It's all just a bit tiring, to be honest. I don't look at anything generated by AI and think "oh cool" I just kind of get the same gross feeling you get when you see those mukbang videos or the 4000 calorie desserts made on tiktok - it's fast food for the eyes, just shite pumped out faster than I can take a dump.
Hey, I'm not a game dev, but I would guess that 99% of games devs would be able to identify where the dust comes out of a 4x4 driving on a dirt road (the tires).
The more people see AI, the more they will be able to identify AI, the more they will be pissed off to see AI.
I suddenly realized that I had a bunch of articles about the sad way the
industry is going, as well as intellectual contributions from people
far smarter than me; and a community to share them with.
This is the article by crackedotcom alum Robert Evans, but if you want to listen to it on his Behind the Bastards podcast I'll post those two episodes as well. I think they're better than the article, despite the add breaks. You can for instance hear an nVidia exec stammer in abject confusion when Evans asks him, "Have you thought about the harms your AI might cause?"
Here's the latest case, and it references (I think) two older cases in which AI was used to write breifs for a court and failed spectacularly. One of those was for Michael Cohen's plea to serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest, which earned his lawer sanctions. I think all three of these cases earned their counsel near immediate sanctions. That in itself is remarkable, because usually sanction hearings take months. These shot through the courts in a matter of days. To put just how bad being sanction is for a lawyer into perspective, it's like having to go around with a police office and notify all your new neighbors that you've moved into the neighborhood. In fact it's almost exactly like that, because you are required to notify all of your clients, new, old, or prospective, that you were sanctioned and what the conditions were.
Penultimately
we have a case made agains Sora, which movie executive are ready to
downsize their entire creative department over, and which normal people
look at and go, "ew."
And
the ultimate bullet point on this list is why I came here, and what I
came to share with you all. That AI cannot, and never will, be able to
stand toe to toe with a professional, and almost everyone knows it.
Generative AI is trying use math to know things. It's financial future
is best described as an ouroboros with a tapeworm. And it is quickly
losing popularity.
Really, I've been thinking about the subject for a few days now, and
I'm not sure whether to see this technology as an ally or as the
nemesis of the artistic industry. What I do know is that currently,
as it's presented, I only perceive it as a money-making machine for
the companies behind it. I see it more as an advertising campaign
aimed at keeping their investors rather than as a useful tool for us
professionals beyond providing us with the power to generate
references (references of questionable quality). These marketing
campaigns create the same psychological impact as populist campaigns
on social media, relying on fear and the public's ignorance,
generating an explosive wow effect and a feeling of uncertainty among
people. Real advancements for the industry don't make as much noise
or impress the general public as much; useful advancements in our
industry are not compatible with the era of Clickbait.
In my opinion, for
these technologies to be truly useful for us, they need to give us
total control over the outcome, and this is impossible to achieve
just by writing prompts. As it stands, this technology will generate
uncontrollable or inaccurate variations every time something is
written. 3D/2D artists need to have control down to the last vertex
and/or pixel. We can't depend on a prompt to modify certain assets;
rarely will we get what we need following that path.
So, it's true that
artificial intelligence will evolve, and it will increasingly be more
perfect in terms of "RAW" results, but I don't believe that
those generating this technology will be capable of providing us with
tools in our software that give us the artistic control we need and
that the industry needs.
On the contrary, I
do believe it's a problem for the Internet and for society. In 10/20
or 30 years, anyone researching past events up to our days will be
completely unable to know if what they find on the web is real or
completely false. The amount of false texts, videos, audios, and
images published will be so immense that it will render the Internet
useless as a research tool. Furthermore, I'm sure that sooner rather
than later, social networks will lose the interest of the public due
to the proliferation of fake audiovisual content attempting to modify
real current events, political and social, among other malicious
content, generating total confusion for the user. Poisoning of the
Internet.
After this social
note, returning to the artistic aspect, I believe that creative work
of a certain level will always be safe from advances in AI. Vision,
feeling, and artistic motive will make the difference between AIBros
and real artists.
Yes to AI, but not
without the consent of the artists whose works it has been trained
on, and not to production results without the control and
professional touch of the artists. We want quality art, not
standardized mediocrity from AI.
I hope these words
help reduce some of the anxiety someone might feel when seeing all
the noise on the internet about the star topic of the last 2 years.
A hug and happy
artistic creation. I love this community.
So, it's true that
artificial intelligence will evolve, and it will increasingly be more
perfect in terms of "RAW" results, but I don't believe that
those generating this technology will be capable of providing us with
tools in our software that give us the artistic control we need and
that the industry needs.
I go a step farther. I don't believe the generative ai itself is capable of this. The hallucinations it generates are a feature of the way it has processed information. It's not that a future generative ai will be able to make good hands every time. It's that a hand is something an ai fundamentally cannot understand
aprats91 sed: In my opinion, for
these technologies to be truly useful for us, they need to give us
total control over the outcome, and this is impossible to achieve
just by writing prompts.
Yep it's been done:
If you go to youtube you will find tutorials that show you pieces of software you can use to pose a figure. Very useful (12 fingers no more) and especially for concept fly arounds.
Here are just 2 examples from artstation. They are clearly marked as made (nah, spectacularly filtered) with AI and are being sold as concept packs for artistic reference. This stuff interests me greatly because I'm guessing they were adapted by artists. The backgrounds, light fall, desigh narative are nothing short of spectacular. Kitch postcards are one thing, but gob stopping articulate renders are totally another. Regardless of the brush, the artist that adapted these images knew what they were doing. Nothing was created, but I bet a lot of effort went into their realization. That doesn't make it right, and therein lies the rub.
On the contrary, I
do believe it's a problem for the Internet and for society. In 10/20
or 30 years, anyone researching past events up to our days will be
completely unable to know if what they find on the web is real or
completely false. The amount of false texts, videos, audios, and
images published will be so immense that it will render the Internet
useless as a research tool. Furthermore, I'm sure that sooner rather
than later, social networks will lose the interest of the public due
to the proliferation of fake audiovisual content attempting to modify
real current events, political and social, among other malicious
content, generating total confusion for the user. Poisoning of the
Internet.
