There is a fundamental business challenge at work -- games these days are "worth less".
Not having no value, but being of less worth to investors and companies to invest in. This is simple fundamental economics, since game prices are not growing as fast as their input costs. For example, I spent $30 for Atari video games in the 1980s and it was a lot less expensive to produce. That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
If your costs are increasing and you can't raise your price then your industry is being commoditized, or at least in a real quandary about how to move forward. AI could be a way to slow the huge, up-front costs that go into AAA games and help limit the risk to making new ones.
This fundamentally misunderstands why modern AAA games are expensive.
A single person can make an game. In fact, there's a chance a single person can make a good game. The problem is that the correlation between good and successful is very weak. You basically need a massive marketing machine to break a new IP. Games cost a lot to make but that's by design.
The strategy that AAA studios apply is to go as big as possible and cast a wide net because you can't put a dozen smaller games on every Mountain Dew can. AI is not going to change that.
Making games a bit cheaper is always a plus but the game will grow to fill the budget. It will not mean more games at the top and it will probably not even mean less cost to the studio.
AI tooling will be used but I doubt it will change the way blockbuster games (or movies)_operate beyond the usual progression of industry tech.
> You basically need a massive marketing machine to break a new IP.
Of course there are some exceptions. Like Balatro selling 5 million copies (1 developer + 1 composer), the Touhou Project series (solo dev), Slay the Spire (two devs, ), and Terraria (11-person studio, 9'th best selling game of all time with 60,700,000 copies sold as of November 2024).
The big studios seem to like spending a ton of money on games, but there continue to be new IPs created without a massive budget or marketing campaign.
sure. But I hope no one thinks of taking a gamble and trying to make their own rougelite deck builder because Slay the Spire made millions. You'd be lucky to make doordash money with that time investment, let alone anything liveable.
Yes, as I said, its perfectly possible to make a good game with a small team. But to prop up a few games like you have is just survivor bias. There are thousands of failed games at that scale. When I say it takes a good game and massive marketing budgets to launch an IP, I mean to do so with mediocre or better odds of success. The rare gems you've mentioned are just that. Rare.
Wish I could be even 1/10th as succinct as this comment. Kids love surprises, but businesses don't like uncertainties. Mildly disappointing high-budget games are all but unpredictable, so professional business operations move towards that direction. The system just inherently prefer de-risking over costs.
I think in the context of parent comment, it might be true that games just isn't a great business. Gamers don't like low-risk AAA slop. Adjectives for games such as good, successful, praised, lucrative, don't align each others well. Deltarune(Undertale 2) is to launch on Switch 2 for $10 or thereabouts, literally built by one guy, most likely without any use of AI, and it'll undoubtedly sell containers after containers of Switch 2 units totally irrespective of incoming tariffs. That almost make me feel sorry for AAA title publishers such as EA and Epic. I can only assume that they resemble insurance companies than any others.
In fact we have modern examples of a single person making a game that's not just much better from a technical standpoint, but actually sells more units, generates more buzz, and moves game design forward.
What those games, games like Stardew Valley, Undertale, or Animal Well can't do is create an endless income stream in the billions, and right now that's the goal of some big "AAA" publishers. They don't want to make good games, they don't want to make any sort of game really, they want to create an addictive platform for further transactions. They want GTA Online, F2P Gachas, and E-Sports.
They don't want to make Stardew Valley no matter how many units it sells, they want to make the next Fortnite. As a result they keep dumping absurd amounts of money into really sketchy projects (Concorde, Anthem, etc) and they can't seem to figure out why people aren't biting. When in doubt if you're an MBA and you see money flying out of the door and the expected return isn't being generated, it must be almost instinctive to raise prices and lay people off.
It's a real shame, and figuring out a solution to this is as simple as looking at the pioneers who are still top dog today. Ninteno does a mix of experiments and iteration on their titles. They make sure things are polished to a T. They focus on fostering IPs that show hope, even if they didn't make a billion dollars at launch. They focused on building a reputation for quality and not simply trying to make number go up. you don't get that kind of seal of quality overnight.
Capcom and Bandai Namco had their struggles, but overall had a similar trajectory. But many american companies don't want to think long-term portfolio anymore. They want pump and dumps. The only potential solace of such crashes is that those pump and dumps might stagnate as well.
> For example, I spent $30 for Atari video games in the 1980s and it was a lot less expensive to produce. That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
And the Nintendo Switch has sold 5x as many consoles as did Atari. Likely a similar scale for games sold. Nintendo very likely makes more in total than Atari did, even with lower prices.
I don't know, maybe. The economies of scale and 40 years of iteration make it hard to compare apples to apples like that. As well as the fact that Nintendo's game team went from maybe 5-10 Japanese designers that can fit in a garage (well, not a Japanese garage) to multiple thousands of employees focusing on different sectors of the business.
The main surprise is that they can bs surprisingly lean with their core development teams to this day. Apparently Super Mario Wonder had a core team of around 20 devs.
Anything that can be copied infinitely for free has a market value of 0, and is in a bubble whenever its price is above 0. This doesn't mean that video games have no value, but that markets aren't suited for finding it.
> Not having no value, but being of less worth to investors and companies to invest in. This is simple fundamental economics, since game prices are not growing as fast as their input costs.
Economics that are not that old and that have been reinforced via a 'tailor made' customer culture. Marketing and business culture fucked up consumers beyond any recognition, then quantified them and keep optimizing via peer-flagellation and sociopathic feedback loops.
John, this isn't a power tool. This is a copy machine.
And while I don't have anything against copy machines per se, that's not how it's being sold to the public. The public is being told this copy machine is a really good power tool that can do lots of things. So what creatives are hearing is "your work is interchangeable with a slightly smarter copy machine, so stop paying creatives and just rip them off".
Anyone who argues that LLMs are "just stochastic parrots" fundamentally doesn't understand what neural networks do. The power does not come from sampling from a distributions over words but from the multi-dimensional representation. And it is that that enables LLMs to be more than just mechanisms that produce copies of material previously seen in training.
The specific AI technology being demonstrated isn't an LLM, it's a different kind of model that renders Quake from memory. It's very much trained to copy Quake.
You're still just saying that while stealing a lot from one person is wrong, stealing only a little but from many people would be OK.
