AI is one of the most contentious subjects in game development right now, and we regularly see posts reported or discussions derailed simply because AI was involved somewhere in the process.

We want to be clear about our position: r/gamedev does not prohibit the use of AI, and using AI does not automatically make a post low effort.

This is not an endorsement of every AI company, model, or use case. Legitimate technical, legal, economic, ethical, and creative concerns exist around these tools, and those conversations are welcome here. Our stance is that AI is a tool used in game development, and we care more about the quality of what someone contributes than the tools they used to get there.

Why we take this position

• AI is already part of game development. Studios are adopting AI-assisted tools across programming, prototyping, production, QA, localization, research, and other workflows. Adoption varies from studio to studio, but this is no longer a hypothetical technology sitting outside the industry.
• Knowing how to use these tools is increasingly becoming a professional skill. That does not mean every developer needs to use AI, or even like it. It means understanding where these tools are useful, where they fail, and how to evaluate their output is becoming relevant knowledge for people working in the industry.
• Banning discussion or use of AI here could actively disadvantage developers. Part of the purpose of r/gamedev is helping people learn from each other and understand how the industry is changing. If studios adopt a technology, preventing developers from discussing or learning about it would make this community less useful to the people we're helping.
• Policing AI use is not realistic anyway. Moderators cannot reliably determine whether someone used AI to draft, edit, translate, summarize, research, debug code, or otherwise assist with a post. We are not going to moderate based on whether something “sounds AI-generated.”
• "Mandatory disclosure "is not realistic either. Modern tools blur the line between traditional software and AI assistance. Trying to decide exactly when autocomplete, translation, editing, summarization, or an LLM crosses some disclosure threshold would create rules we could not enforce consistently.

So the rule is straightforward: we are not policing AI use itself. We are moderating the contribution.

AI-assisted does not mean low effort

If someone uses AI to organize research, analyze data, improve their writing, translate something, help with code, or communicate an idea more clearly, that does not erase the work behind the contribution.

If a developer spends time gathering useful data and then uses AI to help turn that information into a readable post, the important part is still the data, the methodology, and what the community can learn from it.

Ask whether the information is useful, whether the conclusions hold up, and whether the post contributes something worthwhile. Those questions matter much more than whether every sentence was manually typed from scratch.

Low-effort AI content is still low effort

This does not mean pasting generic AI output into the subreddit suddenly becomes valuable content. Posts that are spam, fabricated, mass-produced, engagement bait, repetitive, or promotional material disguised as discussion can still be removed.

The reason is not that AI was involved. The reason is that the content is low quality.

The same standard applies to something written entirely by a human.

AI is a valid game development topic

Developers are welcome to discuss AI in the same way they would discuss any other technology affecting game development. That includes how it is being used, where it works, where it fails, what it costs, how studios are adopting it, what it means for employment, and the legal or ethical questions surrounding it.

You are allowed to be enthusiastic about AI. You are allowed to be skeptical of it. You are allowed to think a particular workflow is useful, terrible, unethical, inefficient, or overhyped.

What we do not want is every thread that mentions AI becoming the same argument about whether AI should exist at all.

If a thread is about an AI coding workflow, discuss the workflow. If someone presents evidence that AI slowed their production down, discuss the evidence. If someone claims every studio is using a particular tool, challenge that claim.

Let the actual discussion happen.

Attack claims, not developers

Someone saying they use AI is not an invitation to attack them. Someone saying they refuse to use AI is not an invitation to attack them either.

Debate the technology, the workflow, the economics, the evidence, the ethics, the legal questions, or the conclusions. Personal attacks, harassment, dogpiling, or repeatedly derailing discussions because of someone’s position on AI are treated the same way we handle that behaviour anywhere else on the subreddit.

AI is not a source

There is a difference between using AI to help communicate information and using AI as the authority behind that information.

If you make factual claims that can reasonably be sourced, be prepared to support them. “ChatGPT said so” is no evidence, and tools can absolutely be wrong.

