|
On April 11 2026 03:44 Jeremy Reimer wrote:
- If you aren't paying attention to what's happening with AI-driven development inside giants like Meta right now, you should be: software development is fundamentally changing
Tim is BS-ing again.
Crack open a copy of Visual Basic 6 from 1999. No intellisense, no Inheritance. Then check out Visual Studio 2005. It is a night and day difference in just 6 years. Software development 'fundamentally changed' from 1999 to 2005.
Software development has been "fundamentally changing" for 27 years...and probably longer than that.
It keeps getting easier and easier.
the reason there are 87 bazillion new RTS games arriving on Steam is that it is far easier to make a video game in 2026 than it was in 2000. So there is no need to give Tim any money. Him and 3 other guys should be able to crank out a game working out of their garage.
|
Of course FG made ~$1m and spent ~$43m because of geopolitics. People are too stingy nowdays.
The last time it was market oversaturation IIRC.
He'll blame Jesus the next time, I swear it.
|
in a general sense games have gotten easier to make. but player expectations have outpaced the gains in dev capability, such that WC2 took a year to make, and a modern RTS can spend ~45M over 6 years and still be stuck in development hell with a half finished product.
as for AI, in the words of Sam Altman, "this time feels different." Gotta agree with him (and Tim) on this one. The latest models are really good at coding and only getting better. Though IME vibecoding game dev eventually veers out of control (as opposed to web dev which is simple enough for the AIs to stay on the tracks) it still would still help a great deal on a codebase that's been written (mostly) by humans, such that in theory a human could take over the wheel if needed, but still lean on the AI for a lot.
|
Northern Ireland26556 Posts
On April 13 2026 07:04 townhouse wrote:in a general sense games have gotten easier to make. but player expectations have outpaced the gains in dev capability, such that WC2 took a year to make, and a modern RTS can spend ~45M over 6 years and still be stuck in development hell with a half finished product. as for AI, in the words of Sam Altman, "this time feels different." Gotta agree with him (and Tim) on this one. The latest models are really good at coding and only getting better. Though IME vibecoding game dev eventually veers out of control (as opposed to web dev which is simple enough for the AIs to stay on the tracks) it still would still help a great deal on a codebase that's been written (mostly) by humans, such that in theory a human could take over the wheel if needed, but still lean on the AI for a lot.
You have a good point on player expectations, I’d probably add those of publishers or investors to that too.
Many things can be simultaneously true.
It’s been considerably easier to make studio quality music in one’s bedroom on a budget for 15/20 years, but simultaneously harder to make a living doing original material for a good while. Exacerbated now AI slop is bombarding streaming platforms.
I see that becoming an increasing problem in the indie space. It was already hard to punch through lazy slop facilitated by easier production and distribution, that’ll no doubt get worse.
Not an area I’m especially familiar with but I imagine the self-publishing space for authors that opened up as a viable avenue for many is going to be similarly afflicted with AI slop.
Tim isn’t entirely off base with some things he says, but entirely incorrect to blame any of it for Stormgate bombing.
|
WDYM by player expectations outpacing gains in development?
Back in the day there was no capable enough Internet connection to download patches, so release verson was a final version most of the times. You fail with that, you get "Buggerfalled".
Nowdays companies are releasing half baked "Early Acess" slop, and people are fine with it. Expectations are low as hell.
Not to mention competition. You can google best games of 2000-2007 per year and compare it with best games of 2020-2026. There were dozens of legenary games every year, If you released something that was just fine, it might be still destroyed by press and players for mediocrity.
Nowdays people think a buggy poorly designed mess like Helldivers 2 is something incredible.
Meanwhile, the indie devs are just fine making comparable products with shorter development cycles, despite having severely less resources.
I dunno, sounds like gamedev companies are just making exscuses, because they can't compete.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1263 Posts
There is a design by accountant (well actually marketing) problem. Where all the big games are always trying to appeal the largest, broadest audience at all times. Their publisher, or shareholders, or the shareholders of their publisher always wants some expected features, and for the game to appeal to 'know trends/tendencies'.
Big developers used to be able to developed to a relatively niche group of people, and sometimes the games turn out good enough that it finds broad appeal even in audiences it didn't specifically target. You still see the same thing happens with really popular/viral indy games. But sometimes they are just cult classics that really appeal to that niche.
Big publishers/developers can't afford to make cult classics that a niche really likes anymore, so they always start with default requirements of broad appeal/reach. People do still appreciate something fresh and innovative in games. It's difficult to be innovative, competent, AND start with the baggage that the money people who don't care about the games, only the potential profit it will make, impose right at the start of developement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