That's actually the deadliest aspect, far worse than loss of jobs. From an artistic standpoint sure I get more crap to add to a mood board, but socially/politically there really needs to be regulation or the whole world is going to lose it. Even categorisaiton would suffice, like on arstation if I do a seach and add the no-AI filter its better, not sure if AI gets through though which is the problem, but my use of that platform sure has reduced.
So, it's true that
artificial intelligence will evolve, and it will increasingly be more
perfect in terms of "RAW" results, but I don't believe that
those generating this technology will be capable of providing us with
tools in our software that give us the artistic control we need and
that the industry needs.
I go a step farther. I don't believe the generative ai itself is capable of this. The hallucinations it generates are a feature of the way it has processed information. It's not that a future generative ai will be able to make good hands every time. It's that a hand is something an ai fundamentally cannot understand
i guess the fallacy is already in calling current gen image generators "AI". they are image generators much like chat gpt is a text generator. they can not understand because they do not think, but they are really good, no great at pretending and guessing the statistically most plausible answer.
One thing I've noticed is these AI cultists cheer that "you have nothing to fear as long as you don't suck" Trouble is, sucking is a big part of the journey of becoming an artist. If you want to be an artist you have to accept that you will suck for many years. After you stop sucking, you start making beautiful images or models but for a long time it's probably going to be generic (exactly the kind of stuff AI is coming for) until you develop your style. And for what, so this fucking garbage can gobble up your hard work? This tech is going to kill budding artists. Only the best of the best will remain. Beyond art, it's going to kill jobs normal people study years to get into. I'm pretty sure it's coming for accounting, data entry, PR...you name it. I'm pretty sure therapists will be ok though. They're going to make a killing when people like you and me end up aimless in this bizzarro world devoid of meaning.
Slowly but surely, I am beginning to accept that my career as a 3D artist is coming to a close. It's been 7 years for me. If I can survive another three it will have been worth it. Right now my main concern is buying an apartment. If I can do that I can forget about rent and with that money I can satisfy my basic needs for a month. It's all motivated by AI. After that, I am going to disconnect myself from all of this, maybe even the internet. I just can't take in all this weirdness and nihilism.
My plan B is to become a full-time solo developer. I already know a thing or two about unreal and game development. I hope I will at least have that for a while.
Slowly but surely, I am beginning to accept that my career as a 3D artist is coming to a close. It's been 7 years for me. If I can survive another three it will have been worth it. Right now my main concern is buying an apartment. If I can do that I can forget about rent and with that money I can satisfy my basic needs for a month. It's all motivated by AI. After that, I am going to disconnect myself from all of this, maybe even the internet. I just can't take in all this weirdness and nihilism.
My plan B is to become a full-time solo developer. I already know a thing or two about unreal and game development. I hope I will at least have that for a while.
Wouldn't it be better to just push it as far as you can go, rather than simply giving up? Even if your job might be taken away in the future, if you have it now, you'll surely get more mileage out of it if you keep doing it until it's no longer possible than if you choose, yourself, to stop.
Slowly but surely, I am beginning to accept that my career as a 3D artist is coming to a close. It's been 7 years for me. If I can survive another three it will have been worth it. Right now my main concern is buying an apartment. If I can do that I can forget about rent and with that money I can satisfy my basic needs for a month. It's all motivated by AI. After that, I am going to disconnect myself from all of this, maybe even the internet. I just can't take in all this weirdness and nihilism.
My plan B is to become a full-time solo developer. I already know a thing or two about unreal and game development. I hope I will at least have that for a while.
Wouldn't it be better to just push it as far as you can go, rather than simply giving up? Even if your job might be taken away in the future, if you have it now, you'll surely get more mileage out of it if you keep doing it until it's no longer possible than if you choose, yourself, to stop.
Yes, that is the plan. Make as much money as I can and then hunker down when the hammer falls...
One thing I've noticed is these AI cultists cheer that "you have nothing to fear as long as you don't suck" Trouble is, sucking is a big part of the journey of becoming an artist. If you want to be an artist you have to accept that you will suck for many years. After you stop sucking, you start making beautiful images or models but for a long time it's probably going to be generic (exactly the kind of stuff AI is coming for) until you develop your style. And for what, so this fucking garbage can gobble up your hard work? This tech is going to kill budding artists. Only the best of the best will remain. Beyond art, it's going to kill jobs normal people study years to get into. I'm pretty sure it's coming for accounting, data entry, PR...you name it. I'm pretty sure therapists will be ok though. They're going to make a killing when people like you and me end up aimless in this bizzarro world devoid of meaning.
Slowly but surely, I am beginning to accept that my career as a 3D artist is coming to a close. It's been 7 years for me. If I can survive another three it will have been worth it. Right now my main concern is buying an apartment. If I can do that I can forget about rent and with that money I can satisfy my basic needs for a month. It's all motivated by AI. After that, I am going to disconnect myself from all of this, maybe even the internet. I just can't take in all this weirdness and nihilism.
My plan B is to become a full-time solo developer. I already know a thing or two about unreal and game development. I hope I will at least have that for a while.
A much simpler solution is to stop worrying about the unknown and do whatever it is you want to do, or atleast thats the strategy I'm doing.
Hey guys, I have a great idea for a new startup. Let's call it "Quantum AI SUPER Ti DILDOSS". All you have to do is just go and buy all available stock footage on the web. Then add a search bar (call it a "prompt bar", cuz ai and stuff). People will type what they want and your sophisticated AI will "generate" a video... Actually it will just give them a stock footage that is close enough to what they wanted. But because investors are generally morons - they will believe anything and buy into this crap. Don't forget to say that your "AI" (let's call it Regurgitator-5) may or may not use some super secret quantum technology from the future. Morons... I mean investors love that kind of crap
that sounds like a great idea, and if you click on the 'generate' button without anything in the prompt, it'll just throw out something random because... idk, we'll just say it's hallucinating like me when I hotbox in my tesla with my NFT shrooms!
