Hacker News Reader

Comment by ncr100 | Hacker News Reader

How do we incorporate advertising/monetization that compensates us the creators into this?

Google Playground is a destination, currently, with no monetization. So any gamedev effort and ideas we contribute into it are collected by Google.

EDIT:

It is offered as "for funsies with your pals in America, bros!" and it looks a lot like it's almost a feature in the Google Play portfolio which makes me think this wasn't thought through fully.

So Google doing something strategic here which is not clear to me.

- are they training their AI?

- are they collecting user feedback for an eventual commercial launch?

- are they building hype?

Why did Google spend the money on this?

View on HN

Hilarious that you think anyone wants to play your AI generated game much less pay for it

why not?

If it's a great idea and the execution is fine, why not?

Eg Angry Birds. There are real world examples I have.

Why not?

edit: And about "your game" rhetoric, I'm talking about us more than me, unless you think that I specifically, NCR100, cannot create a game that is worthy? Why?

Where's the hope? Is there a presumption that AI generation is bad, full-stop?

Do you specifically assert that everything done with AI has no compelling quality to it?

I was taught that the tools do not make the artist.

When I sit down to build a product, a website, an app, middleware, servers, embedded apps, I expect to be paid if it is for a company. I will use other people's designs and patterns in my effort. I will work with everybody at the organization, even though who have, 'ideas'. It's my literal job as a Creator to make that slop compelling.

Why is the involvement of AI during creation a guarantor of non-compelling?

> Do you specifically assert that everything done with AI has no compelling quality to it?

We are 4 years in and so far literally nothing with compelling quality appeared yet, no game, no app, no book, no music. Every vibecoded shit is slop with rare exceptions of barely acceptable quality.

Quality is more about people and processes, AI won't replace humans for product development but currently countless people and corporations are dreaming about that. What makes this more interesting is that the person that prompts the AI loves the result because it matches their perception of what is good but as most people don't have good taste and understanding of product development, it sucks.

Ironically, the people that could create good things with AI, designers, creatives, are the people that dislike it the most.

Yeah I also haven't seen too many one shot games that are worth playing for very long, and note that is just my individual observation and not a proper study.

I don't trust that designers and creatives, currently, know what the future brings insofar as tool development -- features which could be added to generative AI that would give the designers and creatives control over their assisted creations equivalent or superior to that which they currently have with their current tool set.

When I was a boy, (spoken with a drawl), we didn't have affordable computers that could do graphic design. And I did spend time watching professional graphic designers transition from frisket, paper, pencils, pens, paint, film photography, and on and on, to using Macs. They complained. But they got good at it, and the tools got better and better. Nowadays, I do not see people doing graphic design by hand, often. Tactile media creation is obviously still practiced but I would argue that more people use computers to do in my case graphic design I think frisket paper and mechanical pencils and exacto knives, today. So the transition is possible.

For google: They could add virtual currency, and the games will use that currency

For "creator": Donation link, with some "pay 2 win" items.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com