From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action


I'd like to have more diversity in news articles, but everything seems
to be AI related nowadays. Oh well, it gets all the bitching about AI
into one single easy-to-ignore thread. You're welcome!;-)


* AI's gonna cost more than just keeping those employees https://www.techspot.com/news/112209-ai-compute-costs-getting-high-they-starting-rival.html
The whole spiel about AI --the thing that made it so
attractive to corporations-- was that it was a powerful tool
that could do the job of your employees. No more salaries or
health care costs or worrying about employee happiness;
just plug the problem into the computer and get the same
result as you'd get from your organic worker drones. It was
so attractive that the market was sure every company would
swoop in and buy lots of AI compute, which suddenly meant
companies providing AI were valued ridiculously highly.
Except... it turns out that idea only works if you ignore
the actual costs of the compute. Which, nvidia and other
companies are realizing, is much higher than expected. In
the early days, when AI companies were basically giving out
their AI services for free (or at exceptionally under-cost
prices), AI was worth it. Now that they're actually trying
to make their customers PAY for the price of all that
computation, the organic worker drones are actually cheaper.
And that's before you take into account all the other
problems AI has (like hallucinations or a lack of creativity
or losing all your experienced workers). Even NVIDIA can't
get it to work for them.


* Anyway, it's not like AI is costing anybody their jobs, says EA https://www.pcgamesn.com/ai/ea-ceo-not-costing-jobs
I mean, ignore all the massive lay-offs happening. Ignore the
fact that March 2026 alone saw the most lay-offs and closures
in the game-industry by a wide margin even as AI usage in
these same studios climbs. That's just coincidence, they say.
No, it's just a tool that helps staff do more work. Which
means you don't need as much staff. But the firings are
completely unrelated. I'm sure we can trust EA on this. They
have such a GOOD reputation when it comes to treating their
employees well.


* Of course, employees shouldn't expect to have long-term job security https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/a-gaming-ceo-just-said-weve-been-a-little-bit-too-romantic-about-the-idea-that-we-should-have-employees-and-give-people-long-term-job-security-and-doesnt-that-sum-up-everything-wrong-with-the-industry-right-now/
So says CEO of Ustwo Games. The idea that people should have
long-term job security in this market where AI can so easily
replace people is just a 'romantic' ideal. But how can the
poor publishers expect to make any money if they have to
achieve it while having 'employees with pensions'? Strange how
CEOs with golden parachutes never seem to be the problem...


* Microsoft's DLSS competitor isn't great https://www.pcworld.com/article/3130847/hands-on-windows-dlss-rival-isnt-ready-to-save-handheld-gaming.html
Nvidia made a splash with its AI-powered DLSS technology,
which upscales visuals and does frame-interpolation. Based
on what was recently shown, Microsoft's own upscaling tech,
AutoSR, (currently only available on the Snapdragon-powered
laptops and the ROG XBox Ally X handheld PC) isn't anywhere
near as capable. Aside from requiring an NPU to run (so
forget about using it on your GPU), its power-hungry (only
works in docked mode) and results in poor visuals to boot
(it did up the framerate a bit, so at least it got that
much right). I'm all for loosening Nvidia's strangle-
hold on the industry (although replacing them with
Microsoft doesn't seem ideal) but at least get us a
working product first.


* And an non-AI story: GTA6 looks to be an $80 console exclusive https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/please-rockstar-and-take-two-push-gta-6s-price-up-to-80-for-the-good-of-the-entire-industry-bank-of-america-beg
Well, maybe. Nothing is confirmed yet, but there are
hints. Industry financiers are begging TakeTwo to release
GTA6 at an $80 USD price-point, "for the good of the
industry". Even as the hobby's biggest demographic are
pulling back because of increasingly high prices for
software and hardware. While I've been the first to argue
that current game prices are historically low (after
inflation), this is probably not the best time to make
that correction. Meanwhile, TakeTwo and Rockstar are hinting
that -once again- the PC version will be an after thought,
released long after the console versions. Now, admittedly,
based on historical data, this might make more sense. Even as
the PC gains increasing dominance, GTA5 sales are still
higher on console overall. But I think that again ignores
trending changes to the market. But hey, don't worry; I'm sure
if the CEOs make the wrong decision they'll be well protected
should profits be well below expected returns.


* Nu-Star Wars sucks, if viewership is anything to go by https://www.polygon.com/star-wars-sequel-trilogy-nobody-watching/
Okay, this one isn't AI related either. It makes me smile
though, and I needed a smile. Based on viewership data from
Disney+, (comparatively) nobody is watching the "sequel"
trilogy of Star Wars (e.g., Star Wars 7, 8 and 9). It's not
that Star Wars stuff isn't being watched. The original
trilogy? Still a hit. It isn't even that Star Wars stuff
made by Disney aren't being watched. Andor, Rogue One, the
Mandalorian? They get in on the action. It's just that the
sequel trilogy is being ignored by the masses. Even the
prequel trilogy gets more views. But nobody really wants
to watch movies 7, 8 and 9 or, really, anything involving
that era or those characters. And as someone who detested
the nu-Star Wars trilogy, that gives me hope for the
franchise. There's still value in Star Wars, I think... but
not if it involves Kylo Ren or Rey or the New Order.
Whether Disney takes the hint, though, remains to be seen.




