top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 198 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 137 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Not even from an ethically standpoint. Color me shocked if these games are like, playable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 43 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Exactly, as I don’t expect QA done by something that can’t think or feel to know what actually needs to be fixed

    That is a very small part of QA's responsibility. Mostly it is about testing and identifying bugs that get triaged by management. The person running the tests is NOT responsible for deciding what can and can't ship.

    And, in that regard... this is actually a REALLY good use of "AI" (not so much generative). Imagine something like the old "A star algorithm plays mario" where it is about finding different paths to accomplish the same goal (e.g. a quest) and immediately having a lot of exactly what steps led to the anomaly for the purposes of building a reproducer.

    Which actually DOES feel like a really good use case.... at the cost of massive computational costs (so.. "AI").

    That said: it also has all of the usual labor implications. But from a purely technical "make the best games" standpoint? Managers overseeing a rack that is running through the games 24/7 for bugs that they can then review and prioritize seems like a REALLY good move.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They're already not paying for QA, so if anything this would be a net increase in resources allocated just to bring the machines onboard to do the task

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I would initially tap the breaks on this, if for no other reason than "AI doing Q&A" reads more like corporate buzzwords than material policy. Big software developers should already have much of their Q&A automated, at least at the base layer. Further automating Q&A is generally a better business practice, as it helps catch more bugs in the Dev/Test cycle sooner.

    Then consider that Q&A work by end users is historically a miserable and soul-sucking job. Converting those roles to debuggers and active devs does a lot for both the business and the workforce. When compared to "AI is doing the art" this is night-and-day, the very definition of the "Getting rid of the jobs people hate so they can do the work they love" that AI was supposed to deliver.

    Finally, I'm forced to drag out the old "95% of AI implementations fail" statistic. Far more worried that they're going to implement a model that costs a fortune and delivers mediocre results than that they'll implement an AI driven round of end-user testing.

    Turning Q&A over to the Roomba AI to find corners of the setting that snag the user would be Gud Aktuly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    The thing about QA is the work is truly endless.

    If they can do their work more efficiently, they don't get laid off.

    It just means a better % of edge cases can get covered, even if you made QAs operate at 100x efficiency, they'd still have edge cases not getting covered.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago

    They’re just gonna lay them off.

    And hire other people with the excess budget. Hell, depending on how badly these systems are implemented, you can end up with more staff supporting the testing system than you had doing the testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    I was going to say, this is one job that actually makes sense to automate. I don’t know any QA testers personally, but I’ve heard plenty of accounts of them absolutely hating their jobs and getting laid off after the time crunch anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Ugh. QA. Quality Assurance. Reflexively jamming that & because I am a bad AI.

    Regardless, digital simulated users are going to be able to test faster, more exhaustively, and with more detailed diagnostics, than manual end users.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    QA annnnd Debugging?

    LLMs have a much better chance at succesfuly replacing whoever said that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 85 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's a stupid idea. You're not supposed to QA or debug games. You just release it, customers report bugs, and then you promise to fix the bugs in the next patch (but don't).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago
    [–] 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Well, good luck with that. Software development is a shit show already anyway. You can find me in my Gardening business in 2027.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Good Luck. When the economy finally bottoms out the first budget to go is always the gardening budget.

    You can find me in my plumbing business in 2028.

    I deal with shit daily so it's what we in biz call a horizontal promotion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Literally not how any of this works. You don't let AI check your work, at best you use AI and check it's work, and at worst you have to do everything by hand anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    You don’t let AI check your work

    From a game dev perspective, user Q&A QA is often annoying and repetitive labor. Endlessly criss-crossing terran hitting different buttons to make sure you don't snag a corner or click objects in a sequence that triggers a state freeze. Hooking a PS controller to Roomba logic and having a digital tool rapidly rerun routes and explore button combos over and over, looking for failed states, is significantly better for you than hoping an overworked team of dummy players can recreate the failed state by tripping into it manually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    There's plenty of room for sophisticated automation without any need to involve AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago

    In this case however, it explicitly is:

    The project, which is titled Joint Development of Game QA Automation Technology Using Generative AI, is being tackled by “a joint research team of more than ten members”, including researchers from the University of Tokyo and engineers from the Square Enix group.

