If you hate Ubisoft because they put a black person in their game, and not because they are greedy bastards who make utterly vapid slop, then you are an idiot.
Well, it’s not game development, but bugfixes and quality testing.
I dont know, but it does makes sense, when there’s still 30% work being done by human eyes. There will still be people checking everything through.
Even if they hit 50-50, they could put more money into the development.
The argument that they will just save the money only works as long as another company doesnt use it for game devs. Otherwise you naturally fall behind.
It also only works as long as the AI can actually competently do the QA work. This is what an AI thinks a video game is. To do QA, it will have to know that something is wrong, flag it, and be able to tell when it’s fixed. The most likely situation I can foresee is that it creates even more work for the remaining humans to do when they’re already operating at a deficit.
To be fair, that’s what an AI video generator thinks an FPS is. That’s not the same thing as AI-assisted coding. Though it’s still hilarious! “Press F to pay respects” 🤣
For reference, using AI to automate your QA isn’t a bad idea. There’s a bunch of ways to handle such things but one of the more interesting ones is to pit AIs against each other. Not in the game, but in their reports… You tell AI to perform some action and generate a report about it while telling another AI to be extremely skeptical about the first AI’s reports and to reject anything that doesn’t meet some minimum standard.
That’s what they’re doing over at Anthropic (internally) with Claude Code QA tasks and it’s super fascinating! Heard them talk about that setup on a podcast recently and it kinda blew my mind… They have more than just two “Claudes” pitted against each other too: In the example they talked about, they had four: One generating PRs, another reviewing/running tests, another one checking the work of the testing Claude, and finally a Claude setup to perform critical security reviews of the final PRs.
I don’t know what they were testing, but if your output is text, it will be a lot easier for the AI to know it’s correct than any of the plethora of ways that video games can go subtly wrong, and that’s where my lack of faith comes from. Even scraping text from the internet, my experience is more often that AI is confident in its wrong answer than it is helpful.
I hope they put out the last FF VII remake part before that, so i can finally start playing them all! I don’t care what they want to waste their money on afterwards lol
I wouldn’t be shy about getting into Remake or Rebirth now. They both stand up as their own games (concise start/ending, somewhat distinct mechanics, each one is easily 40+ hours of gameplay). And with Part 3 targeted for 2027 release, I suspect this kind of overhaul would be outside their dev cycle to implement.
Part 2 is already using the engine from Part 1 with minor adjustments. I suspect most of Part 3 development is cinematics and world building.
I’m cautious but a little curious about this one, because QA could actually be a very good target for AIs to work with.
It might not kill jobs. Right now, engineers finish a task and the limited number of QA engineers can’t possibly test it enough before release. That game-breaking bug you found in a game? I’m sure some QA had it in their plan to test every level for those bugs, and yet they just didn’t have enough time - and the studio couldn’t justify hiring 20 more QA squads. Even if they do upscale AI testing, they’ll need knowledgable QA workers to guide them.
This is often extremely rote, repetitive work. It’s exactly the type of work The Oatmeal said is great for AIs. One person is tuning the balance on the Ether Drive attack, and gives it an extra 40% blarf damage. He tries it, sees it works fine, and eagerly skips past the part of the test plan to verify that all cutscenes are working and unaffected to push it in. An AI will try it out, and find: Actually, since an NPC uses an Ether Drive in a late-game cutscene, this breaks the whole game!
Even going past existing plans, QA can likely find MORE work for AIs to do that they normally wouldn’t bother with. Think about the current complexity of game dev that leads to the current trope of releasing games half-finished to eventually get patched. It won’t help patch games, but it’ll at least help give devs an up-to-date list of issues.
That said, those talking about human creativity and player expectations are still correct. An AI can report a problem with feedback that a human can say “No, that looks fine. Override that report.” It will also be good to do occasional manual tests, and lament “How did the AI think this was okay??”
Hmm. While I don’t know what their QA workflow is, my own experience is that working with QA people to design a QA procedure for a given feature tends to require familiarity with the feature in the context of real-world knowledge and possible problems, and that human-validating a feature isn’t usually something done at massive scale, where you’d get a lot of benefit from heavy automation.
It’s possible that one might be able to use LLMs to help write test code — reliability and security considerations there are normally less-critical than in front-line code. Worst case is getting a false positive, and if you can get more test cases covered, I imagine that might pay off.
Square does an MMO, among their other stuff. If they can train a model to produce AI-driven characters that act sufficiently like human players, where they can theoretically log training data from human players, that might be sufficient to populate an MMO “experimental” deployment so that they can see if anything breaks prior to moving code to production.
“Because I would love to be able to start up 10,000 instances of a game in the cloud, so there’s 10,000 copies of the game running, deploy an AI bot to spend all night testing that game, then in the morning we get a report. Because that would be transformational.”
I think that the problem is that you’re likely going to need more-advanced AI than an LLM, if you want them to just explore and try out new features.
One former Respawn employee who worked in a senior QA role told Business Insider that he believes one of the reasons he was among 100 colleagues laid off this past spring is because AI was reviewing and summarising feedback from play testers, a job he usually did.
We can do a reasonable job of summarizing human language with LLMs today. I think that that might be a viable application.
Worst case is getting a false positive, and if you can get more test cases covered, I imagine that might pay off.
False positives during testing are a huge time sink. QA has to replicate and explain away each false report and the faster AI 'completes' tasks the faster the flood of false reports come in.
There is plenty of non-AI automation that can be used intentionally to do tedious repetitive tasks already where they only increase work if they aren't set up right.
Some AI or central computer going haywire and destroying everything is, like, the third or fourth stock RPG trope just behind the Dark Lord burning down the protagonist’s village in the first act or the mysterious waif girl actually turning out to be a princess.
Considering how the open source community is being inundated with low-quality bug reports filed using AI, I don’t have much faith in the tech reviewing code, let alone writing it correctly.
Could it be a useful aid? Sure, but 70% of your reviewing is a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream. AI just isn’t ready for this level of responsibility in any organization.
videogameschronicle.com
Aktywne