And the people who are stolen from don't agree with you.
if I quote it from memory without attribution, it is arguably stealng. Certainly in bad taste to pretend that was my idea. If I type it out from memory on my blog page without permission, it is 100% stealing.
These aren't novel situations. We have centuries of case studies, precedent, and cultural osmosis giving us legal and de facto means of what we feel and say is "stealing intellectual property".
That's not what's happening. Using your analogy, you're reading the book, remembering it, and then making N more books (maybe for commercial purposes) by using what you remembered to create something very similar in terms of style, prose, plot, and so on. As a result, the person who you learned from can't get a job writing anymore because their work has been commoditized. Also, they're feeling lost because the work they devoted their lives to is now awash in a sea of similar work.
When an artist trains by studying the masters and prior art, and even imitation, they are not acting as copying machines. Unfortunately for your interpretation, these are not copy machines neither on a technical nor philosophical level.
Separately, whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate.
Comparing the way the human brain synthesizes information with their experience and how a computer does it is already a futile point. Take the following point here: humans tend to be very poor at perfectly regurgitating copies of anything. Even well trained copycats will have different muscle memory, different interpretation of theory they apply, different means of coloring and shading, etc.
As we've seen, poke an LLM enough and it may simply just spit out a near identical recreation. As of now, it definitely proves that this data isn't just "seen". they very much store it on their databases, and we should treat it as such.
>whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate
There's nothing nuanced about it in my eyes. Especially if some artists explicitly do not want their art trained upon. Not even 3 years ago Microsoft won a court case via LinkedIn regarding the scaping of their website data. How is this phenomenon any different?
Unless we want to destroy Copyright as we know it, it's pretty cut and dry copyright infringement. But we need to tear it down first and just say we don't like current laws.
It's a power tool. And like other power tools, it's easy to hurt yourself (or others) with it if you don't know what you're doing and it takes quite a bit of experience and skill to really get the most out of it.
It's a power tool in hat you can say a copy machine is a power tool. You'd think it'd be hard to hurt yourself on a copy machine, but life finds a way.
>My first games involved hand assembling machine code and turning graph paper characters into hex digits. Software progress has made that work as irrelevant as chariot wheel maintenance.
Given the importance even today of understanding assembly compilation towards low level game performance, I'm surprised he'd say this. It wasn't rendered obsolete, it was abstracted away from most of the stack. Meanwhile you need to understand assuembly even more intimately to look under the hood of a modern day game or game engine. esoteric does not mean outdated.
>AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Okay, I'll believe it when I see it. You said the same about Oculus. I'm not even doubting that VR will evolve to a revolution one day. But technology's march can be slow at times.
And that's one of my top 3 problems; I think like VR's hardware barrier, AI is hitting barriers on how iterations with LLMs work. It seems industry's been brute forcing it and we clearly hit a wall already. But we haven't rethought the approach yet. We're just promising and prpmising.
>there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
Depends on how legal proceedings go. At least Quake is Open Source and kinda free ( I think). The vast majority of games probbaly won't let you train that easily. They spent decades making it as hard as possible to back them up, after all.
>“don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.
If industry is going to fire you anyway, it's the only move. If industry worked on fostering workers instead of replacing them, they wouldn't be worried. Instead it's finally starting to unionize to protect itself.
Using AI tools in a professional code base, currently, seems a bit dangerous to me. However I have changed my mind on using it for vibe coding.
I used to type in program source code from magazines and had no idea what I was doing until something broke then I had to fix it. If I am honest, that was how I learned how to code.
AI will either teach that kind of thing to the new generation, or coding will become irrelevant. Either way, I think that’s good.
But I still don’t want my bank or airplane guidance software using it.
It's only a problem if we live in a society where people's perceived value, and thus capability of living a healthy, full life, is tied to their productivity to produce profit for an increasingly shrinking pool of people and organizations.
Which is what we have, hence the problem.
Yes, AI has the potential to screw things up royally. But do not mistake its' exacerbation of symptoms as the true illness.
When you click a button in Unity or Roblox or whatever to generate a new texture, the thing that gets generated comes from a model that could not have been built without using IP. But because it all got chucked into a blender and turned into an anonymous slurry -- and because AI is a politically important growth industry -- the people whose work went into the slurry will not benefit, at all. They'll never see a dime, while the companies selling the slurry will get billions. A lot of those people are the exact ones whose job will be replaced, which is extra painful when you know it was your own work that was used to replace you.
Although in a sense it's pointless to bring up because that milk is already spilt, and it ain't gonna get back into the container.
Just wait until we start creating user friendly IDE's that automate the technical moat needed right now to go from code to running program.
Recently I (Gemini 2.5?) created an android app that calculates options prices given different sets of parameters set by the user. The hardest part of doing that is doing all the android studio leg work to get the pieces in place to eventually compile the code into an app and put it on your phone.
No real reason that cannot be automated to "Paste the text the LLM gave you here, and the app icon will show up on your phone in a minute" right now. I'm almost positive it is already being worked on somewhere.
> It could go the way of farming, where labor saving technology allow a tiny fraction of the previous workforce to satisfy everyone
Except that the quality of mass-farmed, labor-saving tech produced 'stuff' is approaching a level of literal shit and the methods have poisoned air, water and soil to a horribly dumb degree.
Will the same happen to the analog/digital soil, water, air in SWE, game dev and content creation? Likely. It started a while ago, before the big AI boom and that's what young creators and devs see in their youth and get inspired, stimulated and motivated by: toxic, low quality shit that they have to shove down their throats and into their minds. "I can do better" is not something we see a lot anywhere; not in cinemas, not on the news, not in SaaS and sure as hell not in VC culture or portfolio capitalism.
Next generations brains are wired and minds nourished by the current environment. And we've been fucking up for a while, even if we leave out politics, news, culture and how we systemically perceive, portrait, never defuse and always escalate conflicts in a slow burn fashion.
All that wires brains, reinforces behaviors and thought patterns and perception and nourishes minds.
I like the comparison to farming. The end game is displayed in movies and games alike and it's always dire, dry and satisfies no one.
There's no case against AI, though, but a momentous one against experienced, educated people who have witnessed the shit show long enough and don't need predictive algorithms to know what's coming.
How silly it is to 'let it happen', to 'let it be'.
