I love how Valve’s strategy is basically just ‘don’t piss off the customers and occasionally do something super fucking cool’, while everyone else in the space seems to be cutting off their nose to spite their face
Benefits of not beinp publicly traded.
Valve ceo just added a $500 million mega yacht to his fleet. Valve true benefit is that thanks to window they managed to build a monopoly on videogames distribuition and that their customers are kids addicted to videogames.
Exactly, just what I wanted to say
I don’t love much how people fall from valve marketing. Not owning any game i buy would piss me off
Valve also gutted their LGBTQIA+ content a few months back. And they have had a MASSIVE nazi infestation basically since they set up message boards because Gabe Newell is infamously libertarian.
So… chill a bit with the glazing. They are better in a lot of ways but they are not our friends.
You are aware the game removals are due to MasterCard and Visa right?
At best you can argue that Valve will not protect you. Hence, not your friend.
They also let your children gamble, so that’s cool too
As we all did when we were young playing pokemon, Mario, Mario party, marbles, mighty beans, hot wheels, etc
I don’t remember playing with real money doing any of that or international crime and extortion rings developing around them.
I’d rather have control over my digital items than gambling protection that infringes on what can I do with them
What items do you think that you have control over? You don’t own anything in your account and it can be taken away for any reason or for no reason at all.
https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/legal/site-terms-of-use
All right, title and interest in and to this Site, the Materials and all associated Proprietary Rights is owned by Valve or its licensors, and no ownership of any of the foregoing items is transferred to you by virtue of this Agreement or Valve’s permitting you to use the Site.
So your argument is because valve allows me to do whatever with my items, they should allow me less?
Gabe Newell is infamously libertarian.
So libertarian he become a billionare thanks to a platform where you don’t own any of your games.
Epic Games CEO and Fortnite boss Tim Sweeney:
everyone will have to 'fess up to using it eventually as AI will become “involved in nearly all future production.”
Once again Epic games act like the moronic villains they are.
It’s sad how huge companies are basically their CEO. CEO makes decisions and talks - that’s the company. Even if the hundreds and thousands of workers below them [largely] disagree and would do differently.
This is especially bad in USA, but usually a bit better in European countries that have representation of the unions on the board.
everyone will have to 'fess up to using it eventually as AI will become "involved in nearly all future production.
True enough! No reason not to say it up front, right?
Look y’all, not 1-in-20 people give a flying fuck about AI like we do on here.
That is true, but for instance Ian M Banks predicted AI being able to make art already back in the 70’s in his Culture series of books.
Even accurately simulating famous artists. And his conclusion was that AI should not make art at all, because it would end up detracting from the value of art.I think the reason the CEO is wrong, is that it will be a legal shitshow, and I think AI art may become illegal, or at the very least required to be clearly labeled as AI art.
We will see how it turns out.
I’ll call your bet and say that Sweeny is right. I think AI will become so commonplace that there will be no way around it and the market has already been streamlined in this direction.
I would love it if my “feels” could be seen. But that is not reality. This battle is already long lost. Lemmy and the like can rage about it til their flames die out but it is a lost cause.
There have already been several lawsuits against AI companies, where it is revealed that AI art is copied from existing original works.
You may be right, but I don’t think that battle is lost quite yet.
AI is mostly good for memes, beyond that it tends to quickly becomes repetitive, and of little value.
Of course AI art generally has a human “director” guiding the AI on what to do. As I said previously we will see how it turns out.
I’m not sure the end result of this will be within 10 years.
I think what’s important in this drama is that, despite their evil monopoly shit they’re guilty of, Valve really does do the right thing sometimes to win consumers. Gamers want AI disclosures, even if devs don’t.
That’s why it’s not surprising to see that statement from Sweeny, and why it’s not surprising that people still hate the Epic Games Store.
There’s nothing evil in Steam monopoly. Their evil thing is gambling.
To add, I am pretty sure most of devs are actually for AI disclosure. Who really is against are publishers.