At the same time, polished or AI-assisted writing is not evidence that the underlying information is fake. If someone’s numbers are wrong, challenge the numbers. If their methodology is weak, challenge the methodology.

>Challenge the claim, not the fact that a tool may have helped write the paragraph.

Self-promotion rules still apply

AI companies, products, and services are not exempt from the subreddit’s existing rules.

If you represent a commercial interest, the same expectations apply as they would to anyone else. AI also should not be used to mass-produce promotional posts or disguise advertising as organic discussion.

>The technology may be new. The rules around spam and promotion are not.

The bottom line

You do not have to like AI. You do not have to use it. You are free to criticize it, avoid it, experiment with it, learn it, use it professionally, or decide it has no place in your workflow.

We are not going to prevent developers from learning about or discussing a technology that is rapidly becoming part of professional game development. Doing that could actively hurt the developers this community is supposed to help.

What we do expect is that people engage with each other like respectful, mature adults. Disagree with the technology, the workflow, the argument, or the evidence. Do not turn that disagreement into hostility toward the person on the other side of it.

Use whatever tools make sense for your work. Bring something useful to the conversation, treat other developers with respect, and allow room for disagreement. That is what we care about.

I've been waiting for a major REDSEC update to address the issues that have been defining ranked for months, but I haven't seen any meaningful changes.

At this point, the issue isn't that the meta needs to change every few weeks. A competitive game needs some stability. The problem is that we've basically been playing around the same dominant setup for multiple seasons, and the game has done very little to challenge it.

DMRs (SVDM), SCW-10, and the KTS continue to dictate far too much of how higher-level matches are played. If you're trying to be competitive, you're heavily incentivized to run what everyone else is running because the alternatives aren't strong enough or consistent enough to justify putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Meanwhile, some of the balance changes we've received seem to be in the wrong direction. Snipers were competing for a fairly specific role. Yet, they got hit hard with the nerf-bat while the weapons shaping the ranked meta were largely allowed to continue doing exactly what they've been doing. In fact, they made all the current meta weapons better by lowering recoil across the board. Sure, that may have brought 2-3 more weapons into vague consideration if you're desperate to avoid the SVDM or KTS. Still, those recoil reductions only made the current weapons stronger than they already were. My mind was blown reading the recoil reduction update and seeing the KTS was becoming more of a laser beam than it already was.

That's the frustrating part.

I don't want random balance changes to make the game feel different. I want the developers to look at what players are actually using in ranked, understand why they're using it, and start creating legitimate tradeoffs between weapon classes.

A healthy meta shouldn't mean making the current best guns useless. It should mean giving players several genuinely competitive options depending on their playstyle, range, team composition, and situation.

You can add content, maps, features, and progression, but if every major update drops and ranked players immediately return to essentially the same loadouts they've been using for months, the underlying problem hasn't been addressed.

At some point, the weapon sandbox needs a serious balance pass, not another round of minor adjustments around the edges. If they need to start balancing the guns differently between regular BF6 and REDSEC, then I hope they do, because aside from the bugs we all know and love, the current weapon balancing kills the enjoyment of the game for me more than anything else.

I've been waiting for a major REDSEC update to address the issues that have been defining ranked for months, but I haven't seen any meaningful changes.

At this point, the issue isn't that the meta needs to change every few weeks. A competitive game needs some stability. The problem is that we've basically been playing around the same dominant setup for multiple seasons, and the game has done very little to challenge it.

DMRs (SVDM), SCW-10, and the KTS continue to dictate far too much of how higher-level matches are played. If you're trying to be competitive, you're heavily incentivized to run what everyone else is running because the alternatives aren't strong enough or consistent enough to justify putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Meanwhile, some of the balance changes we've received seem to be in the wrong direction. Snipers were competing for a fairly specific role. Yet, they got hit hard with the nerf-bat while the weapons shaping the ranked meta were largely allowed to continue doing exactly what they've been doing. In fact, they made all the current meta weapons better by lowering recoil across the board. Sure, that may have brought 2-3 more weapons into vague consideration if you're desperate to avoid the SVDM or KTS. Still, those recoil reductions only made the current weapons stronger than they already were. My mind was blown reading the recoil reduction update and seeing the KTS was becoming more of a laser beam than it already was.