This guy on youtube ad is telling me that AI is going to be the biggest money maker in the history of humanity. Should I buy his course?? More seriously, every "legit" person that I have seen talk about AI was giving all the tell-tale signs of a bullshitter so I am not taking it too seriously.
Chat GPT is handy now and then but it's neither above or below google. Just has some pros and cons to it.
I've tried all of the 3d model generators I can find and they are pretty much useless for anything other than rocks.
Chat GPT is handy now and then but it's neither above or below google. Just has some pros and cons to it.
ChatGPT, so as other similar software, is not AI. Not even close. It`s just a glamourized T9 mixed with well structured but biased search engine. It has its use only because 'Google search' is just pure atrocious garbage that is getting worse by the day.
yeah they could just call it super search 3000 but people working in entertainment probably understand the need to build hype in order to sell people things they never needed
Yup. It's all about money and power. Just last year Microsoft orchestrated what can only be described as a hostile "takeover" of Open AI. They forced unwanted board members out and replaced them with their own corrupt and loyal cronies.
Personally I don't see the democraticized wide spread use of AI art as microsoft and Open AI are suggesting. I don't think that people were not being creative because of the bar set by artists. Like anyone can pick up a pencil and draw and not everyone wants to monetize and brand them through their art. Like AI art use for making artistic profile pictures using an app (which is done) is possible, Everyone making their own hollywood film, replacing hollywood movies with other actors and their family members using an app, its just not worth the gimmick.
He
says part of that process is understanding how to get developers to
embrace the tech, but feels gen AI tools will ultimately help creators
more quickly achieve "greatness." Where "expansion" is concerned, he
stated that generative AI was used to increase the number of run cycles
in EA Sports FC 24
from 12 to 1,200. "That was all done with generative AI," he explained,
before claiming that upswing makes the gameplay experience more unique
and immersive, which in turn drives player numbers, engagement, and
revenue. "Where there is real personalized content, bespoke to me and my
friends, monetization is 10 to 20 percent greater," he added.
Is this guy seriously trying to convince everyone that they made
more money because they avoided hiring real animators or mocappers to
make the run cycles?
Looking
beyond that, Wilson feels generative AI tools will help "democratize"
the game industry by letting billions of players "create personal
content" or even build their own universes within the publisher's
various tech platforms. "All of a sudden we are the beneficiaries of
platform economics, and for me that's a multi-billion dollar opportunity
for us in addition to what we would otherwise get out of our regular
growth," he says.
"For
AI for us, it's early days. We all know it's early. Every day we read
about some incredible advancement or some incredible mistake that some
chatbot has made when you ask it a question. But for us as a company who
basically builds our business on AI, and has driven through the various
incarnations of AI, we find ourselves [looking] at gen AI and we're
more excited now than we've ever been."
He
says part of that process is understanding how to get developers to
embrace the tech, but feels gen AI tools will ultimately help creators
more quickly achieve "greatness." Where "expansion" is concerned, he
stated that generative AI was used to increase the number of run cycles
in EA Sports FC 24
from 12 to 1,200. "That was all done with generative AI," he explained,
before claiming that upswing makes the gameplay experience more unique
and immersive, which in turn drives player numbers, engagement, and
revenue. "Where there is real personalized content, bespoke to me and my
friends, monetization is 10 to 20 percent greater," he added.
Is this guy seriously trying to convince everyone that they made
more money because they avoided hiring real animators or mocappers to
make the run cycles?
Looking
beyond that, Wilson feels generative AI tools will help "democratize"
the game industry by letting billions of players "create personal
content" or even build their own universes within the publisher's
various tech platforms. "All of a sudden we are the beneficiaries of
platform economics, and for me that's a multi-billion dollar opportunity
for us in addition to what we would otherwise get out of our regular
growth," he says.
"For
AI for us, it's early days. We all know it's early. Every day we read
about some incredible advancement or some incredible mistake that some
chatbot has made when you ask it a question. But for us as a company who
basically builds our business on AI, and has driven through the various
incarnations of AI, we find ourselves [looking] at gen AI and we're
more excited now than we've ever been."
I can provide more insight on this business model, since I was with EA during its development.
So for a game like FC 24 or rather the entirely of EA sports as a model, the whole development process is based on asset automation, clean up, revision and curation. EA works heavily with outsourcers and asset repurposing is encouraged. Their primary revenue model is based on content asset packs that can be bought to enhance the gameplay experience. So when Wilson mentions AI being used, he's not just limiting it to automating game development processes, the commercial intent is for further customization of this content by the end user making it more personalized.
I'm not sure if this gets rid of developers since all the AI content needs to be vetted internally and it is then packaged and sold. They may allow generative AI on the player side to customize the content in game, but it will always be done in a way that incentivizes EA.
During my time there was a heavy emphasis on automation and finding tech art solutions to repetitive tasks. This is also because of the nature of EA sports products, like there is a Lionel Messi in every iteration, so they need to automate to streamline his integration efficiently. There is automation in everything from anatomy, outfits, procedural stadiums but its more controlled AI than the generative madness we see from consumer facing AI tools. For example their approach to anatomy requires you to use the tool to create a closely approximated base model which you then use proprietary plugins and tools to further increase accuracy and likeness and your additional anatomy knowledge would help in taking this even further.
But you won't have to worry about the origin and insertion of every muscle or care about if they are deforming to Scott Eatons standards. i.e it could be considered more Gallery Abominate as you can see in this comparison, but they are focusing on selling the complete product with marketing focused on branding and inclusion.
Its not a "this doesn't look top tier next gen so torpedo the entire game approach" (like is routinely insisted on portfolios) they choose to work within budget and technology contraints.
And this is largely accepted by gamers. Not all games require Naughty dog's obsessiveness on model quality to succeed. It does seem that 2024's most popular games have largely suceeded because they have engaging gameplay and are very community oriented. Like Helldivers and Lethal company, even Palworld (despite its alleged plaigarism)
EA also relies on influencer marketing to make a game trend so if you're in the business of selling games as a product you likely don't need to emphasize any one aspect unless your brand depends on it. Its a large publisher that is well invested so using AI to reduce overheads makes sense in this context.
