2024.07.05 While the gaming industry explores the potential of generative AI, Nintendo remains cautious due to concerns over IP rights and the company's predilection for its unique approach to game development.
I mean, it feels kinda obvious. If there’s any company in this space that would never need to use generative AI, it’s Nintendo. They already employ some of the most talented art teams in the industry, they’re not exactly struggling to produce art or assets.
If this was from a developer who maybe hasn’t been a gaming monolith for the last 30+ years, that’d be different. This is like if Bill Gates says he promises not to open his 401k early; like, okay cool, I don’t think that was ever in doubt in the last 30 years, Bill, but thanks for letting us know.
Activision, Ubisoft, and EA, all multibillion game dev company, said they’ll be using generative AI to make their game, so no, it’s not really obvious. It’s also mentioned in the article
Nintendo’s stance differs from that of other gaming giants. Earlier this year, Ubisoft introduced Project Neural Nexus NEO NPCs, which uses generative AI to simulate in-game conversations and interactions with NPCs.
Similarly, Square Enix President Takashi Kiryu views generative AI as a business opportunity to create new content using cutting-edge technologies. Electronic Arts (EA) has also embraced generative AI, with CEO Andrew Wilson predicting that over half of EA’s development processes will benefit from advancements in generative AI.
The investor probably heard it’s a trendy thing that can make better profit, so they asked nintendo about it in the briefing.
Activision, Ubisoft, and EA, all multibillion game dev company, said they’ll be using generative AI to make their game
Because these companies don’t care stealing assets and work of others. AI makes it very easy and it won’t be too obvious. Problem with AI is, its trained on data they probably have no rights to use for. But its hard to provide evidence, until its too late and obvious.
Yes and no. The developers mostly still care making good games. Therefore some games are still good. Also we got a few good surprises in the last few years from these companies, so its not all lost.
We haven’t really seen high quality art that uses AI as part of the creative process yet, but this could be similar to the animation studios of the 90s who refused to use computers. They’re all out of business now.
The reality is, generative AI is a really powerful tool, so they will be at a disadvantage going forward if they don’t use it.
The situation is different from the 90s companies not wanting to use computers. Using AI today is a risk of violating copyright. The reason is totally different and is not comparable.
The copyright issue is tangential. You don’t have to train a model using unethically sourced artwork, just like you don’t have to build a structure using slave labor. Nintendo has the resources to legally protect themselves one way or another if they actually wanted to use generative AI.
I mean, it feels kinda obvious. If there’s any company in this space that would never need to use generative AI, it’s Nintendo. They already employ some of the most talented art teams in the industry, they’re not exactly struggling to produce art or assets.
If this was from a developer who maybe hasn’t been a gaming monolith for the last 30+ years, that’d be different. This is like if Bill Gates says he promises not to open his 401k early; like, okay cool, I don’t think that was ever in doubt in the last 30 years, Bill, but thanks for letting us know.
Activision, Ubisoft, and EA, all multibillion game dev company, said they’ll be using generative AI to make their game, so no, it’s not really obvious. It’s also mentioned in the article
The investor probably heard it’s a trendy thing that can make better profit, so they asked nintendo about it in the briefing.
Because these companies don’t care stealing assets and work of others. AI makes it very easy and it won’t be too obvious. Problem with AI is, its trained on data they probably have no rights to use for. But its hard to provide evidence, until its too late and obvious.
They don’t even care to make good games anymore.
Yes and no. The developers mostly still care making good games. Therefore some games are still good. Also we got a few good surprises in the last few years from these companies, so its not all lost.
Developers yes, the companies? No.
I can only think of Jedi Fallen Order and that was 5 years ago, maybe Diablo IV but I didn’t play it.
We haven’t really seen high quality art that uses AI as part of the creative process yet, but this could be similar to the animation studios of the 90s who refused to use computers. They’re all out of business now.
The reality is, generative AI is a really powerful tool, so they will be at a disadvantage going forward if they don’t use it.
The situation is different from the 90s companies not wanting to use computers. Using AI today is a risk of violating copyright. The reason is totally different and is not comparable.
The copyright issue is tangential. You don’t have to train a model using unethically sourced artwork, just like you don’t have to build a structure using slave labor. Nintendo has the resources to legally protect themselves one way or another if they actually wanted to use generative AI.