That's the frustrating part.

I don't want random balance changes to make the game feel different. I want the developers to look at what players are actually using in ranked, understand why they're using it, and start creating legitimate tradeoffs between weapon classes.

A healthy meta shouldn't mean making the current best guns useless. It should mean giving players several genuinely competitive options depending on their playstyle, range, team composition, and situation.

You can add content, maps, features, and progression, but if every major update drops and ranked players immediately return to essentially the same loadouts they've been using for months, the underlying problem hasn't been addressed.

At some point, the weapon sandbox needs a serious balance pass, not another round of minor adjustments around the edges. If they need to start balancing the guns differently between regular BF6 and REDSEC, then I hope they do, because aside from the bugs we all know and love, the current weapon balancing kills the enjoyment of the game for me more than anything else.

Excuse my French, but I’m currently sitting here waiting for Spider-Man to start with a bag of popcorn that has butter only on the top.

I asked for layered butter, something Cineplex has always done at no extra charge, and the very kind employee behind the counter informed me it now costs an additional $2.

To be clear, that is $2 for someone to press the butter button halfway through filling the bag instead of only at the end.

Cineplex popcorn is already priced like a luxury good. Charging extra to distribute the butter properly feels like the kind of idea someone should be updating their résumé over.

UPDATE:

1. Spider-Man was a good watch. I liked it, anyway.
2. For everyone saying Cineplex is struggling and that this charge is normal:

A) This is the first time I have ever been charged for layered butter, or even been told there was a charge. Maybe it has been the policy for a while, but that does not make it any less ridiculous.

B) I paid $42 CAD for two medium popcorns, two candies that were barely larger than regular candy bars, and two medium drinks.

Somewhere in that $42, I think Cineplex can afford to press the butter button halfway through filling the bag.

If it cannot, that is a business problem on Cineplex’s end. From the customer’s perspective, it just feels like getting ripped off.

We're four seasons into REDSEC, and it honestly feels like the meta hasn't changed for at least three of them, maybe even since launch.

DMRs, the KTS, and the SCW-10 were already everywhere before ranked. Ranked didn't create the problem, but it made it impossible to ignore because now almost everyone is running the same optimized loadouts.

I'm not asking for those weapons to be made useless. I'd like a reason to use something else without feeling like I'm deliberately putting myself at a disadvantage.

The sniper nerfs made this even worse. Snipers were never one-shot downs, and they were one of the only real alternatives to running a DMR or KTS at range. Nerfing them into the ground removed that option while leaving the weapons that were actually dominating the meta untouched.

A live-service shooter needs the meta to shift every once in a while. Warzone has had/has plenty of problems, but it has at least been fairly good over the years at changing which weapons are strongest and giving players a reason to try different guns.

When is DICE actually going to address DMRs, the KTS, and the SCW-10, while making the rest of the weapon roster worth using?

Yes, I know there are a handful of off-meta weapons that do "okay", but this topic is geared towards the obvious choices in Ranked that everyone gravitates towards.

I value AI as a practical tool in game development, so I believe we should be more open about how it is actually being used.

Too often in AI game development spaces (particularly here in r/aigamedev), I see people treating AI like magic. Instead of using it to learn faster, prototype better, or improve their workflow, they use it to skip the hard parts.

That approach is not a real workflow. It is just wishful thinking.

AI can definitely be useful. It can help with debugging, prototyping, explaining concepts, reducing repetitive work, and speeding up the early stages of an idea. When used well, it becomes part of a real development process.

But it should not be used as an excuse to avoid learning the craft.

