www.tweaktown.com/news/99109/nintendo-wont-use-generative-ai-in-its-first-party-games/index.html
Nintendo won't use generative AI in its first-party games
MisleadingFor all the criticism of Nintendo, of which there are many, one thing they have consistently proved is that they believe in in making good quality, creatively inspired video games.
Moderator removed comment
3d
For big companies that is absolutely not the case. They need to increase shareholder value and that's why they need to up their monetization. The number of pirated copies is but a drop in the ocean compared to their mtx revenue. Isn't like a third of EA's revenue just ultimate team.
It's impossible that that's revenue lost from ppl pirating the latest FIFA.
For indie devs however, I believe that you're right.
Nintendo as a conservative japanese company doesn't pursue such aggressive profit growth quarter over quarter. That's good for gamers and its good for long term investors, but not good for investors looking to get fast returns. I know this as someone who has been buying stock little by little over the years. Nintendo underperforms other big tech companies, but it doesn't bother me as a big fan of the company.
Bc Nintendo has care and love put into their games and they care way more about making a solid product than shareholder value
Making a solid product consistently is the most sustainable way to increase shareholder value over time. Those goals are not at odds as long as you have a long view. Which Nintendo does, having been around since the 19th century.
Because Sony is barely a Japanese led company these days, Nintendo is really the only major Japanese console producer left.
the Japanese approach tends to be more stakeholder-oriented, considering the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, and the community in addition to shareholders. Whereas, Western companies typically emphasize a shareholder-centric model, where the primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. This can sometimes lead to cost-cutting measures, outsourcing, and other strategies aimed at boosting short-term profits. So, damn the brand if it pushes up profits. Look at what MS has done with Xbox brand recently for goodness sake. They've destroyed so much goodwill because Satya Nadel demands growth now.
My point is that the stakeholder-oriented model is still ultimately better at providing shareholder value in the long term because it is more sustainable. A company that sacrifices all in the name of shareholder value may lead to skyrocketing profits in the short term but will undermine itself by alienating consumers and skilled workers, damaging the company's value and ultimately proving to be worse for shareholders.
Yep agreed. Long term vs short term is the key difference.
the stakeholder-oriented model is still ultimately better at providing shareholder value in the long term because it is more sustainable
I actually agree with you, but I think it's important to remember that that's only true for "buy and hold" investors.
For a lot of investors sucking the company dry and leaving behind the corpse is a part of the plan. They don't care about the long term plans of the company because that's not their long term plans. Their long term plans is to keep moving on to new companies and keep repeating the process. To such people that is sustainable because from their view "there's always another company".
Until they all end under 3 umbrellas.
there are consistent question by shareholder on why Nintendo game development takes so much time
several of their game have 7+ years of development time.
Polished game like Breath of the wild, ToTK, Mario Oddesy, Mario Wonders DO require extra dev time to get it super fun and polished.
But shareholder doesn't want landmark game, but simply quick return of investment. something that thankfully Nintendo still defend their decision to take time in developing those landmark games while saying "we'll look ways to shorten dev time" to satisfy shareholder.
Yep. They are always like " why doesn't mario have 50+ mobile games in every genre possible? My stock would triple and then I could dump and buy the next tier company on the stock totem pole.
Except for Gamefreak since they are their own company and nintendo is a publisher
Actually, I have some data that suggests that large cap Japanese video game publisher stocks are an excellent source of non-correlated growth to both the S&P500 and the Nikkei.
In my opinion, Nintendo is actually a useful stock for investors into a quick profit, because it's stock has historically tracked with its console releases.
The stock increases in value rapidly in the run up to the new console announcement, then begins a downward trend about a year into the life of the new console. This was not the case for relatively unpopular consoles, like the Wii U.
Don't listen to me, I'm just an asshole on the internet who owns Nintendo stock. Capcom and Square-Enix too, in fact.
I’ve been investing too. Considering they have movies, theme parks, the second best selling console ever, merchandise, collectibles and top games I think it is grossly undervalued.
I feel the same way. Only thing that will shake that belief is if they drop the ball with the next one, but I don't see that happening.
Me neither but you never know with Nintendo!
Which is why I will never have an issue dropping $60-$70 on any of their first-party titles. They're always straight bangers
I agree
They need to increase shareholder value and that's why they need to up their monetization.
