Just got #2 in the world (for now) on "Steampunk Match". Very impressive what's possible in the browser. No way I would've thought this was AI generated. It was much higher quality than the vibe coded games out of Claude. The best outcome would be for this to enable some new weird games that wouldn't have gotten made otherwise, and also to bankrupt games that basically operate as casinos.
No, this is exactly what Claude vibe codes, this is definitely a one-shot Claude style game (assuming it looks up a decent pixel art pack).
LLMs are pretty decent these days at making standard game clones like this, you just have to add a system prompt about making it look like a real indie-style pixel art game instead of just letting it make it's standard "web game" style. I assume google has a good background system prompt/harness to do this automatically.
Just got #1. The next match will always be highlighted when time is running low. I never ran out of options. The game is fun, but it definitely seems as though there's still room for improvement.
Nothing wrong with me having an opinion on their strategy
My logic is not “don’t make money” but more so pick a lane
They can empower the community and let a PaaS emerge that’s locked in on their APIs for example
For example, did Shopify get into building Marketplaces for E-commerce? No
It isn’t like they would not be able to make money from the gaming industry by being just the layer zero, my beef here is that they’re going one layer up
I respect the opinions, and I was looking for more logical reasoning on how one arrives at that.
Whether to empower the company or not via open-source/open-weight etc is based on a company culture, value, and future direction/projection.
And it all depends on the scale.
Google didn't need no HR, no companies normally start with everything in place. AS the companies scale up, they add security team, HR, legal team, etc.
That means more $. Google is 20x the size of Shopify in terms of market cap. Google was loved for their search engines when it was at shopify level initially. REmember decades ago when everyone loved Google search?
This does not mean, Google will keep the same strategies for their direction neither will Shopify. I already hear a lot of complaints from my friends hosting on Shopify on the enshitification.
Anyways, I diregress a bit.
So my point is, at least try to reason about why `hmokiguess` arrived at "Google has too much already and in my opinion they have no business owning a gaming platform". What is too much here in homikiguess's opinion (that is verys subjective, need verification),
I don't know, it seems like it's just fun thing to play around with. I don't think serious things are meant to be built on this.
I often want to play simple games like Pacman, space invader, breakout, tetris or some other random iteration. Sometimes there are non-spammy simple versions of this game but often there aren't. This seems like a pretty cool fix. And if they disappear in the future, who cares?
That's precisely how something ends up becoming ubiquitous. You, and everyone else, start having fun on it and then suddenly it's a locked-in platform monetized by them.
YouTube started exactly how you described it, some silly thing not meant to be serious and today powers multiple 100M+ businesses using it for content to reach mass audiences.
> I don't think serious things are meant to be built on this.
I read at some point that projects at Google didn't get a greenlight unless there was a reasonable expectation they could be used directly or indirectly by a billion people.
Does Google not have lawyers any more? Playground Games is the name of the Microsoft-owned games studio behind Forza Horizon; X-Box studio is as part of their current restructuring merging them with Turn 10 (the mainline Forza studio) and, weirdly, handing the resulting studio Fable to work on, but Microsoft definitely still has an interest in the trademark of ‘playground’ in the context of video games.
This very idea has been tried - and venture funded - to the tune of many millions of dollars every 6 months for the past 4 years.
The last few founders I knew working on variations of the idea finally pivoted out over the summer. It’s definitely one of those ideas that sounds great until you try building it and you realize there’s nothing there. Definitely will get funded again before the year is up!
>How long until someone makes a tiktok-style game platform?
Well to your point, youtube already has these little mini games that exist in portrait mode. Seems like something is liminally out there pointing in that direction.
This is a really neat idea to explore, but I feel like it would be hard to succeed. Games require a very different level of engagement from the audience, with some effort to learn the mechanics or understand what to do next. Short-form video seems like the complete opposite... totally relaxed consumption.