When people use AI to generate code they do not understand, build systems they cannot maintain, create generic assets, or act as if skill no longer matters, they are not just hurting themselves. They are also making it harder for AI to be accepted as a legitimate tool.

Every bad example reinforces negative views about AI. It makes AI seem like a tool for laziness, a replacement for effort, or just a shortcut around skill, instead of something that can actually improve workflows.

AI has not removed the need for technical knowledge. In fact, it has made technical skills even more important. If you do not understand architecture, debugging, performance, maintainability, or why a solution works, you are just hoping the output is correct.

The same is true for design, art, animation, writing, audio, marketing, production, and every other part of making a game. You still need enough knowledge to recognize good work, spot problems, understand what needs to change, and keep improving.

That is the step people keep skipping.

People use AI to avoid the learning process that would actually make AI useful to them. Then, when the result is broken, generic, messy, or impossible to maintain, they blame AI for the problem.

This is one reason why AI has a bad reputation in creative and technical fields. It is not because the tools are useless, but because they are often seen and used as a way to skip gaining real experience.

This does not empower people. It sets them up to fail.

This also matters in the job market. Game development is already competitive. Studios will not hire someone just because they can prompt a tool to produce something that sort of works. They want people who truly understand the work.

The people who stand out will be those who can do the job without AI, but use it to work faster.

A programmer still needs to understand code. A designer still needs to know systems, player behavior, balance, pacing, and feedback. An artist still needs fundamentals, taste, composition, lighting, and visual clarity. A producer still needs to understand scope, risk, dependencies, communication, and how teams actually deliver projects.

AI can support these skills, but it does not replace the judgment needed to use them well.

This becomes clear quickly during hiring. If you cannot explain your decisions, debug your work, defend your choices, or show you understand what you built, AI will not hide that. In fact, it may reveal the gap even faster.

The people who get the best results from AI are not replacing their expertise. They are using it to amplify their skills. They know what to ask for, what to reject, what to refine, and when the output is causing more work than it saves.

AI makes it cheaper to execute ideas, but it does not make good judgment any easier.

So yes, more people need to stop using AI in this way. Not because AI is useless, but because using it before you understand the work leads to bad habits and makes it harder for others to accept these tools.

Learn the basics first.

Learn programming fundamentals. Learn design. Understand why systems work. Learn how to debug. Practice finishing small projects. Learn to make decisions without relying on a model for every difficult step.

Then use AI to speed up your work. it to unblock yourself, test ideas, speed up repetitive work, explain concepts, challenge assumptions, and support an actual workflow.

But do not use it to avoid building real skills.

When you do, you are not just producing lower-quality work. You are also making it harder for others to show that AI can have a real, practical, and responsible role in game development.

AI should help you work more efficiently.

It should not be an excuse to stop learning.

TL;DR: The rewards do not feel good enough to justify doing the Keeper Event over other activities, which feels strange given how much hype there was leading up to its release.

After trying the new Keeper Event, my first impression is that it feels underwhelming in terms of rewards. Albion is a game in which most activities are naturally compared to their opportunity cost. If I spend time doing this, what am I giving up? Could I have made more silver gathering, roaming, doing camps, tracking, roads, mists, corrupted dungeons, or just looking for better fights?

Right now, the Keeper Event does not seem to answer that question well enough.

For an event that had a decent amount of buildup, I expected it to feel more rewarding, more exciting, or at least more worth prioritizing while it is active. Instead, it feels like something you might do if you happen to be nearby, but not something worth actively planning around. That is the part that feels off. Limited-time content should usually create some urgency or make players feel like they are missing out if they ignore it. This does not really do that.

The risk-versus-reward also feels strange. In the black zone, you are already exposing yourself to ganks, third parties, scouts, rats, and full groups looking for easy targets. That is normal Albion, and I am not complaining about danger existing. The issue is that the reward needs to match the risk and the time investment. If the event draws people into dangerous areas but offers little payoff, it starts to feel more like bait than content.