While I'm aware increase to shareholder value is not bound by the constraints of country borders, does Nintendo being a Japanese company have any impact on how they "value" this? I'm just curious if japanese companies don't have that pressure or atleast not to the degree other economies do.
American shareholders are very focused on the now, so the Japanese are comparatively long term thinking. Toyota is another good example to contrast with western auto companies.
Toyotas truly are the best bang for your buck cars and it's not even close.
Piracy does little to affect their sales though. Or most other companies.
Nintendo is the best game developer in the world and it’s not particularly close. It’s been around 4 decades but the bangers just won’t stop. Most of the old school greats are either non-existent or shells of their former selves.
You can hate on some of their archaic practices but a world without Nintendo would just be dull.
From what I’ve seen, Nintendo seems to only care about one thing when they make games: Is it fun?
Their games are often goofy, shallow, nonsensical—but always fun—And that’s what a game is about right?
This is actually central to their design philosophy:
Is the core game loop fun, on an instinctive level?
This comment from an older reddit thread goes into more detail on Nintendo's game design philosophy, good read.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRGRJRUWafY
Discussion on Mario 1-1 where they walk through every step of making Mario "FUN" first.
Everything from marios size to the coin placements etc. Fun. Happy. etc
Mario Odyssey was the dumbest concept I have heard in a game. “You throw a hat and that’s it?”
But I will not believe a single person who says the game isn’t fun. From a pure gameplay perspective, I firmly believe it’s one of the best gameplay and fun games I’ve ever played.
Nintendo has been successfully selling games of one kind or another since 1889.
I'm 40, have gamed since classic NES, mostly PC, but the only games I buy any more are the big Nintendo titles.
With that amount of pride and dedication to that craft, can you blame Nintendo for not wanting derivatives or anything that can possibly create a false narrative of any of their products?
Granted, some methods may be considered going way too far, especially when things were done unintentionally
Edit-spelling
AI generated whatever does not make a game good or bad. The entire discussion just assumes it’s bad which makes for no discussion at all.
I guess game freak isn't under that umbrella
It's not, it's a fully independent company
Nintendo is only a part owner. They could exert more force but Pokemon has been such a total success financially that I don't think they see any problems. Also, from what I understand, the Japanese market is happy with the quality of Pokemon games and Nintendo has historically had a massive blind spot for what's happening outside of Japan.
Just to clarify: Nintendo is part owner of Pokemon, not Game Freak. Pokemon is owned on equal parts by Nintendo, Creatures and Game Freak.
Honestly Nintendo is really protecting their legacy and have been for the last 100 years. AI is cheap and soulless.
I also recently learned that they have consistently supported gay marriage and gay rights, even when those ideas have been very unpopular in Japan.
To my knowledge, Nintendo does not have any public political statements like companies in America do for Pride month and other events. But what I have heard is that internally they've always been very accepting of gay employees and even went so far as to recognizing the marriages/spouses/partners of gay employees when it was not widespread to do so. Honestly I think that kind of true acceptance/inclusion is way more impactful
I would much rather my employer be decent to me than to use my identity as a marketing tactic while not actually giving a single fuck, like American companies do. I think our whole society would benefit from a shift towards just being quietly decent, and away from being loudly righteous.
Gamefreak: 👀
The Pokemon Company is owned by Gamefreak, Creatures Inc, and Nintendo, at roughly 1/3 each.
You'll know when Nintendo gains control of Pokemon when Pokemon games stop being yearly installments and start being five-year masterpieces.
Eh, I think they'd just increase their staff. Like it or not, Pokémon games release this way because they are tied to other branches of the franchise that also need to release at specific times. Merchandise, TCG, anime; all of these release at times that best promote the others. And especially since merchandise makes more sales by a wide margin, there is a benefit to releasing the games sooner rather than later. And frankly, I can't see Pokémon ever spacing their games five years apart and causing everything else to slow down too.
There's gotta be a better way to handle it without expecting Game Freak alone to put out a mainline game every other year, involve more studios and have a rotating roster of developers work on the games, have Game Freak work on the next generation while a different studio works on remakes and another studio works on more experimental titles like Pokemon Legends. Basically what they did in 2021-2022 but they should actually spread those games out to one per year instead of having 3 mainline games release within 12 months, goddamnit. That's just plain old greed, they correctly identified a potential solution to the problem and yet they chose to use that solution to rush development of three different games instead of one just so they could milk the franchise even harder. BDSP could've been their 2021 holiday game, PLA could've been their 2022 holiday game and SV could've been their 2023 holiday game, they would've still had a mainline game release per year and at least 2 of these games would've been better off for it, quality wise.