Has anyone made a generative version of TikTok yet? I suppose that's already what TikTok is, but with a slow feedback loop and tricky filters against AI generated content.
Environmental impact aside, that seems way less harmful than TikTok, though. You'll probably play the average game for longer than you watch the average TikTok video, meaning that your attention span won't be that bad.
You also have to actively use your game for most games, unlike TikTok videos which you can just watch with your brain turned off.
Best case scenario for this is...replace Roblox with games that don't have reward systems solely based on you playing as long as possible. We are losing a generation of children to these games.
Kids I know genuinely liked playing Roblox games. It was not just shiny imaginary points, it was that games were "for them" and they did not needed money to try another one.
I predict a very orthogonal outcome. This is an interesting experiment. If it gains some traction, Roblox and Minecraft are both very well situated to build a similar product and dominate the market.
You can build standard games now, and there is a waitlist for Unity Spark. But there are demos of Unity Spark games now, if you want to see what will be possible.
I was able to spin up a couple of games really quickly--a 2D cosy space exploration game, and a snarky sci fi trivia game. I'd say the the writting for the humorous trivia questions and the cosy interactions was reasonable--this isn't a tool that can only do reskins of old school arcade games. In addition to music and graphics it can do text to speech.
It's still an experiment, simultaneous impressive, and frustrating, with rather unexpectedly low prompt compliance. But, beta.
It really doesn't seem to like shifting from multiplayer to solo play. It seems like you ought to have a strong opinion upfront. (again, early days)
It's natural to think of this quick and easy tool for playing game, but I suspect part of the eventual value will be learning tools and "self gamification" I could imagine doing a variant of my trivial game for memorization or language learning.
I've always found Google Slides to be a great way to create cute, personal games. It requires no coding, and anyone can play them easily in their browser. Seeing what people are able to do with a simple presentation (PowerPoint, if you will) has been repeatedly eye-opening every time I've seen one.
I'm a bit worried that Google Slides-games will fall out of fashion now ;(
If you want to try this but with free multiplayer servers check out https://snack.game (my site)
I also didn't bother with in-app game dev for now since I figured your local agents will be better. So for now you just develop locally with a CLI and your favorite subsidized model.
Since this thread will contain the intersection of people interested in coding games and people interested in AI, can I ask whether the latest AI coding tools can help someone vibe code a simple low-poly 3D game? I only ever used Twine before.
Yep. Simplest is browser game with three.js, the only lib you need. But for low-poly 3D, you can basically tell the frontier LLMs to build yourself the rasteriser itself in whatever language you want (not recommending it, just saying they're that good). Literally just put your comment into Claude Code or Codex and see it do it.
> To keep the experience safe and welcoming, every published game undergoes safety screenings aligned with our Community Guidelines, along with user reporting.
Kind of cringe. I mean I suppose its one thing to stop people making CSAM but safety screens make it sound like you can't have any sort of mature game? Gore, violence, drugs, suggestive themes or nudity etc all disallowed or something? Everyone has to make a T for Teen game?
> Playground launches today for users in the U.S. (18+) at playground.google, with tiered creation access rolling out based on your Google One membership.
Looks like they forgot to create a "Not available in your region" page, which makes me wonder whether they made this over a weekend.
I think the point of this product is not the quality of the games, it's the accessibility and distribution and the fact that it's free to use.
Big tech already controls the distribution of traditional platforms so they are building AI platforms to make sure they keep control of the distribution of new forms of content, including that for AI games now that they're easier to make than a YouTube video.
But inevitably these products (and the competitors they will inevitably spawn) put us closer to a future of arguably dystopian, AI-driven hyper-entertainment world, even if no one inside the companies meant to do that. I can only hope in that future many people still appreciate human-made games, and even on these AI platforms genuine human ideas (assisted by AI) can still bubble to the top.
As for game quality, these look close to Opus 5.5 one-shots to me, maybe even a little worse.
Am I the only one that feels repulsed by this kind of offerings?
