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.
All the nuance is lost in these discussions. It’s something else when you’re pushing slop made 100% with AI, and something else if you’re using AI for mundane stuff like secondary voice lines in ARC Raiders for example
Based
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.
Exactly, just what I wanted to say
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.
don’t piss off the customers
Unless it’s their UI, they love to do pointless changes nowadays. On top of the stuff mentioned by the other replie
any and all UI changes will make people angry
steam has had so few of them compared to idk youtube that, imo it’s fine even if it’s kinda pointless
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.
You can tell most everything you need to know about a company by looking at the CEO. That’s because they’re the leader, they set the tone, contrary to lemmy beliefs. Happy or unhappy employees? Look to the CEO. Solid earnings, year after year after year? CEO. I ask at every interview, “What’s the CEO like?” BUT…
A) Ultimately, CEOs do what the fucking board of directors wants, or they get fired, hence, the golden parachute. Would you take a monster job knowing that you could be forced to fuck your industry reputation and not hedge that bet? Nah. Force me to do something stupid yet needful? I want paid when you fire me on purpose for doing what you said.
B) I think you are in an echo chamber around here. Most CEOs are great folks, you only hear about the major fuck ups at the major companies. Also, the decisions the big dogs make that lemmy tells you are unpopular, really aren’t unpopular in the wider world. EA Games still exists after all.
Board of directors
Correct. The board defines the company, not the CEO.
CEOs are usually puppets. Whatever role they play, you can bet they were hired specifically to play it, and were incentivized to stick to the script.
Their job (legally, their fiduciary obligation) is to maximize shareholder value, to take the credit or blame, and fuck off.
The board (typically key stakeholders) are so pleased when the public focuses on their CEOs, even if it’s for their shitty opinions, behavior, or obnoxious salaries.
Because the worst thing that could happen to them would be for the public eye to actually follow the money, and it’s easy to see why. If the rabble truly understood how many more golden parachutes you were sitting on, they might ask you to share.
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 would never respond to social media drama in their position.
It’s literally a plagiarism machine, so I completely agree with them.
“Calls.”
There’s only one call, and it’s coming from Tim Sweeny at Epic. It’s just more of his usual yelling at clouds, because he’s got a pathological hate-on for anyone else who runs a storefont, including Apple and Google but especially Valve. He hasn’t made any positive contribution to the world since about 1998, and at this point we can all safely discard his opinion with nothing of value being lost. He wants to allow AI slime on his own platform because he thinks it’ll make him free money, but maybe he ought to worry about the smell coming from his own house before he goes around trying to dictate at others how they should run theirs.
It’s so unfunny that the only one to contest Valve on PC monopoly is Tim Fortnite, who seemingly does the worst job everywhere yet still can still afford it. It’s almost like Gaben himself created a perfect villain for his company, so it’d never be criticized.
Gog (and to an extent, itch) are also competing with steam but while they might not be coming close to their market share they don’t draw anywhere near the ire that epic does and just similarly just rely on their strengths.
I think that both GOG and Itch.io not only rely on their strenghts, but has their own niche market to cover, so they don’t directly compete but complete each other in the whole gaming scene and they can easily coexist. That’s Epic who wants to get a slice of general gaming pie Steam eats.
Your comment just made me realize I did a kind of GOG holiday sale shopping spree this year after having not done a steam holiday sale purchase in like a decade.
And the majority of it was having cheap easy drm-free access to some very good and very old games. Like yeah I know I have my ISO of the TIE Fighter collector’s cd-rom somewhere around here, but if I can permanently have legit drm-free access to all versions of the game for just a few dollars, then supporting the business enabling that is a no brainer.
Yeah. GoG and Humble (as well as many MUCH smaller stores) have very much criticized the de facto Valve monopoly over the years (… decades?). As have many devs who have criticized just how much of a percentage Valve takes (and how they reduce that for the big games). They just generally are smart enough to say it VERY obliquely because they know they don’t want to antagonize a rabid userbase.
Epic… Epic increasingly are poised to “not need” PC gamers as it were. Fortnite is its own platform and Unreal Engine is increasingly used by film and industry. So they are much more willing to criticize Valve (and only occasionally remember EGS is sort of a thing…) which… tends to highlight why nobody else does.
He wants to allow AI slime on his own platform
Don’t forget the
blatant scams calledcrypto games! He proudly announced Epic Games Store would happily sell games centered around NFTs and crypto after Valve said they wouldn’t allow it.
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 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.
You and I are 1-in-50 purchasers, if that. Nobody gives a shit if AI is in the game.
Go grab a random dude on the street,
“Hey! Just one question? If you’re considering buying a video game, is the fact they used AI in making it a deal breaker?”
Nobody cares. I’m with ya. Don’t fucking buy it, I won’t. But enough other people will that it won’t make a difference.
I’m curious how they define AI. In my view AI has been used for games for as long as games have existed.
It is highly likely art and script, there are a lot of horrible games these days with ai art and script.
So AI controlled photoshop is ok?
I think the standard is set on wrong metric. Slop is slop and it doesnt matter how ot was brewed be it asset steal or lazy ai
That needs just two words:
Thank you.
Slopification
LOL This is gonna catch on. I’ve seen things that this describes.
Gabe wins the internet once again.
Wasn’t Gabe, but it was an artist for Valve.
A king’s victory is won by his soldiers
(/j they’re not monolithic or synonymous)
It is a fools errand and I do not understand why the smart people at Valve do not understand this. First…it relies on the developer to add the tag. Second the developer may not even know an asset they bought used AI in its creation. Most AI researchers agree that it will become near impossible to determine if an asset was generated with AI, and even using AI to detect will just mean when it does detect, it now knows how to create one that cannot be detected and we end up in a cat and mouse race that humans have no ability to play in.
We already have tools to rank titles and if it is AI slop, a low effort copycat game, the ratings will reflect this regardless of the tech that may or may not have been used.
I would hazard to guess that are countless titles that used some AI in its development, perhaps unbeknownst to the developer. Plus, what if a developer made everything from scratch themselves but used AI on one texture to upscale it…does this get an AI label even though it amounts to something like 0.00001% do the title? AI labels are a fools errand and we all need to just rely on the rating system and judge titles on their merits not the tools that made them as like I said, it will become into know AI was used.
We already have tools to rank titles and if it is AI slop, a low effort copycat game, the ratings will reflect this regardless of the tech that may or may not have been used.
It is not enough for me. I want to know if AI was involved so that I can avoid it even if it is good.
A game could be good and yet contain media created with AI generation - high rating + AI tag covers that case.
Most AI use will be slop, but as you say some could be an accident. How the dev responds to users finding out will inform users how to rate the dev team themselves.
deleted by creator
