Today, during Take-Two Interactive Software's financial conference call, chief executive officer Strauss Zelnick talked about the next-generation of consoles, while president Karl Slatoff gave a broad idea of the games in development.
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.
As PlayStation announces its new strategy to encourage PC users to choose PS5 it is a bitter-sweet moment for PC gamers.
I mean, it's a business based on hardware market. Do we expect them to not even try? It's not like Nintendo doesn't do the same by not putting any games on PC and Microsoft until recently did the same. I don't care what they attempt, as long as they don't abuse the community or lie about their goals/requirements.
Will it work? Not likely. Should we care? No. Let them waste their time, it doesn't affect anything.
let them try ... at the end of the day, we get few extra PC games ... yay ... and also promotes game preservation via PC ... so double yay.
If only Playstation games provided the ease of pc gaming features.
Primary being very few PS games support m/kb.
If only PC games supported controllers more. Main reason I play primarily on console. So many games have shit support on PC. Playing Dark Envoy now, and it's quite frustrating since I have to switch to keyboard during cut scenes just to make sure advancing conversation doesn't also auto-select a decision. Let alone it's quite rough to select between characters and inventory screens are bad bad bad.
Anywho, similar complaints for both I find. But, I 100% agree that both PC and consoles should support both as best as possible.
PS may push more kb support in the future to get more PC converts, we'll see.
As someone with a high end PC, I feel like the ease is on PS5. Too many PC games are a troubleshooting nightmare, which few people have the time for when all you want to do is pop in a game & play it.
I just use an Xbox controller on my laptop for everything 😆 .. I haven't used a keyboard / mouse combo for PC gaming since 1996
I don't think you understand what I mean by the lack of m/kb support on PS.
Over a thousand titles have PS controller support on PC.
Not even 30 titles have m/kb support on PS5.
Once you are done with the single player title, you'll go back to playing your daily shooter/looter/mmo etc which the pc gamer has mastered with their mouse and keyboard.
Why would any pc gamer make the switch?
PC is secondary to PlayStation for them. Mouse and keyboard would affect development. Live service will have it but most single player games aren’t going to have it as PC is not the focus
I didn't miss it. I explained why I, a former PC only gamer, now play primarily on consoles. I don't play MP games, and the games I tend to play are better supported with controllers on console. Let alone some games aren't even supported with controller at all on PC. On console you are guaranteed the best support since it's the primary input. The fact is, PC isn't the best choice for every gamer just like consoles aren't the best choice for every gamer.
If you wanted to only disparage consoles and ignore any benefit of console, cool. But that's not how it is. There is no perfect platform for everyone. It's why we have the hardware market that we have.
I wish them the best of luck.
But PC players are often a patient bunch, many will even wait for Epic launcher exclusivity to end until a game comes to Steam.
If they didnt buy the console when its games were exclusive, why would they do it now theyre not?
All you need is that one game that'll make a few switch at a time. Like a game a PC player REALLY wants.
It just doesn't work that way though. Plenty of the best games ever made were never available on PC. That didn't make PC gamers buy consoles to play them. This kind of strategy has never worked in the past and it won't work now. It's fine for PS to hold their games back and release on PC later, but to think that will boost console sales is wishful thinking. All this will accomplish is some double dipping, which is obviously good for business.
People aren't going to switch from pc to ps5, why would anyone do that for a game?
Most sony exclusives aren't all that to begin with, and pc has the option to upgrade what they want when they want it. Having access to some ps5 games, gamepass and steam.
Thinking this would happen is naive
I mean if there's 10 million pc gamers out there...getting atleast just 1 million from there is probably a good thing..right?
PC players are not a monolith, I don't know why people keep thinking they speak for the entirety of all PC gamers like they all know each other personally. You think out of the millions of PC gamers not one single person will be impatient?Well Sony is willing to bet there will be. Why would they do it now? People's feelings change and new PC gamers come along all the time that may also feel different about waiting, that's why.
PC gamers are just too patient and loyal to their gaming set ups, something they've spent a lot of money on to perfect. They have backlogs of games which many never get round to finishing or get round to at all and will always have other multiplatform releases to keep them going.