    The goal, according to the report, is to “automate 70% of QA and debugging tasks in game development by the end of 2027”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean, as a branding exercise, every form of sophisticated automation is getting the "AI" label.

    Past that, advanced pathing algorithms are what Q&A systems need to validate all possible actions within a space. That's the bread-and-butter of AI. Its also generally how you'd describe simulated end-users on a test system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I mean, as a branding exercise, every form of sophisticated automation is getting the "AI" label.

    The article is specifically talking about generative AI. I think we need to find new terminology to describe the kind of automation that was colloquially referred to as AI before chatgpt et al. came into existence.

    The important distinction, I think, is that these things are still purpose-built and (mostly) explainable. When you have a bunch of nails, you design a hammer. An "AI bot" QA tester the way Booty describes in the article isn't going to be an advanced algorithm that carries out specific tests. That exists already and has for years. He's asking for something that will figure out specific tests that are worth doing when given a vague or nonexistent test plan, most likely. You need a human, or an actual AGI, for something on that level, not generative AI.

    And explicitly with generative AI, as pertains to Square Enix's initiative in the article, there are the typical huge risks of verifiability and hallucination. However unpleasant you may think a QA worker's job is now, I guarantee you it will be even more unpleasant when the job consists of fact-checking AI bug reports all day instead of actually doing the testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    its *

    Ironically, that’s definitely something AI could check for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I hope they put out the last FF VII remake part before that, so i can finally start playing them all! I don't care what they want to waste their money on afterwards lol

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    I wouldn't be shy about getting into Remake or Rebirth now. They both stand up as their own games (concise start/ending, somewhat distinct mechanics, each one is easily 40+ hours of gameplay). And with Part 3 targeted for 2027 release, I suspect this kind of overhaul would be outside their dev cycle to implement.

    Part 2 is already using the engine from Part 1 with minor adjustments. I suspect most of Part 3 development is cinematics and world building.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    Realistic goal considering they already do so little QA.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Remember when square used to make great games?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That was Squaresoft, not Square Enix.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So Square Enix is demanding OpenAI stop using their content, but is 100% okay using AI built off stolen content to make more money themselves

    As a developer, it bothers me that my code is being used to train AI that Square Enix is using while trying to deny anyone else the ability to use their work

    I could go either way on whether or not AI should be able to train on available data, but no one should get to have it both ways

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Was gonna make a post with this article but this is related so I'll drop it here instead.

    "Square Enix is laying off more developers in the UK and US as it refocuses on Japan The publisher has expressed interest in replacing development roles with AI"

    https://www.engadget.com/gaming/square-enix-is-laying-off-more-developers-in-the-uk-and-us-as-it-refocuses-on-japan-201907305.html

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Square Enix actually has a pretty sick automated QA already. There's a cool talk about how they did that for FFVII remake in GDC vault, and I highly recommend watching it, if you're at all interested in QA.

    It has nothing to do with AI, it's just plain old automation, but they solve most of the issues you get with making automated tests in non-discrete 3D playspace and they do that in a pretty solid way. It's definitely something I'd love to have implemented in the games I'm working on, as someone who worked in QA and now works in development. Being able to have mostly reliable way how to smoke-test levels for basic gameplay without having to torture QA to run the test-case again is good, and allows QA to focus on something else - but the tools also need oversight, so it's not really a job lost. In summary - I think the talk is cool tech and worth the watch.

    However, I don't think AI will help in this regard, and something as unreliable and random as AI models are not a good fit for this job. You want to have deterministic testcases that you can quanitfy, and if something doesn't match have an actual human to look at why. AI also probably won't be able to find clever corner-cases and bugs that need human ingenuity.

