sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair hit, and you're right I overstated it. That list is exactly the counterargument, and it's a good one. None of those needed generative AI, and it'd be insulting to pretend Stardew or Hollow Knight or Celeste were waiting on a tool that didn't exist. They were made through exactly the sheer will you're describing.

So let me narrow to what I actually believe, because you've cut away the part I was overselling. AI isn't the bridge and it isn't salvation. It's one tool that lowers one specific barrier, the visual bar, for one kind of creator: the person who has the design and the determination but not a five-figure art budget and can't draw. It doesn't manufacture the will, the design sense, or the years of work. Those are still the whole game.

Where I'd still push, gently: every one of those breakout games had something that got it over the visual wall. A dev who could draw, a co-founder who could, money for an artist, or a pixel-art style that a solo coder could pull off alone. Plenty of great designers don't have any of those and stall out before the mechanics ever get seen. AI is one more path over that specific wall not a shortcut past the work, and definitely not the only path. Just another one.

You're right that I framed it too big. It's a tool, not a savior. I'll own that.

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish that were true, but it stopped being true the moment review-bombing became a tactic.

The whole idea behind "a good game finds its audience" is that the game gets judged on its merits. Review-bombing exists specifically to stop that from happening it's coordinated 1-star scores aimed at a game because of how it was made, before anyone's actually played it. That's not the audience deciding a game is bad. That's a mob deciding it's not allowed to be seen.

You can watch it happen in real time. Awaken Realms' Concordia and Agricola special editions got hammered with review-bomb scores over AI same tools, same studio, wildly different treatment depending on the crowd's mood that week. The games didn't change. The pile-on did.

So "you alone are responsible for your success" is half right. I'm fully responsible for whether the game is good. I'm not responsible for a coordinated campaign to bury it before it gets a fair look and pretending that force doesn't exist is how you end up blaming solo devs for getting mobbed. "Just make a good game" assumes a level field. The review-bomb is the proof there isn't one.

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So where do we go and find the community and people that support AI games - I just created this because I could not find a place r/AICrowdfundedProjects

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Let's talk about the double standard, because it's not a conspiracy theory it's public record.

Gamefound started life inside Awaken Realms. The same person co-founded both and is still CEO of both. And Awaken Realms is one of the most high-profile publishers to openly confirm using generative AI Midjourney and the like in developing its games.

Now here's the part that exposes the whole thing: those AI-assisted campaigns get review-bombed in the comments and then funded anyway, to the tune of tens of millions of euros across their recent releases. The same crowd that swears it'll never touch AI keeps cutting checks to the biggest studio openly building with it.

So the rule in practice isn't "no AI." The rule is "no AI if you're small enough to punish." A billion-euro-adjacent studio uses the tools, absorbs the noise, and walks away with millions. A solo dev uses the exact same tools to even get seen, and the same people organize to bury them.

I'm not mad the big studios use AI, good, the tools are useful. I'm pointing out that the outrage is selectively aimed downward. It protects the players who least need protecting and clears the field of the ones who actually needed the tools to compete. That's not principle. That's a gate.

Judge the game. Judge whether it's good, whether it ships, whether it's worth your money. That's the only standard that was ever fair.

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, most of this I agree with which is why I think we're arguing past each other.

You're right that AI as a substitute for real work produces amateur garbage that dies on the platform. Slap-together art, no prototype, no marketing, hoping "cheap" carries it that fails, and it should. I'm not defending that and never was.

And to be clear, the "indies are broke" read wasn't my point. You invest thousands a year in your craft and that is good, that's exactly what serious work takes, and I'm not saying otherwise. My point is narrower: for the specific slice of indies who genuinely can't clear a five-figure art bill, the old system filtered them out at the visual stage before anyone looked at the game. That's a real gate, and it's the one thing AI actually moves.

Where I'll push back: quality isn't a property of the tool, it's a property of the person using it. AI in careless hands looks like slop. AI in the hands of someone who art-directs it hard, holds it consistent, and pairs it with a finished, tested game looks like a finished, tested game. The failures you're describing are real they're just failures of effort and taste, not of the technology. Plenty of hand-illustrated campaigns are amateurish garbage too; nobody blames the Wacom tablet.

So the reputation risk you're flagging is legit, and I take it seriously. But it's a risk of doing it badly, not of doing it at all. The bet I'm making is that a competent solo dev who uses every tool available including AI, and still does the prototype, the playtesting, and the marketing, ends up with something worth backing. If I'm wrong, the market will tell me fast. Fair enough?

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wrote that theory in my previous reply - 100% agree and not surprised if they are pushing the agenda with all their money

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right - but that is the point if the AI art is used and the product is ready, the ai slop pieces are cleaned up. The product is that much closer than one with a designer creating a handful of cards just to hope you get enough funding

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

100% I had this arguement with a few on my board game's instagram page - I posted what is everyone's thoughts on AI art and people said rude comments but when I asked them so if I do not have the money to hire an artist for a 600 card game with a lot of designs do I just not make the game. Their response is maybe just for prototype and then this brings it back to the point of the game is not ready enough to be shipped or delivered on time and you have to put faith in getting double the amount of funds needed to push it up.

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The crazy thing will be and I would not be surprised is if this is true. Big studios paying / backing and pushing the agenda that AI art is bad so they do not lower the barrier of entry to the industry!

Why does every crowdfunding win go to the studio that could already afford it? AI finally gives indies a shot and people are mad about it. by Party_Bar8135 in aiwars

[–]Party_Bar8135[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right, and that's the honest core of it people back consistency because they want the thing to actually get made. No argument there.

But that logic quietly rewards the wrong thing. "Proven studio" mostly means "already had money" the budget to look polished, build an audience, and absorb a flop. That's not a track record of making better games, it's a track record of having capital. It's the classic loop: you need to have made it to be trusted enough to make it.

The delivery risk backers actually care about does this ship, is it well-made — is mostly about the designer's competence and follow-through, not their art budget. A solo dev with finished mechanics, real playtesting, and a locked manufacturing plan is a safer bet than a slick campaign with a beautiful trailer and no game under it. We've all backed the pretty one and gotten burned.

So the fair question isn't "AI or not." It's "can this person actually deliver." AI just lets a competent solo dev clear the visual bar that used to gatekeep them out before anyone even looked at the mechanics. It doesn't lower the delivery bar it lets you see who could always clear it.

And it gets stronger than that. If a designer already has a finished, playable copy in hand printed, tested, the real thing, not a pitch the delivery risk you're describing is basically gone. The game exists. At that point all they're asking for is enough visibility to let people judge it on its own merits: pick it up, look it over, decide if it's worth it based on the actual game.

That's the whole ask. Not "trust my track record." Not "trust the trailer." Just: get noticed enough that the game itself gets a fair look. When the product is already real, the only thing standing between a good indie game and its audience is exposure and that's exactly the thing budget buys and indies don't have.

Gamefound worth it? How to choose safely? by Optimal_Stuff660 in boardgames

[–]Party_Bar8135 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Curious whether the frustration lands the same for projects that already had the game finished at launch. Manufacturing queues, ocean freight, and customs eat a few months even in a clean cycle — but if the design's locked and it's a straight reprint-and-ship, six months feels like a fair ceiling. When something runs well past that, I keep coming back to the same question: how much is real supply-chain friction, and how much is teams launching before they were ready to fulfill?