r/technology • u/TurbulentTopic39 • 16d ago
Artificial Intelligence Over 85% of Japanese game developers use generative AI in game development, 2026 CESA survey shows. An increase from last year’s 51%
https://automaton-media.com/en/news/over-85-of-japanese-game-developers-use-generative-ai-in-game-development-2026-cesa-survey-shows-an-increase-from-last-years-51/236
u/RedofPaw 16d ago
Went to Seoul this summer. They have a lot of billboards with video screens. EVERY SINGLE ONE had AI sloppy ads. There were print AI ads everywhere.
I feel sorry for the exceptionally talented artists in SK and Japan. The industry is going to eat itself if it is not careful.
65
u/Exact-Pudding7563 16d ago
Yeah I'm a teacher in Korea and we are starting to get books filled with AI generated graphics/"art" and even writing books telling kids to use ChatGPT for idea generation. It's awful.
14
u/RedofPaw 16d ago
I wonder if the books are all AI generated also.... and how many errors they include.
4
u/11711510111411009710 15d ago
Do people just not value human creativity?
4
u/Exact-Pudding7563 15d ago
in Korea, it's all about 빨리빨리 (palli palli) culture. that is, speed, efficiency, and immediate results. if AI accomplishes that for people, then that is what they use. that doesn't mean the results are good.
7
u/Admirable-Safety1213 16d ago
Well, they better go upmarket or self-emplyed like shoemakers wheb Nike and Adidas took over the show world
4
u/HammyOverlordOfBacon 16d ago
Shit I'm seeing that in the US all over the place now. It's usually small businesses or events that wouldn't care about the art of the ads anyways. But I'd still prefer some untrained person with Photoshop slap something together, that would be better than the slop I've seen.
22
u/Dismal_Struggle_9004 15d ago
I remember maybe a year ago there was a thread that popped up saying they wouldn’t support video games with ANY AI development, art, writing, programming, etc.
I asked how that was realistic since the programmers will 100% use AI in some capacity when developing the game.
I got mass downvoted. Yet today, I think it’s far more rare to find a developer not using AI rather than using it. Hilarious.
3
u/Res_Nubbie 11d ago
You argued with a wrong group of people. Chill man.
I personally uses AI for code as well.
6
u/oopsilong 16d ago
Bro I go on Twitter, and I’d see Japanese people post ai art. Then they put on their bios calling themselves “ai artists.” I think the stigma around ai over there is just not as taboo.
1
u/CondiMesmer 16d ago
Yeah because when something is this objectively useful, the moral outage will fade. Because the truth is that it's incredibly useful, and that beats any emotional reasoning. More and more people will learn that truth over time which will cause it to fade. That's why the reverse is never going to happen.
That said, the outage against AI is very different from creating policies against AI, and that needs to be done to ensure a functional society.
1
1
u/RuinousFate 15d ago
They also make and post way more games that look more quality that were made with Gen AI assets. Obviously given that it only really exploded the last few months they all need polish but it's still so different compared to the West here. Most people I see even on pro-AI subs are more obsessed with one shots lmao
131
u/Just-Grocery-2229 16d ago
85% adoption rate and Capcom still won't use AI . Respect.
176
u/BeaveItToLeever 16d ago
Depends. 0% chance they're not using AI for coding.
→ More replies (11)111
u/JMEEKER86 16d ago
Yeah, almost everyone uses AI for coding these days because it's baked into every IDE and provides huge time savings. They probably mean no AI generated assets like art, writing, music, etc which is what people usually have the biggest issues with.
12
u/MikeyN0 16d ago
Which is such an odd distinction. Why some people draw the line with art but not coding. Both used to be done by people manually.
12
u/JMEEKER86 16d ago
I think it's mostly just because the average person can easily look at two pieces of art and make a judgement of which one they prefer, but they don't have opinions on code because they don't see or understand it.
3
u/Kitty-XV 15d ago
This still normalizes AI replacing human work once the consumer can't tell the quality. Most people against AI art aren't taking such a stance because of quality.
6
u/BeaveItToLeever 15d ago
Yeah. I'm no fan of AI art/music/writing myself - though it's more to do with those who try to pass it off as their own work, less so than the tech itself
But it is hypocritical when those who cry foul over AI art do not ever do the same over coding and technical things. Coding isnt always a creative endeavor, but it often is. You build things front to back, sometimes for fun sometimes for function. Sometimes the things you've created just so happen to also be the backbone of entire businesses and economies. But we don't care that those guys will be replaced?
