Card game creator says it paid an AI artist $1,500 per hour to create its images, stating "no one is on his level"

[midian182]

A hot potato: In a story that will no doubt ignite more passionate debate about AI art and whether those who make a living from creating it can be considered artists, the developer of a digital card trading game said it pays someone the equivalent of $1,500 per hour to make AI images.

The official Champions of Otherworldly Magic Twitter/X account posted a message that reads: "We pay our AI artist 15,000 USD per month for exactly 10 hours of work."

The company justifies this amount because the creator makes hundreds of "amazing" images "astronomically faster" than any team of traditional artists.

"His art is 100% AI generated, yet it has no extra fingers, no generic designs, no mistakes... It has consistent evolutions, skins, alt art styles - literally no one is on his level," it continues.

Champions TCG co-founder and CEO Miles Malec told PC Gamer that the anonymous creator, who has 15 years of digital art experience and doesn't use social media, made over 1,000 images with generative AI over the course of six months, and was paid $15,000 each month.

Worth $90,000?

Malec said that getting the same amount of work from a team of traditional artists would have taken a lot more money and time. "The guy's a pro and he charges what he's worth. We are well connected in the space and no one comes close to the quality he delivers," he said. The CEO also confirmed that the images aren't completely AI generated as they're edited and filtered to check for errors.

It might not surprise you to learn that Champions cards are NFTs that can be bought and sold for crypto. The developer also sells gems for actual cash that can be traded for card packs. In one of the many responses to the X post stating that nobody is going to play the game, the company claims that it has made over $510,000 in secondary market revenue.

The cards, which you can see here, really don't look like they are worth $15,000 per month. Most of the backgrounds are very plain and the characters quite generic; I've seen more impressive art in plenty of card-based tabletop and digital games.

We pay our AI artist 15,000 USD per month for exactly 10 hours of work.

Why? In that time, he still makes HUNDREDS of AMAZING bits of artwork - ASTRONOMICALLY FASTER than ANY team of traditional artists.

His art is 100% AI generated, yet it has no extra fingers, no generic… https://t.co/IlAhJ2pdnp pic.twitter.com/a2TJcLLhsP

– Champions TCG �"� (@ChampionsTCG_) April 8, 2024

Several of the replies claim Champions TCG only made the post for engagement, which it doesn't explicitly deny. Interestingly, the company says it will consider anyone who can match the quality of the AI art for a position as the creator's assistant, paying $5K to $10K per month. Any set of tools or techniques, including hand painting, will be allowed.

There has been plenty of controversy over the use of AI art, from Wizards of the Coast's promo and book material to the Secret Invasion intro. Ultimately, most people still hate anything generated this way, and the company responsible for its use tends to apologize. Nevertheless, AI art keeps finding its way into more games, shows, books, and elsewhere.

Permalink to story:

Card game creator says it paid an AI artist $1,500 per hour to create its images, stating "no one is on his level"

 

[WhiteLeaff]

I'm not even a professional artist and I could do better, there's no such thing as an AI artist.

To be honest, they're a bunch of ignoramuses who deserve to go bankrupt. You can tell by their interaction on Twitter

 

[toooooot]

That artist most likely spends a good portion of that money on advertising. Many do not.
There are a lot of people who can do great art for cheap, that does not mean that finding them quickly would be easy.
If this one gets very popular, he will take more as well.
If I was in art business, I would spend a good portion of my time and money on advertising it.
This is the thing with pretty much everything. Look at how much Hollywood, gaming industry spend on advertising their content. very often 50% of entire budget. Because they know, no great content worth it if people do not know it exists.

 

[toooooot]

I'm not even a professional artist and I could do better, there's no such thing as an AI artist.

To be honest, they're a bunch of ignoramuses who deserve to go bankrupt. You can tell by their interaction on Twitter

These cards look pretty generic. I wonder if the buyer asked for something specific.

 

[Endymio]

I'm not even a professional artist and I could do better, there's no such thing as an AI artist.

To be honest, they're a bunch of ignoramuses who deserve to go bankrupt.

Aesop called this attitude 'sour grapes'. Any professional artist could do better, than these images, yes -- at about 10 hours per illustration. This "AI artist" generated more than 100 images in that same period of time.

As Richard Feynman said, "do the math".

 

[Uncle Al]

The real question is what is his production rate? If he's knocking out 10 images per hour to someone's 1 image per hour it's a pretty good deal; but the fact is you get what you get and the final outcome is dependent on your level of acceptance. I can knock out a BUNCH of stick figures every hour if that will do ...... ???

 

[WhiteLeaff]

Aesop called this attitude 'sour grapes'. Any professional artist could do better, than these images, yes -- at about 10 hours per illustration. This "AI artist" generated more than 100 images in that same period of time.

As Richard Feynman said, "do the math".

You don't know how to do the math, the artistic value of this is zero. It's just generic garbage, and that's what you're trying to sell.

 

[Endymio]

You don't know how to do the math, the artistic value of this is zero.

You realize that those who generate graphics in a card game aren't intending to found new schools of art, right? You're criticizing these images because they're not as groundbreaking as those done by Picasso, Tzara, or Dali?

 

[WhiteLeaff]

You realize that those who generate graphics in a card game aren't intending to found new schools of art, right? You're criticizing these images because they're not as groundbreaking as those done by Picasso, Tzara, or Dali?