Im not sure how to justify the feeling. Maybe it's that I expect more than entertainment out of creative works (which I consider games to be), but this... Corporate slop firehose seems fundamentally empty in a way that raises goosebumps, like a black mirror episode.
I was repulsed too at first, but honestly cheap build-your-own-video-game tools have been out there since the 90s at least. This is just the modern version. Fine.
I could see microgames creep into social media feeds maybe. That's what this allows for. Games that might be novel for a few minutes. Some folks will put in the effort to make a modern multi-hour game here but very few, like their player-base.
Also, prototyping! Maybe it's good for that (just don't share it publicly).
I don't care at all about AI being used for porn, or ads, or corporate videos, that kind of stuff is soulless by definition.
And I don't have a problem with AI _assistance_ in creative work either.
What horrifies me is the picture of someone absentmindedly placing a half formed thought into a textbox and people consuming it, no deep thinking at all involved in neither creators nor users. It's the mental equivalent of the wall-e humans.
Many people do many absent minded activities with no deep thinking. Social Media sites are now in a big part about that, feeding pointless low effort distraction.
You may analyze why do people seek such a thing and feel compassion. and what should humans do instead? Why? Is there an objective answer?
I had an idea for a small game for ages, never the time for it and now i'm vibing on it randomly because its fun.
How much finetuning/prompting would you allow me until you think its reasonable? One prompt? Or a certain amount of resources i put in?
Don't get me wrong, i'm curious on when you think a certain quality is reached. I ask this myself too. Like i have a lot of experience in the area of game development, game mechanics, programming and usability. Now the game itself i adjust constantly because i have a lot of strong opinions.
But will this ever be something i might release for free and people get a benefit out of this?
It's a fair question, and I don't have a clear answer.
I do think I have a general principle, which is: once we have a new capability, we can use it to reach further or to reach the same places with less effort. Reaching further seems objectively good; reaching the same places with less effort is more of a gray area.
I realise there's an argument for democratization, for reducing friction to put creativity in the hands of more people. Say you're a great artist who could make beautiful games but don't know how to code, you might use AI as a crutch to enable you to express your art. Same if you're a coder or have great ideas about game design but don't have graphics available to make the whole product happen.
If AI is covering all fronts though, we're throwing the baby with the bathwater here. There's no talent allowed to shine, no message that can now be better delivered, no idea better expressed. it's all wrapping.
and notice how the message from google is not 'reach more people', or 'let your talent shine'. The message is 'type a whim from your couch and you'll get it instantly'. Quick empty dopamine, no quality involved.
It's honestly both very funny as well as very sad that one of the most unbelievable aspects of that is them taxing the AI pornography industry. Given that being a Rick&Morty spinoff means that Prez Curtis has plenty of outlandish aspects to it already, yet suspending one's disbelief about an industry actually getting taxed kinda goes over the limit.
I'm usually very pro AI and the idea that people could vibe code their own games which combine exactly the things they enjoy appeals to me so was quite excited for this.
I played a few editors picks. "Westbound Frontier" is a kind of RTS. On mobile all the windows open on top of eachother and the text is very hard to read. The amount of resource required to build the first building after town hall was way too high by and you had to wait ages to do anything. There was an infuriating AI sound track singing "ooo-wee-ooo". 0/10 from me, broken and not fun.
Next I tried volcano run, a 3D infinite runner. Not my kind of game but a nice aesthetic and it actually worked. After about 30 seconds though the graphics changed to a really low contrast mode (night?) and I couldn't see the rocks I was supposed to dodge. 2/10.
Honestly genuinely a bit shocked Google launched this. It's obviously not ready, the "Editor" who picked these games should have known that. I am not sure if this is some kind of set of skills for Gemini or a fine tune or just a prompt but it certainly feels very low effort and embarrassing.
> Honestly genuinely a bit shocked Google launched this.
