Despite its rapid development, one analyst claims that Google‘s technology will not replace human creativity.
Last week, Google unveiled Project Genie, its latest generative AI experiment. Project Genie can create fully generative, AI-based, interactive 3D environments that users can explore for up to one minute. After paying the $250 monthly fee for a Google AI Ultra subscription, all you have to do is type in a command, and it will start generating worlds similar to your own game. However, this technology has several limitations. It runs at 24 FPS, and interaction with objects in the environment is limited. The worlds it generates have no level design or other functional features.
Nevertheless, stock market investors panicked, causing shares of several major gaming companies (Take-Two, Roblox, and Unity) to plummet. Investors seemed to believe that the era of game development was over and that Project Genie would usher in a new era. Obviously, this is not going to happen. Joost van Dreunen, author of SuperJoost Playlist and co-founder of SuperData Research (one of the most prominent gaming industry analysis companies before he sold it to NielsenIQ), shared his thoughts on Project Genie after its release significantly impacted the stock market for a day. The most important lesson is that generative AI models like Genie cannot do the work of top-tier game developers.
“World models like Genie are a significant advancement in content generation. However, they cannot replace the creative vision, narrative depth, and intangible elements that make games memorable. Much like AI can’t simply prompt its way to the next great American novel, creating compelling game worlds is harder than it seems. The horseless carriage phase will pass. When it does, the winners won’t be those with the fanciest AI tools. They’ll be the ones who used those tools to create something genuinely worth playing,” Dreunen said.
Even if these generative AI models evolve over time, Dreunen believes that people will not want to play the games they generate because they want to experience the work of expert artists and creatives, not software that merely replicates human creativity. Additionally, gamers and game developers have made it clear that they are not fans of generative AI technology or games created with GenAI. Dreunen cited the controversy surrounding InZoi as an example. However, one need only look at the negative backlash against Larian after the company considered using generative AI to create concept art to see how players feel about the technology.
The only hope for generative AI world models, such as Project Genie and its future iterations, is that they will one day create something people actually want to experience. Even then, it won’t be possible without human intervention. Creative professionals will need to use technologies like Genie if they are ever to find a place in game development.
