3 ms·

What? He specifically said it wasn't AI.. did you read the article?

• klik99 3y ago
  Oh yeah, my bad. I read "it is entirely self inflicted." and skipped to the conclusion to see what the self inflected blow and weirdly the name of the article comes from the part he's talking about AI. > Gamers watch this video and think "Wow, that is some really trite and boring dialogue. Could we not?" > CEOs watch this video and think "I can fire so many people next week." > Designers? Just get the AI to shit out some dialogue, no one cares about it anyway. Artists? AI already pillaged all their work, no need for them to come in any more. Programmers? Feh, just slap some API framework together and call it a day, get an intern to do it. > Games in 2024 and 2025 will be a few labors of love, from indie developers or the few good AAA development houses still running, and piles upon piles upon piles of AI-generated vomit that will make people nostalgic for the days when most of Steam's catalog was Unity Store asset flips. > And gamers won't buy them. > And game development studio heads will ask what happened. > And no one will answer, because everyone is gone. > Ludum mortuus est. So I guess the article is about the layoffs, and then switches to being about AI at the end and names the article after their point about AI? It's a very confusing article, not sure what it's trying to say other than everything sucks, this isn't normal (without explaining that), and AI is a thing.