Every "AI + Google" product is pretty much like this, impressive to people who basically have no other skills than "talking about stuff others click on video links for" but falls apart to any sort of quality checks, and most of time isn't even internally consistent and coherent.
There's already Youtube games (youtube.com/playables), where all games are hyper casual ad-driven low-effort games published by companies like Voodoo or SayGames. I believe Playground would compete with those more than with regular PC games. There's no way slop from regular people could be worse than what's already out there for mobile.
I do kind of believe this is the "end game" at this point.
"Friend-slop" has already proven wildly successful, and significantly lower effort than AAA games.
Combine this with the fact your game will be stolen and put into Roblox, it really feels like we're approaching a era of just rapidly produced games that live for weeks rather than years.
Yeah agreed, I was talking to a friend few years ago when Google first wiped out blogging by taking over the blog content and showing snippets instead of real links.
Obviously the end-game is for the companies to automate all the text, games, and software so you just go to their feed and pay them a monthly instead of individuals making making this content.
There's multiple reasons people play games. Some people are competitive and play a game thousands of hours to get better at it. So there's always a market for longer lasting games.
Google seems to have some desire to enter the gaming world, with Stadia before this.
Perhaps it's their culture of letting engineers experiment with stuff during work hours that also led to Gmail, Maps, etc. and the mobile game ad market is certainly big.
I guess this mainly competes with mobile games, most of which are mediocre at best and aim to get a few "whale users" to spend inordinate amounts of money on coins, gems, or whatever in-game currency.
Maybe the theory is that those games are so easy to vibe-code that completely democratizing it will lead to enough of a flood of games?
And a few will stand out and become Candy Crush-sized successes?
Or perhaps it's the idea that if you can have millions of extremely niche games, each may have a few hardcore fans because it caters to their specific interests (the same way Kindle Direct Publishing enabled hyper-niche literary genres)
Just got #2 in the world (for now) on "Steampunk Match". Very impressive what's possible in the browser. No way I would've thought this was AI generated. It was much higher quality than the vibe coded games out of Claude. The best outcome would be for this to enable some new weird games that wouldn't have gotten made otherwise, and also to bankrupt games that basically operate as casinos.
No, this is exactly what Claude vibe codes, this is definitely a one-shot Claude style game (assuming it looks up a decent pixel art pack). LLMs are pretty decent these days at making standard game clones like this, you just have to add a system prompt about making it look like a real indie-style pixel art game instead of just letting it make it's standard "web game" style. I assume google has a good background system prompt/harness to do this automatically.
This played waaaay better than a one-shot Claude style game but I'm sure it was not one-shot either.
Just got #1. The next match will always be highlighted when time is running low. I never ran out of options. The game is fun, but it definitely seems as though there's still room for improvement.
Agree. The game has a good amount of "juice" (https://garden.bradwoods.io/notes/design/juice), but not as much as the hyper=optimized AAA(?) casual games.
I'm okay with Google offering models, but I'm not okay with Google offering more PaaS offerings.
Let developers use your models and tools and build stuff with it. Why own everything.
Google has too much already and in my opinion they have no business owning a gaming platform.
With your logic, Google should give us their search logic/libraries, so we can build our own search engines.
You ain't making sense. Companies need $, and what's wrong with what they do with what they own and can do in this particular case?
Nothing wrong with me having an opinion on their strategy
My logic is not “don’t make money” but more so pick a lane
They can empower the community and let a PaaS emerge that’s locked in on their APIs for example
For example, did Shopify get into building Marketplaces for E-commerce? No
It isn’t like they would not be able to make money from the gaming industry by being just the layer zero, my beef here is that they’re going one layer up
I respect the opinions, and I was looking for more logical reasoning on how one arrives at that.
Whether to empower the company or not via open-source/open-weight etc is based on a company culture, value, and future direction/projection.
And it all depends on the scale.
Google didn't need no HR, no companies normally start with everything in place. AS the companies scale up, they add security team, HR, legal team, etc.
