Welcome to investor bait, where the numbers are made up and the business plan doesn’t matter!
I don’t like your vibe, it isn’t hype enough.
Yeah, in particular, anything close to 100 million users presumes that non-gamedevs will use this. For anything beyond simple variations of existing games, like e.g. “Skyrim with spears”, you need to have an actual understanding of game design. It is not enough to have cool ideas.
So, I really don’t see many non-gamedevs using this. Especially when they can pay less to play a properly designed game.
He also foresees full, finished games being produced with prompts, and wants future versions of the software to be capable of creating games as good as, for example, Valheim.
I do wonder that. If you don’t know your code, how are you supposed to fix a bug?
“If we can have 100 million new people being able to make games, you know, that will be an exciting thing,” Vermandois told PC Gamer.
This would be actually exciting thing to see, that 100 millions of people creating 100 millions of games and none of it would be finished and polished.
I’m sure it’s gonna be some really good games too, and not reiterations of the same shitty Unity slop that we’ve seen for years now.
These people from web3, crypto and genAI that regularly promise a revolution in gaming have all in common that they couldn’t start to recognize a good game to save their life.
They don’t play games. They don’t even see the point in playing games, which is why they’re so sure they can “fix” them with just their acute sense of marketing and nothing else.
It will be worse. The worst Unity slop still had some actual creative work put into it at some level, at least by the creators of the assets they bought.
Fun fact: there’s a group that shares this goal but was actually capable of doing it: https://www.scratch.mit.edu/
(TL;DR you can just let people explore coding in a simple language/engine and that’s enough of a stepping stone)