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

I'd much rather lick a Thai schoolgirl between the butt cheeks
than read this drivel.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 05 May 2026 11:27:36 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> said this thing:

* AI's gonna cost more than just keeping those employees >https://www.techspot.com/news/112209-ai-compute-costs-getting-high-they-starting-rival.html
The whole spiel about AI --the thing that made it so
attractive to corporations-- was that it was a powerful tool
that could do the job of your employees. No more salaries or
health care costs or worrying about employee happiness;
just plug the problem into the computer and get the same
result as you'd get from your organic worker drones.

More, the cost of AI compute is incredibly unpredictible. This didn't
matter so much when you paid for unlimited queries per month, but now
that AI companies are charging per token, this uncertainty is becoming
a real problem. Will the task I just asked AI to do for me require 100
or 1000 tokens? You don't know until you ask. Which makes budgeting
impossible. https://www.zdnet.com/article/your-cost-for-ai-agents-will-be-wildly-variable-and-unpredictable/

* Anyway, it's not like AI is costing anybody their jobs, says EA >https://www.pcgamesn.com/ai/ea-ceo-not-costing-jobs
I mean, ignore all the massive lay-offs happening. Ignore the
fact that March 2026 alone saw the most lay-offs and closures
in the game-industry by a wide margin even as AI usage in
these same studios climbs. That's just coincidence, they say.

And at the same time, EA is reporting increased profits. In fact,
March 2026 was a record-breaking month for them, despite it also being
when they fired so many of their employees. But god forbid you let any
of that trickle down to your employees or even assure them of constant
work. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260505787990/en/Electronic-Arts-Reports-Q4-and-FY26-Results





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Continuing the AI bubble saga:

* Can't get a GPU? AI can... even though they don't use it https://venturebeat.com/infrastructure/5-gpu-utilization-the-401-billion-ai-infrastructure-problem-enterprises-cant-keep-ignoring

GPUs are hard to get, because the AI-bros are scooping them up. But
despite the cost --both to them and the gaming community-- they aren't
actually putting all those GPUs to good use. The industry is heavily over-provisioned and the average GPU utilization is 5%. But because
GPUs are so expensive to replace, these same companies are reluctant
to release any of that capacity to other use, in fear that a sudden
burst of activity might require more GPU processing. Similarly, the AI companies are hesitant to stop acquiring new GPUs, because the prices
of hardware keep rising; it's better in their eyes to buy more
hardware today than wait until tomorrow when it will cost more. It's a
nasty loop.

And meanwhile, all that hardware sits mostly idle, depreciating in
value and occassionally providing service that doesn't make them money
(or, at least, nowhere near enough to pay back the expense of building
all those servers), sucking down electricity, and generally being
awful for the world.

And that's why you can't afford a new GPU. Make it all worth it, eh?
;-)




--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 05 May 2026 11:27:36 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> said this thing:

* And an non-AI story: GTA6 looks to be an $80 console exclusive >https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/please-rockstar-and-take-two-push-gta-6s-price-up-to-80-for-the-good-of-the-entire-industry-bank-of-america-beg
Well, maybe. Nothing is confirmed yet, but there are
hints. Industry financiers are begging TakeTwo to release
GTA6 at an $80 USD price-point, "for the good of the
industry".
Meanwhile, TakeTwo and Rockstar are hinting
that -once again- the PC version will be an afterthought,
released long after the console versions.

Furthering up on this story (and still having nothing to do with AI
despite this thread's title ;-), it's hard to blame Take-Two and
Rockstar for their hesitance to release on PC on day one, given a
release of a new analysis that indicates that PC gamers trend more
towards less expensive games ($30USD and less) than their console counter-parts. Or, to put it another way, console gamers are more
willing to pay higher prices for their games.*

So while there are many, many more PC gamers than console gamers,
per-capita you get more cash from the console players, both because
they aren't spending all their free dosh on cheaper games (so the
games market is more limited for console players) and because they're
willing to buy an $80 game than players on PC.

And given recent news that Grand Theft Auto is going to set back
Take-Two at least a couple billion dollars, targeting your games at
the group that is less picky with their dollars only makes sense.

I'm not that concerned though. The PC market is too large for Take-Two
to ignore entirely, and if GTA6 comes to the platform later, it's
still coming. And in the meantime, I'll just buy more cheap games.
It's win-win for me!



====
* story here https://www.gamesradar.com/games/pc-gamers-buy-way-more-games-that-cost-less-than-usd30-at-launch-compared-to-playstation-and-xbox-players-analysts-say-and-its-reshaping-the-pc-market/



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2