• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Activision Blizzard is reportedly already making games with AI, and has already sold an AI skin in Warzone. People have been laid off.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Draugoth

Gold Member
A new report from Wired paints a picture of an industry that has already quietly accepted the technology, at least in some major AAA studios. Speaking to Wired, one anonymous source who once worked at the Call of Duty publisher claims that the company promised generative AI would only be used for concept art and other materials that wouldn't make their way into the final game. However, the article claims that by the end of the year, Activision was already selling AI-generated skins in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 via the Yokai's Wraith bundle.



screenshot-2024-07-24-094251-1721810585928.png


modern-warfare-3-ai.jpg

The AI content

Another anonymous source told the site that "a lot of 2D artists were laid off" as part of Microsoft's wider cuts, which left almost 2,000 employees out of a job. "Remaining concept artists were then forced to use AI to aid their work," the source continues, and have since been made to sign up for training sessions on how to use AI tools. That's because, for now, 2D art assets are easier for AI to conjure up, meaning concept artists, illustrators, graphic designers, and more jobs are all at higher risk.

Source
 

Unionists in shambles.

Cool. The tech exists and it can create content like this fast. As long as it looks good, does this really matter to consumers?

I'm not paying for something stolen from real artists. On top of that, why should I pay for something that had no cost for the one selling? This justifies piracy.

Let's stop believing the dumb notion that machines "do" art. They don't. They steal from others.
 
Cool. The tech exists and it can create content like this fast. As long as it looks good, does this really matter to consumers?
What bums me out about comments like this, is that to respond to it, you are at risk of being called a artsy-fartsy moron. Because you view video games as more then just a product for "consumers" to consume.

Either way, skins, costumes, whatever, should be made by sentient ARTISTS and designers. That feel things, that have intent, and their own style.

If AI was sentient and were able to be creative and feel things just like regular humans, and had free will, including a skin made by a person or AI, wouldn't be an issue whatsoever.

It doesn't matter if it looks good or not.
I would rather a skin that was designed by a toddler, then one that was "designed" by AI stealing from existing artists.

Because the toddler feels things. He has intent. He made that skin because "wow, that's soooo cool!".
As human beings that should have value.

I'm not even attacking Act/Bliz here, because I know video games it's all a product and toy for them. They don't care about that stuff.
It's just bothers me when people don't see the issue with it.
 

MAX PAYMENT

Member
Are layoffs in relation to AI or could they be related to just poor management in general. The industry seemed to assume it was going to grow exponentially forever...until it didn't.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Cool. The tech exists and it can create content like this fast. As long as it looks good, does this really matter to consumers?
Even better.

Give gamers the option to earn XP and Pts and unlock AI gen tool. Make your own skins. No artists needed at all.

I dont buy mtx so it'd make no difference to me. When I unlock stuff I dont even bother equipping it. Looks like shit. But if I got free options to make my own skins that'd be awesome and I might dabble with it.
 

Interfectum

Member
Not sure what the point is fighting against it. It's inevitable.... developers are using AI art and code EVERYWHERE now. There is AI generated video and graphics already appearing on TV. The ship has sailed.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Not sure what the point is fighting against it. It's inevitable.... developers are using AI art and code EVERYWHERE now. There is AI generated video and graphics already appearing on TV. The ship has sailed.
I dont follow the industry, but by the sounds of the pushback, it sounds like they all make their art grassroots with zero AI help. Hence why they hate AI.
 
Last edited:

Roxkis_ii

Member
I'm not bothered and I doubt a majority of people care where art comes from, just that it looks good to them.

Painters thought photography was soulless

Horse carnage drivers thought cars were soulless.

People who had to manually hand copy text thought the printing press was soulless.

Artist calling AI soulless are just following the tradition.
 

Interfectum

Member
I dont follow the industry, but by the sounds of the pushback, it sounds like they all make their art grassroots with zero AI help. Hence why they hate AI.
Artists and coders not using AI to assist would be like mathematicians not using calculators. The tech exists, it massively fast tracks work and if you don't adopt it you will fall behind. At the end of the day customers could give a shit if it's home grown or not if they can't tell the difference.
 