“I think you are misunderstanding what this tech demo actually is, but I will engage with what I think your gripe is — AI tooling trivializing the skillsets of programmers, artists, and designers.
My first games involved hand assembling machine code and turning graph paper characters into hex digits. Software progress has made that work as irrelevant as chariot wheel maintenance.
Building power tools is central to all the progress in computers.
Game engines have radically expanded the range of people involved in game dev, even as they deemphasized the importance of much of my beloved system engineering.
AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Yes, we will get to a world where you can get an interactive game (or novel, or movie) out of a prompt, but there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
The world will be vastly wealthier in terms of the content available at any given cost.
Will there be more or less game developer jobs? That is an open question. It could go the way of farming, where labor saving technology allow a tiny fraction of the previous workforce to satisfy everyone, or it could be like social media, where creative entrepreneurship has flourished at many different scales. Regardless, “don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.” - John Carmack
I’m trying not to sound elitist but maybe this is just plain elitist. But it seems like lowering the barrier to entry to some skills too much just gets us too much crap, _and_ worst of all changes the economics so you can’t get anything good anymore. See: the movie industry.
And actually, the problem is not that my neighbor who’s passionate about video game design but makes bad games. I’m glad social media is full of that. It’s the highly capitalized content farms that flood the zone.
we already hit that point as is. At this point, I just want proper ethics around this rampant scraping going on. It's simple consent, but it seems tech still has problems reminiscent of the old games industry.
Or maybe the music industry? I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact. It doesn't seem like it's gotten better with easier accessibility to tools, just there's a lot more options for you if you are a fan of a certain genre.
I can see games being similar, maybe a few creative people invent new genres never seen before, or mix elements in creative ways with AI tools, but I'm guessing it will more likely mean a lot of slight variations of games that bring in money churned out quickly.
I think when it comes to music, it's really disheartening to hear people say it hasn't gotten better. There is a lot of good music coming out in so many genres, but it really requires actively seeking it out.
Because algorithmic curation shifted from what's quality to what's "sellable". That's a part of why you get sentiments that "media got worse". Hardcore media fans will still scour and find proper curations themselves (or be he curator), but the default of just letting Spotify or Netflix tell what's "quality" is long over.
Another little cut on why people are trusting big tech less ad less.
I've dug pretty deep in the genres I like...it's just all slight variations imo of the work the trendsetting artists did establishing the genre in the first place as far as I can tell.
The issue is that as music progresses and changes so too does distribution networks. Traditional, or even nontraditional to those from the pre spotify internet days, pipelines of music discovery have been largely co-opted by industry. Outlets of organic discovery are different now - and people typically don't continually keep changing their habits enough to keep up with it.
Pair this with the fact that most people settle their musical tastes to be in line with when they are experiencing the most emotionally significant time in their early lives (high school for some, college for others, etc) and the result is an assumption that
A) What they encounter forms an overall opinion of "all" new music despite being the tip of the iceberg and
> I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact.
It's always been that way, especially before mass-produced recordings were available.
The "Beatles" period was partly because you had to choose wisely what you were going to spend your limited dollars on when you went to the record shop.
The difference today is that recording technology is cheap, and, with streaming, you don't have to "choose wisely" when you go to the record store. Now all of the mediocre artists, who were generally excluded from the "Beatles" period, can get on streaming platforms.
BTW: There's awesome music coming out today. It just takes time for word to spread.
> I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact.
I'm sorry, but this seems exactly like what every single generation says. I'm pretty sure that I read some similar quotes aimed at the Beatles back in the 60s.
A lot of what's happening is imo is just there's so much more competition for attention, and music has lost value as a cultural force beyond the music itself for younger people than it used to have, when young people would develop parasocial relationships or "crushes" or build their self-identity on pop stars and their fandom. A lot of this power culturally has been balkanized.
Speaking of the music itself, once the economic incentive is removed to create great songs (we are there already) we will get fewer great songs. That force is countering the fact that we have more tools and distribution channels than ever to create great songs, and those two forces are in opposition and to me, it seems like the fewer great songs force is winning (subjective).
> Or maybe the music industry? I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact. It doesn't seem like it's gotten better with easier accessibility to tools, just there's a lot more options for you if you are a fan of a certain genre.
You both listen to so much music and have a palette that is so wide-ranging that you can somewhat objectively judge it as not having gotten better?
Good points, but it is worth considering that in both of those scenarios you listed the content within the end product is fully created by a human and not generated by a machine.
The machine is "compiling" the video, not taking the creative helm.
That was the relationship we had for some 200 years. The machine automates and accelerates the predictable labor, and the creative heads composes and conducts the tasks.
As of late, we seem to want to flip the script under the guise that "we can make more content" without considering the impact on the creative process. Not how to drive the output, but just how to make more and more. Creativity be damned. That's the issue.
Yeah this is where my own internal conflict is too. May be this cheap flooding is required to bring down the cost of creation so the truly high quality games/content creates by the top 1% will be valued more (though finding would be much harder?)?
Yeah this was where I was getting to. Are the content enablers enabling flooding of content so now they can start selling the search tools/tactics. Wonder if this another way of creating a pandemic so you can sell a cure haha
The platform providers are enabling the flooding of content so that they get to become the curator and influence minds. Even general search is just an an ad pusher followed by whoever pays up to show up high, then followed by whoever games the system the best.
There's no incentive to fix it because they control the information and profit off the situation. The system is working as intended.
I think we're saying different things. In 1977 finding a good video game amongst the drek was difficult. It was a search problem in 1977, it's a search problem in 2025.
Sturgeon's law. 90% of everything is, and always will be, drek.
Interesting. But was the drek in 1977 because flooding the game market was "easy" (I meant to say game development was hard in 1977 - I think - so if there was really drel back then was there a high supply then that was the cause of it?
There's a valid argument to be made there though. We possibly were better off when tastemakers managed to filter out the lowest common denominator.
When you think of Youtube, you might think of pretty decent stuff but you have to remember the absolute slop like Spiderman/Elsa videos, crude ripoffs and near porn gets many, many more views than the good stuff.
I'm not saying strict gatekeeping is necessary, but open systems are an absolute minefield for humanity. That's clear to me after the last 10 years or so.
I don’t mind the slop. Filtering and discovery is a solvable issue. I care about tons of niche and educational content that I enjoy that would not exist if it had to be funded / approved by gatekeepers.