    Fuck AI, I kind of hope this is just a marketing talk and they are actually just improving the (deterministic) tools they already have (which actually are AI by definition, since they also do level exploration on top of recorded inputs), and they are calling it an "AI" to satisfy investors/management without actually slapping a glorified chat-bot into the tech for no reason.

  • source
  • [+] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago*

    Considering how the open source community is being inundated with low-quality bug reports filed using AI, I don't have much faith in the tech reviewing code, let alone writing it correctly.

    Could it be a useful aid? Sure, but 70% of your reviewing is a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream. AI just isn't ready for this level of responsibility in any organization.

  • source
  • [+] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    it's a bit late in the game to be making idiotic claims but I guess the default state for corpos is being out of touch

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    They jumped on the NFT bandwagon a couple years ago, too. Did they not learn anything from that?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Their games going to be shit 🤣

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Chrono Trigger remake, first all AI development, because we live in the bad timeline.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago
    [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    It's your funeral

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Be prepared for Square Enix games to fail even EA's QA standards in the near future 😅

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Not buying their next game it will be a nightmare

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    A year from now they'll be wondering why their games are so buggy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Square Enix exec doesn't know what QA and Debugging entail.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Frankly, this is good news. Whoever buys the rights to kingdom hearts in 3 years when the company falls apart might manage to create an intelligible storyline.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But then it won't be a Kingdom Hearts game!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Kingdom hearts 1 was a coming of age story with some fantastic elements tossed in

    Kingdom hearts 2 was about antipathy and how it destroys the world, with some, uhh, who was that guy? And why’s the bad guy on my side?

    Kingdom hearts 3 was, wait, why was he cloned? When was he cloned? When was she, and him, and him again? And his third clone was a girl? And whose heart was imbued into what? What war? What? Who? What???

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I get that getting all the games as they released was hard, because the series is on so many platforms. But I really don't get the "KH is hard to understand" argument today, because you can easily find hundreds of letsplays for every game, cutscenes complications, play/watch every game on the PS4 remix disk, and even watch a fandub of the mobile games (Dark Road is a WIP) if you don't like the KHUX Back Cover recap.

    So like, what's so hard? If you skip games and only read a wiki (the worst possible way to consume any sort of media, mind you), of course you're not gonna know the story and characters, and of course it'll sound confusing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Dude, it’s multi-author-comic level bad. I’ve skipped entire sagas in several book series due to a lack of translations and ended up less confused. It’s green arrow levels of clone shenanigans.

    To be clear, I’ve played most of the games and they’re still ridiculously difficult to keep track of. All besides the mobile, early non-Ventus card mechanic arpg, and the disappearing girl clone sora game.

    They’d be easier to follow if they stuck to the rules of their own universe. Body and heart separate and the body persists not once but twice? What?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    From a tech POV, that makes a lot of sense. Use AI to find the needle in the haystack. Then let a person validate. That's probably one of the better uses for it. Although I don't love AI for any of the broad reasons to not like AI.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wasn't AI decent at writing code, but bad at review and modifying it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Maybe before. But it's gotten pretty damn good at detecting anomalies and issues. And every time a human QA validates the info, it gets better.

    I'd still leave it to a human to fix the code though. I suspect that letting AI write the code would make it unworkable for people in the future. But maybe it can write code in a straightforward way to be managed. I don't know. It's advancing pretty fast.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Lol. Good luck!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    insert plane crashing.gif

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    70% by what metric?

    Is that going by bugs identified, fixes implemented, headcount?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    So... im a big supporter of squeenix, buy everything they make... but this tells me the quality of their games is going to go down the toilet. Knowing AI it'll come up with fake lists of bugs that didn't happen and all the real bugs will not be listed and they'll release the buggies shit. One thing I LIKE about square, being one of the few companies I do pre-orders from still, is that their products are fairly bug free on launch FFXVI had some graphics optimization issues, but I've been happy with most of what I got the past few years.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    FFXIV saved them and they don't ever put any money back into the game. It's their cash cow that pays for all their other bad ideas.

