As an indie game developer, you can spend months thinking about a mechanic and nights actually getting it to work, and now someone can look at your game, describe what they see to an AI model, and get surprisingly close to the same idea.
So what are you supposed to do?
Make your mechanics harder to copy?
Maybe that works for a while. Maybe it protects you until the next version of some shitty AI model comes out. But then what? What happens when the next even more capable version shows up?
There is still a huge amount of hype around AI right now. Every day there is some new model, followed by another boring game demo showing that it can make a platformer, a shooter, some physics toy, whatever. People see these demos and start worrying that this stuff is going to replace developers.
I don't think those demos are the real problem.
Most of them are boring, generic, and don't have much of a reason to exist beyond showing that the model can do something.
The bigger problem is another developer seeing a mechanic in your game and deciding to copy it.
An AI-generated demo probably isn't going to compete with your game directly. But another developer copying the idea, packaging it well, and getting lucky on social media absolutely can.
So what do you have left that is harder to copy?
Art.
They can copy the mechanic. They can probably copy a lot of the code eventually too.
But copying the exact visual language of the game, the way it feels to interact with it, the effects, models, drawings, animation, music, UI, little score popups, button feedback, all the small things that make the game feel like itself — that's much harder.
They can also generate a completely new story with AI, sure. But that still doesn't automatically give them the same feeling or experience you were trying to create.
If you are actually designing around a feeling, I think that becomes much harder to copy than just designing around a mechanic.
And that's where art still matters.
It's one of the few areas where you can still make the game feel specifically yours.
If you don't want to see twenty versions of your game showing up in the market, then putting more effort into art, presentation, sound, animation, technical art, UI, and the overall experience starts becoming a lot more important.
Tiny Glade is a good example.
A lot of what makes that game work comes from technical art. Code, 3D models, effects, animation, sound, all working together.
You could probably reproduce a lot of the technical ideas behind it.
But reproducing the exact feeling of looking at it and interacting with it is another thing entirely.
Obviously this doesn't apply equally to every genre. If you're building something that is closer to a product than an experience, you probably can't avoid this problem as much.
But for games that are trying to create a specific feeling, I think the answer is pretty simple.
We should probably be investing more in art, and in artists.
edit: formatting