By TechTalesLeo for Digital Tech Explorer
Before the infamous downfall of Stadia, Google showcased its game streaming technology with a free version of Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey playable directly in your browser. My fiancée still cherishes memories of playing this massive triple-A title on a humble library OptiPlex during slow nights at work. That initial demonstration felt like pure black magic, a testament to what well-executed tech can achieve.
If a genuinely impressive tech demo like that could precede an industry flop, what does an distinctly unimpressive one portend? Here at Digital Tech Explorer, where we strive to make technology both educational and entertaining, we often explore emerging innovations. However, some raise more questions than they answer.
What are the ethics of expending vast capital, energy, and human hours on something that’s not even a diminished version of a 30-year-old game, but merely a vague, AI-generated impression of it? These are the questions I found myself pondering after experiencing motion sickness for only the second time in my gaming life, thanks to Microsoft’s Copilot AI research demo of Quake II.
“This bite-sized demo pulls you into an interactive space inspired by Quake II, where AI crafts immersive visuals and responsive action on the fly,” states Microsoft’s Q&A page about the experiment. “It’s a groundbreaking glimpse at a brand new way of interacting with games, turning cutting-edge research into a quick and compelling playable demo.”
The AI Behind the Scenes: WHAM Model
This particular demo is powered by a “World and Human Action Model” (WHAM), a generative AI model designed to “dynamically create gameplay visuals and simulate player behavior in real time.” A look into Microsoft’s Nature article on the technology suggests it operates on principles similar to large language models and image generators, using recorded gameplay and inputs for training instead of static text and imagery.
Crucially, this interactive showcase is not running in the original game’s id Tech 2 engine. Instead, Microsoft has produced it using some form of bespoke engine, with an output resembling Quake II because the underlying AI model was trained on id Software’s classic shooter.
The High Cost of an AI-Generated Impression
This venture reminds me of “demakes” like Doom for Texas Instruments calculators. However, instead of ingeniously marshalling limited resources to create an inferior yet charming impression of a pre-existing game, the Copilot Gaming Experience is a product of Microsoft’s (and indeed, the entire tech industry’s) colossal push for generative AI.
While the discrete cost of the Copilot Gaming project isn’t public, Microsoft has invested billions into compute power, research, and lobbying for this technology. On Bluesky, developer Sos Sosowski highlighted that Microsoft’s Nature paper lists 22 authors, a significant number compared to the 13 developers behind the original Quake II.
Based on the same paper, Sosowski also estimated that Microsoft’s new model required over three megawatts of power to start producing consistent results. This assumes the use of an RTX 5090, which Microsoft likely didn’t have access to when the paper was published, but it offers a stark idea of the project’s power demands. For context, battery manufacturer Pkenergy notes that a single megawatt requires 3,000-4,000 solar panels to produce.
Performance Woes and Physical Discomfort
Despite such substantial investment, the demo itself is, frankly, not good. The Copilot Gaming experience runs like a slideshow in a tiny browser window. Its jerkiness and muddled, goopy visuals—a familiar sight for anyone who’s encountered AI-generated video—induced a severe case of motion sickness within minutes of play. As a seasoned tech enthusiast providing insights for Digital Tech Explorer, this “real-world test” was far from pleasant.
The only other game to have ever caused such discomfort, EvilVEvil, took closer to an hour to achieve that dubious distinction.
AI’s Unpredictable Gameplay: ‘Hallucinations’ and Instability
Just as chatbots might “hallucinate” and offer bizarre advice like eating rocks or drinking unsafe substances, this AI-driven demo has its own peculiar “hallucinations.” These are the surreal, unnervingly confident errors produced by generative AI models that vast sums of money, immense compute power, and unrestricted access to copyrighted material seem unable to fix.
Looking at the floor or ceiling at any point in this Quake II AI venture has roughly an 80% chance of completely transforming the room before you, almost as if you’ve teleported to another part of the level.
Of course, there is no “level,” objective, or victory condition. The interactive showcase constantly generates a new, Quake II-like environment snippet as you move, with previous areas seemingly vanishing behind you.
One such warp inexplicably sent me to a pitch-black void—the Shadow Realm, if you will—which required some awkward maneuvering to escape. There are “enemies,” but upon killing one, it merely deformed into an amorphous blob. When I walked past it and turned around, the hallway had completely changed, taking the blob with it.
Critique of the Generative AI Push in Gaming
Much like the broader generative AI trend or the blockchain boom preceding it, I anticipate the “Well, it’s just a work-in-progress, a first step” defense for what I experienced. However, I remain unconvinced. Whatever specific, compelling use cases might exist for certain AI tools, that’s not what has been aggressively marketed and pushed upon us for the past two years and counting—this relentless insistence on integrating it into everything. Google Gemini, for instance, now perpetually asks if I want its assistance with writing, like a nightmarish, modern-day Clippy.
Forced mass-adoption of this technology by consumers is happening now, demanding our approval, attention, and precious time. A public tech demo exists to impress, and Microsoft’s AI experiment unequivocally does not. It’s akin to Doom on a calculator, but achieving it required boiling the equivalent of a lake or two, all while being told this is the future of gaming. I reject this future. Not only do I find it philosophically and ethically questionable, but it also literally made my stomach churn.
Disclaimer: All content on Digital Tech Explorer is for informational and entertainment purposes only. We do not provide financial or legal advice.
Affiliate Disclaimer: Some of the links on Digital Tech Explorer are affiliate links. This means we may earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase, at no additional cost to you. Our recommendations are based on thorough research and personal experience.