What I would have liked to see is FIFA moving more towards the fortnite model, but the games popularity is more based on realism, so besides some promotional skins that would continue under Volta there's unlikely to be a full conversion of the game to something like Shaolin Soccer, which is what I was really trying to push during my time there.
Also as an EA employee that is permanent you always work for EA parent. So you will be moved around projects if there is downtime. Layoffs are a different matter since that's based on more than just downtime.
And like many AAA games businesses they are invested in monetization through live service, so regardless of how much they emphasize creativity from the developer, the outcome will always be centered on player spending.
I don't see them getting rid of as many developers as they can, but they may not hire permanently and I can see this happening at other studios where you'll get short term contracts as temporary full time before they consider making you permanent. A lot of developers would transition to managers for outsourcers, taking on finishing tasks and approvals, this was already the case when I was there.
What they can't do is downsize to a point where it hurts their brand image, they will have to hire to show growth and a people first focus since as a society we haven't become totally alien to empathy. The way they save on this is by hiring interns, transitioning them to TFT and then extending permanent contracts allowing them to mitigate risk owing to market volatility. It also gives the impression that they are always looking for the latest and greatest fresh talent and supporting local game development schools.
EA balances its books with a combination of temporary full time, permanent full time and outsourcing. There is also some independent contracting.
When it comes to contracts I feel it would be better if these fixed term contracts are much longer. Its also not easy to get rid of permanent workers. Like for me as a TFT I could only be hired for a maximum of 18 months and the reason given was that EA couldn't extend further because of employment laws (which I am not entirely sure about) I'm not sure why they would release TFT's and then hire new TFT's that had to be trained. Then again I wouldn't have had this chance as easily if they hadn't done this when it came to hiring me
But a system where there are longer fixed term contracts would be better, like hiring someone for 3 years followed by extensions.
Also the layoff priority is usually QA > Artists > Tech Artists > Programmers HR and support is usually in the middle, but can be at the beginning on end depending on their requirement and seniority.
These layoffs seem to have been full spectrum though there are differences between companies. Like EA is moving employees around projects and their layoff process is staggered with a long notice period Riot's severence was generous and their layoff process had sufficient notice and support for transition. Microsoft's layoffs were very unprofessional and they cancelled a game 6 years into production.
Ideally going forward I am hoping for more adoption of remote working and that studios would transition to fixed term and independent contracting over permanent employment in a studio space. There are many studios considering full remote, and many studios are insisting on return to office. Unfortunately governments don't seem to be in favor of remote work since it will destroy revenue from commercial real estate and many businesses that rely on people working at offices.
To survive this AI attack, as artists, I do believe that it is important to build your own brand. You can either do this like
1. Keos Masons, Hossien Diba, Vitaly Bulgarov etc who's emphasis is on innovation, quality and constantly pushing the bar on what is achievable in 3D art and keeping that focus on the sale of 3D art products either as an outsourcer/boutique
2. you can apply your art to your own larger personal projects as a business that allows for more creative control and direct relationship with consumers. So essentially you'd become a product design/media company and engage more directly with your consumer base. its also not too difficult to gradually work on your own game ideas and genres like visual novels that don't require heavy programming knowledge.
3. Many artists have taken to teaching and mentoring such as Michael Pavlovich and Pablo Munoz. Several artists sell asset packs, scripts.etc that can bring it more revenue since you sell at a reasonable price to many people.
The issue with 1, where you are providing services to larger partners, is about what you have to offer to them over your competitors and how this impacts your business when it comes to pricing. The artists I mentioned can command a higher price because they sell themselves as a brand. And I've noticed that their personal work often seems far more innovative than what they are contracted to do.
So its important to maintain a balance between what you do for branding and what you do as a service provider
For me personally I do want to join the industry permanently for a fixed rate allowing for more flexibility on my other creative endeavors. Its a bit different from my original goal of being permanent and using company resources to kickstart new projects which may still be a possibility.
Every studio is doing a reassessment of its business model with AI use becoming more mainstream. They are likely to move in a direction away from gated ip's to allowing consumers to have more control on personalization. I feel that all of this is achievable without AI, though I assume companies see a significant advantage in AI doing this at scale.
Like Lego recently started selling digital lego sets as content packs in fortnite. Its a smart strategy since it enables more monetization using Vbucks and they likely won't need to limit their focus to physical products.
@NikhilR I'd be very sad to see the industry move back towards fixed term contracts as a standard. The only place that leads is a race to the bottom where everyone ends up getting treated like shit and paid nothing (see the VFX industry for evidence).
A permanent employee is an asset, a contractor is a cost. which one goes first?
@NikhilR I'd be very sad to see the industry move back towards fixed term contracts as a standard. The only place that leads is a race to the bottom where everyone ends up getting treated like shit and paid nothing (see the VFX industry for evidence).
A permanent employee is an asset, a contractor is a cost. which one goes first?
I shouldn't have said it as "over" permanent employment in a studio space. Was wrong there. I meant more like it should be given as a middle ground option for creatives that more flexible in their employment. But its going to be a tricky balance.
The public face of many AAA companies is that they are growing and sustainable, so retaining employees and always looking for new talent, when this isn't really the case. I just felt that artists ought to develop their own brand and agency in order to command their price and terms.
Its true that without this it will be a race to the bottom, its important to look into other avenues to express creativity.
And there ought to be more employment protections for permanent employees, or atleast more transparency on company growth and finances so there is sufficient notice prior to layoffs/ better terms following layoffs.
With regards to the permanent employee being an asset, the layoffs seem to have proved otherwise. But contractor isn't much better, its just that I knew when I was going to be let go, so could prepare accordingly.
If I had a 3 year contract, I'd be good not working at a studio for the next 6 years focusing completely on a sole proprietorship for creative ventures. But I had no way to negotiate this at least at EA. Like telling them that I'd be fine with a 2 year contract at say 50% compensation (provided the 50% goes back into the company including other employees payroll) is a non starter even as an independent contractor. Again this is going with the assumption that their savings on me help retain others which likely won't happen.
But I don't have enough knowledge of what is going on internally to understand how they decide their finances and even my managers only have what they were told to work with.