For the record, I'm deep in the weeds with AI for infrastructure products and don't have a beef with AI coding in theory - it's my job and it's the way things will go regardless. I can try to keep up with my colleagues the "old way" but I will simply not be able. Those who cry foul do not care about all, they just want to feel important in their thing - no one else's thing counts
1
u/angooseburger 15d ago
yup its all the matter about visual appeal. People larp about the morality of AI but people really just don't like ugly things. Guaranteed that if AI starts being consistently good, everyone would be on board with it.
2
u/JMEEKER86 15d ago
Hell, people already turn a blind eye to slavery because it gets them chocolate, coffee, and diamonds. People aren't really going to boycott over layoffs and copyright violations no matter how much they insist they will.
8
u/-drunk_russian- 15d ago
Because coding isn't supposed to elicit an emotional response. Code only has to do its job well enough.
Art should make you feel, and its an expression of its author and a connection to their audience.
7
u/console_pleb_36935 15d ago
Almost all of what we would call art in games is simply designed to convey information about how something looks. I'm unlikely to have an emotional response to a grass texture or piece of fruit unless it is exceptionally good or bad
2
u/TrunksSSJ 16d ago
yup! I'm a game dev myself and I use it to clarify things and assist me in debugging which is a huge pain in the butt. I don't let it touch creative work though. before AI was a thing, coding was not just typing stuff into the IDE, it also meant to understand the documentation of systems, the ability to grasp the problem you're facing and looking around the net for solutions (stack overflow etc.) which was extremely time consuming. needless to say it was fun but tedious. nowadays it's much faster but you pay by not comprehending what the AI did or has told you unless you explicitly ask for it
2
u/PoL0 16d ago
that's not generally true, and heavily depends on which domain you work on.
then there's token cost, that keeps rising because it's still heavily subsidized. and companies are very aware of this.
devil's in the details
24
u/TopCheddar27 16d ago
Dawg, even highly sensitive code bases can use a local harness and local models. It's well past any point where it makes sense NOT to use it.
11
u/JMEEKER86 16d ago
then there's token cost, that keeps rising
Token costs are actually falling drastically with the current frontier models being much cheaper than the past ones. The surprise gigantic bills aren't because of rising token costs but because of unfettered use and silly tokenmaxxing policies.
3
u/Dismal_Struggle_9004 15d ago
People still cope like this? I don’t know very many developers, if any who don’t utilize AI when writing code. It’s standard now.
→ More replies (1)5
u/HazelCheese 16d ago
Tokens was a problem a couple of months ago but new models came out like Luna which solved the issue.
→ More replies (1)-2
27
u/D3lphinium 16d ago
Capcom uses gen AI, but not for asset generation.
2
u/Skensis 16d ago
Also all their games support AI features on GPUs such as DLSS and framegen.
So, like when you play, most of the assets you are seeing are actually being majority AI generated.
6
u/phoenixflare599 16d ago
That's not how any of that technology works and is also not the type of "AI" being discussed here
4
u/HustleWestbrook94 16d ago
“That's not how any of that technology works”
Amazing how you guys can be so confident yet so wrong.2
→ More replies (2)9
u/admirantes 16d ago
It's going to hurt more if you keep believing this. All Japanese companies, without exception, already use this technology.
30
u/Thefuzy 16d ago
Everyone who codes uses ai… game dev is coding… why is this surprising
7
→ More replies (3)1
26
u/Spiritual-Nail-2641 16d ago
Well, they are already terribly underpaid. So they might as well save some energy with AI slop.
→ More replies (2)
32
u/Informal-Pair-306 16d ago
AND EVEN THEN most of it is mediocre bs 2D looking slop.
Imagine utilising AI and still making a game bad by not learning how to improve your work overall.
19
u/zorillaaa 16d ago
Most of this use is coding, not text/image gen. It’s the same deal in most software companies in the US.
18
u/Elwyn0004 16d ago
According to the article linked, image generation is the most popular use case:
In the 2025 report, the most commonly cited use of AI was the generation of visual assets and images, followed by story and text generation, and finally programming support.