    Great graphics and legacy. But some crappy ideas about what the players want.

    Look at their payment systems for subs. It's so confusing for no damn reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    So their games will cost 70% less right?

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Hmm. While I don't know what their QA workflow is, my own experience is that working with QA people to design a QA procedure for a given feature tends to require familiarity with the feature in the context of real-world knowledge and possible problems, and that human-validating a feature isn't usually something done at massive scale, where you'd get a lot of benefit from heavy automation.

    It's possible that one might be able to use LLMs to help write test code


    reliability and security considerations there are normally less-critical than in front-line code. Worst case is getting a false positive, and if you can get more test cases covered, I imagine that might pay off.

    Square does an MMO, among their other stuff. If they can train a model to produce AI-driven characters that act sufficiently like human players, where they can theoretically log training data from human players, that might be sufficient to populate an MMO "experimental" deployment so that they can see if anything breaks prior to moving code to production.

    “Because I would love to be able to start up 10,000 instances of a game in the cloud, so there’s 10,000 copies of the game running, deploy an AI bot to spend all night testing that game, then in the morning we get a report. Because that would be transformational.”

    I think that the problem is that you're likely going to need more-advanced AI than an LLM, if you want them to just explore and try out new features.

    One former Respawn employee who worked in a senior QA role told Business Insider that he believes one of the reasons he was among 100 colleagues laid off this past spring is because AI was reviewing and summarising feedback from play testers, a job he usually did.

    We can do a reasonable job of summarizing human language with LLMs today. I think that that might be a viable application.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Worst case is getting a false positive, and if you can get more test cases covered, I imagine that might pay off.

    False positives during testing are a huge time sink. QA has to replicate and explain away each false report and the faster AI 'completes' tasks the faster the flood of false reports come in.

    There is plenty of non-AI automation that can be used intentionally to do tedious repetitive tasks already where they only increase work if they aren't set up right.

  • source
  • parent
  • Moment for silence for David "Ribs" Carillo 🪦

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Well their goes FFXIV, that will be their end

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    dont they already have dumbbots in playtesting?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    A lot of hate in the comments but IMO this is one of the few things that LLMs are actually really good for. It's a shit job nobody wants to do that LLMs are really good at. Notice that they said 70% and not 100%. Yeah that means they're probably going to have 30 people doing the work that 100 people used to do but people are still in the picture overseeing things. Automation isn't, by itself, bad. The bad part is that our whole society is built on the idea that your entire value as a person is based on being able to work and make money and job loss is way worse than it should be.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I will continue ignoring anything they make

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Large companies probably do that anyway.

    Take Blizzard for example. They just released a new patch, where class campaign quests for 8/12 classes do not work. Sure, it's a remixed version of older expansion, and with all the phasing stuff I can kind of imagine some of the phasing issues being caused by, I don't know, the player having a weird combination of completed stuff that's hard to properly catch in testing, since there's quite a lot of variables.

    But the fact that one of the class quests requires crafted items to be completed, while crafting isn't available by design in the Remix, there's just no excuse. They either just don't give a fuck about an issue that's literally a progression blocker with 100% repro rate (while also being pretty easy to fix), or no one ever tested it even once. And it's not just some random sidequest, it's literally the main class campaign, one of the main features of the expansion.

    As someone who worked in QA and gamedev, I can't imagine how could something as obvious as this ever get approved for release. That's something you catch immediately. Hell, you don't even have to play through it to realize that this might be a problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Work at a larger company. Most people are so used to terrible Customer Service these days that we just use our customers as the QA. Nobody complains as much as they should. As they say

    Everybody has a test environment. Only some are lucky enough to have a separate production environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Inb4 their games come out even more broken

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›