So ideally I shouldn't have to lower my rate to stay longer, but the fact that they can't work with me to extend a long term relationship instead of rehiring and retraining is a business model I don't understand.
What I did understand is that the "way things are" is a big part of this model, and usually the approach is to meet targets quickly. This isn't always done with long term foresight.
But I can say that at EA one thing I really liked was that they did see value in an older employee with more overall work experience, its just that the market wasn't allowing them to provide a younger employee to gain that work experience internally and become more valuable.
I also don't understand poaching talent, though I get that employees might want to jump ship to increase their compensation.
I think AI is going to kill the internet as we know it before it kills jobs in game art. It's so easy and cheap to create massive amounts of noise, propaganda, and imitate real people, we're getting to the point people are assuming most random online comments are probably from a bot.
Scary thought: In the future artists will protect their work by embedding anti-AI viruses that will cause harm whenever an AI model tries absorbing/processing their art.
With regards to the permanent employee being an asset, the layoffs seem to have proved otherwise. But contractor isn't much better, its just that I knew when I was going to be let go, so could prepare accordingly.
I mean they are a literal financial asset. The more employees you have, the more your company is worth to someone looking to acquire it or if it goes into receivership.
I mean they are a literal financial asset. The more employees you have, the more your company is worth to someone looking to acquire it or if it goes into receivership.
Not necessary. Let's say you have a bunch or unionized woketards. They would be considered a liability.
With regards to the permanent employee being an asset, the layoffs seem to have proved otherwise. But contractor isn't much better, its just that I knew when I was going to be let go, so could prepare accordingly.
I mean they are a literal financial asset. The more employees you have, the more your company is worth to someone looking to acquire it or if it goes into receivership.
It is surprising that they laid off many key employees with years of experience some of which are now starting their own studios. I don't understand this strategy at all. I am curious if they were willing to negotiate some way to retain them. Like Ubisoft has a system where they place an employee on sabattical, sometimes at the set rate, sometimes a reduced rate and sometimes they temporarily lay them off for a period where the employee collects Employment insurance until they are hired again. Its a good idea to do this for permanent employees so you don't alienate them.
Its why I don't understand microsofts/activision/blizzard approach of gtfo day off and then they shipped them their belongings in boxes with many items in pieces or missing. A 12 week temp layoff where they don't have to pay, and using the period to stagger permanent layoffs seems more considerate and professional.
This prevents people reminding the company of their misgivings everytime a post ends up on linkedin from their marketing and engagement teams telling everyone how great they are.
If ransomware or similarly nasty viruses start being embedded in images, I'd say that'd be cause for concern. AI images often already have tons of extra data included (comfyUI embeds the entire node graph in its output images for example).
I mean they are a literal financial asset. The more employees you have, the more your company is worth to someone looking to acquire it or if it goes into receivership.
Not necessary. Let's say you have a bunch or unionized woketards. They would be considered a liability.
Did you seriously say that....? Good grief. Not only is it obviously using a slur, but you hate unions to boot, and you're the kind of person who uses the word "woke"? Sheesh.
If unions caught on enough in the games industry, companies wouldn't be able to avoid them, and then however much a unionised employee-having game company is worth would be the norm. I don't think "whatever makes it worth the most" should be the highest priority at all times.
I mean they are a literal financial asset. The more employees you have, the more your company is worth to someone looking to acquire it or if it goes into receivership.
Not necessary. Let's say you have a bunch or unionized woketards. They would be considered a liability.
Did you seriously say that....? Good grief. Not only is it obviously using a slur, but you hate unions to boot, and you're the kind of person who uses the word "woke"? Sheesh.
Yes, I said that. Did it hurt your feelings? I hate unions and I hate woketards. They've ruined way too many products, companies and industries. That's one of the reasons why they are considered a liability by almost every investor.
I mean they are a literal financial asset. The more employees you have, the more your company is worth to someone looking to acquire it or if it goes into receivership.
Not necessary. Let's say you have a bunch or unionized woketards. They would be considered a liability.
Did you seriously say that....? Good grief. Not only is it obviously using a slur, but you hate unions to boot, and you're the kind of person who uses the word "woke"? Sheesh.
Yes, I said that. Did it hurt your feelings? I hate unions and I hate woketards. They've ruined way too many products, companies and industries. That's one of the reasons why they are considered a liability by almost every investor.
If you're just going to be an asshole everyone's going to tell you the fuck off.
If you're just going to be an asshole everyone's going to tell you the fuck off.
There's no place for that kind of behavior here.
Then don't be an asshole.
Wow. way to turn it around. what a slick intellect we're dealing with here. You've posted less than 10 times, all on this thread, have no portfolio link, and no history on this site. It's pretty clear to everyone who the asshole here is.
This is why I love this site though. On the one hand you have 2,000 words from an industry insider on company practices. On the other hand you have some nobody posting "Myeh! Unionons are woke!"
Wow. way to turn it around. what a slick intellect we're dealing with here. You've posted less than 10 times, all on this thread, have no portfolio link, and no history on this site. It's pretty clear to everyone who the asshole here is.
Ad-hominem? Clearly an asshole. FYI: 'Woketard' is not an insult, but a descriptor (google what it means). And yes, I hate unions because I've never had (not in this, not in the past century) a single positive experience with any of them. And yes, 'unionized woketards' are considered a liability. In case of acquisition their heads are going to be the first on the chopping block. I've seen that many times in the past and will see it again in the future (actually, next week).
PS. I created account here just to help another user who was asking for help while other local 'not assholes' were making fun of him.
I do wonder what John_Dow's experience with unions was. Instead of the crazy comments, he could have simply elaborated on his experience. An old housemate of mine worked in QA and spoke very negatively about unions since his late father who was an engineer had lost his income and then his job because of union strikes. But not all unions are the same, its important to atleast have the opportunity to unionize and look into better workplace protections.