I also think this is why the event feels disappointing compared to the hype. The idea is solid. More open-world objectives are good for the game. More reasons to leave hideouts, roam the black zone, and contest space should be a win. But if the actual rewards do not feel competitive with other activities, players will quickly figure that out and go back to what already works.

At the moment, the only real positive so far is that it has created more open-world BZ activity, because people have not yet realized that it is generally not worth focusing on.

We might see a correction to the toxic DMR meta with an even more toxic LMG meta. Why would anyone rock an assault rifle when an LMG can have 100 bullets and laser-beam people? The change in bullet velocity won’t affect the mid-range, where these weapons shine.

I finally bought my first pair of IEMs, the Moondrop Blessing 3, and after trying them across a bunch of different games, I honestly think it is going to be hard to go back to a traditional headset.

The part that surprised me is that I was not coming from bad audio. I was using the Maxwell, which is already a great audiophile-focused gaming headset. So I expected the Blessing 3 to be different, but I did not expect them to feel this much better for gaming.

I tested them with shooters, RPGs, racing games, strategy games, and pretty much every genre I normally play. Across the board, everything sounds cleaner. Dialogue is easier to pick out, music has more detail, and sound effects feel more distinct rather than blending.

But Battlefield 6 is what really sold me.

For the first time, footsteps felt genuinely easy to track. Not just “I heard something nearby,” but actually being able to tell where someone was coming from. Left and right audio felt sharper, positioning felt clearer, and the whole mix made it easier to understand what was happening around me.

That was the mind-blowing part. I already cared about audio and had a very good headset, but the IEMs made directional sound feel more focused than I expected.

The only thing I need to get used to is the actual feeling of IEMs. Going from a headset to having something sitting in your ears is definitely an adjustment.

For streaming, I still need to see how they feel over longer sessions, but for actual gaming? I get the hype now. IEMs may have ruined headsets for me.

I come from having a Maxwell 1 and having the right earcup just randomly die after years of working perfectly fine. I was waiting for the Maxwell 2 ANC version until I leaped into IEMs.

Do I lose out on being wireless without going Bluetooth? Yup.

Do I not have to deal with my Audeze headset dying for no reason? Also yup.

I know a ton of people here are waiting, and I want to offer another option. One that I am quite happy with in the moment. Please be prepared to do a lot of homework. Choosing the right IEM for your budget is not something I was prepared for.

I’ve tried a lot of audio solutions over the years:

• Behringer XENYX series mixers
• GoXLR
• Beacon Studio + Mix Create
• Various XLR interfaces like Focusrite, Audient, and similar devices

The Wave XLR Pro genuinely feels like a step above everything else I’ve used.

The onboard audio processing, AI noise cancellation, and ducking make a dual-PC setup so much easier to manage. I’ve actually uninstalled NVIDIA Broadcast because I no longer need it for noise cancellation.

Beacon Studio does cover some of the same ground, and I still really like parts of that setup, but it does not give me the same combination of audio processing, ducking, and AI noise cancellation that the XLR Pro does.

My current setup is:

Gaming PC + Beacon Mix Create
I still want audio mixing control on the gaming PC, so this runs into AUX.

Streaming PC + Wave XLR Pro
This is now the host for my main mic and stream audio setup.

I’ve been tinkering with it a lot, probably to the annoyance of my partner while I keep doing microphone tests, but my Shure SM7B has honestly never sounded this good.

Thank you, Elgato. This is the kind of solution I wish I had 6+ years ago. No more optical cables running between computers and sound cards. No more fighting to get the stream mix just right. Just a cleaner, easier setup that actually feels built for how dual-PC audio should work.

A little while back, I made a post asking what kinds of game jam prizes would actually excite developers beyond cash:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/1sz2rin/what_prizes_would_actually_excite_you_in_a_game/

The feedback was pretty clear.

People still like cash, obviously, but the prizes that seemed to resonate most were the ones that could help developers keep building after the jam ends. Conference access. Useful tools. Hardware. Asset support. Career opportunities. Things that feel less like a token reward and more like a push toward the next step.