Over the many years Sony has published so many awesome titles such as The Last of Us, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Infamous, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, Dreams, Puppeteer, Resistance, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo, Motor Storm, God of War, Horizon, Ratchet and Clank, Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, Bloodborne
If none of those games BEFORE all these PC ports convinced a hardcore PC gamer to get a PS5 console then why on Earth would porting them them to PC now make any difference? All PC gamers now know 100% is that they just have to be patient, which they are good at anyway to get a PS5 game 2 years later.
I get GaaS games or multiplayer focused titles but if people really want to play these games they'd have gotten a PS console years ago.
Not sure they're aiming to convince the hardcore PC gamer.
Not sure why people are obsessing over his comment...it seems pretty simple to me.
He will do all he can to entice gamers to move to his ecosystem. As you say....exclusives existing hasn't moved many gamers over. But if they get to try them and love the games then they might change their mind about waiting 2 years.
We're in an echo chamber on this site...I've Personally seen people with Xbox and PC setups but no PlayStation. I've also seen people with small PC setups but no console. Not every pc gamer invests thousands and many may decide to put one in the living room.
They're not looking to convince all of players to buy a PlayStation...just a few...and really it is just a PR statement after all...they have to give a reason why single player won't release day 1....not to mention they also have to ensure current PlayStation gamers don't jump ship to PC. It goes both ways and they're ignoring the big L by putting any of their games off their platform.
it's not just about loyalty or sunk cost, pc is an open platform while consoles are closed platforms. If you for example want to mod, you will play on pc, no question about it. Also if you like indie games, steam is a fucking goldmine for that. I've been playing a lot of indie games over the last years and there just seems to be an endless amount of them on steam. Also not having games locked to a certain fps is a prettty big deal for me and I assume a lot of other pc players.
@Walalon Steam sales are basically the same as PS sales. I was going to buy a Steam Deck and I heard about these Steam sales but the games I was interested in were not any cheaper. Indie games were cheap and older AAA were cheap but the same can be said for PS store sales. I didn’t end up getting the Steam Deck as there weren’t any games that I wanted to play that wasn’t already on PS and prices aren’t much different
And how do you know out of the millions of PC gamers that not one single person ever went ahead and bought a PlayStation console for one or more of those games? People keep speaking for the entirety of millions of PC gamers like they know them all personally. Here's one example for you, I'm currently typing on a recently purchased PC that cost me over twenty five hundred dollars and is more than capable of running any game including Sony exclusives that come to PC and yet I still bought a PS5 so apparently I'm not patient or loyal enough to my set up, hope it's not mad at me for not being loyal.
Some of those people will consider getting a PS5 some wont. I was a PC gamer for a long time and I’m a console only gamer now. Everyone’s different.
Who cares? Then just stay on PC and play the waiting game. No big deal. Sony wins in the end anyway.
Yup. If the strategy doesnt work, all they have to do is to change their mind, publish the games on PC, and they still win anyway.
I mean if there's any single player Sony games that I actually want that aren't on PC then I would buy said console to play them on. But the ones that I like that aren't on PC are few and far between anyway so no loss for me.
If I game, it's usually multiplayer titles, otherwise I like playing around with some other software.
Astro Bot is the game that just did it for me. I'm gonna have to grab a PS5 again for that.
I did this for Ratchet Rift Apart too but ended up selling the PS5 after getting my plat. Rebought it on PC and other than GoW Ragnarok and Horizon FW (which eventually I could get anyway), I haven't had a reason to downgrade my graphics, controller features, ease of recording, and increase my game costs and monthly subscriptions throughout this entire generation.
I play on a TV with a controller but this has been the absolute worst console gen for both consoles. Never in my life thought I'd be a PC gamer but I've been spoiled by the cheap costs, cross-platform controllers and mostly the unbelievably useful Steam controller config.
PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.
Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.
"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."
"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"
That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.
To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.
darthv72
"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.
To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."
Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.
What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales
Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense
What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.
Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.
I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.
I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.
For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol
I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.
Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.
Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.
Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.
My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.
There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?
Interesting
Can not possibly be all AAA, i am guessing quite a few mobile/low budget games with a few AAA thrown in.
So we can expect next-gen ports of GTA5 and RDR2 then?
Man, I was hoping we wouldn’t be seeing last-gen games on next-gen consoles since there’s backwards compatibility.
I don’t suppose they would ever reconsider AGENT. I was looking forward to that the idea and setting seemed really intriguing to me. I’m hoping they actually decide to revisit that concept and make that game a reality.