By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 25 June 2024
Edit Thread
zeldaring said:
Soundwave said:

Because people expect to be paid when they know they have made a hit game (Spider-Man 1) the first time around. 

Say you have a studio, maybe the first time out you have a hit game you can get by with everyone being young and just happy to have a job. 

But once you hit pay dirt with a hit game ... guess what? 

Now everyone wants to be paid more and fairly so, they want to be paid the same as other high end studios. Or guess what? They now have that hit game on their resume and can just leave your studio and go elsewhere and easily get a job somewhere else because everyone will see on the resume "hey you worked on Spider-Man on PS4, that was a big hit". 

If I'm a top end artist who is insanely talented and I know my work in the previous game is part of the reason the game looks great, yes you are going to pay me more for a sequel when I see the previous game sold like 10 million copies+. That's not greed either, it's paying people their fair share, you want top end programmers, artists, etc., you have to pay to keep them. 

You want to keep talented teams like the ones that make the Spider-Man games together, you have to pay. Otherwise those people will leave and then there is no guarantee whatsoever that future games will have the same quality. 

Then they need to start using AI or get Korean talent cause they are pushing graphics and art to new levels. For reference spiderman ps4 cost 90 million to make being built from scratch, spider man 2 is using 70% the same map that's just insane  

Spider-Man PS4 cost $128 million on the game itself, another $50 million almost on marketing from Sony's internal documents. 

Spider-Man 2 cost $300 million without marketing. 

Look high end visuals cost money ... every Hollywood studio would be first on the boat if they could get cheaper CG and keep the quality the same, but they can't. You have to pay people. 

AI is overhyped at this point too (in order to get people to invest in it they need to overstate what it can do), can it change things in the future, sure, but lets also have some perspective. It's a lot of buzz words to get investment but the actual technology is still extremely raw and very far away from being able to wholesale replace talented people. 

They've pumped billions of dollars into Google Translate, Apple Translate and other translation programs for 15+ years now and it still can't learn or understand to speak/comprehend a language properly, which is something a 5 year old can learn. AI translation screws up even doing basic translations let alone nuanced conversations. 

Same thing with AI driving, they've been trying to get that working for years now and it's still on the back burner. The way humans think and make decisions is not that easy for a machine to learn, Google and Tesla and all these companies would bend over backwards and kiss their own rear end to have a language program that can learn as well as a 5 year old child learns a language or drives a car even at the level of a 16-year-old. They can't even get to that level after huge investment, years of time, huge computational power, etc. etc. Let alone creativity. 

Before we think AI can replace humans in high level artistic fields under high pressure, it may want to prove it can even learn English or Mandarian or Spanish like a child can, because after almost 20 years, they're still not able to get that done. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 25 June 2024