So, I took that feedback and helped pull together the first Bezi Mega Jam around that idea.

Jam page: https://itch.io/jam/bezi-mega-jam-1

The short version

Bezi Mega Jam 1 is a game jam with prizes meant to help move your dev career forward.

The prize pool is currently $12,000+ and includes:

• GDC Festival or Digital passes
• Synty store credit
• Synty discount codes for all participants
• An iPad Pro M5 13" + Apple Pencil Pro
• Bezi Ultimate
• Cash prizes

A few important format notes up front:

• Bezi is optional for the Mega Jam.
• There is no required engine.
• The core jam is open to developers using the tools and workflows that make sense for them.
• There is an optional Bezi-related prize track, but it is not required to participate or win the other prize tracks

I want this jam to be as accessible as possible.

Prize pool breakdown

Prize track	Prize	Value
Road to GDC	GDC Festival Pass or GDC Digital Pass for each winning team member, up to 3 people	Festival Pass: $1,199 each / Digital Pass: $799 each
Community Choice: 1st Place	$800 cash + 1 month of Bezi Ultimate	$800 + subscription
Community Choice: 2nd Place	$400 cash + 1 month of Bezi Advanced	$400 + subscription
Community Choice: 3rd Place	$300 cash + 1 month of Bezi Pro	$300 + subscription
Bezi Challenge	1 year of Bezi Ultimate for each winning team member, up to 3 people	~$5,184 total value
Best Devlog (Bezi Challenge)	Cash prize	$500
Synty Challenge	$250 Synty Store Credit for each winning team member, up to 3 people	~$750 total value
Synty participant bonus	30% off Synty Store discount code for all participants	Available to all participants
Fan Art	iPad Pro M5 13" + Apple Pencil Pro	~$1,428 value
Total prize pool	Cash, GDC passes, Synty prizes, hardware, and Bezi subscriptions	$12,000+

Full prize details

The cash prize pool is larger than our regular monthly jams, but I really wanted the focus of the Mega Jam to be broader than cash.

Cash is helpful, and it absolutely still matters, but the bigger goal was to build a prize pool around things that could help developers continue building after the jam ends.

GDC passes

One of the clearest pieces of feedback from the original thread was that conference access can be more meaningful than another software subscription, especially for developers who are trying to build connections, learn from the industry, or get their work in front of more people.

That is why GDC sponsored the jam with GDC passes as part of the prize pool.

The winning team for the Road to GDC track can receive passes for up to 3 team members. Each winner can choose either a GDC Festival Pass, listed at $1,199, or a GDC Digital Pass, listed at $799.

To be transparent, the in-person passes do not cover travel, hotels, or food. I know that limits how useful they are depending on where someone lives, which is why digital passes are also part of the prize pool for people who are unable to travel.

The value is different depending on how someone attends, but both can be meaningful.

Attending GDC in person can create real networking opportunities, meetings, hallway conversations, and industry access that are hard to replicate online. A digital pass still gives developers access to talks, sessions, the GDC Vault, and industry knowledge they may not otherwise be able to afford, without asking them to take on the cost of travel.

Synty asset prizes

A lot of developers mentioned that useful assets, marketplace credits, or production-ready resources would be more valuable than tools that force people into a new workflow.

That feedback made a lot of sense to me.

That is why Synty sponsored the jam with the Synty Challenge. The winning team receives $250 in Synty Store Credit per team member, up to 3 people, for a total value of about $750.

Synty is also providing a 30% off Synty Store discount code for all participants.

Synty assets felt like a strong fit because they can help developers move faster on future projects without needing to build every environment, prop, or character asset from scratch. For a lot of small teams and solo developers, access to high-quality asset packs can make the difference between an idea staying on the shelf and actually becoming something playable.

iPad Pro M5 13" + Apple Pencil Pro

For the fan art challenge, I wanted the prize to be something artists would actually care about and use.