Gamefreak isn't owned by Nintendo.
Nintendo isn't interested in pushing the technical limitations of gaming, so all in all I think this just is them acknowledging that they'll wait and see how AI in gaming develops.
Yep, and they'll always be in my heart because of that. Japan seems to be the only country with honor left on this hellhole-planet
Most games feel the same aside from Nintendo. Walk slowly from place to place and pressing x or b when prompted. Walk. Open door with x. Walk. Press b to loot something. Walk. Walk. Kill something by pressing x repeatedly. Press a to jump. Slash with right trigger. Light attack with right button.
Nintendo needs an extra A to distinguish them from other AAA studios.
Always trusted the golden Nintendo seal
Unless they’re Pokemon games.
Nintendo doesn't make Pokemon games.
It’s a good thing I can’t read
I don't know about the new president but Iwata said he was against layoffs because it would lower employee morale and just decrease quality of their games, during the wii u era he took a 50% pay cut to prevent layoffs. I don't think Nintendo is out here itching to replace all their workers with AI, but sadly can't say the same about other (mainly western) companies
Furukawa was mentored by Iwata for years before he became president. What people dont get is that all of those nintendo presidents, while having smaller differences here and there, fundamentally all share the same philosophy followed by Yamauchi, just with different personalities.
In japan there are laws that make him take a pay cut instead of firing some employees.
Good to hear. Human creativity will likely still outpace AI creativitiy for quite a while.
I remember a couple of decades ago the idea was that robots would pick up the mundane, boring jobs leaving us to be creative, but it looks like it’s gonna end up the other way round
Unfortunately we’ve gotten pretty far at having them do the mundane jobs it’s just more difficult
User deleted comment
3d
Unfortunately as in we’re only this far, people complain about these jobs not being replaced while we make AI to do art and it’s unfortunate that that’s because we have been making major progress in making these jobs assisted but it’s difficult and slow to make progress.
"Unforunately"? AI / robots are a chance to prevent millions of people from working terrible, boring jobs. That's a good thing.
Cool, cool. And who exactly is going to support these millions of people out of work? I really don't understand why people would be excited to have their job replaced with a robot. This planet isn't exactly rife with opportunity considering it's almost at 8 billion humans.
Universal basic income?
200 years ago like 90% of society was involved in agriculture. It literally took most people just to feed ourselves.
Now it's sub 5%.
I'm sorry too that I still have to do laundry and clean my house but this statement is bananas.
To be fair, there is plenty of mundane, boring work in the creative field. Most technological advances in art tools target this stuff first. AI was the first tool to try to target the whole process.
I just want an AI that can unwrap UVs for me perfectly and clean up my topology on 3D models... I wanna die
I was looking forward to Photoshop just perfectly separating objects from the background. Fuzzy cloth, hair, out-of-focus parts on high contrast backgrounds. But whenever I click that “magic” button it fails. Utterly. Even with monochrome backgrounds where it would be easier to just select it by color. That’s from one of the largest graphics tool companies on earth with a heavy AI push. We’ll see decades of AI theory being turned into AI practice with frustrating, intensive work. Producing and sorting all that training data and fine-tuning it for niche cases. We’ll probably see an AI crash similar to the dot com bubble which went through this exact same shit.
I bet in the end, we’ll end up having a tool that makes work 10% more efficient and people are just expected to be 10% more productive as they now have a “and continue the rest of these like the ones before”-button. But that’s about it. Unless your job is writing literal blogspam, I think you’ll continue finding work.
Robots are taking over the mundane factory line jobs
AI is software though and that’s taking over more intellectual jobs now too.
No one is safe from automation. Even the people who master the creation and maintenance of robotics and AI are not safe from replacement. They themselves could be tasked to create their own replacements (possibly unwittingly). Even high level leadership roles could be replaced by AI ultimately (very scary)
We need lots of laws in place.
How long before ai starts to understand continuity? Because I think that's the biggest issue with ai making things like books and video games.
I'd rather AI tools be open source, left in the hands of the people. Over regulation will only benefit the lobbyists.
We live in a world where we constantly complain about the resources people consume. But so far we can still find a use for most people.
I can't even imagine how little people will care about other people when they're nothing but a waste of resources with no work output to prove their worth.