It’s a pity other platforms, especially social media / video platforms don’t require full disclosure of use of AI. It might allow a lot of AI slop and misinformation to be eradicated, downvoted, or at least call itself out.
Agree 100%. It is just Disclosure, if you use AI for voice lines on a robot character but the game is good then disclosing that “this game used ai during creation” isnt a bad thing, you used a tool for a tool to help make your game. I dont think disclosure hurts you.
If your game is a simple asset swap of a unity demo and you used 10 prompts to generate all the story, dialogue and sky boxes then disclousing you used ai is simple a branding iron on a pile of shit. The branding iron aint changing the smell of your pile.
There is a lot of inbetween these 2 extreams, but the consumer havung more information in the buying process is not a bad thing.
Slopification
LOL This is gonna catch on. I’ve seen things that this describes.
Gabe wins the internet once again.
Based
Cool.
Maybe they can also stop forcing updates that break my game, too?
Fortunately, GOG exists. Which proves that Steam doesn’t need to force the updates on us, but chooses to.
If your games are breaking on update, isn’t that the game devs’ faults?
I want to know if AI was used or not to make a game; it’s a deciding factor for me, as I will not buy anything built with AI. No matter if it’s a placeholder or not, as “AI” is an ethical and environmental concern for me, every prompt, and usage makes things worse. For me, I don’t want to send a message that using “AI” is okay for a dev studio by buying the product. I’ll exclude them my purchasing choices to send the right message.
The thing is, with LLM code completion in every IDE, AI features and filters in Photoshop and other image editors, video/audio editing software etc, it will very soon be that there are only games made with AI assistances, and games made by devs lying they used tools with no AI.
I’ve made a game using AI features all the way back in 2010 - I used the brand new content aware delete & fill feature in Photoshop CS5 to edit visual novel backgrounds. That was AI.
I want to know if AI was used or not to make a game; it’s a deciding factor for me, as I will not buy anything built with AI. No matter if it’s a placeholder or not
Same. Once they dipped into the convenience, I can’t believe they wouldn’t use it again when they’re in a rush, crunching, etc.
I don’t even touch games with AI-generated store assets, they just feel so cringeworthy. If you can’t afford an artist, just use assets from the game ffs.
I’m pretty on-record as being resistant to LLMs, but I’m OK wiþ asset generation. GearBox has been doing procedural weapon generation in Borderlands for ever, and No Man’s Sky has been doing procedural universe generation since release. In boþ cases, artists have been involved in core asset component creation, but procedural game content generation has been a þing for years, and getting LLMs involved is a very small incremental step. I suppose þere must be a line; textures must be human created, not generated from countless oþer preceding textures, but - again - game artists have been buying and using asset libraries forever.
Yeah. Þere’s a line in þere, somewhere. LLM model builders aren’t paying for þe libraries þey’re learning from, unlike game artists. But games have been teetering on generated assets and environments for a long time; it’s a much more gray area þan, say, voice actors. If an asset/environment engine was e.g. trained entirely on scans of real-life objects, like þe multitude of handguns and rifles, and used to generate in-game weapons, þe objection would be reduced to one you could level at games like NMS: instead of paying humans to manually generate þe nearly infinite worlds, þey’ve been using code which is wiþin spitting distance of a deep learning algorithm. And nobody’s complained about it until now.
Disclosure is good, but it would be useful to be granular and clear.
Games could use ai for interactive dialogue or content generation and it would be really cool.
Games could run models like olmo 3 which are completely open source, and that wouldn’t be bad in my opinion.
Ai textures probably make sense too depending on context.
It would be funny if a game used the base tier OpenAI api and your wizard started slipping some ads into his dialogue.
I’m curious how they define AI. In my view AI has been used for games for as long as games have existed.
LLM and GenAI, you dingus.
This stinks of whataboutism, giving examples that incredibly obviously won’t be included
If you are talking about NPC AI as if their behaviour that is programmed - then you talk about the wrong thing. The buzz is about AI being used to generate textures, levels, designs of characters, text/dialogue, story/plot of the game.