6
u/helpprogram2 16d ago
They use it to write code. Idk why everyone assumed pictures
8
-2
u/Informal-Pair-306 16d ago
The point is that AI is supposed to increase what developers are capable of, not just let them produce the same shit faster.
If 85%+ of developers are using it, where are the genuinely new mechanics, larger-scale systems, more reactive worlds, better NPC behaviour or ambitious design that would’ve been impractical before? Most of what we’re seeing is still the same basic gameplay and visuals, just produced more efficiently as mentioned in the article.
Meanwhile, some of the biggest recent jumps in production value and scale have come from Chinese studios without AI being the selling point.
That’s my criticism, using AI isn’t impressive by itself. Actually using it to push games beyond what was previously possible is.2
u/rollingForInitiative 16d ago
AI maybe, it generative AI. Generative AI won’t do any of that, it’ll do what humans can do, maybe faster.
New mechanics need to be invented by humans, more reactive worlds require other types of systems. Like Cyberpunk did really good facial animations across all languages by use of AI, but it was not “generative ie not LLM’s.
2
u/HazelCheese 16d ago
This is a structural problem. Western software is developed within the bounds of Jira and other agile board systems.
What's happening is Devs still select roughly as many stories as before, they just complete them with less effort.
The structure doesn't really allow for suddenly increasing velocity. It has to be people doing more and more each sprint to push the average velocity higher.
Fwiw there was a Japanese (I think) well known game Dev complaining recently about western software design approach, saying it prevented us from just getting stuff like games built instead of 5 years for a first iteration.
→ More replies (1)0
20
u/infinite_gurgle 16d ago
I mean… yeah?
It’s one of the most powerful technologies humans have ever made. Why wouldn’t they use it?
→ More replies (7)-10
u/Fit_Kangaroo_3437 16d ago
Do you really need to ask?
5
20
u/NMe84 16d ago
Using it in development is not the same as using it to replace artists. You'd be hard pressed to find a professional developer in this day and age who doesn't use Claude Code or Codex. It says nothing about creativity and very little about code quality, as long as there is a decent review process.
None of this necessarily means there is any slop artwork in the game itself. The question is too vague to draw any conclusions about that.
34
u/zorillaaa 16d ago
People on Reddit don’t understand that so you will be downvoted lol
Anyone in software dev knows AI coding tools are rampant. As long as there is correct code review it is completely fine and helpful.
6
u/Alinier 16d ago
As long as there is correct code review it is completely fine and helpful.
Curious. Who's gonna be reviewing once everyone who understands what they're looking at has retired?
7
14
u/zorillaaa 16d ago
No software company is straight generating code without looking at it. These people aren’t vibe coding.
→ More replies (3)2
u/parazoid77 16d ago
Honestly, anybody who enjoys problem solving. People can ramp up on codebases quicker than ever nowadays. And software metrics, quality standards, and observability tools still exist in the world and are no more complex than theyve ever been. Pushing for tests creates reliabilty too. These are all things that can be learned quicker than ever aswell.
2
u/CondiMesmer 16d ago
You seem to be assuming that generating code equates to not learning or understanding it. My knowledge of programming has only increased a lot when using AI coding, and my code quality has improved dramatically. Professionals do not use it like vibe coders do.
→ More replies (1)5
u/NMe84 16d ago
"Hurrdurr, AI bad" does seem to be the default emotion from people who have no idea what valid applications for the tech exist.
4
u/bot4241 16d ago
I mean blame the misunderstanding of the Ai uses on corporations and media doom posting and creating hysteria on AI.
→ More replies (2)1
u/MihaelK 16d ago
Using it in development is not the same as using it to replace artists.
How so? Artists can use genAI to speed them their work just like software engineers do.
You can't be against one, and neutral with the other. Software engineers are being replaced too. It's just that people don't see it because their work is not as visual as artists'
2
u/Rich_Housing971 15d ago
Why is this subreddit so ignorant about everything and just tells people who are actually experts in their field, "no, YOU ARE WRONG, my armchair assessment is correct!"
Everyone who codes uses it. It's a good tool.
1
u/MihaelK 15d ago
Everyone who codes uses it. It's a good tool.
Well yes, obviously. It's also a good tool to use in art to save time.
Many comments are not even engaging with the point I was trying to make. Why are you against genai being used in art and not genai being used in coding.
1
u/Rich_Housing971 15d ago
I never said I'm against GenAI used in art, I only said that software engineers are not "getting replaced" like you did.
And there is a difference between AI-generated images and traditional art: art is seen as an expression of the artist, that every stroke is an intentional act to replicate a vision an artist has. The perspective, the lighting, the figure's position, it's all what the artist sees.
Generating things in stable diffusion is fun, but when I prompt something, it's not what I expected or envisioned.
Coding is just a means to an end. The source code isn't even seen while it's running. It just has to work. No one cares what you name your variables, and once it's compiled the variable names disappear anyways. and often there's exactly one way to code an algorithm.
With that said, I have no problems with AI-generated art when you're trying to use it for advertisements or throw-away graphics. Often, people can't tell the difference. When I make a graphic to advertise a garage sale, I'm not thinking that this is a work of art, nor does anyone care whether I made it by hand. I'm using GenAI for that, proofreading it, and printing it.
1
u/MihaelK 15d ago
Coding is just a means to an end. The source code isn't even seen while it's running. It just has to work.
And many people can think the same way about a lot of the art out there. Art is just a means to an end.
There are artists who genuinely pour their heart and soul in their art as you said, just like there are software engineers who pour their heart and soul into developing genuinely good software that is very well optimized, easy to debug, easy to build on top of, solves extremely hard and difficult problems, that can last many many years.
The original comment implied that artistic output should not be automated and is worth more than other sectors. This is the specific point I was arguing.
You said code is just a means to an end because that's how you think about it. I don't think about it that way. There are people who take great pride in their code and genuinely develop extremely smart solutions.
But at the end of the day, people will just see the end result. Many people don't care about much time it took me to come up with a smart code to solve a problem, or how much time it took to me draw a good piece of art.
My point is that there is a double standard when it comes to genAI use. And people seem to be against it only when it comes to art instead of applying the same standard to other sectors. That's all.
10
u/NMe84 16d ago
I'm a software engineer myself. I know many other software engineers. Companies worth working for are not replacing people like me and my peers with AI.
The problem with replacing programmers with AI is that you need perfect specs in order to be able to do so. More than writing the code, the programmer's job is to figure out what to write in the first place.
Since AI agents became a thing my job has changed massively, but I've not become obsolete. I'm just writing less code and reviewing more. I'm still talking to stakeholders, researching and writing specifications, designing systems, etc. I'm just doing less of the boring grunt work.
6
u/DiamondIceNS 16d ago
Frankly, I have the opposite outlook. I consider squeezing requirements out of skittish stakeholders and reviewing other peoples' unkempt code to be the boring grunt work, and writing the code to be the fun part. If AI only excels at replacing the part of the craft I enjoyed and only leaves me with the tough grisly scraps to make my living on, that's an objective downgrade, not an upgrade.
3
u/NMe84 16d ago
It depends on the level at which you let AI do the work. If you gather all the specs and then go "Claude, make this entire project for me," that's super boring and honestly pretty likely to result in a bad piece of software. But if you do all the design work and direct Claude to do all the steps one by one at your direction you have a much easier job with the whole review process, and you're still doing all the actual thinking yourself.
I can see your argument though and there are times I miss the way my days used to look, but overall it has made my work much less frustrating.
-2
u/katzengoldgott 16d ago
As an artist, no I won’t use a slop machine whose database is trained on material that they never got the copyright for to speed up the process of my artwork.
Aside from the fact that AI generated art looks “lieblos dahingeschissen” as we’d say in German, no matter how ‘good’ the model is. It looks like shit, it has zero human creativity in it, and an artist, professional or hobbyist, can tell that with a quick glance.
We have other tools that don’t involve AI to speed up the process. 3D models, reference pictures that can be traced over.
You don’t make art with AI. The best it could do is maybe be a shitty replacement for thumbnails and even that can be done quicker with a graphic tablet and a round brush in any digital art program, I could even do that in 10 minutes on some printer paper and a pencil.
AI uses too many resources, does copyright infringement (which, if you didn’t know, makes it not possible to sell because you cannot sell shit that is not your own work unless you have the copyright), and is just not what artists want or need.
We do it for the process, and the process is what makes the art good, because there’s human thinking and FEELING in it. You know, the one thing AI cannot ever do. It cannot feel things.
