Marvel’s Avengers looks like it has more problems than just lackluster visuals. Hopefully a strong foundation will be enough for Crystal Dynamics to turn things around. Check out OnlySP’s thoughts on the game’s E3 demo.
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.
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.
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.
Windows Central writes: "Many PlayStation Studios games that are ported to PC get dedicated PS5 DualSense support, which allows users to experience haptic feedback and adaptive trigger support without actually having to own a PS5.
According to Hermen Hulst, head of PlayStation Studios, it's still the company's intent to launch the bigger single-player games on PS5 first, before later bringing the games to PC. This might not be the case for multiplayer games however, which are considered okay to launch simultaneously on console and PC."
My guess is after god of war. Probably last of us 2 that's a almost 4 year old game now and by the time it's released on pc it will be more than 4 years old or close to 5.
Right. I definitely see what a headlined from a website named windows central was trying to do though. It's cute little wordplay to help out the green box
Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie. This is something of a homecoming, as Microsoft owns Activision.
I guess.
How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )
At least it wouldn't be MS of all ppl destroying them.
MS really should let go Tango go like they did TFB here.
one was under Bethesda (Tango) the other under Activision (TFB). Clearly each one handled the separations of their subordinates differently.
"How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )"
Perhaps because Zenimax and ABK handles such matters differently based on their own internal policies as "independent" publishers.
Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future. Which could also be the reason why they ensured an exclusive partnership with TFB and its new game, before anyone else.
Sad and disgusting. But it is what it is.
"Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future."
MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB.
It's inexcusable, they have options on how to handle studios they don't want anymore with killing jobs. Not just MS but the rest of the industry also.
Sad and disgusting sure how many will get shut down next year or this year even?
I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another.
"MS has a bad rep now because those studios are no more. I rather them sell the studio continue to make multiplatform releases, while MS continues to focus on whatever they're doing. If they didn't want Tango around they should separated from them or sell them to, like they did TFB."
Imo, MS separated from TFB because they didn´t had a game associated with Xbox yet, unlike Tango.
"I don't trust MS decisions and motivations at this point. You have to admit they make one dumb move after another."
Fair enough. It was indeed an epic dumb move from them to close Tango.
Still, all to be forgotten, like always have. This is not the first time a big publisher shuts down a beloved and/or successful studio out of nowhere and certainly won´t be the last. Do you remember Lionhead? Do you remember Evolution Studios? Yeah... both were beloved studios and yet, those companies kill those studios in q blink of an eye and got away with it.
The studio boss made some money from this transaction. Once the game releases, the studio will get chopped up.
Manages to buy their freedom especially after all the shit Microsoft has been doing with its studios lately
...
Goes right back to them as partners.
Okaaaaaay...
Id venture a guess that TFB working directly with MS was a better outcome than working through Activision to get to MS.
From the article...
"Toys for Bob spun out as an indie back in February after Microsoft instituted sweeping layoffs that impacted 86 employees, which was more than half of the staff"
I doubt those 86 employees enjoyed the Microsoft experience over Activisions.
MS shuts down studios because of lack of resources and then helps these guys by giving em resources. Also MS is what forced them to buy their freedom in the first place? What kind of logic 😂
The best thing is that the company that is worth $3 trillion and owns the company instead of Xbox lacks resources. How the hell does a company worth $3 trillion making a measly $70 billion purchase they 'can't' support. Lol
The reason they would need to "partner with Microsoft" is simply to make a game that's part of a franchise that Microsoft owns. Meaning they're probably going to make a new Spyro game - they're still an independent studio, but are making a game in a franchise that Microsoft owns. It's kind of like Remedy partnering with Rockstar to be able to make the Max Payne remakes.
Xbox’s gaming division seems to still function as 3 semi-autonomous sub-divisions, Xbox Studios, Bethesda and ABK. The three main sub-divisions can seemingly shut down or build studios and set up partnerships independently. This would explain why Bethesda can recently shutdown studios, while ABK spins off one studio, while building a new one. Plus, Toys for Bob could be spun off by ABK, only to immediately re-partner with Microsoft.
That's absolutely 💯 BS. Any sane 'autonomous' company would NOT put their games on Gamepass day 1 like COD will lose probably billions.
Also they're all under Xbox game studios so any autonomy is an illusion.
No, I'm sure MS can and does step in when they want something done specifically but I'm also sure they let them also work independently
I highly highly doubt this. Ms controls all. The guys aren't gonna be allowed to just shut something down like that without approval. No way
Don´t worry. You won´t be playing it anyway since their next game will possible be a next gen Xbox console game.
Hey you said that about SOT and looks like many ppl on PS is playing it. You also found bugsnax interesting ffs your opinion hold no weight lol.
Bugsnax is BS, tried it & quickly deleted it. It's a game that fits right on Gamepass. PS5 owners that are probably playing the boring SOT you could count on one hand. LMAO!!...don't try to come for me.
So you admit bugsnax interested you enough to try? 😂 someone gotta call you out on the foolishness.
I just hate how much this clearly apes the MCU. If they were going for the original 5 Avengers with the addition of Captain America that would’ve been fine, but Wasp is nowhere to be seen while Black Widow is prominently featured.
Of all the characters they could’ve chosen to be one of the first faces audiences see when this was unveiled, it just had to be a character who wasn’t even that big a member of the team in the comics but definitely was so in the movies.
I’d have more faith in it if it tried to go for its own style. I’m not against shoutouts here and there, but this clearly looks as close to a movie-tie in game as you could get without actually being one.
The character skins look dull and drab because, we get to buy the shiny fancy colourful ones on release, for the special price of a years worth of dlc. Come on nothing is free in the gaming multiverse. Fornite is free too guys. Lol. Tell that to the poor parents hows back accounts got emptied. What kind of games put enough micro transactions, to not just lower your bank balance, but clear it out. Free game for the win.
Should give it to Insomniac
One of the Directors of Uncharted Lost Legacy is directing this game. I have every trust in him that he will do right by this IP.
I guess I'm the outcast here because I love what I seen on the gameplay. The fighting seems fluid, the way they switch seems awesome and the scenes themselves seem constantly cinematic. Maybe I'll know for sure when they show direct footage but as of now even from the off screen for this, it looks pretty awesome me. Perhaps a bit shallow but...