Magic Carpet

Gold Member
What bums me out about comments like this, is that to respond to it, you are at risk of being called a artsy-fartsy moron. Because you view video games as more then just a product for "consumers" to consume.

Either way, skins, costumes, whatever, should be made by sentient ARTISTS and designers. That feel things, that have intent, and their own style.

If AI was sentient and were able to be creative and feel things just like regular humans, and had free will, including a skin made by a person or AI, wouldn't be an issue whatsoever.

It doesn't matter if it looks good or not.
I would rather a skin that was designed by a toddler, then one that was "designed" by AI stealing from existing artists.

Because the toddler feels things. He has intent. He made that skin because "wow, that's soooo cool!".
As human beings that should have value.

I'm not even attacking Act/Bliz here, because I know video games it's all a product and toy for them. They don't care about that stuff.
It's just bothers me when people don't see the issue with it.
I remember way way back there was a movie critic called Roger Ebert. He created a big stink by saying Video Games were not Art.
That was back when they were created by humans.
I wonder if Ebert will be proven correct no matter how the visuals are made.
 

Crew511A

Member
Are people delliberately missing the point of this thread?

I think if we were losing creative modern masterpieces to AI, that would be an issue. But let's face it, Activision has just been shoveling crap out the door for so long, I don't see the issue. You could tell me the last 3 entire COD games have been created by AI, and that would honestly explain some of the disjointed character and map designs.
 
I wonder if they will lower prices due to them being cheaper to produce now, since you know,
You don’t have to pay a human anymore.
 

yurinka

Member
Most devs (not only the MS ones) already use AI, yes. In my case to speed up coding with chatgpt. It's good to make some drafts of certain small pieces of code, to resolve some doubts or questions, or to spot certain issues.

But obviously won't do your job. Same goes for artists etc.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Banned

Knightime_X

Member
I suspected this even when Mw1 was out.
There's just no way someone is out there making hundreds to thousands of these graphics that fast!
 

KXVXII9X

Member
Cool. The tech exists and it can create content like this fast. As long as it looks good, does this really matter to consumers?
Yes. Because you guys will be crying about how everything looks sloppily put together in the sake of efficiency. AI can definitely aid concept artists and graphic Designers but I have no doubt in my mind it will be abused and will be another way to cut corners.

A good use of AI would be to generate references and quick rough thumbnail ideas that artist can use to help start the creative process but it shouldn't be enough to replace them. This work still needs an artistic and human touch. AI also draws off of human work. I feel this will set a bad precedent for AI to feed into itself if more and more human work gets replaced.
 

Diddy X

Member
Imagine paying 20 bucks for a skin they made without any effort.

They are using a powerful tool to make it, the R&D is there, just like they use machines to lift heavy stuff, are you not paying for it because the worker didn't do any effort?
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
What bums me out about comments like this, is that to respond to it, you are at risk of being called a artsy-fartsy moron. Because you view video games as more then just a product for "consumers" to consume.

Either way, skins, costumes, whatever, should be made by sentient ARTISTS and designers. That feel things, that have intent, and their own style.

If AI was sentient and were able to be creative and feel things just like regular humans, and had free will, including a skin made by a person or AI, wouldn't be an issue whatsoever.

It doesn't matter if it looks good or not.
I would rather a skin that was designed by a toddler, then one that was "designed" by AI stealing from existing artists.

Because the toddler feels things. He has intent. He made that skin because "wow, that's soooo cool!".
As human beings that should have value.

I'm not even attacking Act/Bliz here, because I know video games it's all a product and toy for them. They don't care about that stuff.
It's just bothers me when people don't see the issue with it.
The problem is that it turns out the average artist is just doing what AI does and iterating on existing art they have consumed. And I have to imagine especially the average artist making CoD skins.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
I can’t pretend I care about artists losing their jobs but I do find this fascinating. The AAAA industry feels like it could explode at any moment.
 
AI is a real threat to economies and it seriously needs to be addressed. We have a consumer-driven economy. If too many people get replaced, who will be able to afford to buy things? We'd either need to start giving people universal basic income for, essentially, doing nothing, or companies will need to deliberately stop trying to automate to increase profits. Cause if every company automates too much, boom, there go a ton of jobs and the economy with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom