. Deltarune(Undertale 2) is to launch on Switch 2 for $10 or thereabouts, literally built by one guy, most likely without any use of AI, and it'll undoubtedly sell containers after containers of Switch 2 units totally irrespective of incoming tariffs. That almost make me feel sorry for AAA title publishers such as EA and Epic. I can only assume that they resemble insurance companies than any others.
Speaking of $90 - Nintendo recently announced the Switch 2 and physical copies of the games will be just that, $90.
And the Nintendo Switch has sold 5x as many consoles as did Atari. Likely a similar scale for games sold. Nintendo very likely makes more in total than Atari did, even with lower prices.
The main surprise is that they can bs surprisingly lean with their core development teams to this day. Apparently Super Mario Wonder had a core team of around 20 devs.
Economics that are not that old and that have been reinforced via a 'tailor made' customer culture. Marketing and business culture fucked up consumers beyond any recognition, then quantified them and keep optimizing via peer-flagellation and sociopathic feedback loops.
Economists and leadership's ways are ugly.
And while I don't have anything against copy machines per se, that's not how it's being sold to the public. The public is being told this copy machine is a really good power tool that can do lots of things. So what creatives are hearing is "your work is interchangeable with a slightly smarter copy machine, so stop paying creatives and just rip them off".
Anyone who argues that LLMs are "just stochastic parrots" fundamentally doesn't understand what neural networks do. The power does not come from sampling from a distributions over words but from the multi-dimensional representation. And it is that that enables LLMs to be more than just mechanisms that produce copies of material previously seen in training.
You're still just saying that while stealing a lot from one person is wrong, stealing only a little but from many people would be OK. And the people who are stolen from don't agree with you.
Separately, whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate.
As we've seen, poke an LLM enough and it may simply just spit out a near identical recreation. As of now, it definitely proves that this data isn't just "seen". they very much store it on their databases, and we should treat it as such.
>whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate
There's nothing nuanced about it in my eyes. Especially if some artists explicitly do not want their art trained upon. Not even 3 years ago Microsoft won a court case via LinkedIn regarding the scaping of their website data. How is this phenomenon any different?
Unless we want to destroy Copyright as we know it, it's pretty cut and dry copyright infringement. But we need to tear it down first and just say we don't like current laws.
“I think you are misunderstanding what this tech demo actually is, but I will engage with what I think your gripe is — AI tooling trivializing the skillsets of programmers, artists, and designers.
My first games involved hand assembling machine code and turning graph paper characters into hex digits. Software progress has made that work as irrelevant as chariot wheel maintenance.
Building power tools is central to all the progress in computers.
Game engines have radically expanded the range of people involved in game dev, even as they deemphasized the importance of much of my beloved system engineering.
AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Yes, we will get to a world where you can get an interactive game (or novel, or movie) out of a prompt, but there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
The world will be vastly wealthier in terms of the content available at any given cost.
Will there be more or less game developer jobs? That is an open question. It could go the way of farming, where labor saving technology allow a tiny fraction of the previous workforce to satisfy everyone, or it could be like social media, where creative entrepreneurship has flourished at many different scales. Regardless, “don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.” - John Carmack
- Technological advance
- Political and economical fallout once AI starts replacing a meaningful amount of jobs, and quickly
Me? I'm scared. That's it.
Which is what we have, hence the problem.
Yes, AI has the potential to screw things up royally. But do not mistake its' exacerbation of symptoms as the true illness.
What do you mean, is the pool really shrinking, worldwide? I must have missed some statistics?
When you click a button in Unity or Roblox or whatever to generate a new texture, the thing that gets generated comes from a model that could not have been built without using IP. But because it all got chucked into a blender and turned into an anonymous slurry -- and because AI is a politically important growth industry -- the people whose work went into the slurry will not benefit, at all. They'll never see a dime, while the companies selling the slurry will get billions. A lot of those people are the exact ones whose job will be replaced, which is extra painful when you know it was your own work that was used to replace you.
Although in a sense it's pointless to bring up because that milk is already spilt, and it ain't gonna get back into the container.
And actually, the problem is not that my neighbor who’s passionate about video game design but makes bad games. I’m glad social media is full of that. It’s the highly capitalized content farms that flood the zone.
There was similar criticism to yours when the printing press was invented.
Yes, I think I would make that argument.
