Nintendo Has No Plans to Use Generative AI in Its Games, Company President Says (cnet.com) 18
Mario and Luigi aren't jumping on the AI train. From a report: In a recent Q&A with investors, Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa addressed the issue. Though he said generative AI can be creative, Furukawa told his audience that the company isn't planning to use the technology in its games. "In the game industry, AI-like technology has long been used to control enemy character movements, so game development and AI technology have always been closely related," Furukawa said, according to TweakTown. "Generative AI, which has been a hot topic in recent years, can be more creative, but we also recognize that it has issues with intellectual property rights. "We have decades of know-how in creating optimal gaming experiences for our customers, and while we remain flexible in responding to technological developments, we hope to continue to deliver value that is unique to us and cannot be achieved through technology alone."
Tell me you don't know anything... (Score:2)
Re:Tell me you don't know anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a press statement from the President of a company, I think most folks know what he's addressing when he says that statement. He knows Nintendo's consitently excellent art direction over decades is a pillar of it's success, he's signalling to customers and investors he won't sell that out to save money.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not even that. If the summary is correct, it is an answer to a Q&A with investors. When an investor asks you about genAI they mean something particular in the current context of what investors are thinking about.
Re:Tell me you don't know anything... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you're missing the point by focusing on a technical discussion. This answer does not appear to me to be a technical answer. Nintendo is well known to be controlling regarding IP with a desire to control to a degree only comparable to Disney and their "vaults." As I see it, Nintendo believes people make products and they bet on their people. The game designers who head up making Nintendo games today were developers 20 years ago. They have a process. This is all about people.
Having LLMs making games that even has the smallest threat on IP (e.g. You don't own it, the LLM manufacturer or data set owner claims ownership) would horrify Nintendo. Nintendo can't prove the data is cleanly owned. You might say "Contract"! But that misses the point, Nintendo almost never does the new cutting edge thing that is not already tested. The NES, Gameboy, etc. were all 1 generation behind in tech. That doesn't mean no innovation, but that is another topic... Nintendo waiting for something to be tried first, including in the courts fits their culture. That is the first and smaller point.
The larger point is that Nintendo believes in people and their process of developing games. When they introduce a new process, they spend years playing with it before using it. It was claimed that Nintendo created a single room for Mario to play in for Mario 64, spending years to figure out how Mario should move. This is why Nintendo games are shockingly consistent in their high quality. They throw a lot away and spend a lot of time in prototype land. So when they say they trust the process, that means they trust the vetting process. Like the Amish trust a vetting process for tech. Giving away control of your process to AI or any other hot tool is just not what they do.
Let me finish off by commenting on some of what I see as misperceptions. It's not that your takes are wrong, it is just that you don't have an internalized view of the style of craftsmanship Nintendo comes from or how other developers do things differently from Nintendo. Differences in culture do not translate well into byte size comments. So either Nintendo has to write a book every time they describe their thinking or their words have a chance of being misunderstood like they appear to be here. Communication is hard. Cross culture communication is doubly so.
Disclosure: I am not a Nintendo employee, but am a very minor shareholder.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your AI violated my rights by training on an x-ray image of a tumor in my lung! I don't care if it leads to better outcomes for millions of cancer patients!"
Technology alone? (Score:2)
Well, other than this guy, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone knows that technology alone doesn't create a 'best' game.
I mean to be fair this has been one of the chief criticisms of the "AAA" game industry for years and years now, graphics and flash over generally empty gameplay.
One thing Nintendo owes it's continued success around is that ever since the Gamecube they have eschewed the graphical arms race in gaming and focussed on gameplay and art design.
Re: Technology alone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I get the feeling that a lot of games are being made by people who have no interest in playing their own game, which probably explains the poor gameplay experience to such a large degree.
With few exceptions the majority of the games that I've enjoyed most in the past decade have been made by a few individuals or
If it ainâ(TM)t broke⦠(Score:3)
a round of applause please (Score:3)
"we hope to continue to deliver value that is unique to us and cannot be achieved through technology alone"
This deserves a standing ovation.
"No plans" lol (Score:2)
"Nintendo Has No Plans to Use Generative AI in Its Games, Company President Says"
All this means is that they have no plans for AI in their games today. Tomorrow, though...
Trust me, a year or so from now they'll be incorporating it into every game they make.
It's like saying, "I have no plans to buy any more gas for my car because, look, my tank is full!"
Re: (Score:2)
I mean that is the best he can say.
A statement like "Nintendo will never use generative AI" would be a bad take. Maybe all the problems get solved and they start using it in 15 years.
The best that you can say is "At this point, we are not interested"
Re:"No plans" lol (Score:4, Interesting)
All this means is that they have no plans for AI in their games today.
Even in this statement Nintendo never said they have no plans for AI in their games today.
"while we remain flexible in responding to technological developments, we hope to continue to deliver value that is unique to us and cannot be achieved through technology alone."
What they have stated is that technology has a limited role in the creation of the games; they wouldn't be built by tech alone.
In other words, they can still be using a lot of AI in their games, but they're not replacing human authors with technology
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of crazy not to (Score:2)
AI is great for fleshing things out on the fly, faster than any human could even if you could afford the people to work live on games as they were played.
You want better NPC dialog, better voice synthesis, smarter bots in combat... AI.
If you want a 100% deterministic game though, you probably want to avoid it.