That means more $. Google is 20x the size of Shopify in terms of market cap. Google was loved for their search engines when it was at shopify level initially. REmember decades ago when everyone loved Google search?
This does not mean, Google will keep the same strategies for their direction neither will Shopify. I already hear a lot of complaints from my friends hosting on Shopify on the enshitification.
Anyways, I diregress a bit.
So my point is, at least try to reason about why `hmokiguess` arrived at "Google has too much already and in my opinion they have no business owning a gaming platform". What is too much here in homikiguess's opinion (that is verys subjective, need verification),
>With your logic, Google should give us their search logic/libraries, so we can build our own search engines.
Yes. Google does not actually care about search anymore, and the threat that the technology could disappear altogether is real.
That's a slippery slope. It's like saying, we should not drive cars because it kills people.
I don't know, it seems like it's just fun thing to play around with. I don't think serious things are meant to be built on this.
I often want to play simple games like Pacman, space invader, breakout, tetris or some other random iteration. Sometimes there are non-spammy simple versions of this game but often there aren't. This seems like a pretty cool fix. And if they disappear in the future, who cares?
That's precisely how something ends up becoming ubiquitous. You, and everyone else, start having fun on it and then suddenly it's a locked-in platform monetized by them.
YouTube started exactly how you described it, some silly thing not meant to be serious and today powers multiple 100M+ businesses using it for content to reach mass audiences.
> I don't think serious things are meant to be built on this.
I read at some point that projects at Google didn't get a greenlight unless there was a reasonable expectation they could be used directly or indirectly by a billion people.
Because many devs don't pay for tools unless forced otherwise via a network paywall.
Does Google not have lawyers any more? Playground Games is the name of the Microsoft-owned games studio behind Forza Horizon; X-Box studio is as part of their current restructuring merging them with Turn 10 (the mainline Forza studio) and, weirdly, handing the resulting studio Fable to work on, but Microsoft definitely still has an interest in the trademark of ‘playground’ in the context of video games.
How long until someone makes a tiktok-style game platform?
Play a little game, then when you're done it generates a new one based on what you've enjoyed. Repeat ad infinitum.
This very idea has been tried - and venture funded - to the tune of many millions of dollars every 6 months for the past 4 years.
The last few founders I knew working on variations of the idea finally pivoted out over the summer. It’s definitely one of those ideas that sounds great until you try building it and you realize there’s nothing there. Definitely will get funded again before the year is up!
Technically there is already one, it's called HypeHype, but it's using their in-house graph-style editor. Vendor-lock-in out the whazoo.
Haven't followed them too closely, but wouldn't be surprised if they'd added LLM tools to the platform.
>How long until someone makes a tiktok-style game platform?
Well to your point, youtube already has these little mini games that exist in portrait mode. Seems like something is liminally out there pointing in that direction.
This is a really neat idea to explore, but I feel like it would be hard to succeed. Games require a very different level of engagement from the audience, with some effort to learn the mechanics or understand what to do next. Short-form video seems like the complete opposite... totally relaxed consumption.
Has anyone made a generative version of TikTok yet? I suppose that's already what TikTok is, but with a slow feedback loop and tricky filters against AI generated content.
Thanks for giving people (or an AI scraping this), the idea :-/
Environmental impact aside, that seems way less harmful than TikTok, though. You'll probably play the average game for longer than you watch the average TikTok video, meaning that your attention span won't be that bad.
You also have to actively use your game for most games, unlike TikTok videos which you can just watch with your brain turned off.
I'm not the first one to have this one for sure. I would have started working on this if not for the small problem of finding it unethical to build :(
Best case scenario for this is...replace Roblox with games that don't have reward systems solely based on you playing as long as possible. We are losing a generation of children to these games.
Having been a young game-addicted person in the past, I would assume the addictive part of Roblox is the social component, no?