Once you're nothing but a carbon footprint, once you're nothing but a burden, people are going to start asking why you deserve to step on this earth at all.
Normal people won’t wonder that, and the wealthy ruling class substantially already does.
Yes you’re right that’s a scary thought.
When people become 100% useless, people are no longer needed. I suppose that’s the core storyline of the Terminator movies too. The more AI progresses the more concern I have. The only thing keeping things like that from coming true will be humans not pushing the limits of what AI can do.
The worst thing we can do is hand over the keys to the kingdom. Put AI in positions of power.
Ultimately humans may be the creators of our own demise by creating artificial thought that finds humans too useless or exist.
The sad part is that the original dream was that once robots took over jobs then humans could lead lives of leisure. Instead it now kicks people to the curb and slams the door shut behind them. Thanks capitalism…
I wouldn't worry too much. Generative AI is so overhyped in what it can actually do it's at Donald Trumpian levels. Companies adopting it mindlessly are doing themselves a disservice.
Besides, even if Gen AI was as good as they try to crack it up to be the Habsburg AI problem means humans are still the big swinging dicks of creativity, if you can call the algorithmic output of a computer program creativity at all.
Edit: I realized this is kind of insensitive. What I mean to say is that in terms of creativity, these companies need human work. Their programs need human work.
However, this will not stop managers from trying to replace skilled humans with janky AI and people have already lost their jobs (Hello HASBRO you giant pieces of shit) but that doesn't mean the machines can do what you do better than you do. My heart goes out to everyone who's been impacted by this shitty situation and the garbage humans behind it.
They already have. Half the sushi in Japan is made by robots for example, because a robot can form a piece of rice quicker than a human can and with more precision.
The core issue is that AI is being overused as a term.
I'm not that worried personally. AI, as of right now, is a bubble. It's being used for everything even though it doesn't work that well. We've had the exact same hype about neural networks 8 years ago, because "it works like a brain!", even though the details are a lot more nuanced and boring.
However, AI will have its use. It might even be useful in the creative space to automate some of the processes. Like, generating a grass texture is probably something that AI can do okay. But also, what the AI generated can be a starting point: an artist can still modify that generated texture to make it look more in line with the vision of the game. Or I wouldn't be surprised if we had AI that could generate basic animations. Making a walking animation isn't super fun and could be generated. And again, someone can adjust the animation to make it more in line with the vision.
However, I don't think that most of the art can really be completely generated. You're probably better off, for example, modeling a car by yourself than letting an AI do it.
I mean drawing the same character in 70 different posses is pretty mundane.
Guess we're gonna have to get creative with our mundane jobs. People like carpenters and welders can start doubling as sculptors and stuff.
I heard something in another conversation somewhere that really stuck with me. I used to think about AI/robots as doing the jobs I didn't like, such as the laundry. What we are getting are ones that do the jobs we do like, and leaves us to do the laundry.
but it looks like it’s gonna end up the other way round
Why is that? What examples have you seen, anywhere, that imply this?
"AI creativity" is quite an interesting phrase.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what current 'AI' actually is.
I was listening to an AI engineer explain once that AI isn't "artificial intelligence" but rather "algorithmic input" with a fancy interface.
The fact that the fancy interface has fooled enough people to believing in magical sentient machinery is both fascinating and depressing.
I've seen some people casually believe generative AI is... sentient. Like, we should respect them enough to let people do whatever they want with them, but not enough to... not make them do those things?
This is depressing
I think its more an assumption that what AI is today is nothing like what it will be in say 50 years
Don't forget when people also picture the future progression of AI in like 10-20 years they always tend to assume that the rest of the world will be frozen in a snapshot in time of today in 2024.
The controller senses a 7 year old is playing, switching to arcade walk thru difficulty. Motor function equivalent of a carriage on cobblestone
It's not an either/or proposition though. Current AI needs artistic guidance to produce anything worthwhile and ready for production.
No studios are currently expecting to type "make vidya gem plz" into a prompt box and get a functioning video game capable of competing in today's market. At most, custom AI-assisted workflows will streamline processes so that a smaller number of artists can produce as much content as a bloated AAA studio that underpays and overworks their staff.
AI isn't creative at all. that job still belongs to humans, it's just an emulator for human creativity.
If "AI" means the generative-trained type and not something newer, then probably "quite a while" means never.
