According to a recent survey by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, 42% of marketers believe that audience personalization is the most relevant use of generative artificial intelligence for producing multiple versions of video ads. This trend reflects a significant shift in how brands are adapting their advertising strategies to connect more effectively with their specific audiences. One more tool for marketing The survey, conducted between February 17 and March 7, 2025, involved 368 agency and marketing professionals in the United States, all of them […]
According to a recent survey by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, 42% of marketers believe that audience personalization is the most relevant use of generative artificial intelligence to produce multiple versions of video ads. This trend reflects a significant shift in how brands are adapting their advertising strategies to connect more effectively with their specific audiences.
Another tool for marketing
The survey, which took place between February 17 and March 7, 2025, involved 368 professionals from agencies and marketing in the United States, all of whom had an annual advertising spend of over one million dollars in 2024. The results underscore the growing importance of personalization in digital advertising, where brands seek not only to capture consumer attention but also to provide content that personally resonates with each individual.
The graph presented in the survey indicates that marketers can use AI-driven video personalization to generate more specific content tailored to their target audience. This segmentation capability represents a key opportunity for companies looking to maximize their return on investment in digital advertising, as spending on video ads continues to rise.
Estimates of the size of the digital video advertising market and its growth rate are based on advertising revenue data and quantitative surveys that provide census-level coverage of advertising spending in the U.S. With the rise of artificial intelligence in content generation, marketers are expected to continue innovating and optimizing their approach to creating ads that respond to the changing needs and desires of consumers.
The beloved park simulation saga returns with the highly anticipated sequel, Jurassic World Evolution 3, announced during the Summer Game Fest 2025. This title has captured the attention of players, who have passionately followed the previous installments, even competing in prestigious galas like the Golden Joystick Awards. However, the expectation has been overshadowed by a controversy related to the use of generative artificial intelligence in its development. It is a minimal part of the game, but it is an (absurd) use of AI. The debate arose when it was decided to use AI for […]
The beloved park simulation saga returns with the highly anticipated sequel, Jurassic World Evolution 3, announced during the Summer Game Fest 2025. This title has captured the attention of players, who have passionately followed the previous installments, even competing in prestigious events like the Golden Joystick Awards. However, the anticipation has been overshadowed by a controversy related to the use of generative artificial intelligence in its development.
It’s a minimal part of the game, but it’s an (absurd) use of AI
The debate originated when it was decided to use AI to create the portraits of the scientists that will appear in the game. This choice, although it seemed like a minor detail, sparked vehement criticism in forums like Steam, where some players labeled the decision as disrespectful to traditional artistic work. Messages of discontent, some even going viral, accused Frontier Developments of “laziness” and of deteriorating ethical standards in the industry.
As the unrest grew, Frontier, after a period of silence, announced that it would eliminate the use of generative AI for such portraits, thanking the community for their feedback. This gesture has been interpreted as a victory for advocates of human creativity, highlighting the sensitivity towards the value of handcrafted work in a world where automation is rapidly advancing.
Despite the controversy, Jurassic World Evolution 3 remains one of the most anticipated releases in its genre. The community is eager to see if this change will positively impact the public’s perception of the game, or if the conversation about the use of AI in video games will continue to be a relevant topic in the coming months.
Palworld, the title from Pocketpair, had an impressive launch in 2024, achieving massive sales numbers and setting player records on Steam. However, the game’s success also attracted criticism due to its visual similarities with other titles and accusations of using artificial intelligence in the design of its creatures. These controversies led to extreme harassment situations, including death threats directed at the development team. They decided to disappear from social media in light of the accusations. In a recent interview, Pocketpair’s community manager, John “Bucky” Buckley, shared that the pressure from the criticism and harassment […]
Palworld, the title from Pocketpair, achieved an impressive launch in 2024, reaching massive sales numbers and setting player records on Steam. However, the game’s success also attracted criticism due to its visual similarities with other titles and accusations of using artificial intelligence in the design of its creatures. These controversies led to extreme harassment situations, including death threats directed at the development team.
They decided to disappear from social media in the face of accusations
In a recent interview, Pocketpair’s community manager, John “Bucky” Buckley, shared that the pressure from criticism and harassment contributed to the studio’s silence in the months following the game’s launch. “There were many very concerning moments in those early months,” Buckley commented. The constant accusation that Palworld was using generative AI in its designs was a recurring theme, to which the studio responded with multiple statements, but the controversy continued to fuel itself among a segment of the audience.
