201–210 of 264 posts
Love this quote, seems to apply to all software these days and maybe business generally: "They're trying to have a CEO press a button that makes a game, and then everyone else somehow buys it without a job."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's we? You're certainly not speaking for me. Making things previously impossible possible? That's the business I joined. Destroying people's livelihoods without care for the consequences while pursuing monopolies, capturing the value as rent seekers, and ultimately enshittifying entire industries? Yeah, no, I know I didn't sign up for that, thanks. And if you're thinking "wait that's not AI". Yes. That's precisely…
That's honorable, but software has been used in no small way to disrupt traditional business. Uber. Doordash. Netflix. Tesla. Airbnb. Zillow. And yes, AI is coming for another round. It's a part of the culture. You can say that isn't what you signed up for, but I find it hard to believe that you don't know it's part of the culture you're participating in, which is the "we" here.
Because if this a case of "well you use a computer so you're part of the system, man" then I probably won't waste my time. Cynical fatalism usually involves moving goalposts IME.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ford's vision wasn't that much better. Old school manager controlled companies only work if the people in charge are great like him with big plans and the skills to realize them. If the CEO is just average it will end badly, and if they good but retire or die in office their successor will probably be worse. And it's extremely vulnerable to bad ideas that get amplified by wealth and power, like Ford's antisemitic pap…
> The best outcomes come from distributing power as widely as possible to people who are affected the most, aka worker ownership. Is there any evidence of this claim being true?
Does it seem like companies just aren’t that well run anymore? I mean, companies seem to be having massive layoffs and placing ever more work on the remaining employees. At what point will the remaining employees just collapse? Are we just reverting to the mean after years of zero interest rate policy? Would love for folks with experience working in tech in the 90s and 00s especially to chime in.
I'll give you my diagnosis, which is derived from this: https://www.semafor.com/article/04/27/2025/the-group-chats-t... The thing to realize about the SV executive class is that they have constructed a closed ecosystem around them where they only talk amongst themselves and a small number of supporting actors who say what the execs need to hear. A CEO will talk to other CEOs he will not talk to his skip reports. Alte…
It didn’t used to be this way - say circa 2006-2015 you had so much more diversity in the style and ideas of leadership. Eg early Dorsey, early zuck, all these other ceos at that time trying all kinds of wild and whacky ideas of how to run their companies. I’m not sure why this convergence happened, but now everyone’s singing from the same hymn sheet, it’s anti-innovation, and I hate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>people are also demonstrably not that discriminating at what they spend their attention on now matter how unsatisfying the experience was, once it's spent it's gone I've refunded more games than I've kept on Steam over the past decade. While there's now a much wider pool of games, there's not necessarily a much deeper pool of games. Since trash sells and since marketing a game has been absurdly difficult recently, I…
What I’m really shocked is that mobile gaming is as dire as it is. My iPhone from some years back was capable of running full blown Civ6 and earlier total war games. Despite the hardware clearly being capable of running interesting, complex games, the market is dominated by shitty gacha games, copy paste puzzle games and scams.
There are even mobile ads for other games which proudly boast "no ads" and then they still have ads. Nothing has meaning anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let it collapse get rid of patents and copyright. They are holding us back. People will assume that means that you can copy and distribute for free and profit without work. You already can. The business model will have to shift to collecting money BEFORE making something rather than trying to collect it AFTER making. You want a new Christoper Nolan film on his new idea, invest in it. That investment is a risk. Once m…
If you want to get rid of patents and copyright then entire industries would have to roll over and die (the music industry, publishing, Disney, etc). Also, people only invest in things if there is an expectation of profit. Your model for raising capital does not make sense.
I'm not seeing a downside here. They are all predatory.
