It’s your funeral
So their games will cost 70% less right?
70% by what metric?
Is that going by bugs identified, fixes implemented, headcount?
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.
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.
Believe it or not FFXI was even MORE confusing to sub
Oh. Gross.
I will continue ignoring anything they make
deleted by creator
Remember when square used to make great games?
That was Squaresoft, not Square Enix.
My memory failed me. Thanks for the correction.
I loved Enix’s Ogre Battle and Square’s Final Fantasy 6 and 7. How could putting the companies together make a bad?!
Square Ewwwwnix
Well their goes FFXIV, that will be their end
Chrono Trigger remake, first all AI development, because we live in the bad timeline.
Their games going to be shit 🤣
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
Realistic goal considering they already do so little QA.
Not buying their next game it will be a nightmare
Ew, sounds like a great reason to not buy any Square Enix games…
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.
Converting those roles to debuggers and active devs does a lot for both the business and the workforce.
Hahahahaha… on wait you’re serious. Let me laugh even harder.
They’re just gonna lay them off.
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.
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.
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.
The repetition of “Q&A” reads like this comment was also outsourced to AI.
What does Q&A stand for?
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.
They already have a really cool solution for that, which they talked about in their GDC talk.. I don’t think there’s any need to slap a glorified chatbot into this, it already seems to work well and have just the right amount of human input to be reliable, while also leaving the “testcase replay gruntwork” to a script instead of a human.
