And yes, I couldn't find any correlation between changes in review scores and recommendations or between engagement time and algorithm recommendations. In fact, one of my games got stolen and reuploaded, but the uploader didn't replace my analytics so I could see his analytics. He had a bunch of crashes, half the engagement time and 20x the number of downloads my (the original) game is getting. As I said, completely random. I keep staring at analytics for months and I can't find any patterns.

Sounds like a massive cope. 2 or 5 years? Are you serious right now? Horses were still widely used in WW2 as a means of transportation. That's what, around 4 decades after the technology for combustion engines became usable? The technology is not yet ready to replace much, but the writing is on the wall. With time, it will be improved. It has already been improved a lot. I fully agree with the conclusion, though. It's not like people create art for profit, most create art because they just like creating art. Whether AI takes all of the creative jobs is irrelevant, people won't stop creating art because of that.

@@ForOne814 The way our technology improves also changed a lot over 100 years. Technology advances exponentially, we no longer need 4 decades for a new technology to reach its potential. We've seen a technology like blockchain peak then reach a somewhat stable position in the global market in less than a decade. Similar things happened to other global trends such as IoT and VR. AI will also eventually find its own equilibrium. Also transportation and art are completely different, people usually don't care what is carrying them around as long as they reach wherever they are going. They _do_ care about whether the art they are experiencing is actually made by a living, feeling person. I think not only that people will keep making art, but it will also continue to be profitable. The reason some people are trying to push AI art is to profit from it, if art is no longer profitable because of AI, no one will push for it. It's a self conflicting endeavor that will most likely end up in a position where AI generated slop is pushed to make a quick buck here and there, but most of the market stays human made real art. At best, AI art will be in the same position asset flip cash grab steam releases are.

@@InfraredScale but that's why I used such an example. It's not that it took so long for technology to become wide-spread. No, it was wide-spread. It just didn't mean that horses were replaced, not fully anyway. And you expect generative AIs to replace humans in a timespan that isn't even enough for those AIs to become actually useful, and conclude that if they didn't do it, then they never will be able to. They only care about that because they can tell the difference. The problem with AI art is its low quality, not the fact that it's made by an algorithm. I'm fairly certain you can take a particularly well-generated image, lie to people that it's made by a human, and they'll be commenting about "intention behind brushstrokes" or whatever other nonsense anti-AI people like to bring up. I've seen that already with digital art. Or human artists are completely phased out of the industry, because the AIs can create the same results, but faster, cheaper and more accurate to whatever people ordering the art have in mind. As I've said, the only thing that matters is quality. Also, if we're talking about games specifically, it obviously makes sense to push for AI. Because for indie devs it's a huge time and cost saver. AI already can create art much better than a novice artist. I've even seen people generating sprite sheets with decent results. It probably will be in the same position as using assets from an asset store.

@@ForOne814 AI art being flawed is definitely not the only reason people don't want to see it. People don't want to spend time on art that has no experience, effort or intention behind it. When that happens, they feel cheated. It doesn't matter whether they can tell the difference or not. Some people even take the extra step of checking through AI detection tools to see if the art they are observing is real. Art is a strictly human thing, it's an interaction between the artist and the observer. if you try to remove humans from one side of that interaction, art has no purpose Using some AI assets here and there is not the same thing as outright having AI make the game for your. No indie dev would want that. And most indie devs would prefer having an actual person creating their assets if that's an option

@@InfraredScale at some point you won't be able to confidently and accurately predict whether or not an image was drawn or generated. I'm saying that because you can fool most people already with particularly well-generated images. AI detection tools don't work. They're literally a scam. And they can't even work conceptually, because humans can easily manually create results identical to those of AIs, and even if AI detection tools were functional, they'd label those results as AI-generated, which would be wrong, making them unusable for any practical application. And since you care about some arbitrary things behind the art, and not the art itself, you just won't be able to enjoy art no more, since you won't be able to determine whether or not those arbitrary things behind the art actually exist. I disagree with the premise that art is an interaction between humans. Art facilitates interaction between humans, that I definitely agree with, but it's not a form of communication between the author and the audience. The purpose of art is not to convey information, but to provoke emotions and thoughts in the audience. Because that's what it actually does. It doesn't really matter what the author intended, how art is being interpreted is up to the audience. Plenty of great art is ancient, and it's being interpreted way differently from what it was intended. Like, Roman poetry was very rarely published, because it was intended for family and friends, and precisely because it was more about communication. The author wanted to have control over their words, and explained them directly to the audience. That's not how we interact with art, though. Modern audiences even complain when too much explanation is present, they want to figure out stuff on their own. That's what makes art interesting, and that's what makes art a facilitator of communication: people love to discuss what they got out of art, and that only makes sense if there's differences in what they got out. And for all of that, it's irrelevant who created the art, how it was created, what were intentions behind it. What matters is that it's good, i.e. worth interpreting and discussing. If you have an idea, and you iterate on that idea by asking an AI to provide a list of similar but slightly different ideas, you AI generate all the assets, and write all of the code through AI, and just combine all of that into a functional game, I think that can count as a game made by AI. But if it's a good game, I have no issue with that. What matters is that the game is good and worth playing. I wouldn't say most, but a lot of indie devs are asocial, and working with other people is a burden to them. There's a reason why there's so many solo developers. I definitely would rather work alone that have to rely on someone else, not even because I'm asocial, but because I don't want the other person to bottleneck my work, and for me to bottleneck their work.

You only have a few units in the map. What's so hard about selecting them?

@@kuhpunkt not so few... 48 units of 2-4 types... when enemy atacking from several fronts you want to dispatch them in several areas by several quantities. like 4 of these here, 4 of these here, 6 of these here, 8 of these here. it will be really helpful not to have this dumb circle that select everything around you but to have an actual cards of the units. its not like i asked him to climb mount everest and invent the fire or something

@@chamstrauss What cards do you need? And it's so easy to select units.

@@kuhpunkt by far the biggest issue is that the game has to have a troop selecting mechanic. this is the most significant draw back, or lack of feature this game has for me. something simple: a card like showcase like total war of each unit type and how much do you want to select from them. like half of your spearmen, 1/3 of hunters. its not you see?

@@chamstrauss How is it a drawback? You just have a bunch of units on the map, completely different from Total War, made for controller. If you just want to select a few units... then just select a few units. What is the problem?