I believe it's more complicated than saying slop is required for niche and education content.
That said, we've already decided that truly open systems are not viable. That was settled years ago. Now even 4chan has rules.
Right now we have algorithms that promote terrible content based on automated metrics that don't make the good stuff any easier to find. Especially considering the consolidation of platforms into a few hegemonic sites.
In that sense we already have gatekeeping, it's just a terrible approach to it.
And for the record I mind the slop because of how easily it drowns out and eventually overtakes the good stuff. Even good, educational content feels the need to cater to the algorithm to survive.
We're not at a tipping point yet, but it certainly feels we're headed in that direction.
Algorithmically promoting tastemakers might be a solution. Pushing the good content to the top and burying the slop.
My desire for tastemakers and gatekeepers and the majority of people consuming the lowest common denominator of content when left to their own devices aren't at odds. In fact, it's part of the equation.
I think it's ok to add selective pressure whenever spammy, unethical, low-quality content starts flooding the system. Books has copyright laws and resistive book distribution channels, YouTube has Likes and moderation systems, etc.
With hindsight, one of silent assumptions very common of both pro- and anti-AI arguments up to this point was as follows: because AI is potentially superhuman in arts, the existing selective pressures could inversely punish desired creativity if AI outputs were not unfairly treated. Pro-AI arguments assumed that warping the system is wrong, anti-AI assumed allowing the system go down is worse. IMO, superhuman AI didn't happen anyway, and so now AI slop problem is just spam control problem.
No one was ever against punishing spams and unethical actors. It's fine and safe. We're at a postmortem phase during which we'd patch the bugs in laws and law enforcement that allowed AI companies do outlandish hacks like torrenting books and redistributing it as lossy compressed 500GB GGUF.
This comparison suffers from what I call “the scale fallacy”.
You can’t compare disrupting technologies like this as if the scale of their impact plays no role at all.
How many people’s livelihood depended on monks writing books by hand?
Arguably all the tens of millions of those whose lives depended on the hegemony of the Catholic church and the status quo it maintained. The disruption was relatively slow, but massive.
> There was similar criticism to yours when the printing press was invented.
A similar thing was discussed in the past, checkmate.
We have this commonsense whig-history where everything became a little bit better century by century. But one could argue that the printing press makes propaganda possible. From that you get thought control by the elite. Now you ironically get an elitist outcome, or an elite-benefiting outcome.
Was the printing press a net good? Maybe it’s more complicated than “more books good”.
Would you go back to a pre-youtube, pre-printing press, pre-internet, pre-pick-your—favorite-tecnology that democratized content creation and distribution? I know I wouldn’t.
> What’s your opinion of Youtube? We were better off when just a few could create and distribute video at scale?
Yes, I think I would make that argument.
But also I think I’m making a different argument. The game market already seems to be pretty flooded. I think many people see it as “we get more great indie games”, but I wonder if we don’t get less. That it creates more of a bipolar distribution. Triple-A relatively unaffected, and more vaporware games but it hollows out the middle.
I also think that “we objected to earlier progress and it turned out ok, therefor all objections to progress are bad” is a logical fallacy.
How is the movie industry an example of this? There are great movies still coming out every year, and the main commercial trends have been around IP exploitation that may or may not be reducing movie quality but certainly not due to lower barriers to entry.
Another example is fast fashion. It’s almost impossible to get clothing in a store that will last, say, 10 years. While in earlier decades, that was pretty normal.
What's the correlation between programming skill and video game design skill? It's probably not 0 but certainly well under 1. We want good video game designers making games, not just good programmers.
I get the feeling that Balatro is not a well coded game. It was coded by one person. Yet it's a great game. The world will be better with more Balatro's.
I assert we get less Balatro’s this way(I don’t know Balatro specifically, but I imagine it’s a stand-in for indie-game by one developer), perhaps counter intuitively.
This is a question I’ve been pondering post-2000, where are all the new Kevin Smiths?
Where are all the great counter-culture indie movies?
That Market has certainly not exploded post YouTube the way you might think.
We've been lowering the barrier to entry for decades now. Where is the line? Some would say digital. Some have pointed to electric. Some have pointed to cars. And on and on and on.
But older entertainment doesn't instantly make it better. Will there be more crap? Sure, but that's always been the case. But that also means more stuff of quality.
That could mean it's hard to find the quality stuff, but that's a different issue entirely, and one mostly solved with old school stuff (reviewers, just find reviewers you mostly agree with).
But in the end, good games are still released every year. And many/most of these good games wouldn't exist if the barrier to entry wasn't lowered.
There is a fundamental business challenge at work -- games these days are "worth less".
Not having no value, but being of less worth to investors and companies to invest in. This is simple fundamental economics, since game prices are not growing as fast as their input costs. For example, I spent $30 for Atari video games in the 1980s and it was a lot less expensive to produce. That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
For a comprehensive breakdown, see https://www.gamesindustry.biz/are-video-games-really-more-ex...
If your costs are increasing and you can't raise your price then your industry is being commoditized, or at least in a real quandary about how to move forward. AI could be a way to slow the huge, up-front costs that go into AAA games and help limit the risk to making new ones.
If this subject interests you, there is a great long-form interview with Matthew Ball on Stratechery: https://stratechery.com/2025/an-interview-with-matthew-ball-...
Anyway, Carmack is right on the money on this one.
This fundamentally misunderstands why modern AAA games are expensive.
A single person can make an game. In fact, there's a chance a single person can make a good game. The problem is that the correlation between good and successful is very weak. You basically need a massive marketing machine to break a new IP. Games cost a lot to make but that's by design.
The strategy that AAA studios apply is to go as big as possible and cast a wide net because you can't put a dozen smaller games on every Mountain Dew can. AI is not going to change that.
Making games a bit cheaper is always a plus but the game will grow to fill the budget. It will not mean more games at the top and it will probably not even mean less cost to the studio.
AI tooling will be used but I doubt it will change the way blockbuster games (or movies)_operate beyond the usual progression of industry tech.
> You basically need a massive marketing machine to break a new IP.
Of course there are some exceptions. Like Balatro selling 5 million copies (1 developer + 1 composer), the Touhou Project series (solo dev), Slay the Spire (two devs, ), and Terraria (11-person studio, 9'th best selling game of all time with 60,700,000 copies sold as of November 2024).