Ready for my downvotes from the tech bros.
As an AI engineer yes absolutely. This Generative AI (Gen AI) bs is nothing but garbage. It'll burst. Core AI is not being focused or worked on much because of gen ai popularity.
AI literally cannot overtake human art, because AI needs to be trained on human-created art to improve and it’s already gobbled up most of it.
Imagine you know an artist. You ask him to draw an elephant. He’s never seen an elephant. So you show him one or two pictures of an elephant. Now he can draw one.
Now ask an AI to draw an elephant. It needs to study a thousand photos of elephants just to draw one without eight legs and two trunks instead of tusks.
AI has its uses, but they’re limited, and those limitations will grow more and more apparent with time.
What you’re talking about is called few-shot learning. Generative AI had an order of magnitude improvement in this. If there’s a similar leap in the future, you’ll absolutely be able to show AI a single picture of an elephant and get results equivalent to a human.
You’re awfully confident that there’s something special going on in the human brain that cannot be emulated.
Probably because they care about the quality of their games
Unless it's Pokemon, then they'll let Game Freak churn out any old stuff regardless of quality. I say that as a Pokemon obsessive
They know what they’re doing. The games are just a part of the massive merchandising machine that is Pokemon. They have to churn them out like clockwork to keep that machine moving.
It makes me sad how true that is. I just wish there was one amazing quality, full game at least every like, 5 - 7 years. And then churn out the money makers in the between time.
Then maybe it's time you branch out and find other franchises. I did after SwSh, couldn't be happier. Because you'll be waiting a long time if you want amazing quality from Pokémon anymore.
And fortunately now it seems they’re ditching the 3 year cycle for a 4 year one. So I think we’ll see a big improvement in quality come generation 10 in 2026.
Source? PLA released in the same year as SV, so they could still release Gen X next year.
Insiders have hinted Z-A is NOT an early 2025 release like PLA was. But truly nothing is concrete until we get our next update from a pokemon presents.
Because Nintendo just publishes it. It'd be a different story if they owned Game Freak
GameFreak isn't owned by Nintendo.
The Pokemon Company is owned by Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures Inc. while that one is owned by Game Freak and Nintendo, so really Nintendo and Game Freak are joint owners of Pokemon, so presumably Nintendo could interfere in the process of creating the games to a degree.
But why would they interfere when the games make so much money? I'm sure Nintendo is happier collecting their share of the profits and focusing on their fully-owned IPs.
Because they could earn more if the games were better. If their games make this much money as they are right now, imagine how much more they could make if the games were actually well polished.
On that note, while Scarlet and Violet were once more a complete mess on the technical and graphics side of things, I do think the open world was done okay and the story was actually done well. Imagine if that game had better graphics, better coding and voice acting in high-impact cutscenes. They would have earned an absurd amount of money.
As expected from Nintendo, quality comes first
Doesnt the article state that its over IP-related concerns?
"Nintendo, however, is dubious about using generative artificial intelligence in its games. The rationale is pretty simple: Nintendo knows that generative AI can have implications for IP rights, and as one of the most litigious companies in the entire industry, Nintendo is one to protect and respect all forms of copyright and intellectual property law." -Quote from the article in OP's link
Not to say nintendo isn't all about quality of course, nintendo has a high standard of quality as always, but reading these comments has me confused if anyone actually...read the article
why would i read the article when i already made my own story reading the headline
Doesnt the article state that its over IP-related concerns?
Yes. That's the crux of the issue - ownership of generative AI outputs is still iffy. No company wants to deal with iffy.
And no company is going to ignore any tool that promises an advantage. Outwardly, they'll decry and distance themselves. Internally, they are exploring how to use these tools, especially because their rivals are doing the same thing.
Great news.
for now.
The actual source does not say they wont use generative AI:
"Generative AI, which has been a hot topic in recent years, can be more creative, but we also recognize that it has issues with intellectual property rights.
"We have decades of know-how in creating optimal gaming experiences for our customers, and while we remain flexible in responding to technological developments, we hope to continue to deliver value that is unique to us and cannot be achieved through technology alone."
Good ai sucks
What about bad ai?
it sucks too...
There's no human creativity in it and all ai art etc are lifeless.
If it saves a developer time instead of doing something really tedious for something that could be easily done by an AI and not lower the quality of the game I don't have an issue with it, like foliage in a lot of games has been done by computers for about 20 years now
It’s really shortsighted to think that AI as it is will not improve over the next couple decades. You are going to encounter art that you enjoy and won’t be able to tell it’s AI.