When we've used software to disrupt other industries to deliver more with fewer people we called that a good thing. And it is, because consumers tend to win. Games are a hit-driven business, so they're going to feel the squeeze faster than, say, SaaS, but it's coming for all of us. Software is now being disrupted. Reap the whirlwind. I worked at a (very) well known media company in Hollywood during the Netflix disrup…
It's a huge mistake to think that indie teams would make better games if only they could balloon their projects to AAA-size. Some of the most meaningful and engrossing gaming experiences of my life have come from 1-3 person teams, especially over the past few years. Meanwhile, the vast majority of AAA titles just feel like time-filling entertainment chow to me: fun-shaped but ultimately pointless. I would strongly ar…
1. Human attention is a finite resource. 2. Digital media allows a single authored work to consume the attention of an unbounded number of people with near zero marginal cost. Further, once a work has been authored, it is available to be consumed forever. 3. Computers, software, the web, and now AI have drastically lowered the cost to produce a work of digital media. You can't have fixed demand and have the supply in…
Let it collapse get rid of patents and copyright. They are holding us back. People will assume that means that you can copy and distribute for free and profit without work. You already can. The business model will have to shift to collecting money BEFORE making something rather than trying to collect it AFTER making. You want a new Christoper Nolan film on his new idea, invest in it. That investment is a risk. Once m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bungie, in its post-Halo standalone incarnation, was running a microtransactions empire from day one and funded itself on the debt owed by those; it was not ‘taken over’ by financial engineers, so to speak, because the call was coming from inside the house from day one. They executed on some very nice tricks to get funded but their business was operated consistently (impeccable scenic and gunplay, variable-quality st…
If that were true, then Bungie post-Halo would still be Bungie post-Halo, a part of Microsoft. Not Bungie post-Activision... certainly not Bungie post-Sony... It's not all the studio head's fault in some of these situations. It was larger studios/publishers like Microsoft Studios coming in and buying them out. The consolidation of these studios is what burned them.
> I remember having a call with a business partner just before Monument Valley came out. And they couldn't get their head around it. They're like, 'Right, so it lasts two hours, it doesn't have in-app purchases, it doesn't have leaderboards, it doesn't have adverts... Well, why are you making this again?' No one could get their head around it.
That their unicorn became real is in sharp contrast to how their business leadership thought it would go, and then they launched two sequels that were no more successful than the second and third Matrix movies. We were lucky that MV escaped containment. The studio was not threatened by mergers or by AI; it was threatened by bad management, who wanted to engineer the most financial profit rather than simply shipping a good game.
Yes, Ubisoft will fuck over everyone they buy. But that’s because Ubisoft is badly managed; consider the Crystal Dynamics Tomb Raider trilogy, widely considered excellent and preceded by their acquisition. Yes, it’s easier to place the blame on AI. But that’s because bad management is often greedy and miserly, and AI fits those desires like a glove.
This is no defense of Ubisoft or AI fucking over everyone, and I sure do loathe them both, but consider my point about Bungie in these terms: They took their own reins and mismanaged themselves into the ground, with a merger halfway through their decade that did not noticeably alter how they mismanaged their business. Bungie spent ten years doing strange financial engineering with multiple funding sources (Sony was merely the last one), locking the color palette picker behind cosmetic transactions, selling season passes and DLC, launching an entire sequel that bombed in year one because it removed the addictive loot box mechanism, and going so far as to delete one entire half of their world-class game rather than just refactoring it.
That’s bad management, and they’re a poster child for the entire gaming industry as a result. The financial engineering I’m blaming for this collapse, for these shambling monsters we’ve created — well, some would call it profiteering, but fintech has finops and findev, just like any other tech industry, and they engineered this outcome, so I’m simply giving them the courtesy of name that they deserve.
The one that sticks out to me is the last quote lamenting the fact that you can't talk about AI in games any more since the term AI has been hijacked to mean LLM instead. I wonder how long it will take for job ads in the game industry to bifurcate into AI (LLM) developer and Behaviour (game AI) developer.
Unrelated but are there any games using LLMs or ML for the NPCs? I really want enemies that adapt to the player.