The team’s exhaustion due to intense media attention and social pressure increased, leading to flirting with the idea of taking a break from public discourse. During this silence, rumors emerged that “Palworld is dead,” something Buckley denied, clarifying that the game has never ceased to exist and has maintained healthy player counts on Steam. Player numbers this year have experienced significant spikes every time new updates have been released.
Buckley emphasized the studio’s resilience in the face of adversity, stating that “very few companies could survive” a similar situation. Despite the challenges, Palworld has shown that it has a loyal player base willing to return to the game with each new content update, solidifying its place in the industry.
Activision has admitted to using generative artificial intelligence tools to develop assets within its popular franchise Call of Duty. This revelation, which came from a mandatory disclosure by Valve on the game’s Steam page, states: “Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some game assets.” This news comes amid growing discontent among players, who have suspected for months that AI-generated art pieces had been incorporated into the title. User complaints have intensified around elements such as the package […]
Activision has admitted to using generative artificial intelligence tools to develop assets within its popular Call of Duty franchise. This revelation, which came from a mandatory disclosure by Valve on the game’s Steam page, states: “Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some game assets”. This news comes amid growing discontent among players, who have suspected for months that AI-generated art pieces had been incorporated into the title.
User complaints have intensified regarding elements such as the Yokai’s Wrath package, released last year, which was criticized for its visual quality. Players have identified certain bugs and strange features in some images, such as a promotional loader with six-fingered zombies, raising doubts about the authenticity of these assets. Activision has not specifically indicated whether AI is used to create art in loading screens or in promotional calling cards, leaving an air of uncertainty among the gaming community.
One more of Activision Blizzard’s controversial measures
As concerns about the quality of AI-generated assets increase, the context of a recent restructuring at Activision-Blizzard, where 1,900 employees were laid off in 2023 adds to this. This raises questions about the future and the quality of the products the company can offer if it continues to bet on the use of automated technology instead of human talent.
Players are asking Activision for greater respect for their investment, especially in products that require an additional payment, arguing that AI-generated art pieces are not acceptable in this context. PC Gamer has contacted Activision for more details about the authenticity of the mentioned assets and is awaiting a response from the company.
Xbox has presented its new generative artificial intelligence project, called Muse, which has the potential to transform the way classic video games are preserved. According to the company, Muse is a model capable of generating visuals of games and control actions, which opens the door to optimizing old titles to make them accessible on different devices. “Nowadays, countless classic games linked to obsolete hardware are no longer playable by most people,” said Xbox in its announcement. Phil Spencer, head of Xbox, emphasized that the preservation of video games is a topic of […]
Xbox has presented its new generative artificial intelligence project, called Muse, which has the potential to transform the way classic video games are preserved. According to the company, Muse is a model capable of generating visuals of games and control actions, which opens the door to optimizing old titles to make them accessible on different devices. “Nowadays, countless classic games linked to obsolete hardware are no longer playable by most people,” Xbox stated in its announcement.
Phil Spencer, director of Xbox,highlighted that the preservation of video games is a topic of great interest for the company.Spencer suggests that Muse could learn about old games and make them portable to modern platforms without the need for the original engine to run on the original hardware. However, the community of video game historians is skeptical about Muse’s ability to achieve true preservation. Frank Cifaldi, founder of the Video Game History Foundation, compares the proposal to a simple photocopy of a work of art, expressing his concern about the meaning of “preservation”.
It’s not that easy to preserve games
In addition to skepticism, the preservation process faces significant legal challenges. Publishers fear that preserved games will be used for recreational purposes, which has led the U.S. Copyright Office to reject a major effort for video game preservation in 2024. Although the technology behind Muse is in its early stages, experts are divided on its future potential. One day Muse may be able to perfectly replicate iconic titles, but for now, its viability remains a topic of debate.
Sometimes it seems as if AI is the future, only it’s not generative AI, as evidenced by the inability of those who develop it to articulate why it is so.