Is it really just that they give kids nice shiny imaginary points for playing longer?
Kids I know genuinely liked playing Roblox games. It was not just shiny imaginary points, it was that games were "for them" and they did not needed money to try another one.
I predict a very orthogonal outcome. This is an interesting experiment. If it gains some traction, Roblox and Minecraft are both very well situated to build a similar product and dominate the market.
If anything, this is them trying to eat their lunch by grabbing the market share and using the same playbook.
Do you really think Google cares about gameplay in the same likes of, say, Nintendo?
I don't think Google gives a crap about games one way or the other, they just want people to use their AI.
If that were true, they would release Gemini 4.
Who is it "we" that is loosing a generation of children and for what purpose are those people loosing them?
You can build standard games now, and there is a waitlist for Unity Spark. But there are demos of Unity Spark games now, if you want to see what will be possible.
I was able to spin up a couple of games really quickly--a 2D cosy space exploration game, and a snarky sci fi trivia game. I'd say the the writting for the humorous trivia questions and the cosy interactions was reasonable--this isn't a tool that can only do reskins of old school arcade games. In addition to music and graphics it can do text to speech.
It's still an experiment, simultaneous impressive, and frustrating, with rather unexpectedly low prompt compliance. But, beta.
It really doesn't seem to like shifting from multiplayer to solo play. It seems like you ought to have a strong opinion upfront. (again, early days)
It's natural to think of this quick and easy tool for playing game, but I suspect part of the eventual value will be learning tools and "self gamification" I could imagine doing a variant of my trivial game for memorization or language learning.
I've always found Google Slides to be a great way to create cute, personal games. It requires no coding, and anyone can play them easily in their browser. Seeing what people are able to do with a simple presentation (PowerPoint, if you will) has been repeatedly eye-opening every time I've seen one.
I'm a bit worried that Google Slides-games will fall out of fashion now ;(
Never heard of this. Is there an example of the best of the genre? I assume these are point-and-click adventures?
Tangentially related, have a look at Downpour, you might like it, if you like making ppt games! https://downpour.games/
If you want to try this but with free multiplayer servers check out https://snack.game (my site)
I also didn't bother with in-app game dev for now since I figured your local agents will be better. So for now you just develop locally with a CLI and your favorite subsidized model.
Since this thread will contain the intersection of people interested in coding games and people interested in AI, can I ask whether the latest AI coding tools can help someone vibe code a simple low-poly 3D game? I only ever used Twine before.
Yep. Simplest is browser game with three.js, the only lib you need. But for low-poly 3D, you can basically tell the frontier LLMs to build yourself the rasteriser itself in whatever language you want (not recommending it, just saying they're that good). Literally just put your comment into Claude Code or Codex and see it do it.
Error 403 unfortunately.
> To keep the experience safe and welcoming, every published game undergoes safety screenings aligned with our Community Guidelines, along with user reporting.
Kind of cringe. I mean I suppose its one thing to stop people making CSAM but safety screens make it sound like you can't have any sort of mature game? Gore, violence, drugs, suggestive themes or nudity etc all disallowed or something? Everyone has to make a T for Teen game?
I’ve been thinking of building a personalized game full of inside jokes as a birthday gift for a friend who moved to the other side of the planet.
This looks like it might be very useful indeed!
I got a 403 from Germany
> Playground launches today for users in the U.S. (18+) at playground.google, with tiered creation access rolling out based on your Google One membership.
Looks like they forgot to create a "Not available in your region" page, which makes me wonder whether they made this over a weekend.
For the main page or for the playground.google link?
playground.google link
Same in Spain...
I think the point of this product is not the quality of the games, it's the accessibility and distribution and the fact that it's free to use.
Big tech already controls the distribution of traditional platforms so they are building AI platforms to make sure they keep control of the distribution of new forms of content, including that for AI games now that they're easier to make than a YouTube video.