But also I think I’m making a different argument. The game market already seems to be pretty flooded. I think many people see it as “we get more great indie games”, but I wonder if we don’t get less. That it creates more of a bipolar distribution. Triple-A relatively unaffected, and more vaporware games but it hollows out the middle.
I also think that “we objected to earlier progress and it turned out ok, therefor all objections to progress are bad” is a logical fallacy.
I can see games being similar, maybe a few creative people invent new genres never seen before, or mix elements in creative ways with AI tools, but I'm guessing it will more likely mean a lot of slight variations of games that bring in money churned out quickly.
A similar thing was discussed in the past, checkmate.
We have this commonsense whig-history where everything became a little bit better century by century. But one could argue that the printing press makes propaganda possible. From that you get thought control by the elite. Now you ironically get an elitist outcome, or an elite-benefiting outcome.
Was the printing press a net good? Maybe it’s more complicated than “more books good”.
When you think of Youtube, you might think of pretty decent stuff but you have to remember the absolute slop like Spiderman/Elsa videos, crude ripoffs and near porn gets many, many more views than the good stuff.
I'm not saying strict gatekeeping is necessary, but open systems are an absolute minefield for humanity. That's clear to me after the last 10 years or so.
With hindsight, one of silent assumptions very common of both pro- and anti-AI arguments up to this point was as follows: because AI is potentially superhuman in arts, the existing selective pressures could inversely punish desired creativity if AI outputs were not unfairly treated. Pro-AI arguments assumed that warping the system is wrong, anti-AI assumed allowing the system go down is worse. IMO, superhuman AI didn't happen anyway, and so now AI slop problem is just spam control problem.
No one was ever against punishing spams and unethical actors. It's fine and safe. We're at a postmortem phase during which we'd patch the bugs in laws and law enforcement that allowed AI companies do outlandish hacks like torrenting books and redistributing it as lossy compressed 500GB GGUF.
But older entertainment doesn't instantly make it better. Will there be more crap? Sure, but that's always been the case. But that also means more stuff of quality.
That could mean it's hard to find the quality stuff, but that's a different issue entirely, and one mostly solved with old school stuff (reviewers, just find reviewers you mostly agree with).
But in the end, good games are still released every year. And many/most of these good games wouldn't exist if the barrier to entry wasn't lowered.
Actually the opposite of what you think might come to happen. If you lower the barrier to entry for creating a movie, we might see a lot more creative ideas coming from people that would never have the chance before
I get the feeling that Balatro is not a well coded game. It was coded by one person. Yet it's a great game. The world will be better with more Balatro's.
This is a question I’ve been pondering post-2000, where are all the new Kevin Smiths?
Where are all the great counter-culture indie movies?
That Market has certainly not exploded post YouTube the way you might think.
This could be the golden age of the reviewer. Yahtzee could make millions!
I used to type in program source code from magazines and had no idea what I was doing until something broke then I had to fix it. If I am honest, that was how I learned how to code.
AI will either teach that kind of thing to the new generation, or coding will become irrelevant. Either way, I think that’s good.
But I still don’t want my bank or airplane guidance software using it.
But when project becomes too big, it can also become discouraging.
Deleted Comment
Not much otherwise.
Given the importance even today of understanding assembly compilation towards low level game performance, I'm surprised he'd say this. It wasn't rendered obsolete, it was abstracted away from most of the stack. Meanwhile you need to understand assuembly even more intimately to look under the hood of a modern day game or game engine. esoteric does not mean outdated.
>AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Okay, I'll believe it when I see it. You said the same about Oculus. I'm not even doubting that VR will evolve to a revolution one day. But technology's march can be slow at times.
And that's one of my top 3 problems; I think like VR's hardware barrier, AI is hitting barriers on how iterations with LLMs work. It seems industry's been brute forcing it and we clearly hit a wall already. But we haven't rethought the approach yet. We're just promising and prpmising.
>there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
Depends on how legal proceedings go. At least Quake is Open Source and kinda free ( I think). The vast majority of games probbaly won't let you train that easily. They spent decades making it as hard as possible to back them up, after all.
>“don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.
If industry is going to fire you anyway, it's the only move. If industry worked on fostering workers instead of replacing them, they wouldn't be worried. Instead it's finally starting to unionize to protect itself.
I doubt you'd get the easy moddability into an engine with AI, one of the huge points for the longevity.