If we based ourselves on what we read in the press and social media, it seems as if AI is the future. There is nothing that AI is not capable of. The work of a musician, illustrator, filmmaker, or even that of a teacher, accountant, or, of course, journalist, is on the verge of extinction. And if we were to ask people who advocate for its use, they would tell us that it is natural. That we cannot stop the advance of technology. That’s how it should be.
Even if we ignore the fact that there is no such thing as an objective advancement of technology that we must accept, this poses obvious problems. But to consider them, we should first ask ourselves how this technology works.
Okay. How do AI work? Basically, they take the inputs given by a human being and create a replica of what they specialize in using those inputs to contrast them with the keywords in their database. If we tell an AI that generates images “woman”, “blonde”, and “blue eyes”, it will give us an image of a blonde woman with blue eyes. It searches its database for images that have the tags “woman”, “blonde”, and “blue eyes” and creates a blended image from a certain number of those images.
That’s what OpenAI does. That’s what ChatGPT does. That’s what all generative AI does. It takes our inputs and gives us the response we’re looking for. In the case of OpenAI, by combining many images; in the case of ChatGPT, by relying on a limited amount of text. But essentially, they do the same thing.
So far, so good. But this generates two problems. The first one, where do they extract those databases from?, and the second one, what purpose does it serve if there are already humans doing it?
The first of the questions is something that people involved in these questions have always avoided answering. Look at Murati, CTO of OpenAI, when asked about the sources of information for their AI, she stated that “I’m not sure about that“. And she responds in that way not out of stupidity, but for something much worse: she knows that she cannot confirm that the content used by her technology is not stolen.
The second of the questions is something they also don’t know how to answer, that’s why they do it with vagueness. Reid Hoffman, billionaire who has invested in the startup Inflection AI, states that AI “will be a co-pilot for all professions” and that it will help “extend creativity” and help students “create much more interesting papers”.
Of course, everything he says is vague. Absurd. A student has to write papers that demonstrate their knowledge on a subject and their ability to research it, not that they are interesting. AI is already being used in many creative professions, but not to generate new content, but to eliminate the most tedious parts of the work, such as removing background noise from an audio track or cropping an image. And creativity does not “expand” just because someone introduces terms to generate something: creativity expands by producing creative works.
Even if we were to accept that it is acceptable to replace humans with machines to do certain jobs, something that only seems to be willing to do by CEOs of big tech companies, we would still have another problem. AI tends to generate hallucinations.
These statements are not only vague, but they are also ridiculous. Any technology that requires changing the entire industrial landscape on a global level and an energy leap that is not only not on the horizon, but also may be impossible, can only be defined as ridiculous.
The biggest drama of AI is that it is based on vague statements. Adolescent fantasies of puerile, evil, stupid technocrats, or any combination of those three. Because, furthermore, there is something even worse than all this: AI has no known utility.
As we have already said, AI is perfect for replacing humans. Beyond that, it does nothing that a human being doesn’t do. In order to do so – theoretically, because even if Altman were right, there is no evidence that AI could do anything different from what it does now, but with fewer or no hallucinations – it would have to have something it cannot have: understanding of natural language. Creativity. Understanding. Consciousness.
That is to say, even if Altman were right and we found a way to generate the amount of energy and industrial reconstruction without literally depleting the planet’s resources and definitively destroying the climate, he wants to invest tens of trillions in creating a worse version of a human brain. Something that already exists and potentially does not require destroying the world like a comic book supervillain to be produced.
With this, it is easy to conclude that AI is useless. And no. It has uses. As we have already indicated, every now and then there are functions that make life easier for professionals of all kinds, saving them from doing tedious and very complex tasks for a human being. But that is not what Altman, Murati, Hoffman, or others like them are looking for. They seek to be able to replace every qualified worker with an unqualified one to whom they can pay a fraction of what they used to pay each of them. Nothing more.
Because that is the only thing generative AI is good for in the business field. It does a worse job than humans and to theoretically do it without aberrant failures, without even being able to do what humans do, two revolutions would be needed, one technological and one scientific, currently considered impossible. All of this according to its own promoters.
That’s why AI is the future. It has been for three decades. What is not the future is generative AI, unless something changes so radically that it will be by itself something that will go down in history books as one of the greatest discoveries of humanity. And if your invention requires cosmic miracles to happen first, it seems to us that, perhaps, it is not precisely the future of anything.