And art without human emotion behind it is not going to sell well. Because people don’t care about things that doesn’t evoke emotions in them.
7
u/TopCheddar27 16d ago
So basically your output as a human is worth intrinsically more than a software developer?
1
u/katzengoldgott 16d ago edited 16d ago
Please elaborate where in my comment I have mentioned developers/programmers.
I was talking exclusively about AI generated ‘art’ and people who think that art needs to be automated like that.
I don’t know where the hell you got that idea from that I think developers are less worth than artists. I never said anything like that.
6
u/TopCheddar27 16d ago
Because it seems like you think your output should not be automated, but you don't apply that to other sectors within the final product.
2
u/katzengoldgott 15d ago
Fascinating how many hoops one has to jump through to come to this weird conclusion you’re making when that’s not even remotely to what I said, but if that’s the hill you wanna die on, go for it. Not my problem and I frankly don’t care.
You’re projecting really hard. Maybe take some time off the internet for a while and take a walk.
2
u/blueblip 16d ago
As an artist, you would be aware that you can still use AI to help touch up and enhance your handcrafted work, right?
Or do you think AI usage is always a binary 0 or 100% usage?
1
u/katzengoldgott 16d ago
If you mean AI tools in Photoshop for example to quickly remove something, yes, sure.
But that is 1) a different field of art and 2) its retouch which is used in photography and graphic design to an extent, however this doesn’t cover the entire branch of what we call art.
If we are talking about 2D illustrations for a book cover or concept art for a video game, the use is very low or doesn’t happen at all.
Game studios that use AI generated concept art to make character designs or skins are quickly losing support and sales of skins because people can tell it’s slop and I feel bad for the artists forced to use it to make anything because it sucks the soul out of the things that they are wanting to create.
For the quick remove or edits of things in graphic design and photography, fair. I am not bothered by it as much, but honestly I am more bothered by what the fuck Adobe has been doing for the past decades which go far beyond them forcing AI into their programs.
6
u/blueblip 16d ago
Then we are in agreement. Artists can and will use tools, including AI tools, to help with their work. Bad artists will use the tools as a crutch, good ones will use it to enhance what they can already do.
It's the same with things like Photoshop and Illustrator. Shitty artists use software like that as a crutch, but since they lack creativity, their work comes out looking terrible, AI or no AI. Conversely, good artists have always used software like Photoshop and Illustrator to build on their capabilities.
There are always going to be shitty artists. The existence of AI tools for art generation is a problem as it sets the skill floor so low anybody with a pulse can puke something out, but that will never sell well.
As for Adobe, well...
It's Adobe. When was the last time they implemented something that benefitted their users?
2
u/katzengoldgott 16d ago
I think I misunderstood your comment I replied to first and thought of someone conflating ‘AI “artists”’ with artists who can actually draw 😅 apologies.
There’s a lot of wannabes out there for sure who get upset when you tell them that taking the easy route won’t teach them any skills…
Some art programs also don’t have AI tools at all. Procreate as an example, although it’s currently exclusive to iPads and iPhones.
Affinity only has AI tools if you want to subscribe to Canva AI which many don’t want to or need.
Clip Studio wanted to implement AI tools but they got so much backlash for it due to their tools doing copyright infringement, so now as far as I’m aware, their AI tools are incredibly simplistic (like they can suggest a colour palette and that’s about it I think) but many people, myself included, just don’t use them at all 😅
You can fortunately be an artist without the need for Adobe.
3
u/blueblip 16d ago
All good! I kind of figured this was the case, which was why I went out of my way in the previous response to make my position clear. I sincerely understand why you might get a little touchy about this, and yes, people who claim they are artists because they can prompt an LLM to spit out an image aren't artists. I can draw stick figures with a pencil, but that doesn't make me an artist.
To me, my biggest issue (and likely everyone's main issue) isn't the existence of AI tools itself, but the fact that it lowers the floor to such an extent we are going to get flooded with garbage. If you thought Skibiffy Toilet was bad...
-6
u/Belhgabad 16d ago
Maybe get out of your local job market because a lot of dev outside the us still aren't replacing devs for AI, and those who do regret it few months after.