The big studios seem to like spending a ton of money on games, but there continue to be new IPs created without a massive budget or marketing campaign.
sure. But I hope no one thinks of taking a gamble and trying to make their own rougelite deck builder because Slay the Spire made millions. You'd be lucky to make doordash money with that time investment, let alone anything liveable.
Yes, as I said, its perfectly possible to make a good game with a small team. But to prop up a few games like you have is just survivor bias. There are thousands of failed games at that scale. When I say it takes a good game and massive marketing budgets to launch an IP, I mean to do so with mediocre or better odds of success. The rare gems you've mentioned are just that. Rare.
Wish I could be even 1/10th as succinct as this comment. Kids love surprises, but businesses don't like uncertainties. Mildly disappointing high-budget games are all but unpredictable, so professional business operations move towards that direction. The system just inherently prefer de-risking over costs.
I think in the context of parent comment, it might be true that games just isn't a great business. Gamers don't like low-risk AAA slop. Adjectives for games such as good, successful, praised, lucrative, don't align each others well. Deltarune(Undertale 2) is to launch on Switch 2 for $10 or thereabouts, literally built by one guy, most likely without any use of AI, and it'll undoubtedly sell containers after containers of Switch 2 units totally irrespective of incoming tariffs. That almost make me feel sorry for AAA title publishers such as EA and Epic. I can only assume that they resemble insurance companies than any others.
In fact we have modern examples of a single person making a game that's not just much better from a technical standpoint, but actually sells more units, generates more buzz, and moves game design forward.
What those games, games like Stardew Valley, Undertale, or Animal Well can't do is create an endless income stream in the billions, and right now that's the goal of some big "AAA" publishers. They don't want to make good games, they don't want to make any sort of game really, they want to create an addictive platform for further transactions. They want GTA Online, F2P Gachas, and E-Sports.
They don't want to make Stardew Valley no matter how many units it sells, they want to make the next Fortnite. As a result they keep dumping absurd amounts of money into really sketchy projects (Concorde, Anthem, etc) and they can't seem to figure out why people aren't biting. When in doubt if you're an MBA and you see money flying out of the door and the expected return isn't being generated, it must be almost instinctive to raise prices and lay people off.
It's a real shame, and figuring out a solution to this is as simple as looking at the pioneers who are still top dog today. Ninteno does a mix of experiments and iteration on their titles. They make sure things are polished to a T. They focus on fostering IPs that show hope, even if they didn't make a billion dollars at launch. They focused on building a reputation for quality and not simply trying to make number go up. you don't get that kind of seal of quality overnight.
Capcom and Bandai Namco had their struggles, but overall had a similar trajectory. But many american companies don't want to think long-term portfolio anymore. They want pump and dumps. The only potential solace of such crashes is that those pump and dumps might stagnate as well.
> That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
Speaking of $90 - Nintendo recently announced the Switch 2 and physical copies of the games will be just that, $90.
> For example, I spent $30 for Atari video games in the 1980s and it was a lot less expensive to produce. That game would cost $90 today with inflation.
And the Nintendo Switch has sold 5x as many consoles as did Atari. Likely a similar scale for games sold. Nintendo very likely makes more in total than Atari did, even with lower prices.
I don't know, maybe. The economies of scale and 40 years of iteration make it hard to compare apples to apples like that. As well as the fact that Nintendo's game team went from maybe 5-10 Japanese designers that can fit in a garage (well, not a Japanese garage) to multiple thousands of employees focusing on different sectors of the business.
The main surprise is that they can bs surprisingly lean with their core development teams to this day. Apparently Super Mario Wonder had a core team of around 20 devs.
Anything that can be copied infinitely for free has a market value of 0, and is in a bubble whenever its price is above 0. This doesn't mean that video games have no value, but that markets aren't suited for finding it.
> Not having no value, but being of less worth to investors and companies to invest in. This is simple fundamental economics, since game prices are not growing as fast as their input costs.
Economics that are not that old and that have been reinforced via a 'tailor made' customer culture. Marketing and business culture fucked up consumers beyond any recognition, then quantified them and keep optimizing via peer-flagellation and sociopathic feedback loops.
Economists and leadership's ways are ugly.
John, this isn't a power tool. This is a copy machine.
And while I don't have anything against copy machines per se, that's not how it's being sold to the public. The public is being told this copy machine is a really good power tool that can do lots of things. So what creatives are hearing is "your work is interchangeable with a slightly smarter copy machine, so stop paying creatives and just rip them off".
I think you're wrong.
Anyone who argues that LLMs are "just stochastic parrots" fundamentally doesn't understand what neural networks do. The power does not come from sampling from a distributions over words but from the multi-dimensional representation. And it is that that enables LLMs to be more than just mechanisms that produce copies of material previously seen in training.
The specific AI technology being demonstrated isn't an LLM, it's a different kind of model that renders Quake from memory. It's very much trained to copy Quake.
The implication is that they will improve to the point of Stable Diffusion and the likes.
Improve at what, copying Quake?
That game has already been made, and even variants of it.
Does it matter how the data is processed?
You're still just saying that while stealing a lot from one person is wrong, stealing only a little but from many people would be OK. And the people who are stolen from don't agree with you.
You're pretending reading a book and remembering what is written is stealing.
if I quote it from memory without attribution, it is arguably stealng. Certainly in bad taste to pretend that was my idea. If I type it out from memory on my blog page without permission, it is 100% stealing.
These aren't novel situations. We have centuries of case studies, precedent, and cultural osmosis giving us legal and de facto means of what we feel and say is "stealing intellectual property".
That's not what's happening. Using your analogy, you're reading the book, remembering it, and then making N more books (maybe for commercial purposes) by using what you remembered to create something very similar in terms of style, prose, plot, and so on. As a result, the person who you learned from can't get a job writing anymore because their work has been commoditized. Also, they're feeling lost because the work they devoted their lives to is now awash in a sea of similar work.
So as long as you can point to someone sad, you win?
The only valid text makers are humans.
[dead]
When an artist trains by studying the masters and prior art, and even imitation, they are not acting as copying machines. Unfortunately for your interpretation, these are not copy machines neither on a technical nor philosophical level.
Separately, whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate.
