Featured MEdia
Supply Chains

Have you ever wondered, can generative AI truly accelerate game production? This question struck me after reading an insightful op-ed by Lewis Packwood, features editor at Gamesindustry.biz, where he shared his discussions with developers at Gamescom on August 22. Developers expressed a pressing need to shorten game development cycles, aiming for just one or two years instead of the traditional five. While many in the industry have echoed this sentiment over the past year, the topic sparked a heated debate on social media.

Packwood noted that developers are increasingly turning to generative AI to produce code snippets, concept art, and other assets, allowing them to quickly iterate on their ideas. He referred to AI as the games industry’s “dirty little open secret,” highlighting that many developers were hesitant to discuss it openly due to fears of backlash, similar to what 11 Bit Studios faced after AI-generated assets were discovered in The Alters.

While Packwood argued that AI is already widely used in the industry, making it unreasonable for developers to fear its implications indefinitely, I found myself questioning how generating assets could genuinely speed up production. The assumption here is that the slow pace of game development stems from the time-consuming process of creating essential assets like code, 3D models, text, and audio. If that’s the case, then generative AI could indeed be a solution.

However, is that really the core issue? To explore this, I reached out to developers, publishers, and industry experts from various companies, including Tencent, Hooded Horse, and NEARstudios, posing a straightforward question: What do you believe is the primary reason games are taking longer to develop? Their responses pointed to a different direction, emphasizing the importance of quality over quantity.

• Yongyi Zhu, Vice President of Strategy and Compliance at Tencent Games, stated:
• “The number one reason games are taking longer to make is that the quality bar has risen dramatically. Players today expect fun and engaging gameplay, cutting-edge visuals, memorable narratives, and the ability to play whenever and wherever they want.”

For large studios working within familiar genres, meeting and exceeding these player expectations requires significant effort. Christophe Gandon, Managing Director of the game division at Virtuos, echoed this sentiment, noting that as the industry matures, projects become more complex, with players demanding higher quality, immersion, and satisfaction.

Interestingly, both Zhu and Adam Smith, Senior Vice President of Product at Unity Engine, pointed out that smaller teams working on experimental titles can often move much faster. Smith highlighted the success of Aggro Crab and Landfall’s viral climbing game, Peak, as a prime example. He explained that larger studios often get bogged down by costly infrastructure before they can focus on actual game development, leading to longer cycles and higher costs.

Smith’s comments about “costly infrastructure” and the advantages of smaller teams prompted me to seek insights from Heather Cerlan, CEO of NEARstudios and a seasoned technical artist from the world of AAA games. She believes that the extended development cycles are a result of tying game quality to photorealistic art direction. “For the last 10 to 15 years, games have grown in scope and become increasingly photorealistic,” she explained. “Developers were excited about the technology and eager to showcase their work.”

However, just because these tools made photorealism feasible doesn’t mean they were easy to use. Cerlan noted that while many developers understood the complexities involved, numerous executives and decision-makers did not, leading to ever-increasing budgets. The demand for photorealistic games necessitated complex tools, which in turn required larger teams. This growth in team size often resulted in communication breakdowns, unexpected technical issues, and ultimately, a focus on fixing performance problems rather than enhancing core gameplay—elements that the majority of players might not even care about.

“When the game finally launches, there are frame rate drops and bugs that frustrate players, leading to a loss of confidence,” Cerlan concluded. “This issue is preventing innovation in areas where players desire it. The industry is facing a reckoning, and I believe the obsession with ‘more, bigger, prettier’ is a significant factor in why many games feel soulless.”

Cerlan’s perspective sheds light on the misconception that simply increasing asset production speed will lead to better games. Yet, photorealism isn’t the sole reason for lengthy development times. What happens when developers argue that spending more time in development is crucial for achieving high-quality games? With titles like Hollow Knight: Silksong thriving after seven years of development, it’s clear that some developers advocate for longer production timelines.

Tim Bender, CEO of Hooded Horse, and Patrick Miller, Senior Game Producer at Riot Games, both highlighted the high expectations players have for new games. Bender remarked, “Extra time in development can fundamentally improve a game’s reception upon release.” He emphasized that they often encourage developers to take the necessary time to ensure everything is ready before launch, even for Early Access releases.

Bender’s comments resonate with Cerlan’s observations about players being disappointed by bugs and frame drops in AAA games. However, the difference may lie in the expectations set prior to release. If a game promises visual perfection, even minor issues can lead to significant backlash. Conversely, if a game offers hours of emergent gameplay, players may be more forgiving of technical hiccups.

Miller shared that the nearly ten years spent on Riot Games’ League of Legends-themed fighting game, 2XKO (formerly known as Project L), were essential to ensure the game’s success. He expressed optimism about long development cycles, stating that they allow developers to better understand the game they are creating and the players they are catering to. “Each cycle of building, testing, and refining teaches the team something valuable that shifts our direction slightly,” he noted.

For a fighting game, where the genre is shaped by decades of successes and failures, this time investment is crucial. “It takes a lot of time and effort to unpack the lessons learned over 30 years,” Miller explained. “I’m grateful we didn’t release any of the ‘Project Ls’ before arriving at 2XKO.”

So, can generative AI address the challenges outlined above? Probably not, at least not in the way Packwood suggests. Even when new technologies streamline processes, the time saved is often reinvested into enhancing or creating additional content, as Gandon pointed out. Insights from Cerlan, Smith, and Zhu indicate that smaller teams may be the key to faster game production, but this could lead to a scenario where core teams shrink while underpaid contractors and external studios fill the gaps.

Ultimately, the solutions to prolonged development cycles don’t seem to hinge on tool selection or team size. Cerlan founded NEARstudios to empower smaller teams to innovate and make strategic choices regarding fidelity, breaking free from the unrealistic expectations that she believes have been stifling the industry. By focusing on the right people and giving them the opportunity to thrive, the industry can move forward.

Disclaimer: This article has been auto-generated from a syndicated RSS feed and has not been edited by Vitrina staff. It is provided solely for informational purposes on a non-commercial basis.