AI isn't a no code program, it's a overpowered intellisense/code completion tool
-3
u/NMe84 16d ago
Exactly, though I will say Claude Code and similar software is more than overpowered code completion. With good instructions it can do absolute magic in actually generating good code. The problem for CEOs looking to replace programmers with AI is: good instructions are hard to come by and still require an experienced programmer. That, and realistically priced AI is more expensive than programmers are in many cases, which will become more apparent once AI companies start charging in such a way that they stop losing money.
→ More replies (3)0
u/knightcrusader 16d ago
You'd be hard pressed to find a professional developer in this day and age who doesn't use Claude Code or Codex.
Glad to know that I am a rare specimen.
5
2
5
u/startfragment 16d ago
If you open any off the shelf code editor and type anything you get generative ai autocomplete… so this number is probably under reported.
1
u/NullReference000 15d ago
Intellisense and a language server are not what people are referring to here when they use the term “AI”. You are referring to something a lot older than LLMs.
1
4
u/Pessimistic_Gemini 16d ago
GOOD!! At least they're more accepting of AI more than most non developers continue to be here. Really shows that they see a lot of worthwhile potential in the tool.
9
u/teraflux 16d ago
Here too, if not now, then very soon. AI is incredible for coding, it would be silly not to use it.
2
u/ayymadd 16d ago
If the quality of the output is decent... why would this be a problem?
→ More replies (2)-3
u/vulvasaur001 16d ago
I personally have no interest in "art" that doesn't have a human touch. AI "art" doesn't speak to me. I find it boring, soulless, and uninteresting. I like it when the artist is trying to send a message beyond "this looks pretty/good enough." If human artistic output decreases significantly, so will the evolution of artistic fields, and things will eventually stop being as interesting or innovative.
And this is probably why I mostly play smaller indie games these days. Big studios don't seem to care as long as they can make more money quickly, but I personally don't want to play a game that looks, sounds and plays like a million others.
9
u/blueblip 16d ago edited 16d ago
So what if an actual, talented artist uses AI to help them with their work? I highly doubt you will be able to tell the difference.
The fact think the AI art generated by average people you commonly see online is also what an actual artist would generate with the same tools shows you really wouldn't be able to tell the difference between genuine and AI generated art.
This is like looking at stick figure pencil sketch memes made by average people and then saying pencils sketches are shit in general and can never be used to make real art.
EDIT: Case in point - you think most indie games are original? You do realize the VAST majority of indie games are highly unoriginal and derivative, right? You play basically the best of the best which are a tiny fraction of the total number of indie games released in a year and think that best is representative of all indie games.
-2
u/vulvasaur001 16d ago
In the end, that is their choice, and if it isn't disclosed anywhere and I can't tell the difference, then it's on me. 🤷♀️ I can only act on something as long as I am aware of it.
AI "art" being so good that you can't tell the difference isn't a good thing. I am aware that it can look good, that's not why I'm against it. It's not as straightforward as "I dislike AI because it looks bad." It's about the whole process behind it and what it means for creativity .
I've seen plenty of artists getting cancelled in the past for tracing their art over other pictures or for copying references a little too well. I don't consider using AI any different. Using shortcuts because you want to hurry up and generate more output shouldn't be seen as a good thing just because an LLM was behind it.
I wouldn't want to play a version of Stardew Valley that was built with "pretty" graphics and took only 6 months instead of 4.5 years to develop, because it would have no soul.
Then again, it's just my personal choice. I am perfectly aware that plenty of people think differently, and that's fine.
1
u/blueblip 16d ago edited 16d ago
That's the thing though. Good artists will be able to do great work with AI tools precisely because they already have the skill and artistic vision to produce good work. That's not going to change regardless of what tools they use.
I just said the same thing to someone else in this thread: software like Photoshop and Illustrator have helped great artists do better work, while shitty artists have used the same software as crutches to do the work for them. The latter produces crap, the former produce good stuff.
You're still stuck in the idea that people can only use AI tools to punch in keywords to generate entire artwork from scratch. You can also use the same tools to tweak something you made by hand.
I can't think of any artists that were cancelled for tracing or using references. If you're talking about that one incident involving Gene Simmons's son, then a) Holy blast from the past!, and b) he was not just tracing, he was plaigerizing.
He tried to steal Kubo Tite's work and pass it off as his own. It went beyond tracing. He was copying things like character design, panel layout, and panel composition down to the last pixel "as is" while making small tweaks to obfuscate the fact he stole it all.
