Many Oculus Touch titles will be announced before 2017, and you can expect some this week.
The talented music maker discusses her process, challenges and, of course, magic!
Sony owns a fair few iconic franchises - many dating right back to the original PlayStation. But while we’re pretty familiar with the likes of ongoing series such as God of War, Horizon, and Gran Turismo, there are plenty of PlayStation franchises that haven’t seen the light of day in a long time. So in this video, we’re going to be taking a look at the status of PlayStation’s many IPs, and checking in on when we last heard from them.
Indeed. We hear this “underutilized” talk as if every old franchise should have a comeback or reboot.
When new IPs start looking like Concord, you can't blame people for wanting another Resistance or Killzone instead.
J&D and Resistance are good ones. As much as I love these, though, I'm not sure they would payoff without an enormous marketing push. Younger gamers today do not have taste and the older gamers that would appreciate these might not be enough. But yeah, I would day 1 Resistance.
Well that’s just the consequence of consistently producing new IPs isn’t it. Not all studios can be or want to be like polyphony digital who made gran turismo all the time.
Here lies The Infamous Series; once a shining beacon of free flying, lighting bolt sniping, and wire riding amazing gameplay, it has been laid to rest and be forgotten for what seems like forever despite being loved by millions. Plot next to Wipeout across from NBA Jam.
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick doesn't think AI will reduce employment or lower development costs, and calls it "stupidest thing" he's ever heard.
They already have AI trained to do coding.......
How he thinks it's stupid is beyond me, Especially since we see it happening in real time.
Company A has 300 employees and lays of 200 to replace them with AI to release the same quality game.
Company B has 300 employees and keeps all 300 but instead uses AI to release a game with dramatically larger scale, scope, complexity, short dev cycle etc.
Company B would release a dramatically better product by using humans + AI and consumers would buy the better game.
I actually agree with this concept.
This is key facet. Its how the AI is used. It's actually is impressive as is and really would make an amazing addition to alot of people in their jobs, not just tech. It also has the potential for businesses to use to lay off large amounts of people, as much as they could to save money on labor. I hope too many companies don't go with the latter. But since usually companies are worried about bottom line over people...we will see some try and hopefully fail. But yeah, if its to help workers like in your company B scenario I'm totally down...Just scared Company A may be too enticing to some ceos and businesses.
Value of AI and value of humans will both be increased with human-AI complex. Each, by themselves, will not be independently better than the other. Whether AI will ever be independent from humans is the fear question of humans, ironically because of our doing. At this stage, most of the doing is because of humans, not because of AI. AI is doing exactly that by our design, until we have failed ourselves with an AI development that went awry. The biggest take is that humans have only ourselves to blame when things become wrong, and we have to decide what is the ultimate goal with AI we want to accomplish. It would take a person with high morals and high ethics to make right of AI. I would not want businessman to decide what AI should do or what capabilities it can have. AI should be in the hands of people with high moral fiber, or those operating on love, kindness, and compassion.
AI is SUPPOSED to be used as a tool, not a replacement. It's designed to do two important things artists can take advantage of immediately.
- Make the ideation/reference imaging process much quicker and easier (basically using it as a google search)
- Make mundane and time consuming tasks faster and easier so more time is spent on creation.
Unfortunately, what many have done is used it as a way to replace rather than supplement.
CS7
In the ideal world yes.
In the real world where companies have shown little desire to innovate and spent every effort to maximize profits the end result will be the same quality games (if were lucky) made by less people and more AI.
Company Real World: Fires 200 people and makes the same game cheaper using AI and the executives get record bonuses.
Edit:
Lets look at history, specifically auto manufacturing.
In the 70's and 80's the auto unions tried to oppose automation of jobs (robots) stating that they would take peoples jobs. And the people in charge who wanted to make more money said the exact same types of things that are being said about AI. But we can look at history and see that countless types of jobs were in fact replaced by automation, that was of course even compounded upon by computers.