But inevitably these products (and the competitors they will inevitably spawn) put us closer to a future of arguably dystopian, AI-driven hyper-entertainment world, even if no one inside the companies meant to do that. I can only hope in that future many people still appreciate human-made games, and even on these AI platforms genuine human ideas (assisted by AI) can still bubble to the top.
As for game quality, these look close to Opus 5.5 one-shots to me, maybe even a little worse.
Am I the only one that feels repulsed by this kind of offerings?
Im not sure how to justify the feeling. Maybe it's that I expect more than entertainment out of creative works (which I consider games to be), but this... Corporate slop firehose seems fundamentally empty in a way that raises goosebumps, like a black mirror episode.
I was repulsed too at first, but honestly cheap build-your-own-video-game tools have been out there since the 90s at least. This is just the modern version. Fine.
I could see microgames creep into social media feeds maybe. That's what this allows for. Games that might be novel for a few minutes. Some folks will put in the effort to make a modern multi-hour game here but very few, like their player-base.
Also, prototyping! Maybe it's good for that (just don't share it publicly).
Is just your interpretation. AI will eventually be used to produce any kind of media or product that humans can think of.
If you are disgusted by this, the resources spent on AI adult content would make you mad. But why judge what other people choose to do.
There's an episode of President Curtis where USA is running out of energy and the final solution is to (spoilers) tax AI porn.
I don't care at all about AI being used for porn, or ads, or corporate videos, that kind of stuff is soulless by definition.
And I don't have a problem with AI _assistance_ in creative work either.
What horrifies me is the picture of someone absentmindedly placing a half formed thought into a textbox and people consuming it, no deep thinking at all involved in neither creators nor users. It's the mental equivalent of the wall-e humans.
Many people do many absent minded activities with no deep thinking. Social Media sites are now in a big part about that, feeding pointless low effort distraction.
You may analyze why do people seek such a thing and feel compassion. and what should humans do instead? Why? Is there an objective answer?
When do you draw a line then?
I had an idea for a small game for ages, never the time for it and now i'm vibing on it randomly because its fun.
How much finetuning/prompting would you allow me until you think its reasonable? One prompt? Or a certain amount of resources i put in?
Don't get me wrong, i'm curious on when you think a certain quality is reached. I ask this myself too. Like i have a lot of experience in the area of game development, game mechanics, programming and usability. Now the game itself i adjust constantly because i have a lot of strong opinions.
But will this ever be something i might release for free and people get a benefit out of this?
It's a fair question, and I don't have a clear answer.
I do think I have a general principle, which is: once we have a new capability, we can use it to reach further or to reach the same places with less effort. Reaching further seems objectively good; reaching the same places with less effort is more of a gray area.
I realise there's an argument for democratization, for reducing friction to put creativity in the hands of more people. Say you're a great artist who could make beautiful games but don't know how to code, you might use AI as a crutch to enable you to express your art. Same if you're a coder or have great ideas about game design but don't have graphics available to make the whole product happen.
If AI is covering all fronts though, we're throwing the baby with the bathwater here. There's no talent allowed to shine, no message that can now be better delivered, no idea better expressed. it's all wrapping.
and notice how the message from google is not 'reach more people', or 'let your talent shine'. The message is 'type a whim from your couch and you'll get it instantly'. Quick empty dopamine, no quality involved.
I agree partially aabout your google view but it just might be the first easy thing someone plays around with and gets motivated to dive deeper.
It's honestly both very funny as well as very sad that one of the most unbelievable aspects of that is them taxing the AI pornography industry. Given that being a Rick&Morty spinoff means that Prez Curtis has plenty of outlandish aspects to it already, yet suspending one's disbelief about an industry actually getting taxed kinda goes over the limit.
Nope.
We are in the ara of commoditization and we just have to learn handling it.
And its not just AI 'slop' making it so, its also A LOT of peole having acess to so much more.
The indiegame scene got crazy. As soon there is one new game concept, hundreds of small adjustments to this idea are popping up.
