What content generation would not fall under “what artists and designers normally do”?

>Gen AI is good for replacing not what humans would normally do, but what algorithms would normally handle but aren't great at.

sadly, the 9000 layoffs in NA this year seems to show what they really want to do with AI.

I've always though the current AI technology we have would be perfect for generating new planets or fauna in a game like No Mans Sky. I feel most players wouldn't have a problem with it being used that way.

>no one will notice the AI-generated textures in good games that have actual standards for art.

I don't know. Clair Obscur is about as good as it gets and gamers notice. or at least, other devs who are also gamers notice it.

The community was always a much more "hyperactive" scene, and it doesn't seem like AI is an exception. Thing that may blow over in other industries will be eviscerated here, especially in a time where there's more cynicism than ever among the gaming community and the AAA industry.

There’s a section “The Specific Use of Gen AI Matters” in the article. Arc Raiders uses GenAI to voice npc characters. I wish it didn’t, but this is not something that’d affect gameplay much.

That’s a little harder to disentangle for a work of art. There is only one and if you want to experience it, you have to take the good with the bad. Plenty of people may hate a particular actor, but will still watch a film featuring them.

Owing to network effects, games can be extra sticky because you want to consume the same media as your friends.

I would prefer a mushy human was responsible for the art I consume, but I am probably not going to boycott a game because it uses AI for some assets.

Doesn’t seem like they surveyed whether use of AI would actually affect purchasing or playing decisions. I think your implication is correct that it mostly won’t.

Conflating actions and feelings is how businesses become hated. I'm not buying the expensive eggs because I believe they are a good price.

Complete lie.

ARC Raiders uses AI for generated voice or TTS; it's hardly in the same field as generative AI which is mass scraped from the internet and churned out of a matrix math black box. They paid voice actors for the training and likeness, and the AI is used for future flexibility, and the VAs know this and its part of the contract they sign

They also use AI for the robotic kinematics which looks absolutely fantastic. When you blow up robots they zoom around and correct themselves exactly how you would imagine an evil robot to behave

AAA is never going back to 10 people in a garage making Sim City. Nor funding a team that does this. The market, tech, and expectations of a game are too drastic for that to be the norm ever again.

As for the indie scene, AI isn't going to solve the problems on why they don't sell well. It's not assets nor tech that holds the scene back at the moment.

If everyone on the planet is a gamer (8.26 billion people), your "99.9999%" figure would mean that only 8260 gamers--in the entire world--care.

I'm one of those gamers. I'm pretty sure we can find more than 8259 others.

This is a survey of gamers that shows the overwhelming majority claim to hate it. Do you think they are only sampling that minority?

It's basicaly this, combined with the fact that most gamers think that AI means "slop".

But AI has completely legit non-slop use in games: texture gen, 3D model gen, Suno for audio, programming,...