The net effect was that the rich got richer less jobs were needed so wages were forced down by competition for the jobs that were left.
that concept works in the initial beginning phase of AI but once AI learns and surpasses the knowledge and coding expertise of even the best human employee than this CEO will no longer need competent humans in that line of work.
@Hue_My£D_Long
Yes but that is a choice then by massively increased productivity and this greater income and wealth and stagnating with similar levels of productivity and output and not creating much wealth. Usually the option that creates wealth prevails because a rising tide raises all ships.
You can already make your own SFX with text prompts now as well, of course it will lower development cost and time
WARNING WARNING ‼️ SARCASM AHEAD
Sure Strauss and robots didn’t take jobs from car factories.
Edit:Sad thing is he believes it and unfortunately he won’t be replaced for a long time by AI
He doesn't, he's just lying. These people lay people off so they can get bonuses. If AI takes jobs, their bonus goes bigger and the workforce goes smaller.
Because he sees AI as a tool to aid development. He wants to use AI to help make bigger and better games in the same timeframe. Other CEOs want to replace devs with AI to cut costs and make lifeless games faster for a quick buck. Strauss has the right idea, this is how AI should be used. To extend and expand the capabilities of devs.
There will be few companies who will go overboard and try to replace their employees with AI tech. The ones that will make the most money will be the ones that utilize ai, along with their employee talent, to make the best product possible
AI could handle some of the most time consuming processes. To expediate the development, so in return, costing the publisher's last money end time.
Not reliably they haven't. Coding done by ai is generally abysmal for all but the most generic tasks.
I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.
I think you mean candor, not intelligence.
If you take him to mean what he's saying at face value, sure.
I don't. And I think he's clearly lying.
As long as it doesn't effect his inflated executive salary or his ridiculous bonuses I'm sure he's fine with it.
I hate having to wait until OC3 until we get a darned Touch release date. I just want them already.. :P
Like how closed the platform is.
Example :
Operating System compatibility
In order for the Oculus Rift to work with your computer, you need to have one of the following operating systems:
Windows 7 (64-bit) with Service Pack 1
Windows 8.1
Windows 10
https://support.oculus.com/...
And
Can I use Vive with a Mac?
Currently, Vive is only compatible with PCs.
https://www.htcvive.com/eu/...
And this:
The HTC Vive and Valve's SteamVR don't yet support Linux and SteamOS
Like the Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive is Windows-only.
http://www.pcworld.com/arti...
As was pointed out , Both Vive and OculusRift as of right now are exclusive only to the Windows Operating systems..thus a closed Environment!
Neonridr56m ago
[@joeorc - doesn't change the fact that at this point all three headsets are closed systems. The Rift and Vive have more potential to be open than the PSVR does]
Thank you, and as for the rift and Vive to be or have more potential to be open than PSVR does..that is a yes and a no.
For example: with the case of PSVR, Sony has stated that they are infact open to bringing PSVR support to other platforms..now what those platforms are is anyone's guess, and if I was a betting man it most likely would be The AndroidOS , reason being Sony has a vested interest in the Android OS, and 2nd just like the Samsung Gear VR is a Oculus certified device. No doubt Sony is thinking about making such a PSVR certified device for AndroidOS based Smartphones.
But if there is the current PSVR model that is tethered to the PlayStation working with the PC , than yes I do infact agree with you in that fact that OculusRift and Vive have more potential to make support for Linux and other OS's than Windows Only vs the PSVR.
@NohansenBoy54m ago
[PSVR is also anti consumer crap. Go Vive or OSVR if OSVR shows great potential]
How is it anymore anti consumer crap , than any other closed platform..lol
While I agree if you want to truely have an open platform only open source is the most open, but on the same token..someone or a group of people had to be the ones that make the platform or platform's..so it's their right as the creative talents to benefit from such if they want..it's our choice as consumers to agree or not agree with their decisions.