I spent years in both games and films. I see AI adoption happening in gaming much faster than in films because it’s essentially software development and customer support—two areas where AI can make a huge difference.
The challenge in films is that a big chunk of the costs comes from talent—producers, writers, actors, and directors are all well compensated and unionized. Until there are alternative means for them to be paid, such as thru the licensing of their likeness or style, they will reject the use of AI to simulate them or their work.
In terms of live action film, the output from Gen AI is underwhelming. At least for now. Until we as consumers get a place where we embrace Lil Miquela style characters or rendering power becomes significantly better to the point of life-like, the need for human actors will persist.
Yes to spend $1K or less on a movie or game is awesome. The drawback, will your movie get exposure? Exposure will cost extra. When games and movies get really cheap to make you could see up to 10,000,000+ made everyday. So pretty much you’re going into AI content for your own pleasure or twisted taste. This takes me to my next point “Blue Ocean Strategy” - read the book.
To be fair, people currently spend $100s of millions on movies (and games) and then spend $100s of millions on marketing too :) It's def true the new model will have to do the same, but I think it will still be much better than the current model
I’m in LA too. It’s true that AI came on the scene just as the business models were failing, but with the Hollywood templates/franchises like Marvel and Star Wars having reached a point of severely finished returns the natural case for AI to develop/automate within these universes is also mostly gone.
Big AI has yet to deliver truly creative rather than recursive stories. We have tens of thousands of creatives on YouTube and TikTok willing and able to replace Hollywood for cheap without the expensive development costs of the studios—or AI developers for that matter.
The distraction economy and dopamine culture promoted by the platforms on our devices mean that the “long form” production of movies, TV shows and even the quest-like video games are finding a much smaller audience without the sources of revenue required to make the transition to AI-enhanced or created productions.
There was a period of “peak television” where there was a truce or even an alignment of “Northern California” and “Southern California” but with tech so dominant and with a business model based on attention and engagement, the art / entertainment part of the equation pales from the revenue of distraction and the immediate ability of the AI sector to produce “content” that amounts to greasy but profitable fast food on our devices.
Fox, for instance, is wholly invested in live TV with a strong relationship to the “real, physical” world eg. sports and news. AI sports content just doesn’t work (yet?) because who wants to see fake players moving around on a field. The idea of human connection and athletic feats pushing their physical bodies to exertion in the context of city or region people have a loyalty to is what grips the audience.
AI needs to be a Democratic tool for creatives not the end goal. Similarly, Bitcoin or the blockchain could have been great tools but the tech evangelists wanted them to be the be all and end all.
Venture capital is so dependent on moonshots that is diametrically opposed to the creative, craft projects that Hollywood is still good at. LA has to become better and more focused on building on their existing prestige or “luxury” media products. As far as I can tell, humans are still needed to curate the good stuff, if only the platforms would let them have a way to get and develop an audience not addicted to dopamine hits.
Andrew, if I were you, I’d move back to the Bay Area or perhaps Boston where AI could help develop hard technologies and medical treatments in the biotech world.
LA’s only hope is to become a city of craft makers the way Portland is to beer and bikes. Media will need to enhance art and lifestyle, the way artists in 19th Century Paris gave the city a cultural cache.
Of course AI isn't working yet enough to disrupt the entertainment industry - the whole tech ecosystem is less than 18 months old. But how will things play out if you zoom out 5 years, or 10 years? I think that's the question the whole industry should be pondering right now.
This is definitely why we felt like we had to set out on our own... the idea of building a generative AI game within a traditional studio just felt impossible on both sides.
You really kinda need a purpose built team that's willing to be flexible on both "what is a game?" and "what is interesting to build with AI?"
If you've ever seen Paprika (and dug into the video essays there) you definitely catch that vibe with the current state of AI video. It's like watching an amalgamation of abstract concepts where based on your understanding of what is happening or willingness to succumb to the suspension of disbelif, there are ideas in the experience that are truly unique as a strange new abstract medium.
I had the same thoughts on your last point about the $1000 movie! Having the ability to create an awesome blockbuster level movie as long as you have the commitment and creativity to make it happen is huge. And only a benefit to everyone in my opinion.
There’s also the incremental but short sighted use of GenAI. Reminds me of when the New York Times believed the future of news delivery on the Internet was in emailing copies of their paper in pdf form to subscribers. It will take confident investors and innovators to dare release true innovation in GenAI in games. What’s key is to connect the investors with the creators and frequently that doesn’t happen fast enough.