Human art is rarely creative anyways.
Easy way for corpos to cheap out and cut corners. Lowers quality in general, people lose jobs, humans lose art. Theres way more negatives than positives
Saying this while all video games utilize AI is hilarious.
It's cool right now to be anti-ai. These people aren't really thinking about what they're saying. They're just following trends.
Yeah it’s insane. I work in defense/RF and see what AI can do and these people are delusional trend riders.
Good AI helps a lot
If good ai sucks, imagine how much worse average ai is.
Nintendo is still king because they are the only big company out there who has it in their core to make video games as art by people for people.
👍⚡️✌️
Nintendo really showing everyone how they were always right and ahead of the curve in almost everything they're doing. You love to see it.
I knew they wouldn't. The way their games are always polished they would never skip corners like that.
Nintendo ❤️
Is is said that Miyazaki the animation director doesn't like AI in his animation either. Like the persistence from these masters.
For now
They don’t need to. They have more money than ever, and they have a policy to not lay off anyone. AI is used to reduce costs and reduce staff. Nintendo does not need that.
Organic label for all creative products 😁
I hate headlines like this. This is the standard
report this when someone IS using it
Tomorrow: Nintendo didn't say they wouldn't use generative AI. /s Just like the story about scalpers.
Their online service barely uses the internet and is decades behind the standards of interface usability, and they were slow to transition from cartridges to optical media. So, of course, they're not going to jump on the technology flavor-of-the-year - they never have.
Why did they specify first-party games? Is the option still open for second-party divisions?
Just think: procedural-generated Kirby.
Man. I really want to have parasocial relationships with all my animal crossing villagers.
...and other lies companies tell.
It's a low bar, but it's a better standard than most companies and their race toward reproductions of samey, souless, stolen art.
Good, imagine how messed up lore could get if generative AI comes in. One character says something dumb like Link is an undercover minion of Ganon and now, it's canon that Link is actually evil.
Does this include DLSS? Or is this talking about game design
The statement specifically cites "generative AI" due to "IP concerns." So, this would apply to the more hot-button applications that create assets based on a model that is fed outside artwork.
Upscalers & frame generation like DLSS don't apply to this, and aren't really under scrutiny in the current cultural AI debate anyways.
Just gen AI in the article
DLSS uses GenAI. I'm sure the software engineers won't be using ChatGPT or Copilot to aide in writing their code either. What a joke lol.
I would guess this means creative aspects of a game rather than performance. No reason to swear off DLSS. It’s a great tool when used correctly and it’s not like it’s replacing anyone. We already have other upscaling methods. This just does it more intelligently. It’s making it easier for people to squeeze more out of less. I’ve been so eager about DLSS since I first heard about it and I work in AAA games and specialize in optimization. My team generally embraces it as well. DLSS might be the only way we hit 8K gaming anytime soon, too (not that I think we need that, but it’s the tech that’s going to let us get there).
Yes, DLSS and most upscalers are considered Generative AI.
Generative artificial intelligence (generative AI, GenAI,[1] or GAI) is artificial intelligence capable of generating text, images, videos, or other data using generative models
DLSS generates frames based off the data provided to it from the game, so it is technically generative AI and does fall under this definition.
Nintendo will have to clarify obviously. But their own words says they wont use it.
It's obvious that they are not talking about DLSS and similar tech but genAI which is used for creative work.
King shit
Chad-tendo
Genuine created gameplay by actual designers before everything else. Very well done Nintendo 👍🏻
Rare based nintendo moment
For copyright reasons y’all. That’s it
Yup. Nintendo cannot guarantee every asset out of GenAI will not be close enough to a pre existing work to be infringing on it.
It’s just smarter to focus GenAI on areas that are less risky like code development.
Its crazy how a decade we always criticized Nintendo for being the old traditional stuck in their ways company but now that’s whats making them one of the best (at least in some ways)
I think Nintendo can handle making their own first party games. They’ve mastered their own games and sure don’t need a.i to help them.
Don't know why anybody would
So companies can can squeeze extra pennies by having to pay for less actual artists
Well... It would be pretty stupid to do something. So yeah, makes sense.
Does that inculde AI assisited remastering?
But even odds they harvest Miyamoto’s brain on death and plug it into a machine.