Well, I can't talk for MisterBannedSpammerDoe but one very relevant example of unions not being the silver bullet that many think they are is what happened after the recent writers strike, with Sag-Aftra striking a deal on AI voice acting with a tech startup without consultation or agreement with the very talent they were supposed to represent. https://aibusiness.com/ml/sag-aftra-deal-with-ai-voice-cloners-angers-many-actors
This explains rather well the American "libertarian" position of not being in favor of unions, according to the principle that one should be able to negotiate ones compensation on ones own behalf. Easier said than done of course.
I am of course not saying that the above is the norm - just saying that "Union = good stuff" is an overly simplified way of looking at things.
I am of course not saying that the above is the norm - just saying that "Union = good stuff" is an overly simplified way of looking at things.
indeed - it's not at all uncommon for altruistic organisations/movements to be helmed or taken over by grifters and scumbags. It makes sense - it's very easy when any attempt to expose to the scumbaggery can be dismissed as abusing the workers or keeping people down. its shit - there's lots of people out there trying to do the right thing and they end up either tarred with the same brush or they get pushed out by the scumbags.
Well, I can't talk for MisterBannedSpammerDoe but one very relevant example of unions not being the silver bullet that many think they are is what happened after the recent writers strike, with Sag-Aftra striking a deal on AI voice acting with a tech startup without consultation or agreement with the very talent they were supposed to represent. https://aibusiness.com/ml/sag-aftra-deal-with-ai-voice-cloners-angers-many-actors
Important sag-aftra isn't a union, it's a guild. This means they can controll who is available to work in any capacity on a project. A production has to pay SAG a fine every time it uses an actor who isn't part of the guild. The protections that SAG gives it's members are usually very little other than health insurrance and the ability to get work in Hollywood. And from what I hear, the health insurance really sucks.
This explains rather well the American "libertarian" position of not
being in favor of unions, according to the principle that one should be
able to negotiate ones compensation on ones own behalf. Easier said than
done of course.
Not at all. There has been a 60 year effort on the part of big business to make every union practice illegal. "Right to work" laws. "Work for hire" laws. The privilege not to pay union dues if you work in a union shop but don't join. These have been levied at the people from everything from coporation sponsored ballot issues, to bought and paid for legislators. From every level from the county boards to the supreme court.
And yeah, unions aren't perfect. But the statistics show that joining a union is one of the best things you can do for your long term health.
right, it is not a philosophical difference, but a matter of who has more ground in a never-ending class war. Getting one more piece of artillery on your side does not win the war but it helps.
Replies
https://openai.com/sora
The more people see AI, the more they will be able to identify AI, the more they will be pissed off to see AI.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-cohens-lawyer-cited-cases-exist-bid-end/story?id=105623927
https://aftermath.site/openai-sora-scam-sillicon-valley
Really, I've been thinking about the subject for a few days now, and I'm not sure whether to see this technology as an ally or as the nemesis of the artistic industry. What I do know is that currently, as it's presented, I only perceive it as a money-making machine for the companies behind it. I see it more as an advertising campaign aimed at keeping their investors rather than as a useful tool for us professionals beyond providing us with the power to generate references (references of questionable quality). These marketing campaigns create the same psychological impact as populist campaigns on social media, relying on fear and the public's ignorance, generating an explosive wow effect and a feeling of uncertainty among people. Real advancements for the industry don't make as much noise or impress the general public as much; useful advancements in our industry are not compatible with the era of Clickbait.
In my opinion, for these technologies to be truly useful for us, they need to give us total control over the outcome, and this is impossible to achieve just by writing prompts. As it stands, this technology will generate uncontrollable or inaccurate variations every time something is written. 3D/2D artists need to have control down to the last vertex and/or pixel. We can't depend on a prompt to modify certain assets; rarely will we get what we need following that path.
So, it's true that artificial intelligence will evolve, and it will increasingly be more perfect in terms of "RAW" results, but I don't believe that those generating this technology will be capable of providing us with tools in our software that give us the artistic control we need and that the industry needs.
On the contrary, I do believe it's a problem for the Internet and for society. In 10/20 or 30 years, anyone researching past events up to our days will be completely unable to know if what they find on the web is real or completely false. The amount of false texts, videos, audios, and images published will be so immense that it will render the Internet useless as a research tool. Furthermore, I'm sure that sooner rather than later, social networks will lose the interest of the public due to the proliferation of fake audiovisual content attempting to modify real current events, political and social, among other malicious content, generating total confusion for the user. Poisoning of the Internet.
After this social note, returning to the artistic aspect, I believe that creative work of a certain level will always be safe from advances in AI. Vision, feeling, and artistic motive will make the difference between AIBros and real artists.
Yes to AI, but not without the consent of the artists whose works it has been trained on, and not to production results without the control and professional touch of the artists. We want quality art, not standardized mediocrity from AI.
I hope these words help reduce some of the anxiety someone might feel when seeing all the noise on the internet about the star topic of the last 2 years.
A hug and happy artistic creation. I love this community.
From an artistic standpoint sure I get more crap to add to a mood board, but socially/politically there really needs to be regulation or the whole world is going to lose it.
Even categorisaiton would suffice, like on arstation if I do a seach and add the no-AI filter its better, not sure if AI gets through though which is the problem, but my use of that platform sure has reduced.
Slowly but surely, I am beginning to accept that my career as a 3D artist is coming to a close. It's been 7 years for me. If I can survive another three it will have been worth it. Right now my main concern is buying an apartment. If I can do that I can forget about rent and with that money I can satisfy my basic needs for a month. It's all motivated by AI. After that, I am going to disconnect myself from all of this, maybe even the internet. I just can't take in all this weirdness and nihilism.
My plan B is to become a full-time solo developer. I already know a thing or two about unreal and game development. I hope I will at least have that for a while.
Wouldn't it be better to just push it as far as you can go, rather than simply giving up? Even if your job might be taken away in the future, if you have it now, you'll surely get more mileage out of it if you keep doing it until it's no longer possible than if you choose, yourself, to stop.
https://80.lv/articles/google-s-new-ai-can-generate-entire-2d-platformer-games/
A much simpler solution is to stop worrying about the unknown and do whatever it is you want to do, or atleast thats the strategy I'm doing.
on the other hand I imagine those are already a thing
More seriously, every "legit" person that I have seen talk about AI was giving all the tell-tale signs of a bullshitter so I am not taking it too seriously.