A few people specifically called out hardware as a stronger prize than subscriptions, especially for artists. The iPad Pro M5 13" + Apple Pencil Pro, listed at about $1,428 in value, felt like the right direction because it is a physical tool someone can keep using beyond the jam.

Whether they are sketching, concepting, painting, storyboarding, or adding another flexible device to their creative workflow, it felt like a prize that could continue being useful after the event ends.

Also worth noting: the fan art track does not allow generative AI art. That track is meant to celebrate human-created artwork, and a process video is required for eligibility.

Bezi Ultimate

Bezi Ultimate is also included, but I want to be clear about something again:

Bezi is optional for the Mega Jam.

There is an optional Bezi-related prize track, but the core jam does not require Bezi. It also does not require Unity or any other specific engine.

For the Bezi Challenge, the winning team can receive 1 year of Bezi Ultimate for each team member, up to 3 people, with a listed total value of about $5,184.

The goal is not to force people into our workflow. The goal is to host a strong jam, make the event open to as many developers as possible, and give people a reason to try Bezi if they are interested.

Cash prizes

Cash is still included because people were very clear about that too.

The Community Choice prizes include:

• 1st Place: $800 + 1 month of Bezi Ultimate
• 2nd Place: $400 + 1 month of Bezi Advanced
• 3rd Place: $300 + 1 month of Bezi Pro

Bezi Challenge:

• Best Devlog: $500 - Posted to our Discord server.

Cash is flexible, immediate, and useful.

The point was never to replace cash entirely. The point was to combine cash with prizes that may also help developers take another step after the jam, whether that means attending GDC, getting assets for their next project, using new tools, or supporting their workflow in a more practical way.

A note on the regular Bezi Jams

This Mega Jam is separate from our regular monthly Bezi Jams.

Over time, the regular monthly Bezi Jams will likely move in a similar direction, with Bezi usage becoming an optional prize track rather than a hard requirement.

Baby steps.

If you want to get involved before September and get to know the Bezi community, our regular Bezi Jams run monthly. Bezi Jam 11 starts June 19:

https://itch.io/jam/bezi-jam-11

Where this goes next

This is also only the first Mega Jam.

The plan is to run these twice a year, learn from each one, and keep improving the format. I want each version to get better, both in terms of prizes and in terms of making the event useful for developers at different stages of their journey.

And if I have the opportunity to add more prizes before September, I will. The current prize pool is already over $12,000, but I am going to keep looking for ways to make it stronger.

Huge thanks to GDC and Synty for sponsoring the jam and helping make this prize pool possible.

Thanks again to everyone who gave feedback on the original post. A lot of it genuinely shaped how I approached the prize structure.

Would love to hear what people think now that the first version is live.

Step 1: Pick a weapon. Any weapon.
Step 2: Pretend it is either underrated, secretly broken, or ruining the game.
Step 3: Stretch one decent match into a meta-defining revelation.
Step 4: Repeat until the entire armoury is somehow OP.

The problem with this kind of content is that it does not really teach anyone anything. It turns every discussion into the same lazy conclusion: this weapon is secretly overpowered.

Sometimes a weapon is strong because it is genuinely overtuned. Sometimes it is strong because the player using it is good. Sometimes it only works in a specific situation, against a specific type of opponent, or because the lobby quality is not exactly inspiring.

But when every video frames every weapon as “OP,” the word stops meaning anything.

I’m currently in a studio in my building, and a 700 sq. ft. one-bedroom is opening up. I was asked if I wanted to consider moving into it.

The asking rent is $2,895/month.

The building was built in 2023, so I understand that carries some value. But after doing some homework, I’m seeing comparable one-bedroom units in nearby areas like Chinatown going for under $2,400/month. The units I’m seeing don’t look noticeably older than my current building either. They still look clean and modern.

Some of them even have amenities this building does not, like a gym.

It’s also worth noting that the 700 sq. ft. includes a large balcony. That is nice to have, but it is not the same as interior living space you are using every day.