I never believed AI could immediately replace jobs in the entertainment industry, like filmmaking, because the roles are too diverse. However, I am certain that with major updates, AI can quickly replace programming jobs. It already covers 60% of the work since companies are very familiar with the programming workflow. Programming jobs will be the first to be replaced.
Also its all very well to say 'breeze through copyright' but British people have faced extradition to America and trial for allegedly infringing US corporations copyright (note the case of Richard O'Dwyer in 2012). Maybe You Tube is big enough to fight it but what about the small guy/girl?
I know its hard to argue against but I don't like You Tube. I find it a junk yard. I'd rather go to a movie theatre and see an art house movie on a big screen (I know i'm probably in the minority). Similarly with podcasting. There are lots of amazing podcasts but also a lot of sub par dross.
A piece that I would define as absolutely necessary: there is great attention and expectation on gaming and entertainment, especially on the film industry, but still, as you highlight, there is a strong resistance or a galloping non-integration of the tools in the right way. However, the most interesting thing that I appreciated about this issue was the beginning, when you talk about various startups that can address the problems that arise from this relationship that is not yet 'well-fitted' between AI and these two sectors. I think this is also a great theme: the opening of Hollywood and the gaming industry to smaller actors who can provide new flows of creativity, ideas and tools, especially to giants, such as Disney or others, often recently under the lens of 'magnification for certain results.
How about anyone with a smartphone being their own creator using Gen AI for assist? Creative visual stories. Quibi lost 700 million in 6 months. I should say Hollywood did trying to create weekly content for mobile-first viewing. Good idea, bad product.
Yes - and it seems clear that rather than fighting YouTube, the best move would have been to figure out how to engage early, and maybe get some of the upside. These technology forces are unstoppable so the question is how to embrace the change rather than to try and stop it from happening
I spent years in both games and films. I see AI adoption happening in gaming much faster than in films because it’s essentially software development and customer support—two areas where AI can make a huge difference.
The challenge in films is that a big chunk of the costs comes from talent—producers, writers, actors, and directors are all well compensated and unionized. Until there are alternative means for them to be paid, such as thru the licensing of their likeness or style, they will reject the use of AI to simulate them or their work.
In terms of live action film, the output from Gen AI is underwhelming. At least for now. Until we as consumers get a place where we embrace Lil Miquela style characters or rendering power becomes significantly better to the point of life-like, the need for human actors will persist.
well said, and agree!
Yes to spend $1K or less on a movie or game is awesome. The drawback, will your movie get exposure? Exposure will cost extra. When games and movies get really cheap to make you could see up to 10,000,000+ made everyday. So pretty much you’re going into AI content for your own pleasure or twisted taste. This takes me to my next point “Blue Ocean Strategy” - read the book.
To be fair, people currently spend $100s of millions on movies (and games) and then spend $100s of millions on marketing too :) It's def true the new model will have to do the same, but I think it will still be much better than the current model
I’m in LA too. It’s true that AI came on the scene just as the business models were failing, but with the Hollywood templates/franchises like Marvel and Star Wars having reached a point of severely finished returns the natural case for AI to develop/automate within these universes is also mostly gone.
Big AI has yet to deliver truly creative rather than recursive stories. We have tens of thousands of creatives on YouTube and TikTok willing and able to replace Hollywood for cheap without the expensive development costs of the studios—or AI developers for that matter.
The distraction economy and dopamine culture promoted by the platforms on our devices mean that the “long form” production of movies, TV shows and even the quest-like video games are finding a much smaller audience without the sources of revenue required to make the transition to AI-enhanced or created productions.
There was a period of “peak television” where there was a truce or even an alignment of “Northern California” and “Southern California” but with tech so dominant and with a business model based on attention and engagement, the art / entertainment part of the equation pales from the revenue of distraction and the immediate ability of the AI sector to produce “content” that amounts to greasy but profitable fast food on our devices.
Fox, for instance, is wholly invested in live TV with a strong relationship to the “real, physical” world eg. sports and news. AI sports content just doesn’t work (yet?) because who wants to see fake players moving around on a field. The idea of human connection and athletic feats pushing their physical bodies to exertion in the context of city or region people have a loyalty to is what grips the audience.
