this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
120 points (97.6% liked)

Gaming

28128 readers
9 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (12 children)

I’m a game developer of 14 years. It is not “the best thing to happen.” However, it is providing significant benefit in a low risk environment to make projects insanely fast.

While AI art may have a stigma, and rightfully so, I don’t see a future where humans write code manually as a regular occurrence. I expect the majority of code will be AI written. There’s a number of reasons why, and I’ve talked about this elsewhere on lemmy & .ml. I think the toothpaste is out, and it’s not going back in, at least here.

I really wish people would change this conversation to “How do we/society get our just deserts from this situation?” Rather than “IT’S ALL BAD.” They stole all our stuff. They’ve admitted to it. Okay, tech bros, then it’s the tools of the people. Or we get money back, especially so if you live near a data center.

I’ve been able to make prototypes of projects I’ve dreamt about in an insanely short time at pretty low costs. That’s good enough for me.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 18 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Every coworker I've seen that uses AI code tools heavily is bad. They produce (or at least push) nonsense code they don't understand.

I would rather have a team that goes slowly and understands what they're building than a team of excitable slop pushers going a thousand lines a second.

[–] Fandangalo@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 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. 🤷

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AldinTheMage@ttrpg.network 8 points 1 week ago

It's harder to review code than to write code. On our team reviewing has always been the bottleneck. Faster output would actually make things harder in some cases.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)