PlzGibHugs

Just accidentlly hit post, and the immediate delete took too long to federate.

From my understanding, Valve would need to be hundreds of times more wealthy to be able to even consider manufacturing their own DRAM.

Edit: notably, this article seems to suggest that after significant government investmemt and with an already well-established knowledge and IP base, a fab costs around $15 billion dollars and optimisticly, a decade of construction. Given that Valve is starting from scratch, the price will be much higher. Chinese companies, backed by the Chinese government and using significant amounts of corporate espionage, have been trying to achive this for about 20 years, and are only just starting to catch up, nonetheless one (relatively) small software company.

It just isn’t cohesive and its morally bankrupt beyond that so it gives people the big ick

But that lack of cohesion is exactly what makes it ugly, esspecially when split between a number of seperate assets. That said, I’m not convinced that that doesn’t have a huge impact on sales/perception, esspecially compared to an indirect factor like the resource waste and political influences of AI companies. Think of how little impact things like EA and Tencent’s immorality and anti-consumer behavior have on sales. Is AI really that much worse in perception than a company like that, or is it just down to the fact that the games look worse? Thats what I want measured.

Don’t Stop Girlypop is such a vibe wym ugly

I’d imagine people care more about a cohesive visual direction than they care about “pretty”. A lot of AI art already captures what an average jane would probably consider pretty, in a shallow sense. It just isn’t cohesive and its morally bankrupt beyond that so it gives people the big ick

I would be willing to bet that the people who were previously doing human made slop like you described are now the ones making the AI slop. They were already doing minimal effort; it makes sense they’d do even less when presented the option.

You’re overestimating both how good AI is and how little effort a lot of these developers want to put in.

Generally, AI tools struggle with any type of specialized work and the same extends to game development. From my own testing, AI tends to butcher all but the simplest game coding tasks as a result of the larger and often very disjointed programming involved, and in terms of asset creation, it can create a lot of more generalized assets, but if you need a repeating texture or a texture for a 3d model, things immediately fall apart. That not to say it can’t be done, but its a suprising amount of work for what is supposed to be an automation tool, and when compared to the old solution, is it really much better than just buying a premade game, and maybe swapping one or two things?

That said, my question is more that AI is ugly, soulless, and samey, but human art (and “”“art”“”) can be too. Do equivalent human works receive similarly lower reviews, or do the additional consequences of AI use actually factor in to people’s perceptions, and if so, how much? For example, is a asset flip designed to rip people off going to be reviewed just as badly as a particularly soulless AI game, or AI going to be worse? Similarly, if you have a game with good programming and design, but AI assets, would it preform the same as something ugly in a human way like Cruelty Squad, or would it perform worse? Basically, how much of the negativity is because AI use has a bunch of negative effects, and how much of it is because the results of AI use are bad?

It’d be pretty hard to test in a meaningful way, but I’d be curious how big the impact of AI art is on a game’s initial perception compared to human-made slop such as asset flips or a lot of the mobile market and compared to human-made ugly games like Cruelty Squad or Don’t Stop Girlypop.

Basically, define how much the humanity is important, versus “prettyness”, versus dislike of AI for indirect reasons.

Direct link to the study: https://www.psycnet.org/doi/10.1037/ppm0000672

Unfortunately, its paywalled, but I’d be curious about the methodology and population.