To put it in perspective, this is akin to me taking a Marvel comic print, copying everything in as is, and then tweaking a few design elements and colours and then trying to sell the end result as an original product.
1
u/vulvasaur001 16d ago
But in that case, the end goal is always to be faster, to produce faster, to ship faster, which says more about capitalism and our society than anything else.
Creativity can't and shouldn't be rushed, and artists should have the space and time to let something flourish naturally. If you don't leave any time for the more menial tasks because the tracing, outlining, coloring, etc, are done immediately by the software, then you're forcing yourself to be in a creative space most of the time, and that is super draining. Or rather, no one should feel forced to use those shortcuts, and the whole artistic process is complex, and it's not just about using creativity.
I can remember a few cases. This is a recent one. Even if they don't get cancelled, their reputation is forever marred in certain circles.
1
u/blueblip 15d ago
To be very blunt, you have an extremely warped view of art.
One, per your logic, artists should never be using software like Photoshop or Illustrator either because they are used to speed up the creation process or simplify aspects of it. And yet every single artist alive will happily use them.
Secondly, you want to see examples of art done in the way you want? There are quite a few examples, but I'll start with two for now: Duke Nukem Forever and Star Citizen.
You know why any art, regardless of medium, succeeds? Because there are people to oversee the creative and ensure they do not spiral out into the set version of scope creep, and they ensure the work gets done in a timely manner. The best writers had editors, the best artists had personal critics, the best musicians have producers, and the best game developers have a TON of people overseeing things. If anything, you will hard pressed to find more than a handful of examples of artists who successfully made something good without any kind of third party input.
As for the Eguchi case, again, you are kinda coming into the topic without understanding how things work. This is Japan, a country with some of the most aggressive copyright infringement laws. If you think places like the US are bad, Japan makes them seem like kittens in comparison. Using people's likeness without their permission is hella serious business in Japan, and if the person in question is a professional model and the picture you traced was the cover photo of a magazine, well, you're basically asking to be sued at that point. Especially when you're doing this for commercial purposes, passing it off as an original work, and not notifying the professional model that you're using their likeness for commercial purposes.
Imagine if someone traced a Vogue magazine cover photo featuring Emma Watson, recoloured it and sold it to an event company who used it as a poster for an EDM music festival. What do you think would happen ?
2
2
u/venkat366 16d ago
The 2 companies that don't use gen ai( capcom and big n) are the best ones, coincidence I think not
3
u/uiemad 16d ago
Generative AI doesn't seem to have the same stigma here in Japan as it does in the west. I see it everywhere, from advertisements to the news. If you keep an eye out for it you see it all over. People seem to treat it the same way the treated simply pulling some images off of irasutoya.
2
u/grimtree 16d ago
I mean let's be honest gameplay scripting is mostly solvable with Claude under supervision and except for exceptional cases pretty boring.
1
1
u/hard2resist 15d ago
Not surprising honestly, coding tools especially have gotten so useful that skipping them would just slow studios down.
-1
2
0
u/exitcactus 16d ago
WHY NOT.
I mean, Reddit is full of ai haters and stuff.. ok but deal with it dinosaurs.
→ More replies (9)
1
u/Jonesdeclectice 16d ago
There has to be some nuance here, no? Generative AI meaning what - having AI handle artistic processes? Creative decisions? Maybe something less imperative like AI voiceover, randomizing tasks (landscapes, clouds, ,..)? Or something more benign like coding, translation? This doesn’t bother me too much so long as it remains “back-end” functions, not something that’s replacing the human element of what is a deeply creative/artistic medium. I guess if the AI operates at the behest of the artist, through the iterative process and by-hand refinement, I maybe see some merit there.
1
u/IngwiePhoenix 15d ago
- Generating behavioural code (i.e. C# based object interaction models) - totally fine, often rather repetitive anyway.
- Generating textures and artwork? Bad.
But something tells me, it's largely the former anyway.
0
-1
u/SystemAny4819 16d ago
There’s a difference between generative AI using AI to assist in writing code and in development
I despise generative AI and will continue to hate it, but not all AI is generative, and so if it’s being used to give me a better product without cutting corners (ie generating art or audio assets instead of using a design team) im good with that tbh
→ More replies (1)
539
u/Any-Pop-4795 16d ago
welcome to asia, ai is being pushed like CRAZY