>>714013035
>It's not getting significant human intervention
>it eliminates art
You misunderstand. I'm saying "AI left to its own devices isn't an art maker, but it doesn't need to be to get the massive benefit of cutting non-art out of a project.

Here's a common real-world example of the kind of ask that AI is going to kill: a task like
>we want to emphasize our game's gun variety
>we need 7,800 small icons, a unique one for each gun part, with each different weapon quality, recolored appropriately based on their skin choices, and redesigned based on their skill tree attunements.
Before, for a task like this, you'd find the worst """"artist""""" on the team who you know doesn't have an artistic bone in his body (so you're not wasting a REAL artists' talents on scutwork), you put him on it from day one of the project, and by end of project in 18 months, he'll probably have most of it done if he's diligent and actually does the 15 a day he'd need to do (LOL, LMAO)

Today, the above is probably about 2-3 days of image-gen and about $1200 in AI key spend. You say this is worse art, but it is my feeling this task is essentially artless and no "art" was eliminated.

>And you want quality to be worse
You want quality to be non-existent, not me: you and other gamers at large would rather kill the space then either spend more or accept that the way you make a game has to change if the price is to stay constant.

>Games used to cost more
Look, If people were in the mood to drop a 1980s adjusted 200 bucks down on a single video game to turn them into super projects, I'd be all for it: the modern gamer is entitled and disinterested in this.


>>714013692
if a game was 55 bucks in the 90s, and was selling for 55 bucks today, it's the equivalent of them selling the game back then for $20. You have to sell WAY more copies or WAY more aggressively monetize in order to make the math on making a game today.

If shit's shit, inflation is causally most of the reason why.