Holy ignorance... 2+2=5. Creating games like any content is a creative process, and to deliver quality you need time and there's no way to speed that up, without delivering generic garbage like most of the recent AAA are, especially those based on UE5.

A company that doesn't understand this deserves to go bankrupt or change business.

 

[RudyBob]

Good for him. Whether it's good or not doesn't matter. He scored 1500/hr. That's Capitalism at it's finest

 

[Dimitriid]

I'm glad they saved some money: they're going to need it for when they inevitable have to argue against the artists from which their AI model was very likely illegally trained. Hey they might even get to be a pioneering case that goes into law school books as one of the first where AI was seriously litigated for illegally circumventing copyright.

No but seriously, there's a reason why most trading card games have been around for either 30 years in case of the top 2 names (Magic the gathering and Pokemon) or are ephemeral and probably wont stick around for too long (One Piece TCG and Lorcana TCG). Only Yu-Gi-Oh stands as an exception and well, aforementioned One Piece TCG is rapidly capturing away a lot of the anime-enthusiast audience that game draws from and they weren't as well established as Pokemon so while they might not die out I also do not foresee a terrible bright future.

Turns out making trading card games can be expensive, mostly because of properly paying artists for Art pieces, something even Hasbro will have to battle in court soon since even magic the gathering artist turned out to be flat out stealing entire pieces through AI and that art made it all the way into a very popular card on a very popular expansion last year (Wayfarer's Bauble on the Lost Caverns of Ixalan if you wanna follow that case)

So if even a corporation that's at least on the outside, explicitly stating they don't want AI art and are already in deep legal trouble for it's use anyway, what chance does this game truly has to survive litigation?

 

[dangh]

Definitely AI can do a good work. But in this case I have some issues: first, this graphic is not very nice - it is just really generic stuff, clean, nice but nothing to stop your eyes on.
Secondly, the cost makes no sense. I am actually sure real artists, and/or graphic studios using traditional tablets, would create deeper, more engaging pictures for less. I mean, I know many really gifted young people who would do potentially a better job and would be more than happy with 3k monthly salary. Got 5 of them, 20 working days in a month, that is a lot of time and a lot of graphics to make, would be more diverse and not so sterile.
I wonder how many people would go back to him and tell he could do better for less.
But again, the point was to make some hype, nothing else. I would never knew this game is coming up... this changed, but I'm not a target - still, probably more people seen it and might put their money into that product. So, if he achieved it in a single tweet - well done.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Art is subjective - always has been. And often, artists aren’t appreciated for their work until long after they’re dead.

A vast number of people wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a DaVinci masterpiece and some AI’s rendition of orcs vs humans.

If you can use AI to generate images, go for it - you might not be remembered after you’re dead, but you might actually make a living.

Something a VERY small percent of artists can do.

 

[Dr Roboto]

Last time I was into trading cards, this was popular

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/GPK_8a_adambomb.jpg

As noted, the X post was just to stir up some free marketing. The cards seem okay. Clean, but not super creative IMO. I think it is fine to use AI as a prototyping tool or lay the ground work, but a human is usually required to add the "little touches" that make it truly collectable card. You just can't get that detail from AI. Yet. Ever?

 

[Endymio]

Holy ignorance... 2+2=5. Creating games like any content is a creative process, and to deliver quality you need time

Funny, I thought the true metric of a game was its gameplay, not how pretty the pictures were.

they're going to need it for when they inevitable have to argue against the artists from which their AI model was very likely illegally trained. Hey they might even get to be a pioneering case that goes into law school books as one of the first where AI was seriously litigated for illegally circumventing copyright.

A human artist trains themself by examining countless past works by other artists, and attempts to imitate them -- art schools in fact regularly assign students to imitate a past artist's particular style or methods. Using an AI in the same manner is no different, and in no way "circumventing copyright".

 

[WhiteLeaff]

Funny, I thought the true metric of a game was its gameplay, not how pretty the pictures were.


A human artist trains themself by examining countless past works by other artists, and attempts to imitate them -- art schools in fact regularly assign students to imitate a past artist's particular style or methods. Using an AI in the same manner is no different, and in no way "circumventing copyright".

It's really funny because you don't seem to be used to thinking.

A game is a collection of diverse creative talents that only takes shape as something meaningful with time and commitment. However, I'm sure someone who boasts about delivering generic garbage to their potential buyers is certainly dedicated to achieving It...

Multitudes of lawsuits are being filed. A human being can draw without copying anyone. I was able to develop this skill myself as a child, with pencil and paper.

AI doesn't work like a human mind. It can only create by copying and pasting, in a continuous process.

 

[Endymio]

A human being can draw without copying anyone. I was able to develop this skill myself as a child, with pencil and paper.

A computer program can also draw without copying anyone. But to draw extremely well, humans and programs both need to learn from others. There's a reason that the "art" of the cave dwellers was -- like your childhood doodles -- at the stick figure level.

Not that any of this is even relevant to the point. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with inputs, but only outputs. If the generated work is substantially different from the original copyrighted material, there is no infringement, period. Any amount of "training" done is irrelevant.

 

[Puiu]

"We challenge people to make things at a bargain for us so we can sell them to others as incredibly expensive scams."