Comparing the way the human brain synthesizes information with their experience and how a computer does it is already a futile point. Take the following point here: humans tend to be very poor at perfectly regurgitating copies of anything. Even well trained copycats will have different muscle memory, different interpretation of theory they apply, different means of coloring and shading, etc.
As we've seen, poke an LLM enough and it may simply just spit out a near identical recreation. As of now, it definitely proves that this data isn't just "seen". they very much store it on their databases, and we should treat it as such.
>whether AI models ought to owe credit or compensation to the data used to train them is an interesting and nuanced debate
There's nothing nuanced about it in my eyes. Especially if some artists explicitly do not want their art trained upon. Not even 3 years ago Microsoft won a court case via LinkedIn regarding the scaping of their website data. How is this phenomenon any different?
Unless we want to destroy Copyright as we know it, it's pretty cut and dry copyright infringement. But we need to tear it down first and just say we don't like current laws.
It's a power tool. And like other power tools, it's easy to hurt yourself (or others) with it if you don't know what you're doing and it takes quite a bit of experience and skill to really get the most out of it.
It's a power tool in hat you can say a copy machine is a power tool. You'd think it'd be hard to hurt yourself on a copy machine, but life finds a way.
>My first games involved hand assembling machine code and turning graph paper characters into hex digits. Software progress has made that work as irrelevant as chariot wheel maintenance.
Given the importance even today of understanding assembly compilation towards low level game performance, I'm surprised he'd say this. It wasn't rendered obsolete, it was abstracted away from most of the stack. Meanwhile you need to understand assuembly even more intimately to look under the hood of a modern day game or game engine. esoteric does not mean outdated.
>AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Okay, I'll believe it when I see it. You said the same about Oculus. I'm not even doubting that VR will evolve to a revolution one day. But technology's march can be slow at times.
And that's one of my top 3 problems; I think like VR's hardware barrier, AI is hitting barriers on how iterations with LLMs work. It seems industry's been brute forcing it and we clearly hit a wall already. But we haven't rethought the approach yet. We're just promising and prpmising.
>there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
Depends on how legal proceedings go. At least Quake is Open Source and kinda free ( I think). The vast majority of games probbaly won't let you train that easily. They spent decades making it as hard as possible to back them up, after all.
>“don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.
If industry is going to fire you anyway, it's the only move. If industry worked on fostering workers instead of replacing them, they wouldn't be worried. Instead it's finally starting to unionize to protect itself.
Using AI tools in a professional code base, currently, seems a bit dangerous to me. However I have changed my mind on using it for vibe coding.
I used to type in program source code from magazines and had no idea what I was doing until something broke then I had to fix it. If I am honest, that was how I learned how to code.
AI will either teach that kind of thing to the new generation, or coding will become irrelevant. Either way, I think that’s good.
But I still don’t want my bank or airplane guidance software using it.
AI makes it too easy to create tech debt. In contrast, source code from a magazine is limited in size.
But when project becomes too big, it can also become discouraging.
I think people are arguing about two different topics on the same item:
- Technological advance
- Political and economical fallout once AI starts replacing a meaningful amount of jobs, and quickly
Me? I'm scared. That's it.
It's only a problem if we live in a society where people's perceived value, and thus capability of living a healthy, full life, is tied to their productivity to produce profit for an increasingly shrinking pool of people and organizations.
Which is what we have, hence the problem.
Yes, AI has the potential to screw things up royally. But do not mistake its' exacerbation of symptoms as the true illness.
> increasingly shrinking pool of people and organizations
What do you mean, is the pool really shrinking, worldwide? I must have missed some statistics?
Wealth concentration and corporate consolidation.
Yeah that's the political problem. Honestly, I don't see a way out of this. One way or another, it's going to be a mess.
You missed one: theft.
When you click a button in Unity or Roblox or whatever to generate a new texture, the thing that gets generated comes from a model that could not have been built without using IP. But because it all got chucked into a blender and turned into an anonymous slurry -- and because AI is a politically important growth industry -- the people whose work went into the slurry will not benefit, at all. They'll never see a dime, while the companies selling the slurry will get billions. A lot of those people are the exact ones whose job will be replaced, which is extra painful when you know it was your own work that was used to replace you.
Although in a sense it's pointless to bring up because that milk is already spilt, and it ain't gonna get back into the container.
I'd say theft falls under political fallout, yes.
Looks like a run-of-the-mill opinion. What's the story here?
It's a well known developer paying lip service to people here who are strongly for LLM and generative art.
Not much otherwise.
John Carmack has earned more attention for his opinions than most people, especially when it comes to game development.
It really is a pretty measured and reasonable take.
Just wait until we start creating user friendly IDE's that automate the technical moat needed right now to go from code to running program.
Recently I (Gemini 2.5?) created an android app that calculates options prices given different sets of parameters set by the user. The hardest part of doing that is doing all the android studio leg work to get the pieces in place to eventually compile the code into an app and put it on your phone.
No real reason that cannot be automated to "Paste the text the LLM gave you here, and the app icon will show up on your phone in a minute" right now. I'm almost positive it is already being worked on somewhere.
Finally somebody with a sane take.
> It could go the way of farming, where labor saving technology allow a tiny fraction of the previous workforce to satisfy everyone
Except that the quality of mass-farmed, labor-saving tech produced 'stuff' is approaching a level of literal shit and the methods have poisoned air, water and soil to a horribly dumb degree.
Will the same happen to the analog/digital soil, water, air in SWE, game dev and content creation? Likely. It started a while ago, before the big AI boom and that's what young creators and devs see in their youth and get inspired, stimulated and motivated by: toxic, low quality shit that they have to shove down their throats and into their minds. "I can do better" is not something we see a lot anywhere; not in cinemas, not on the news, not in SaaS and sure as hell not in VC culture or portfolio capitalism.
Next generations brains are wired and minds nourished by the current environment. And we've been fucking up for a while, even if we leave out politics, news, culture and how we systemically perceive, portrait, never defuse and always escalate conflicts in a slow burn fashion.
All that wires brains, reinforces behaviors and thought patterns and perception and nourishes minds.
I like the comparison to farming. The end game is displayed in movies and games alike and it's always dire, dry and satisfies no one.
There's no case against AI, though, but a momentous one against experienced, educated people who have witnessed the shit show long enough and don't need predictive algorithms to know what's coming.