The sorting game thing? Has now a lot of clones/variations.
AI adds more of this for sure, but its not the underlying issue.
For some reason they're 403'ing us in Taiwan. I can access from a USA vpn...
I got 403'ed too (Sweden). Then I saw this in the fine-print on the blog:
>Playground launches today for users in the U.S. (18+)
UK too.
Italy too
Can't test. 403 in the US.
Great, 1983 crash will look like a joke compared with the crapware and copycats that will come out of this.
Roblox copy/equivalent incoming I'm sure and that'll get kid's heads turning.
Roblox has already been pushing AI-generated games heavily.
I'm usually very pro AI and the idea that people could vibe code their own games which combine exactly the things they enjoy appeals to me so was quite excited for this.
I played a few editors picks. "Westbound Frontier" is a kind of RTS. On mobile all the windows open on top of eachother and the text is very hard to read. The amount of resource required to build the first building after town hall was way too high by and you had to wait ages to do anything. There was an infuriating AI sound track singing "ooo-wee-ooo". 0/10 from me, broken and not fun.
Next I tried volcano run, a 3D infinite runner. Not my kind of game but a nice aesthetic and it actually worked. After about 30 seconds though the graphics changed to a really low contrast mode (night?) and I couldn't see the rocks I was supposed to dodge. 2/10.
Honestly genuinely a bit shocked Google launched this. It's obviously not ready, the "Editor" who picked these games should have known that. I am not sure if this is some kind of set of skills for Gemini or a fine tune or just a prompt but it certainly feels very low effort and embarrassing.
> Honestly genuinely a bit shocked Google launched this.
Every "AI + Google" product is pretty much like this, impressive to people who basically have no other skills than "talking about stuff others click on video links for" but falls apart to any sort of quality checks, and most of time isn't even internally consistent and coherent.
Let the slopocalypse commence.
There's already Youtube games (youtube.com/playables), where all games are hyper casual ad-driven low-effort games published by companies like Voodoo or SayGames. I believe Playground would compete with those more than with regular PC games. There's no way slop from regular people could be worse than what's already out there for mobile.
That promo video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxvrvfyicp0) made me feel even older than I actually am.
I was out after the slurping sound in the first 1-second.
I do kind of believe this is the "end game" at this point.
"Friend-slop" has already proven wildly successful, and significantly lower effort than AAA games.
Combine this with the fact your game will be stolen and put into Roblox, it really feels like we're approaching a era of just rapidly produced games that live for weeks rather than years.
Yeah agreed, I was talking to a friend few years ago when Google first wiped out blogging by taking over the blog content and showing snippets instead of real links.
Obviously the end-game is for the companies to automate all the text, games, and software so you just go to their feed and pay them a monthly instead of individuals making making this content.
There's multiple reasons people play games. Some people are competitive and play a game thousands of hours to get better at it. So there's always a market for longer lasting games.
I don't see any reason why cheap, short games can't happily live alongside massive polished games in the market.
lol, except most friend slop game is actually good
You be tripping if you actually think AAA soulless that has filled with agenda is better
Over-under that it'll be shut down in a year?
Google seems to have some desire to enter the gaming world, with Stadia before this.
Perhaps it's their culture of letting engineers experiment with stuff during work hours that also led to Gmail, Maps, etc. and the mobile game ad market is certainly big.
I guess this mainly competes with mobile games, most of which are mediocre at best and aim to get a few "whale users" to spend inordinate amounts of money on coins, gems, or whatever in-game currency.
Maybe the theory is that those games are so easy to vibe-code that completely democratizing it will lead to enough of a flood of games?
And a few will stand out and become Candy Crush-sized successes?
Or perhaps it's the idea that if you can have millions of extremely niche games, each may have a few hardcore fans because it caters to their specific interests (the same way Kindle Direct Publishing enabled hyper-niche literary genres)