[adnzzzzZ]

Your claim that people learning to play the game "effectively removes the benefit" of procgen content is false. Games like Spelunky are played by people for much longer than the average indie game precisely because the process of learning the meta-game takes time but is still engaging.

If you want to calculate how much "AI generation" or "procgen" is freeing up resources you also want to look at how long people are playing these games for and how many resources were used in making them. If indie teams of 2 or 3 can collectively make the world play their games for longer than it plays games made by much bigger teams, then that's a definite freeing up of resources. And this is what's happening today to some extent.

[AtlasBarfed]

And playing any game beyond a single go-through gets to meta-game exploration, be it arms races for "edges" in competitive play, or learning deep nuances of the terrain/playpen over multiple plays.

The best, most enduring games all seem to have procgen, randomization, or a "construction kit" for slower procgen: player-made levels and curation.

[whatshisface]

>If indie teams of 2 or 3 can collectively make the world play their games for longer than it plays games made by much bigger teams, then that's a definite freeing up of resources.

Pedantically, wouldn't that be increasing the consumption of resources defined as man-hours?

[webmaven]

> >If indie teams of 2 or 3 can collectively make the world play their games for longer than it plays games made by much bigger teams, then that's a definite freeing up of resources.

> Pedantically, wouldn't that be increasing the consumption of resources defined as man-hours?

Only if you remove the distinction between paid employee man-hours and consumer man-hours (which, economically, is an externality, yes, but generally treated as a positive one, called 'engagement').