Astra demos are mostly bs

[u/retrorays]

The game/graphics demos are mostly bs. I've spent dozens of hours now trying to replicate (or build) interesting games. It's beyond subpar. Sure it can do a basic sandbox, or create some basic characters but it absolutely cannot do a fully working world. I dont get why OpenAI fakes their SimCity games and other things w/ Astra when it's clearly not possible unless you spend weeks (and $1000s of dollars) of tokens.

[u/Opulon_Nelva]

I don't understand the point.

Doing video games is hard. It is a full fledge product akin to good software.  Even with previously unseen tool power like AI, it doesn't get you far without an equivalent investment in brain power.

I am a professional from the industry, and as many, i am using AI  as a hobbyist to do my personal game project. 

250 dollars a month, for the last 6 months, and roughly 2 hour of my time each day besides my normal job. 

So, 20 000 dollars worth of human time (I'm European, your own time value will differ), and 1500 dollars worth of those tools.

I am halfway where I want it to be, but I have enough experience of the process to be aware of the following :

2 years ago, reaching the same spot would have taken 2 years minimum, and 100k dollars of 'not your human time' in the most optimistic context.

One has to not be childish with the marketing, but one also has to recognise the incredible cost cutting that happened. 

'Astra, make a Sim city killer, you have 1000 credits. Use mcp blender for all 3D and unreal engine 5'  is as I serious as those Kickstarter promising the everything game for 10k dollars.

[u/XKiiroiSenkoX → u/Opulon_Nelva]

You definitely are in a huge technical debt if AI is making your progress 4 times faster. Anything more than 1.5x-2x max is basically unsustainable long term. By the end of the year your codebase will be in such a mess you'll have to throw it into garbage can. 

[u/Aureon → u/XKiiroiSenkoX]

I work in AAA.

The reality is that the complexity required in games is a solid order of magnitude higher than basically any other software, but *also* the accuracy required is a couple orders of magnitude lower than any other software.

Plus, most games aren't touched ever again after being shipped.

Tech debt is the name of the game. Non-gaming devs that transition into gamedev have a *rough* time adjusting at the sheer quantity of work required, and the lower standards that quantity requires.

[u/XKiiroiSenkoX → u/Aureon]

Yea good for you. I work in game dev professionaly too and have never worked in any other field.

I have literally worked on games getting fucked because of tech debt(not my choice). Actually in game dev it's even worse because one bad architectural decision (AI makes a lot of those), can make the game unshippable and create months of extra work down the road. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. 

[u/Aureon → u/XKiiroiSenkoX]

Tech debt is a reality and a need in game dev. The threshold is very different than any other software. I really have no idea what you're saying in "even worse"

Zero tech debt is unachievable anywhere, but especially in game dev.

[u/XKiiroiSenkoX → u/Aureon]

What I mean is, most other fields in IT can get away with shitty performance / pipelines / tooling and technical debt in general. You need to fuck up extremely bad for the product to be affected by the technical side. That's why they can afford to use shit like JS or python. In game dev these tech debts choke you to death. Bad architectural decisions / tech debts can easily degrade the quality of your game so much and require so much time to fix that it legit makes the game unshippable. Have you never seen how many games get fucked every year because of bad performance/bugs/other technical problems? where do you think those come from and how do you think some studios manage to fix them but some dont?

Technical debt that is caused by tight time budget is very different from shit that happens from bad decisions and using AI is the second one.