During Ubisoft's financial conference call, CEO Yves Guillemot and CFO Frédérick Duguet talked about the next fiscal year and beyond.
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.
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.
I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.
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
Days Gone director claims Sony has already poured in at least a $250M in Bend's project; says Days Gone sold more than Death Stranding.
Well that sucks. Seems they want more online trash. I'd rather of had the sequel if it was single player
The past has nothing to do with the future. This is such a terrible argument. Everyone knows about their current live service push.
It's so tragic what happened to days gone. It is such an amazing game but bandwagoners trashed it and it underperformed in it's launch year. Days gone is the best open world zombie game released in the past five years. I was recently playing it on pc and I'm still amazed by it.
Games are very expensive to make and it seems like it's normal for a AAA game to cost over a quarter billion to make so if a quality game like days gone greatly underperforms then people shouldn't be upset when they see a lot of GAAS. I still remember a lot of bandwagoners calling days gone trash but years later it's now amazing when it's considered a failure by sony.
If a game isn't the best thing seen since hats with pockets then a lot of gamers who haven't played it automatically calls it rubbish and whoever made it should be incarcerated
Co CEO prefers gamers to boycott.. so be it. I’ll never buy a gaas.
Just imagine buying a game you cannot replay in some years.. this shit must stop.
Days Gone did zombies in a very original way. The story was also so engaging. You actually only meet Zombie hordes later in the game. There are many more enemy groups to deal with.
@Notelin
I am one of the few who bought Days Gone on release day and loved it completely.
However, "more online trash" is phrased like Sony has put out alot of trash online games.
We got what, 2 games? Helldivers 2 and GT7, 2 of the most sold Playstation games where both is loved by millions.
You, me and especially shinoff has no idea if Fairgames, Marathon and Concord will be trash.
Just because we (as in you and me) don't love or support online games, doesn't mean millions of other do.
And we don't know what Bend Studio is working with? We don't know if they're forced to make a online game or another amazing single player experience.
The only thing we do know is that it's not Days Gone, sadly due to poor sales the first 6 months.
More online trash wasmt meant how insee it comes across. I should've worded it different I was meaning the focus they currently have on it.
Anything online is online trash to me. How long did naughty dog spend on that dumba last of us multiplayer, how about Concord, or even the other couple we hear about. I fk with Sony because rpgs and their 1st party single player games. Been like that for years. I hate seeing them waste time, money, and talent on trash. I understand bot every game is gonna be for me but this focus they've seem to had on multiplayer is extremely disheartening. Even at the state of play the only things I was really feeling were Astrobot and silent hill 2 and I'm content with that, not everything is for me. It's just the online focus I hate. Ms bought up 3 to 4 wrpgs developers, Sony just ignores rpgs 1st party wise.
And a days gone 2 would've been much better then whatever online sht bend is working on. I do know sometimes I get very idk emotional. I do need to work on toning that down a bit lol
Ammm let's see... That All-stars, Foamstars, Babilon 5 wass gaas...
Concord... can wait to play that...Marathon uuuu... Last of them gaas... U
Horizon Zero dawn has a project that leaked as a Fortnite lookalike.
They bought Destiny that is a dead gaas...people love ti.
Helldivers 2 was luck.
Jimbo was all in and pushed Sony single player games 5 years behind.
Spiderman gaas was cancelled... I mean every 1st party studio was doing gaas.
Bend had to pitch a gaas game... Open world coop something
I can't remember more... Of that crap.
@simpledad. Destiny 2 isn't a dead game. Its the number 5 most played game on steam. I dont play it, but alot of people do.
@SimpleDad
You failed to mention a single PS Studios game that has been released last 10 years.
Either your reading skills are crap or you think Sony own every studio in the world.
I rolled my eyes at concord not only was it just yet another cookie cutter hero shooter but that qucik look for the hero select.
Already has a free section then paid section along with a they/them she/her dei crap top right.
Nothing like a day off of work to fire up concord to read about the new characters sexual identity and or preference then a paywall do you want o buy this character shit like no i just want to shoot my gun have fun.
It would be a shame if it was true that Hermen never gave the franchise a chance simply because he didn't like it and they already had a "Zombie" game with TLOU.
NaughtyDog are most likely moving onto a new IP next so it would have been the perfect time to do it.
Days gone 2 was canceled before Herman was in charge. That happened like 4 years ago.
4 years ago he was head of Playstation Studios. He would've probably had a hand in the cancelation.
Man two seconds of research could have saved you from this comment. Amazing work Grilla you fit in with the uniformed N4G community who speaks before verifying anything that they say.
Maybe encourage people to buy the game at full price and not when it's heavily discounted or go on plus. If this game had sold well when it was full priced a sequel would have been in the works. They made a single-player game that most people didn't support until they dropped the price.
The guy’s just a moron.. he should have stayed within game development. His choices will have a terrible impact on the brand in the long run.
Dude is pretty pathetic. Sounds like a guy who's girl left him for someone better. Always talking about days gone sequel that never was, even though he is no longer at bend and hasnt been for a while. I for one am not upset about the lack of a sequel. It is one of the worst 1st party games in recent memory. Completely jank, played like an xbox game. The only redeeming quality was the hordes.
Yep. Kind of weird since it wasn't a sales flop, no?
I know we have to take what Ross says with a grain of salt since we're hearing just one side of the story, but even so, the game wasn't bad at all. Heck, it's my brother's favorite last-gen game from what I recall.
The amount of zombies on screen, imagine that with the PS5 and SSD? That would be insanely fun!
Most copies were sold on sale. Not enough ppl bought it at full price. I paid 20$ for it 6 -7 months after release.
Yeah we should never believe the creators side until we hear the corporate/big business side as history has shown we should always believe billion dollar corporations.
What a bootlicker statement.
@Notellin, of course you'll believe an embittered ex-employee with an axe to grind because it's evil Sony he's complaining about. You guys act like days gone was this huge success and somehow Sony hates easy money a sequel would have generated. The game was mid and so was the response to it. They're still supporting the developer who is making a new ip that could be great.
Days gone was fantastic. I bought day one but didn't get around to it for months. When I finally did I was pissed at myself for waiting so long lol
Well I don’t want 10 live service games, but they have no problem doing that lol. Ugh.
Oh great so we only get what the big wigs want… y’know, the people that really have their fingers on the pulse of what their consumers want. Faaaaantastic!
Well consider they know the sales... they do know what the consumer wants.
It sold shit.
But if it’s true what this guy says it sold better than Death Stranding
Yet that got a sequel and Kojima aside out of them both DS didn’t really NEED a sequel compared to Days Gone which ended on such a cliff hanger twist.
More watered down sequels. No thanks.
No they don't. It will be a game chopped into bits a resold, while aggressively pushing MTs. It's sad because the quality is there. Image building an excellent game, then smashing half of it into many pieces and reselling it to the potential buyer. The DEvs crafted a solid game, but some greedy A"#$%& shows up a somehow turns a diamond into a turd.