Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

braindump.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 312 posts

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#91

Post by tredre3 »

FredrikNoren wrote: post #12
mysterydip wrote: post #4

How will you ensure the content created for a game is free from copyright violations? Or is that up to the user to determine?

We haven't looked into exactly how this will be handled yet, but I believe this would fall under the same laws and restrictions as any other online platform (YouTube, TikTok etc.), it's just that the production tools are different.

> We haven't looked into exactly how this will be handled yet

That's how we know you're the real deal! Move fast and break things, laws and such are mere details. Capture the market first, work around problems later.

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#92

Post by kibbi »

kyleamazza wrote: post #79
password54321 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I immediately knew someone would claim "survivorship bias" but at the same I knew that they would fail to come up with a single counterexample.

That's sort of the point of survivorship bias. Name one unsuccessful would-be entrepreneur. It's hard because chances are, anyone that's recognizable was successful in some way. For games, I'll give an example: Aegis Defenders. Great game, no traction.

Then it seems that "survivorship bias" is some kind of unfalsifiable and self-fulfilling belief.

Secondly, these sorts of discussions usually don't define any concrete amount of success that a game is supposed to achieve. What is "no traction" supposed to mean? Aegis Defenders has 1,656 reviews at the moment. There's the assumption floating about that you can roughly multiply this by 50 to get the number of owners, which would turn out to about 80,000. The price point is fluctuating between $19.99 and $4.99. Will it net the developer/publisher less money over its lifetime than its development cost?

In any case, I think that one of the biggest factors is not merely the game's quality, but whether there are a lot of players hungry for a game's specific concept and genre. Making an "excellent game" in an oversaturated genre, or in a genre where games require some network effect to take off (any multiplayer game), is much more risky. Don't just make something good; make something that a lot of people want even when the product is less than perfect.

EDIT: VG Insights estimates $770k gross revenue. That's just for the Steam version. The game was also published on PlayStation 4 and Switch. The developer team seems to have been small.

Based on your reply to the sibling comment, you're just pointing out the "contrast" to the success of Balatro? I honestly don't get the point. I don't think the particular amount of success that break-out hits achieve matters to the discussion. If Balatro had a million reviews, would you expect Aegis Defenders to also have a lot more reviews and sales? I think this isn't relevant to the question whether excellent games will succeed (for me this means: enable the developers to make a good living) with some predictability or whether it's due to luck, and whether there exist a lot of excellent but unknown games.

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#93

Post by mr_tombuben »

FredrikNoren wrote: post #12
mysterydip wrote: post #4

How will you ensure the content created for a game is free from copyright violations? Or is that up to the user to determine?

We haven't looked into exactly how this will be handled yet, but I believe this would fall under the same laws and restrictions as any other online platform (YouTube, TikTok etc.), it's just that the production tools are different.

Please look into it. You are already breaking Disney's copyright just with this post, and if you ever hope this product Disney's lawyers would have a very easy case here.

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#94

Post by aleph_minus_one »

admax88qqq wrote: post #40
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I think making an excellent game is a lot like reaching product-market fit. Making an excellent game takes quite different skills than creating a commercially successful game; just compare "pop culture" (optimized to be commercially successful) vs "high-brow culture". Even if you are not the "extremely high-brow taste" kind of person, there exist quite some video game genres in which excellent games are produce…

That really just depends on your definition of "excellent" You have defined it to mean "high brow"

> You have defined it to mean "high brow"

Both in

- "high brow"

- niche genres

categories (which I both gave as examples) you will likely find quite some games that that are excellent, but won't make a lot of money. But don't pick too much on these categories since my central point is "Making an excellent game takes quite different skills than creating a commercially successful game".

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#95

Post by jarjoura »

dkarras wrote: post #26
EncomLab wrote: post #11

Hard facts: Steam has over 73k games - and is growing at over 10k games per year and increasing. The median game on Steam earns less than $800 - down from $4k in 2020. Making a game is not hard - marketing a game is.

It is not just about marketing though. There is this belief, especially among fledgling indies that if they make a game that they think is good, and if they are able to market it well, it will be a success, even a hit. A hit in gamedev is not easier than creating a hit in the music industry really. Even the veteran composers are not able to replicate (or even achieve) creating a hit. Possibility of success depends on…

Hate to break it to you, but the pop star success formula is actually meticulously detailed and very repeatable. The producers and song writers know exactly how to do it.

It’s not about challenges in finding success, so much as, at least in music, artists don’t want to follow a formula. They want to create songs and melodies that are personal and meaningful to them and their fans.

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#97

Post by spaceguillotine »

hatenberg wrote: post #60

So ... does every single AI demo put copyright and intellectual property infringement on the box? Just asking? How on earth can an entire ecosystem be so damn tone-deaf and lack self-preservation?

shhh you will scare the VC bros and their dreams of doing nothing and making billions off others work.

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#98

Post by jarjoura »

FredrikNoren wrote: post #12
mysterydip wrote: post #4

How will you ensure the content created for a game is free from copyright violations? Or is that up to the user to determine?

We haven't looked into exactly how this will be handled yet, but I believe this would fall under the same laws and restrictions as any other online platform (YouTube, TikTok etc.), it's just that the production tools are different.

Yea you might want to update your blog post with some original and creatively inspired new content. Demoing Star Wars is just asking to be picked apart by people.

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#99

Post by mattgreenrocks »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #84
seattle_spring wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This theme of comment comes up for sooo many types of posts, and it is unfortunate that it usually dominates the conversation. If Facebook or Airbnb-type companies share a new JavaScript lib, the comment sections will be about how Facebook is evil, or an anecdote about someone's horrible Airbnb experience when they cheaped out in Paris.

If my startup worked hard on something cool, got it on the front page of HN, and the top thread is: you have no chance. I mean it's malicious

What people fail to understand is you have to be smart about the size of the target market and what you're up against while simultaneously being willing to step into the arena.

You get no credit for sitting on the sidelines and whining about how hard it is out there. And it shouldn't be regarded as an especially intellectual point to state facts like the size of the market or the relative success the average game makes.

We're not entitled to any sort of success of the things we make. All we can do is make the best shots we can and keep at it.

Re: Building an AI game studio: what we've learned so far

#100

Post by Capricorn2481 »

dwallin wrote: post #29
bckr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that, while making a game is not hard, making an excellent game is hard. And I think making an excellent game is a lot like reaching product-market fit. It takes fast iteration with user feedback to find the fun, then a ton of polish to make it extraordinary. It has to be so good that, out of those 73,000 games and counting, I’ll spend some of my money and time on it. The way GenAI can help here, I think, is…

Making an excellent game isn't even enough these days, that's just table stakes. With so many games out there it's a market of lemons. You need to have a way of rising above the noise. For AAA, it's having budgets to make games on a bigger scale than everyone else. For mobile games, it's generally about leveraging a large war chest to fuel an advertising-driven margin game. For prestige/indie games you need something…

> For AAA, it's having budgets to make games on a bigger scale than everyone else

Does this matter? There are lots of big budget games that don't feel big budget.

Post reply on HN