Thanks, i guess...
I really want the "Every copy of SM64 is personalized"meme to become real.
When they come out and say they aren’t. I always assume that’s exactly what’s happening.
Too bad Mario Party Jamboree isn’t their first Party game 😱
Fantastic!. Great IP is their bread and butter. If they don’t have that the they got nothing.
I feel like that was the default assumption, but alright.
Whew. I'm so sick of AI on every f-ing app/website. Amazon has it (which you can't X out of), my school GroupMe chats have it. It's so unnecessary!!! 😤 And it's everywhere.
They also said that Wii U gamepads will be sold separately, Nintendo NX will not cease support for 2DS/3DS and Wii U, Wii U will get unprecedented support for third party games, Nintendo Labo will get more sets to buy and Switch Online will be good online service worth its price.
Sorry, but I'm far from believing such statements from a corpo which have nothing to lose by simply lying.
They better not, considering the prices they are asking for their games
I highly doubt this will happen but the most obvious thing is that Nintendo only uses Generative AI when it is widespread. In short, they won't use it at the moment because they don't need it, but this will be the trick that the industry will adopt to increase the ambition of projects without increasing the cost and production time of games. Generative AI could allow Nintendo to considerably shorten the production time of its games by returning to an approach of small teams working on many projects as it was in the days when games were produced for 2D consoles. I think we will see the introduction of generative AI capabilities in remasters and remakes of classic games where AI can help produce textures, modeling, redesign, sound remixing and many other features that can help reconstruct past games as new games.
Typical N W
This is the way
For now.
I don't understand why everybody is so focused on using AI for creativity instead of using AI for detail? We've seen the real benefits of what machine learning is capable of with all the DLSS technology that was originally dubbed a marketing ploy by a mass audience. AI is not coming for human creativity and the only ones scared of this are the people that lack it. It's just another tool, but a damn powerful one at that. Learn to use it correctly and the benefits could be outstanding. It's all about the infinitesimal details we just frankly don't have the time for.
AI is definitely coming for human creativity if billion dollar companies have anything to say about it lol. You think they’re not salivating at the labour cost savings of laying off a quarter off their staff? Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not even 10 years from now. But it’s coming eventually.
Are there any implementing of it in triple A games currently? I’m not that up to date but I feel like we should get something soon.
Its likely going to pop up here and there. The tech is too new for anyone to have actually put it in a project that's been announced, but in about 3-5 years it's far more likely to see it here and there.
THANK YOU! Based
This is an area I'm really interested in.
The current gold standard for managing complex AI in games is GOAP, goal oriented action planning. This is what would be used for AI that need to weigh a lot of needs, like in a survival game. You define the AI's goals, and define smaller goals that they use to achieve those. It's all purposefully programmed but can lead to really really interesting behaviours.
Behaviour trees are a close second and are used where less complexity is required - think boss fights. These are essentially nodes of different states and the tree transitions between states (I.e. attack, attack-move, idle/look for enemies).
Why not use gen AI? Because it's resource intensive and unreliable, basically, though Unreal Engine and Unity are working on respective systems to integrate this.
Who said they were?
They're getting ahead of things by saying they're not going to, so that when other companies start doing it and some players dislike it, they'll remember that Nintendo doesn't do it. It could push some additional customers to Nintendo.
No one but probably it's what some Investors want to hear
doubt
Yet
“Nintendo won’t plagiarize artists to make their games”
Ok? That’s… expected?
It’s like me announcing I won’t rob a bank to pay my bills.
Please they are using it. Everyone is, just not in the final published product.
Content pipeline these days is WILD.
...For now.
I mean, let's be real. Nintendo is likely using AI to generate new phrases for Mario in the future. Martinet reported himself that Nintendo had him do several additional unused takes in studio for each game. I imagine they're just waiting for the AI stigma to waver.
Marked as misleading because Nintendo does not say they won't use generative AI in it's first party titles. From the linked article here is Nintendo being quoted in tweaktown's translation:
"In the game industry, AI-like technology has long been used to control enemy character movements, so game development and AI technology have always been closely related.
Generative AI, which has been a hot topic in recent years, can be more creative, but we also recognize that it has issues with intellectual property rights.
We have decades of know-how in creating optimal gaming experiences for our customers, and while we remain flexible in responding to technological developments, we hope to continue to deliver value that is unique to us and cannot be achieved through technology alone."