Chat GPT is handy now and then but it's neither above or below google. Just has some pros and cons to it.
I've tried all of the 3d model generators I can find and they are pretty much useless for anything other than rocks.
I don't think that people were not being creative because of the bar set by artists. Like anyone can pick up a pencil and draw and not everyone wants to monetize and brand them through their art.
Like AI art use for making artistic profile pictures using an app (which is done) is possible,
Everyone making their own hollywood film, replacing hollywood movies with other actors and their family members using an app, its just not worth the gimmick.
Is this guy seriously trying to convince everyone that they made more money because they avoided hiring real animators or mocappers to make the run cycles?
So for a game like FC 24 or rather the entirely of EA sports as a model, the whole development process is based on asset automation, clean up, revision and curation.
EA works heavily with outsourcers and asset repurposing is encouraged.
Their primary revenue model is based on content asset packs that can be bought to enhance the gameplay experience.
So when Wilson mentions AI being used, he's not just limiting it to automating game development processes, the commercial intent is for further customization of this content by the end user making it more personalized.
I'm not sure if this gets rid of developers since all the AI content needs to be vetted internally and it is then packaged and sold.
They may allow generative AI on the player side to customize the content in game, but it will always be done in a way that incentivizes EA.
During my time there was a heavy emphasis on automation and finding tech art solutions to repetitive tasks.
This is also because of the nature of EA sports products, like there is a Lionel Messi in every iteration, so they need to automate to streamline his integration efficiently.
There is automation in everything from anatomy, outfits, procedural stadiums but its more controlled AI than the generative madness we see from consumer facing AI tools.
For example their approach to anatomy requires you to use the tool to create a closely approximated base model which you then use proprietary plugins and tools to further increase accuracy and likeness and your additional anatomy knowledge would help in taking this even further.
But you won't have to worry about the origin and insertion of every muscle or care about if they are deforming to Scott Eatons standards.
i.e it could be considered more Gallery Abominate as you can see in this comparison, but they are focusing on selling the complete product with marketing focused on branding and inclusion.
Its not a "this doesn't look top tier next gen so torpedo the entire game approach" (like is routinely insisted on portfolios) they choose to work within budget and technology contraints.
And this is largely accepted by gamers. Not all games require Naughty dog's obsessiveness on model quality to succeed.
It does seem that 2024's most popular games have largely suceeded because they have engaging gameplay and are very community oriented.
Like Helldivers and Lethal company, even Palworld (despite its alleged plaigarism)
EA also relies on influencer marketing to make a game trend so if you're in the business of selling games as a product you likely don't need to emphasize any one aspect unless your brand depends on it. Its a large publisher that is well invested so using AI to reduce overheads makes sense in this context.
What I would have liked to see is FIFA moving more towards the fortnite model, but the games popularity is more based on realism, so besides some promotional skins that would continue under Volta there's unlikely to be a full conversion of the game to something like Shaolin Soccer, which is what I was really trying to push during my time there.
Also as an EA employee that is permanent you always work for EA parent. So you will be moved around projects if there is downtime.
Layoffs are a different matter since that's based on more than just downtime.
And like many AAA games businesses they are invested in monetization through live service, so regardless of how much they emphasize creativity from the developer, the outcome will always be centered on player spending.
I don't see them getting rid of as many developers as they can, but they may not hire permanently and I can see this happening at other studios where you'll get short term contracts as temporary full time before they consider making you permanent.
A lot of developers would transition to managers for outsourcers, taking on finishing tasks and approvals, this was already the case when I was there.
What they can't do is downsize to a point where it hurts their brand image, they will have to hire to show growth and a people first focus since as a society we haven't become totally alien to empathy.
The way they save on this is by hiring interns, transitioning them to TFT and then extending permanent contracts allowing them to mitigate risk owing to market volatility.
It also gives the impression that they are always looking for the latest and greatest fresh talent and supporting local game development schools.
EA balances its books with a combination of temporary full time, permanent full time and outsourcing.
There is also some independent contracting.
When it comes to contracts I feel it would be better if these fixed term contracts are much longer. Its also not easy to get rid of permanent workers.
Like for me as a TFT I could only be hired for a maximum of 18 months and the reason given was that EA couldn't extend further because of employment laws (which I am not entirely sure about)
I'm not sure why they would release TFT's and then hire new TFT's that had to be trained.
Then again I wouldn't have had this chance as easily if they hadn't done this when it came to hiring me
But a system where there are longer fixed term contracts would be better, like hiring someone for 3 years followed by extensions.
Also the layoff priority is usually
QA > Artists > Tech Artists > Programmers
HR and support is usually in the middle, but can be at the beginning on end depending on their requirement and seniority.
These layoffs seem to have been full spectrum though there are differences between companies.
Like EA is moving employees around projects and their layoff process is staggered with a long notice period
Riot's severence was generous and their layoff process had sufficient notice and support for transition.
Microsoft's layoffs were very unprofessional and they cancelled a game 6 years into production.
Ideally going forward I am hoping for more adoption of remote working and that studios would transition to fixed term and independent contracting over permanent employment in a studio space.
There are many studios considering full remote, and many studios are insisting on return to office.
Unfortunately governments don't seem to be in favor of remote work since it will destroy revenue from commercial real estate and many businesses that rely on people working at offices.
To survive this AI attack, as artists, I do believe that it is important to build your own brand.
You can either do this like
1. Keos Masons, Hossien Diba, Vitaly Bulgarov etc who's emphasis is on innovation, quality and constantly pushing the bar on what is achievable in 3D art and keeping that focus on the sale of 3D art products either as an outsourcer/boutique
2. you can apply your art to your own larger personal projects as a business that allows for more creative control and direct relationship with consumers.
So essentially you'd become a product design/media company and engage more directly with your consumer base.
its also not too difficult to gradually work on your own game ideas and genres like visual novels that don't require heavy programming knowledge.
3. Many artists have taken to teaching and mentoring such as Michael Pavlovich and Pablo Munoz. Several artists sell asset packs, scripts.etc that can bring it more revenue since you sell at a reasonable price to many people.