AI needs to be a Democratic tool for creatives not the end goal. Similarly, Bitcoin or the blockchain could have been great tools but the tech evangelists wanted them to be the be all and end all.
Venture capital is so dependent on moonshots that is diametrically opposed to the creative, craft projects that Hollywood is still good at. LA has to become better and more focused on building on their existing prestige or “luxury” media products. As far as I can tell, humans are still needed to curate the good stuff, if only the platforms would let them have a way to get and develop an audience not addicted to dopamine hits.
Andrew, if I were you, I’d move back to the Bay Area or perhaps Boston where AI could help develop hard technologies and medical treatments in the biotech world.
LA’s only hope is to become a city of craft makers the way Portland is to beer and bikes. Media will need to enhance art and lifestyle, the way artists in 19th Century Paris gave the city a cultural cache.
Of course AI isn't working yet enough to disrupt the entertainment industry - the whole tech ecosystem is less than 18 months old. But how will things play out if you zoom out 5 years, or 10 years? I think that's the question the whole industry should be pondering right now.
You should check out NOLANAI.APP Many of the challenges that you are discussing here, we have already addressed. Would love for you to test it out.
And what about the marketing cost?
I did it.
I did it.
This is definitely why we felt like we had to set out on our own... the idea of building a generative AI game within a traditional studio just felt impossible on both sides.
You really kinda need a purpose built team that's willing to be flexible on both "what is a game?" and "what is interesting to build with AI?"
On the flip side of new opportunities: Sora's "Washed Out" music video was just... fascinating, (comments section too) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Nb-M1GAOX8&ab_channel=WashedOut
If you've ever seen Paprika (and dug into the video essays there) you definitely catch that vibe with the current state of AI video. It's like watching an amalgamation of abstract concepts where based on your understanding of what is happening or willingness to succumb to the suspension of disbelif, there are ideas in the experience that are truly unique as a strange new abstract medium.
I had the same thoughts on your last point about the $1000 movie! Having the ability to create an awesome blockbuster level movie as long as you have the commitment and creativity to make it happen is huge. And only a benefit to everyone in my opinion.
There’s also the incremental but short sighted use of GenAI. Reminds me of when the New York Times believed the future of news delivery on the Internet was in emailing copies of their paper in pdf form to subscribers. It will take confident investors and innovators to dare release true innovation in GenAI in games. What’s key is to connect the investors with the creators and frequently that doesn’t happen fast enough.
I never believed AI could immediately replace jobs in the entertainment industry, like filmmaking, because the roles are too diverse. However, I am certain that with major updates, AI can quickly replace programming jobs. It already covers 60% of the work since companies are very familiar with the programming workflow. Programming jobs will be the first to be replaced.
Also its all very well to say 'breeze through copyright' but British people have faced extradition to America and trial for allegedly infringing US corporations copyright (note the case of Richard O'Dwyer in 2012). Maybe You Tube is big enough to fight it but what about the small guy/girl?
I found the article interesting. I work in media.
I know its hard to argue against but I don't like You Tube. I find it a junk yard. I'd rather go to a movie theatre and see an art house movie on a big screen (I know i'm probably in the minority). Similarly with podcasting. There are lots of amazing podcasts but also a lot of sub par dross.
A piece that I would define as absolutely necessary: there is great attention and expectation on gaming and entertainment, especially on the film industry, but still, as you highlight, there is a strong resistance or a galloping non-integration of the tools in the right way. However, the most interesting thing that I appreciated about this issue was the beginning, when you talk about various startups that can address the problems that arise from this relationship that is not yet 'well-fitted' between AI and these two sectors. I think this is also a great theme: the opening of Hollywood and the gaming industry to smaller actors who can provide new flows of creativity, ideas and tools, especially to giants, such as Disney or others, often recently under the lens of 'magnification for certain results.
How about anyone with a smartphone being their own creator using Gen AI for assist? Creative visual stories. Quibi lost 700 million in 6 months. I should say Hollywood did trying to create weekly content for mobile-first viewing. Good idea, bad product.
Someone is using your name and photo to sell financial investments, it appears, using this account:
https://substack.com/@andrewchen465405
Yes - and it seems clear that rather than fighting YouTube, the best move would have been to figure out how to engage early, and maybe get some of the upside. These technology forces are unstoppable so the question is how to embrace the change rather than to try and stop it from happening