Maybe I’m missing something, but the math just isn’t mathing for me. I can’t justify that ask in my head when I look at what else is available nearby.

Curious what others think. Is there a reason a 2023 building in Mount Pleasant should be priced this much higher, or is this just not that competitive?

Hey everyone,

I want to address a recent post I removed by u/NotSUPERita about creating a list of trusted artists and scammers, as well as the broader issue of bad actors on r/gamedevclassifieds.

First, I want to apologize to u/NotSUPERita. I understand why you were trying to help, and I do not think the idea came from a bad place. Scammers and impersonators are a real problem here, and it makes sense that people want better ways to protect themselves and others.

That said, I do not think a public or semi-public user-run blacklist is the right solution.

Any single person’s list of “good” and “bad” experiences is subjective. Even with good intentions, lists like that can be abused, misused, or based on misunderstandings. A false accusation could seriously harm an innocent artist, developer, or freelancer’s reputation and business. Once someone is publicly labeled a scammer, that damage is hard to undo.

This applies to moderators too. Even I am subject to bias, incomplete information, and my own interpretation of events. I cannot be judge, jury, and executioner over someone’s professional reputation, and I do not think anyone else should be put in that position either. That is the line I am trying to be careful with.

I know scammers are a problem, and I am aware that this subreddit has been affected by bad actors, impersonators, and people misrepresenting themselves or their work. But I have not yet found a solution that addresses those issues without also creating a serious risk of innocent people getting caught in the mix.

For now, the best advice is still to do your due diligence before working with someone:

• Verify that their portfolio actually belongs to them
• Ask for links to established accounts or websites
• Check whether their email, Discord, ArtStation, GitHub, itch, LinkedIn, or other profiles line up
• Be cautious with new accounts, vague portfolios, stolen-looking portfolios, or people who avoid verification
• Use contracts, milestones, and payment methods that offer some protection
• Do not rely only on someone’s Reddit username or a single message thread

I know that is not a perfect answer. It is a frustrating situation, and I understand why people want something stronger. But asking people to do their homework before hiring or accepting work is better than creating a system where someone’s business can be damaged because they were falsely added to a list.

If there is a better way to handle this that protects people from scammers without turning into public reputation policing or false callouts, I am open to hearing it. Any solution needs to be fair, evidence-based, and careful about the harm it could cause.

Edit: I forgot to add one more important point: any solution also cannot require a heavy amount of moderator time.

Running this job board is not a job. No one on the mod team has the time, or realistically should be expected to have the time, to manually verify users, assign trusted labels, maintain reputation lists, or act as an ongoing approval system for freelancers and clients.

That kind of system would create a lot of work, and it would also create a false sense of safety. Even with moderation, users would still need to verify who they are working with and make their own judgment before hiring, accepting work, or sending payment.

I’m glad the transport helicopter gun abuse got addressed, but now RedSec has a new vehicle problem: people abusing the Little Bird by bouncing it off the ground.

This really shouldn’t be a thing.

The issue is not “good pilots are annoying.” Good pilots should be rewarded. The issue is that bouncing a Little Bird off the ground should not be a viable strategy in RedSec. It looks ridiculous, feels bad to fight against, and turns what should be a skill-based vehicle into another exploit-adjacent gimmick.

EA fixed one helicopter problem, which is good, but this feels like the next obvious thing that needs attention. If the aircraft is repeatedly touching or slamming into the ground, there should be a real downside. Damage, loss of control, reduced mobility, something. Right now it just feels like people are finding ways around the intended risk of flying low.

I want vehicles to be strong. I want good pilots to matter. But I also want RedSec to have some basic consistency. A Little Bird bouncing off the ground like a rubber ball should not be part of the meta.

So I can have 3 inputs to the omni, that's a HUGE win for someone like me. What I need to know is if that mixed audio signal is sent to any PC connected so that audio from any device connected to the headset can be used in my streams audio mix.

I hope that makes sense for people.