How silly it is to 'let it happen', to 'let it be'.
Pasting it here:
“I think you are misunderstanding what this tech demo actually is, but I will engage with what I think your gripe is — AI tooling trivializing the skillsets of programmers, artists, and designers.
My first games involved hand assembling machine code and turning graph paper characters into hex digits. Software progress has made that work as irrelevant as chariot wheel maintenance.
Building power tools is central to all the progress in computers.
Game engines have radically expanded the range of people involved in game dev, even as they deemphasized the importance of much of my beloved system engineering.
AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics.
Yes, we will get to a world where you can get an interactive game (or novel, or movie) out of a prompt, but there will be far better exemplars of the medium still created by dedicated teams of passionate developers.
The world will be vastly wealthier in terms of the content available at any given cost.
Will there be more or less game developer jobs? That is an open question. It could go the way of farming, where labor saving technology allow a tiny fraction of the previous workforce to satisfy everyone, or it could be like social media, where creative entrepreneurship has flourished at many different scales. Regardless, “don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.” - John Carmack
I’m trying not to sound elitist but maybe this is just plain elitist. But it seems like lowering the barrier to entry to some skills too much just gets us too much crap, _and_ worst of all changes the economics so you can’t get anything good anymore. See: the movie industry.
And actually, the problem is not that my neighbor who’s passionate about video game design but makes bad games. I’m glad social media is full of that. It’s the highly capitalized content farms that flood the zone.
we already hit that point as is. At this point, I just want proper ethics around this rampant scraping going on. It's simple consent, but it seems tech still has problems reminiscent of the old games industry.
What’s your opinion of Youtube? We were better off when just a few could create and distribute video at scale?
There was similar criticism to yours when the printing press was invented.
Or maybe the music industry? I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact. It doesn't seem like it's gotten better with easier accessibility to tools, just there's a lot more options for you if you are a fan of a certain genre.
I can see games being similar, maybe a few creative people invent new genres never seen before, or mix elements in creative ways with AI tools, but I'm guessing it will more likely mean a lot of slight variations of games that bring in money churned out quickly.
I think when it comes to music, it's really disheartening to hear people say it hasn't gotten better. There is a lot of good music coming out in so many genres, but it really requires actively seeking it out.
Because algorithmic curation shifted from what's quality to what's "sellable". That's a part of why you get sentiments that "media got worse". Hardcore media fans will still scour and find proper curations themselves (or be he curator), but the default of just letting Spotify or Netflix tell what's "quality" is long over.
Another little cut on why people are trusting big tech less ad less.
I've dug pretty deep in the genres I like...it's just all slight variations imo of the work the trendsetting artists did establishing the genre in the first place as far as I can tell.
You might have just gotten older.
The issue is that as music progresses and changes so too does distribution networks. Traditional, or even nontraditional to those from the pre spotify internet days, pipelines of music discovery have been largely co-opted by industry. Outlets of organic discovery are different now - and people typically don't continually keep changing their habits enough to keep up with it.
Pair this with the fact that most people settle their musical tastes to be in line with when they are experiencing the most emotionally significant time in their early lives (high school for some, college for others, etc) and the result is an assumption that
A) What they encounter forms an overall opinion of "all" new music despite being the tip of the iceberg and
B) It's not as good as what they grew up on
> I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact.
It's always been that way, especially before mass-produced recordings were available.
The "Beatles" period was partly because you had to choose wisely what you were going to spend your limited dollars on when you went to the record shop.
The difference today is that recording technology is cheap, and, with streaming, you don't have to "choose wisely" when you go to the record store. Now all of the mediocre artists, who were generally excluded from the "Beatles" period, can get on streaming platforms.
BTW: There's awesome music coming out today. It just takes time for word to spread.
> I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact.
I'm sorry, but this seems exactly like what every single generation says. I'm pretty sure that I read some similar quotes aimed at the Beatles back in the 60s.
I've thought of that, but there is a trend of a retreat from newer music, this isn't just a generation gap speaking.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/old-music-...
A lot of what's happening is imo is just there's so much more competition for attention, and music has lost value as a cultural force beyond the music itself for younger people than it used to have, when young people would develop parasocial relationships or "crushes" or build their self-identity on pop stars and their fandom. A lot of this power culturally has been balkanized.
Speaking of the music itself, once the economic incentive is removed to create great songs (we are there already) we will get fewer great songs. That force is countering the fact that we have more tools and distribution channels than ever to create great songs, and those two forces are in opposition and to me, it seems like the fewer great songs force is winning (subjective).
> Or maybe the music industry? I feel like there's more music than ever, but none of it seems to be of much value and/or lasting cultural impact. It doesn't seem like it's gotten better with easier accessibility to tools, just there's a lot more options for you if you are a fan of a certain genre.
You both listen to so much music and have a palette that is so wide-ranging that you can somewhat objectively judge it as not having gotten better?
How do you objectively judge that? It's just my opinion, value that for what its worth to you (sounds like not much).
Good points, but it is worth considering that in both of those scenarios you listed the content within the end product is fully created by a human and not generated by a machine.
That’s severely discounting the machines used to generate the video content.
The machine is "compiling" the video, not taking the creative helm.
That was the relationship we had for some 200 years. The machine automates and accelerates the predictable labor, and the creative heads composes and conducts the tasks.
As of late, we seem to want to flip the script under the guise that "we can make more content" without considering the impact on the creative process. Not how to drive the output, but just how to make more and more. Creativity be damned. That's the issue.
Yeah this is where my own internal conflict is too. May be this cheap flooding is required to bring down the cost of creation so the truly high quality games/content creates by the top 1% will be valued more (though finding would be much harder?)?
We moved from a content generation problem to a search problem.
It was always a search problem.
Yeah this was where I was getting to. Are the content enablers enabling flooding of content so now they can start selling the search tools/tactics. Wonder if this another way of creating a pandemic so you can sell a cure haha
The platform providers are enabling the flooding of content so that they get to become the curator and influence minds. Even general search is just an an ad pusher followed by whoever pays up to show up high, then followed by whoever games the system the best.
There's no incentive to fix it because they control the information and profit off the situation. The system is working as intended.
I think we're saying different things. In 1977 finding a good video game amongst the drek was difficult. It was a search problem in 1977, it's a search problem in 2025.
