Gaming

27990 readers

174 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Metallinatus@lemmy.ml

peternile@lemmy.ml

"The 'AI Stigma' is real and severely punishes developers": A new study shows how much using AI in games hurts sales, and the numbers are hard to believe (www.windowscentral.com)

submitted 17 hours ago by Salamence@mander.xyz to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8882542

It's a different story for the more established studios with an existing following and previous titles. Game Oracle found that the use of AI by these studios resulted in a significant 40% to 60% drop in sales.

That's a huge difference. AI stigma seems to hit competent developers with a lot to lose the hardest, and I'm not sure that game studios are ready to accept it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

I understand what you’re saying, but you’re talking about real world examples rather than the mechanics at play.

Let’s said you have the best engineer in the world. They are fantastic as describing nuanced, complex ideas. The fastest they can write is about 300 words per minute. The fastest they can read is 1200 words per minute.

Put them up against an AI model. They write at 6000 wpm & read at like 11 mil or something ridiculous.

Now, you’re making the argument, “Speed isn’t everything!” and that’s true. Which would rather you have, though: the same engineer, the AI, or the same engineer using the AI? I’d argue you’d rather have them both, because you have someone who can describe what they want in depth, they can point it towards heuristics or targets, and they can setup evals or governance strategies to better control the output.

I’m not trying to be dismissive, but I work with competent, smart people. My experiences have been the opposite. 🤷

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The problem has never ever ever been words per minute. That is a completely irrelevant metric. A distraction.

Anything the AI produces is going to need to be evaluated by a person, and that is a more difficult, less rewarding task.

And if it doesn't need to be reviewed by a person because it's magically flawless, that's extremely anti-labor so fuck that.

[–] AldinTheMage@ttrpg.network 3 points 10 hours ago

It's harder to review code than to write code. On our team reviewing has always been the bottleneck. Faster output would actually make things harder in some cases.

[–] Epp@lemmus.org -1 points 12 hours ago

Good luck. They've been taught to hate AI, and their brains shut off as soon as you say anything positive about it.