The issue with 1, where you are providing services to larger partners, is about what you have to offer to them over your competitors and how this impacts your business when it comes to pricing.
The artists I mentioned can command a higher price because they sell themselves as a brand.
And I've noticed that their personal work often seems far more innovative than what they are contracted to do.
So its important to maintain a balance between what you do for branding and what you do as a service provider
For me personally I do want to join the industry permanently for a fixed rate allowing for more flexibility on my other creative endeavors.
Its a bit different from my original goal of being permanent and using company resources to kickstart new projects which may still be a possibility.
Every studio is doing a reassessment of its business model with AI use becoming more mainstream. They are likely to move in a direction away from gated ip's to allowing consumers to have more control on personalization.
I feel that all of this is achievable without AI, though I assume companies see a significant advantage in AI doing this at scale.
Like Lego recently started selling digital lego sets as content packs in fortnite. Its a smart strategy since it enables more monetization using Vbucks and they likely won't need to limit their focus to physical products.
@NikhilR
I'd be very sad to see the industry move back towards fixed term contracts as a standard.
The only place that leads is a race to the bottom where everyone ends up getting treated like shit and paid nothing (see the VFX industry for evidence).
A permanent employee is an asset, a contractor is a cost. which one goes first?
I meant more like it should be given as a middle ground option for creatives that more flexible in their employment.
But its going to be a tricky balance.
The public face of many AAA companies is that they are growing and sustainable, so retaining employees and always looking for new talent, when this isn't really the case.
I just felt that artists ought to develop their own brand and agency in order to command their price and terms.
Its true that without this it will be a race to the bottom, its important to look into other avenues to express creativity.
And there ought to be more employment protections for permanent employees, or atleast more transparency on company growth and finances so there is sufficient notice prior to layoffs/ better terms following layoffs.
With regards to the permanent employee being an asset, the layoffs seem to have proved otherwise.
But contractor isn't much better, its just that I knew when I was going to be let go, so could prepare accordingly.
If I had a 3 year contract, I'd be good not working at a studio for the next 6 years focusing completely on a sole proprietorship for creative ventures.
But I had no way to negotiate this at least at EA.
Like telling them that I'd be fine with a 2 year contract at say 50% compensation (provided the 50% goes back into the company including other employees payroll) is a non starter even as an independent contractor.
Again this is going with the assumption that their savings on me help retain others which likely won't happen.
But I don't have enough knowledge of what is going on internally to understand how they decide their finances and even my managers only have what they were told to work with.
So ideally I shouldn't have to lower my rate to stay longer, but the fact that they can't work with me to extend a long term relationship instead of rehiring and retraining is a business model I don't understand.
What I did understand is that the "way things are" is a big part of this model, and usually the approach is to meet targets quickly.
This isn't always done with long term foresight.
But I can say that at EA one thing I really liked was that they did see value in an older employee with more overall work experience, its just that the market wasn't allowing them to provide a younger employee to gain that work experience internally and become more valuable.
I also don't understand poaching talent, though I get that employees might want to jump ship to increase their compensation.
Related video:
The more employees you have, the more your company is worth to someone looking to acquire it or if it goes into receivership.
@PolyHertz
I see no reason to be scared of that
I am curious if they were willing to negotiate some way to retain them.
Like Ubisoft has a system where they place an employee on sabattical, sometimes at the set rate, sometimes a reduced rate and sometimes they temporarily lay them off for a period where the employee collects Employment insurance until they are hired again.
Its a good idea to do this for permanent employees so you don't alienate them.
Its why I don't understand microsofts/activision/blizzard approach of gtfo day off and then they shipped them their belongings in boxes with many items in pieces or missing.
A 12 week temp layoff where they don't have to pay, and using the period to stagger permanent layoffs seems more considerate and professional.
This prevents people reminding the company of their misgivings everytime a post ends up on linkedin from their marketing and engagement teams telling everyone how great they are.
There's no place for that kind of behavior here.
Ad-hominem? Clearly an asshole. FYI: 'Woketard' is not an insult, but a descriptor (google what it means). And yes, I hate unions because I've never had (not in this, not in the past century) a single positive experience with any of them. And yes, 'unionized woketards' are considered a liability. In case of acquisition their heads are going to be the first on the chopping block. I've seen that many times in the past and will see it again in the future (actually, next week).
PS. I created account here just to help another user who was asking for help while other local 'not assholes' were making fun of him.
Instead of the crazy comments, he could have simply elaborated on his experience.
An old housemate of mine worked in QA and spoke very negatively about unions since his late father who was an engineer had lost his income and then his job because of union strikes.
But not all unions are the same, its important to atleast have the opportunity to unionize and look into better workplace protections.
https://aibusiness.com/ml/sag-aftra-deal-with-ai-voice-cloners-angers-many-actors
Besides that, union leaders aren't volunteers : they grant themselves salaries. For instance the leader of the French agriculture union (a field struck by bureaucracy, taxes and workers suicide because of debt, leading to recent strikes around Europe) is granting himself 13000Euros/month.
https://www.latribune.fr/economie/france/mediapart-revele-les-salaires-des-dirigeants-de-la-fnsea-payes-par-les-cotisations-des-agriculteurs-840217.html
Some other workers' union leaders are also clearly blowing up magic-free-money :
https://www.capital.fr/economie-politique/linsolent-train-de-vie-des-dirigeants-de-force-ouvriere-1315289
This explains rather well the American "libertarian" position of not being in favor of unions, according to the principle that one should be able to negotiate ones compensation on ones own behalf. Easier said than done of course.
I am of course not saying that the above is the norm - just saying that "Union = good stuff" is an overly simplified way of looking at things.
It makes sense - it's very easy when any attempt to expose to the scumbaggery can be dismissed as abusing the workers or keeping people down.
its shit - there's lots of people out there trying to do the right thing and they end up either tarred with the same brush or they get pushed out by the scumbags.
anyway - this isn't AI talk
kill all humans
And yeah, unions aren't perfect. But the statistics show that joining a union is one of the best things you can do for your long term health.