Sturgeon's law. 90% of everything is, and always will be, drek.
Interesting. But was the drek in 1977 because flooding the game market was "easy" (I meant to say game development was hard in 1977 - I think - so if there was really drel back then was there a high supply then that was the cause of it?
There's a valid argument to be made there though. We possibly were better off when tastemakers managed to filter out the lowest common denominator.
When you think of Youtube, you might think of pretty decent stuff but you have to remember the absolute slop like Spiderman/Elsa videos, crude ripoffs and near porn gets many, many more views than the good stuff.
I'm not saying strict gatekeeping is necessary, but open systems are an absolute minefield for humanity. That's clear to me after the last 10 years or so.
I don’t mind the slop. Filtering and discovery is a solvable issue. I care about tons of niche and educational content that I enjoy that would not exist if it had to be funded / approved by gatekeepers.
I mind but can fiter the slop. That's every media platform these days.
I very much mind the theft. Even Youtube is offering ways to just "generate new videos" which is done by outright stealing from other youtubers.
I believe it's more complicated than saying slop is required for niche and education content.
That said, we've already decided that truly open systems are not viable. That was settled years ago. Now even 4chan has rules.
Right now we have algorithms that promote terrible content based on automated metrics that don't make the good stuff any easier to find. Especially considering the consolidation of platforms into a few hegemonic sites.
In that sense we already have gatekeeping, it's just a terrible approach to it.
And for the record I mind the slop because of how easily it drowns out and eventually overtakes the good stuff. Even good, educational content feels the need to cater to the algorithm to survive.
We're not at a tipping point yet, but it certainly feels we're headed in that direction.
Algorithmically promoting tastemakers might be a solution. Pushing the good content to the top and burying the slop.
Unfortunately a big chunk of the public likes the taste of the slop, or is too nostalgic or reticent to try anything new.
Sometimes the new thing is also unpolished and needs work, perhaps even a second artist to pick it up and make it good...
My desire for tastemakers and gatekeepers and the majority of people consuming the lowest common denominator of content when left to their own devices aren't at odds. In fact, it's part of the equation.
I think it's ok to add selective pressure whenever spammy, unethical, low-quality content starts flooding the system. Books has copyright laws and resistive book distribution channels, YouTube has Likes and moderation systems, etc.
With hindsight, one of silent assumptions very common of both pro- and anti-AI arguments up to this point was as follows: because AI is potentially superhuman in arts, the existing selective pressures could inversely punish desired creativity if AI outputs were not unfairly treated. Pro-AI arguments assumed that warping the system is wrong, anti-AI assumed allowing the system go down is worse. IMO, superhuman AI didn't happen anyway, and so now AI slop problem is just spam control problem.
No one was ever against punishing spams and unethical actors. It's fine and safe. We're at a postmortem phase during which we'd patch the bugs in laws and law enforcement that allowed AI companies do outlandish hacks like torrenting books and redistributing it as lossy compressed 500GB GGUF.
This comparison suffers from what I call “the scale fallacy”. You can’t compare disrupting technologies like this as if the scale of their impact plays no role at all. How many people’s livelihood depended on monks writing books by hand?
Arguably all the tens of millions of those whose lives depended on the hegemony of the Catholic church and the status quo it maintained. The disruption was relatively slow, but massive.
Pentiment (2022)
> There was similar criticism to yours when the printing press was invented.
A similar thing was discussed in the past, checkmate.
We have this commonsense whig-history where everything became a little bit better century by century. But one could argue that the printing press makes propaganda possible. From that you get thought control by the elite. Now you ironically get an elitist outcome, or an elite-benefiting outcome.
Was the printing press a net good? Maybe it’s more complicated than “more books good”.
Would you go back to a pre-youtube, pre-printing press, pre-internet, pre-pick-your—favorite-tecnology that democratized content creation and distribution? I know I wouldn’t.
> What’s your opinion of Youtube? We were better off when just a few could create and distribute video at scale?
Yes, I think I would make that argument.
But also I think I’m making a different argument. The game market already seems to be pretty flooded. I think many people see it as “we get more great indie games”, but I wonder if we don’t get less. That it creates more of a bipolar distribution. Triple-A relatively unaffected, and more vaporware games but it hollows out the middle.
I also think that “we objected to earlier progress and it turned out ok, therefor all objections to progress are bad” is a logical fallacy.
What is actually showing up is more asset dumps, rather unimaginative variations on a game.
Often seen as job simulator games because they're so formulaic.
Sometimes you see unimaginative remixes like Palworld.
How is the movie industry an example of this? There are great movies still coming out every year, and the main commercial trends have been around IP exploitation that may or may not be reducing movie quality but certainly not due to lower barriers to entry.
Another example is fast fashion. It’s almost impossible to get clothing in a store that will last, say, 10 years. While in earlier decades, that was pretty normal.
What's the correlation between programming skill and video game design skill? It's probably not 0 but certainly well under 1. We want good video game designers making games, not just good programmers.
I get the feeling that Balatro is not a well coded game. It was coded by one person. Yet it's a great game. The world will be better with more Balatro's.
I assert we get less Balatro’s this way(I don’t know Balatro specifically, but I imagine it’s a stand-in for indie-game by one developer), perhaps counter intuitively.
This is a question I’ve been pondering post-2000, where are all the new Kevin Smiths?
Where are all the great counter-culture indie movies?
That Market has certainly not exploded post YouTube the way you might think.
The new Kevin Smiths are on youtube.
I mean won’t the leave the door open for people to bring value to the market by helping curate? Sifting there the turds to find diamonds?
This could be the golden age of the reviewer. Yahtzee could make millions!
We've been lowering the barrier to entry for decades now. Where is the line? Some would say digital. Some have pointed to electric. Some have pointed to cars. And on and on and on.
But older entertainment doesn't instantly make it better. Will there be more crap? Sure, but that's always been the case. But that also means more stuff of quality.
That could mean it's hard to find the quality stuff, but that's a different issue entirely, and one mostly solved with old school stuff (reviewers, just find reviewers you mostly agree with).
But in the end, good games are still released every year. And many/most of these good games wouldn't exist if the barrier to entry wasn't lowered.
A world of slop increases the demand for products that help you discern.
[dead]
Relevant, I guess: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-colors-of-her-coat