They largely are going to remain the same. Specific roles may shift around as specific workloads become obsolete, and you will have a handful of companies chasing quarterly returns at the cost of long term returns by trying to downsize keeping the product the same and reducing headcount.
But most labor is supply constrained not demand constrained, and the only way reduced headcounts would remain the status quo across companies is if all companies reduce headcounts without redirecting improved productivity back into the product.
You think a 7x reduction in texturing labor is going to result in the same amount of assets in game but 1/7th the billable hours?
No, that’s not where this is going. Again, a handful of large studios will try to get away with that initially, but as soon as competitors that didn’t go the downsizing route are releasing games with scene complexity and variety that puts their products to shame that’s going to bounce back.
If the market was up to executives, they’d have a single programmer re-releasing Pong for $79 a pop. But the market is not up to executives, it’s up to the people buying the products. And while AI will allow smaller development teams to produce games in line with today’s AAA scale products, tomorrow’s AAA scale products are not going to be possible with significantly reduced headcounts, as they are definitely not going to be the same scale and scope as today’s leading games.
A 10 or even 100 fold increase in worker productivity only means a similar cut in the number of workers as long as the product has hit diminishing returns on productivity investment, and if anything the current state of games development is more dependent on labor resources than ever before, so it doesn’t seem we’ve hit that inflection point or will anytime soon.
Edit: The one and only place I can foresee a significant headcount drop because of AI in game dev is QA. They’re screwed in a few years.
They largely are going to remain the same. Specific roles may shift around as specific workloads become obsolete, and you will have a handful of companies chasing quarterly returns at the cost of long term returns by trying to downsize keeping the product the same and reducing headcount.
But most labor is supply constrained not demand constrained, and the only way reduced headcounts would remain the status quo across companies is if all companies reduce headcounts without redirecting improved productivity back into the product.
You think a 7x reduction in texturing labor is going to result in the same amount of assets in game but 1/7th the billable hours?
No, that’s not where this is going. Again, a handful of large studios will try to get away with that initially, but as soon as competitors that didn’t go the downsizing route are releasing games with scene complexity and variety that puts their products to shame that’s going to bounce back.
If the market was up to executives, they’d have a single programmer re-releasing Pong for $79 a pop. But the market is not up to executives, it’s up to the people buying the products. And while AI will allow smaller development teams to produce games in line with today’s AAA scale products, tomorrow’s AAA scale products are not going to be possible with significantly reduced headcounts, as they are definitely not going to be the same scale and scope as today’s leading games.
A 10 or even 100 fold increase in worker productivity only means a similar cut in the number of workers as long as the product has hit diminishing returns on productivity investment, and if anything the current state of games development is more dependent on labor resources than ever before, so it doesn’t seem we’ve hit that inflection point or will anytime soon.
Edit: The one and only place I can foresee a significant headcount drop because of AI in game dev is QA. They’re screwed in a few years.