PLAY discuss ramifications of the acquisition, the status of Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, and whether we should be cautious of a monopoly.
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.
The Persona / Shin Megami Tensei cosplay gathering allowed fans of the acclaimed JRPG series to meet up during FanimeCon 2024.
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
It's what I've always been saying. Just like being against paying for online. But there are gamers who don't think long term or are influencers hiding in the threads to help push the agenda.
I've said it over and over. Microsoft isn't about gaming. They're about owning it and controlling gaming and make gamers pay an annual payment that's a revenue stream to them by using games as the carrot just like Windows. I've said Game Pass is just DRM 2013 2.0. If they're successful, they will hurt used games, lending and trading as has been said before.
Nothing good comes from mega corporations given free reign. Just more money out of pocket and limited options in the future. The fans will say it's great what's happening not seeing that multiplatform games are being bought out in favor of a service and hurts everyone else.
Remember when I said over and over about EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXSTINGUISH? It's been their modus operandi all this time. Sony has just been able to thwart their plans. Game pass was created since DRM 2013(always online) failed but they didn't give up on it. They are grooming gamers with it. They get you to like it with cheap price of entry, try to make it a standard by extending it to other platforms but their competitor, to try to put them at a disadvantage. It's text book. I've read the book and seen it coming in paperback and hard cover. They couldn't beat Nintendo or Sony through competition. So, they'll buy everything out to either make money off of their competitor if the games stay on other platforms. Or take away what everyone enjoyed. Just like they tried to force XBL gamers over to game pass with that price hike, they are trying to force gamers to buy an Xbox by locking games down.
Some will say butt hurt. But it's the industry and your wallets that will hurt soon enough if you want to continue playing the games you like. I've tried to tell what they were doing and still trying to do. I warned you. Get ready for the repercussions. Thanks Microsoft. I see through that smile two faced Phil.
All I know, every time I look at Phil Spencer, he looks more and more like Tony Robbins.
Well, with all the controversy going on with Activision, who best to associate that with than Microsoft. Oh, and Bobby Kotick remains the CEO, all that talk of "WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT!" and with the Microsoft acquisition, its like that never happened and Microsofts lawyers will cleanup. Yay....
It's going to be great seeing the new games from these newly aquired studios appear on GP day and date. And even waiting for the older games to get added.
Microsoft is really going out of their way to provide as much content as possible for their users and their GP subscribers. Not bad for a company was criticized for not having a lot of game variety and first party studios.
It's funny to see some people upset with overdramatic claims that MS wants to control gaming and charge people a fee, as if the competition is offering all their games for free. Or the take that MS is ruining gaming by removing games off of multiple platforms, even when MS has provided more ways to play their games then any other platform.
Game Pass truly is a game changer and it has offered more games for anyone to play for an exceptionally low price. Personally I have played more games and games I would have never had purchased through that service. And that's what we all are here for, to play games, it's great that MS is providing even more content for their service.