AI-assisted coding is good for creators. It happens to be good for corporations because it reduces costs, but it's actually much more powerful for creators with imagination. I don't know where that argument comes from.

If AI-assisted coding can help corporations make AAA games with 1/10th the resources, then it would stand to reason it also helps indies make AAA with 1/10th the resources? I have never understood this argument.

Godot has no peers because for the last 30 years in software, it's been hard for people to make their own game engines, which made open source engines totally impractical. W4 is a non-profit organization that happened to get just enough resources and traction to make it. That underlying assumption is not true anymore, making engines has never been easier in software history. Unreal/Unity are not the competitors I'm talking about.

▲

overgard 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You can use AI assisted coding in Godot though with addons and an MCP server. That's completely separate from AI pr's in the engine itself.

Also, slight tangent but I'm just going to point out that the new MCP server in Unreal Engine 5.8 totally sucks, so it's not like other engines are that far ahead there. The very first task I gave it was to cache a couple of values in a map, and it couldn't do it because it couldn't figure out how to set the key type to FName (basic stuff). But honestly, I'm not surprised, the surface area of Unreal Engine is HUGE and trying to explain it all to a general purpose agent through tool calls is going to hit limits.

	▲	maiybe 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I have never found an MCP server that really crushed it. Totally agree. I think there's something required at a deeper level of integration to get AI coding working inside of engines. MCP is not it. Yes, it's true, this is not a ban on AI coding with Godot. I didn't mean to conflate those, whoops. It stands to reason that there may be a small anti-AI perspective taking shape inside of the Godot engine team. This is one sign, but not confirmation of that suspicion.

▲

IAmGraydon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>AI-assisted coding is good for creators. It happens to be good for corporations because it reduces costs, but it's actually much more powerful for creators with imagination. I don't know where that argument comes from.

>If AI-assisted coding can help corporations make AAA games with 1/10th the resources, then it would stand to reason it also helps indies make AAA with 1/10th the resources? I have never understood this argument.

We're talking about banning AI coding in the game engine itself, not game creators banning the use of AI to create actual games on top of the platform.

	▲	maiybe 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> adds to their brand as something for creators rather than corporations I'm responding to the idea that banning AI contributions is on brand for being "for creators." What about their action is creator friendly? Yes, they reject all low quality AI slop, which has some indirect positive benefit. They also won't accept high quality PRs unless they are hand crafted. How does that benefit creators? Most arguments it's "for creators" likely conflate the idea that AI-coding is inherently slop. If so, then we can say that directly instead of implicitly.