It means you should go the other way. Open world winning against smaller, handcrafted environments and stories was generally a mistake, and so is this.
What does it mean, that open world winning was a mistake? That the market is wrong, and peoples' preferences were incorrect, and they should prefer small handcrafted environments instead of what they seem to actually buy?
The goal of world models like Genie is to be a way for AI and robots to "imagine" things. Then, they could practice tasks inside of the simulated world or reason about actions by simulating their outcome.
I would think that building a environment which can be managed by a game engine is the first pass. In a few years when we are able to render more than 60 seconds it could very well replace the game engine entirely by just rendering everything in realtime based on user interactions. The final phase is just prompts which turn directly into interactive games, maybe even multiplayer. When I see the progress we've made on things like DOOM, where it can infer the proper rendering of actions like firing weapons and even updating scores on hits and such it doesn't feel like we're very far off, a few years at most. For a game studio that could mean cutting out almost everything between keyboard and display, but for now just replacing the asset pipeline is huge.
We seem to think that Genie is good at the creative part, but bad at the consistency and performance part. How hard would it be to take 60 seconds of Genie output and pipe it into a model that generates a consistent and performant 3D environment?
I understand the ultimate end goal to be simulation of life. A near perfect replica of the real world we can use to simulate and test medicine, economy, and social impact.
It means you should go the other way. Open world winning against smaller, handcrafted environments and stories was generally a mistake, and so is this.
What does it mean, that open world winning was a mistake? That the market is wrong, and peoples' preferences were incorrect, and they should prefer small handcrafted environments instead of what they seem to actually buy?
The endgame has nothing to do with gaming.
The goal of world models like Genie is to be a way for AI and robots to "imagine" things. Then, they could practice tasks inside of the simulated world or reason about actions by simulating their outcome.
It seems to be generating images in real time, not 3d scenes. It might still be useful for prototyping.
There are collisions though and physics seemingly, so it doesn't seen to be a huge stretch that this could be used for games.
I would think that building a environment which can be managed by a game engine is the first pass. In a few years when we are able to render more than 60 seconds it could very well replace the game engine entirely by just rendering everything in realtime based on user interactions. The final phase is just prompts which turn directly into interactive games, maybe even multiplayer. When I see the progress we've made on things like DOOM, where it can infer the proper rendering of actions like firing weapons and even updating scores on hits and such it doesn't feel like we're very far off, a few years at most. For a game studio that could mean cutting out almost everything between keyboard and display, but for now just replacing the asset pipeline is huge.
We seem to think that Genie is good at the creative part, but bad at the consistency and performance part. How hard would it be to take 60 seconds of Genie output and pipe it into a model that generates a consistent and performant 3D environment?
I understand the ultimate end goal to be simulation of life. A near perfect replica of the real world we can use to simulate and test medicine, economy, and social impact.
Screensavers for robots?