120
"The 'AI Stigma' is real and severely punishes developers": A new study shows how much using AI in games hurts sales, and the numbers are hard to believe (www.windowscentral.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/gaming@lemmy.ml
69 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/8882542

It's a different story for the more established studios with an existing following and previous titles. Game Oracle found that the use of AI by these studios resulted in a significant 40% to 60% drop in sales.

That's a huge difference. AI stigma seems to hit competent developers with a lot to lose the hardest, and I'm not sure that game studios are ready to accept it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -3 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

I understand what you’re saying, but you’re talking about real world examples rather than the mechanics at play.

Let’s said you have the best engineer in the world. They are fantastic as describing nuanced, complex ideas. The fastest they can write is about 300 words per minute. The fastest they can read is 1200 words per minute.

Put them up against an AI model. They write at 6000 wpm & read at like 11 mil or something ridiculous.

Now, you’re making the argument, “Speed isn’t everything!” and that’s true. Which would rather you have, though: the same engineer, the AI, or the same engineer using the AI? I’d argue you’d rather have them both, because you have someone who can describe what they want in depth, they can point it towards heuristics or targets, and they can setup evals or governance strategies to better control the output.

I’m not trying to be dismissive, but I work with competent, smart people. My experiences have been the opposite. 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The problem has never ever ever been words per minute. That is a completely irrelevant metric. A distraction.

    Anything the AI produces is going to need to be evaluated by a person, and that is a more difficult, less rewarding task.

    And if it doesn't need to be reviewed by a person because it's magically flawless, that's extremely anti-labor so fuck that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

    How are you talking about the mechanics at play when the price of tokens isn't a part of your discussion?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    There’s many facets to it, including token costs, the risk of captured markets, more “win more” economics.

    Right now, this stuff is insanely cheap as a solo dev who isn’t making a bunch of autonomous agent API calls. Nearly all my interactions are working with an agent to make a game or project. I’m not attempting to, nor interested in, yet another AI service based company.

    I work at a reasonable pace, usually 1 conversation is my focus with actual work, whereas another agent may be doing research or documentation. Too many things in motion turns into a mess to test or validate. Solve one issue at a time. I don’t hit token limits, and I’m making good progress.

    When I read stories of people being inefficient or wasteful, yeah, that’s sad, don’t do that. I feel reasonably efficient & the cost is really low (for me/lifestyle). I use the $20/mon Claude subscription for my personal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent