Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
God forbid we give consumers the ability to make informed decisions.
Fellas, is it woke to vote with your feet?
Sure sweeney, how about you address your defence of Grok doing kiddy stuff first.
Epic games can shove it's corporate opinion up it's own corporate ass.
If what Steam does is such a problem for everyone involved, why doesn't Sweeny make a better product himself then?
Oh, he has but it's worse?
Whould've thought!
Remember when Epic Games Store launched and Tim defended the barebones functionality and quality, in comparison to how Steam launched barebones back then? That was his justification. Having real competition is a good thing, but it has to be a competition, not exclusivity. GOG does a good job and providing value.
Epic lacked a search bar and a shopping basket for months after launch. He compared his 2018 product with a 2003 product and still lost.
I don't get it, if AI is so great and the future, wouldn't you be happy to disclose your use of it in your product?
While I think I understand what he means with regards to catching hate for being marked "AI". I think it should be marked, but give a scale of sorts. Then it is easier for people to decide what things they are "okay" with vs what they aren't. Like "AI voice over" is different than a game done "Mostly/completely AI". Which would also help the random people that really like AI to find games using it (obviously that crowd is niche).
Maybe allow marking in detail elements that are AI place holders for Early Access games, where the dev is a small team or single person (no excuse for AAA games with huge budgets). The context matters, and people that don't want any AI would already be leaving really bad reviews when they find out AI was used at all (along with demanding refunds). Could even be good for those Early Access games to find people to work with in replacing the place holders if people see things are still needed and reach out.
Would also be good if the same kind of scale markers could be applied to games that don't use AI but do use pre-made assets. Not like AI is the only cause for all the slop games.
Isn't this literally what Steam does? Every game I've looked at that has an AI tag explicitly states where/when AI is used and, usually, its for stuff in development that gets switched out. Not always, mind you, but thats usually the tag that I see. Stuff like Liar's Bar will then also have the tag saying AI Voices and what not.
I hadn't noticed, but cool that they already have something more transparent than just a vague "AI is used" stamp (and nice to have some tiny validation to my headspace not being a terrible idea lol). Then it for sure means the Epic Games guy is just reaching for weird hills to die on.
My god!
A well thought out and reasoned opinion? I can't believe it took me this long to leave reddit!
Honestly, if visual elements are ai created I am not sure I even care. AI is (now) really good at that and if it saves the devs weeks or months of drawing graphics that they can spend on the story or the action of a game, I (so far) think I am ok with that.
lol I'll take the vote of approval! Currently the topic gets boiled down to "everything AI is slop" automatically, but removes situations where it can be used as a tool in a more "correct" sense. I would be happy if devs/studios started using it on some level to help bring back real optimizations so some games would actually use hardware to the fullest. And not just rely on people just constantly buying new GPUs or feel like the high-end hardware is a requirement.
Just need to make sure to test and re-test the results, and maybe good devs would actually go back to see how the optimizations were done to try doing it themselves (and not just get lazy/dumb in their own code). The cash grab vibe-coded slop stuff should be called out at all times. Just like the pre-AI asset flipping shit that was already flooding stores. Would also be great if bad reviews call out specific issues and not just blanket say "AI crap" or something like that to help other people have a better picture of things.
His last "point" doesn't make any sense.
You have to choose from either not using tools that can make you way more productive, and probably failing due to competition that does.
If "you've got to put it on Steam" and Steam tells you whether a game used AI or not, then everyone is on the same playing field.
That means if you think your game will fail because everyone is boycotting AI games, you are free to not use AI... and you won't "probably fail due to competition that does," because their games are also on Steam!
Hope I am explaining what that sounds like to me (a contradiction of his whole statement).
Also he can go to hell. Gaming is being kept alive by Steam and It's always little timmy trying to tear it down with his shitty manipulations. Why doesn't he buck up his ideas and go make an actual competitor to Steam?
Epic Games CEO can go fuck himself!
If you’re proud of your use, it’s a non-issue, if you’re ashamed of it, why are you using it?
Transparency is only ever an issue when concealment and deceit are core elements of the activity.
Tim Sweeney claims it’s a “Scarlet Letter” which makes players “try to kill the game”
That's because we don't want slop in our media, and we have a right to not want it.
What this shithead is saying is that customers should be lied to so they can't choose a product based on what they actually want.
He's also saying that "choosing not to purchase" is the same as "killing a game."
Guess I'd better pour one out for the literal thousands of games I've personally killed.
AI tools make game development way more productive? You mean by producing bugs and incoherent art?
I don't mind use of AI tools as long as the product is not obviously sloppy and the people who created the data that was used for training get a juicy compensation (given how much money others make off of it). While the first may sometimes be the case, the latter isn't.
I want to play quality games crafted by hand with love and intention and an artistic vision that the author brings to life.
Anybody who tries to argue that their product won't sell if the consumer is well informed doesn't make a quality product worth buying anyway.
He thinks his game won't sell because it has the AI scarlet letter but if he doesn't use it, his competition would have an edge over him because they use AI.
Does he realize how stupid he sounds since they would then have the scarlet letter of AI and his game wouldn't and would then sell better.
“If you want to launch a ~~game~~snack, and get it as widely publicized as possible, you’ve got to put it on ~~Steam~~store shelves so people can ~~wish list~~see it and if you want to ~~play it on Steam~~eat ot, then you have to get this Scarlet Letter of ~~AI~~ingredients attached to your product, and now there is a hater community [of parents] trying to kill the ~~game~~snack. ... I think it’s really irresponsible of ~~Valve~~the FDA. They shouldn’t do it, because it makes it much, much, much harder for a ~~game developer~~ snack company to have a chance of success. You have to choose from either not using tools that can make ~~you way more productive~~your product way more addictive, and probably failing due to competition that does [in less regulated markets?]."
Then he’s more than welcome to hide the ai label on his own sales platform. Oh right, no one using epic games. So unfair
I bet sketchy food producers also balked at the idea of ingredient lists when they were first rolled out. If you're offering something to others and think they might not like something you used in it, maybe it's better to avoid the thing rather than complain that you're being forced to tell people about it.
If disclosing the use of genai will make a game fail, then not using it can't make studios "fail due to conpetition that does", because said competition will fail. You just said that, Tim.
So, if a dev uses AI, they fail because of haters, but they also win because they're more productive than devs that don't?
Being strong and weak at the same time is always a fun rhetoric.
Also, afaik, Valve only asks for disclosure of generative AI for asset generation, not productivity tools like coding assistance.
I don't care that much, but I rather have that information then not.
Tim Sweeney
Fuck him, and fuck Unreal engine.
AI content is so loathed and despised that the influencers, film studios, software developers who have embraced it are simultaneously all desperate to downplay, lie and hide it.
But definitely not a speculation bubble! Keep repeating to yourselves that demand for AI is real and that people really value all the nauseating disgusting chatbot generated "art" and "insight" that you're spewing upon humanity.
Very “if we stopped testing for COVID there would be no cases” energy.
Sweeney's not a fan of informed purchase practices. Good to know, Tim, I'll make sure to not float any cash your way.
Tim Sweeney continues to be a whiny jealous entitled bitch, more at 11.
“If you want to launch a game, and get it as widely publicized as possible, you’ve got to put it on Steam so people can wish list it, and if you want to play it on Steam, then you have to get this Scarlet Letter of AI attached to your product
You don't have to, just don't use A.I. Easy.
Why should they fail when the competition fails by default in his argument.
Complete lack of self-awareness making such a statement.
In order to be successful, games have to launch on our competitors platform!
Moron.
Timmy is just mad because his new game engine pressures devs to fill their games with AI slop, and Steam will force their developers to disclose it.
Here is a more nuanced argument. Steam marks ai use generally, so even if your game just uses text to speech for accessibility reasons, the hate will immediately go towards ai use even tho nobody would mind it if the rest is handcrafted.
Nah, just use SAM or something. Slop is never necessary.
Steam lets developers include a description of the AI use, not just whether they used AI. This is the "AI Generated Content Disclosure" for Stellaris:
The developers describe how their game uses AI Generated Content like this:
We employ generative AI technologies during the creation of some assets. Typically this involves the ideation of content and visual reference material. These elements represent a minor component of the overall development. AI has been used to generate voices for an AI antagonist and a player advisor.
I really want to be a voice actor and that last part makes me so sad. Games and stuff used to be one of the best ways to break into the market
Yes, I wouldn't mind a more detailed description of how and where AI is used.
Another issue is when using ai without the knowledge, you bought some assets on the store that did not display ai use, steam bans your game.
That may lie in the developer's responsibility to ensure. But it would be of course eaxier if such assets were reliably labled.
Yeah I feel like some uses are fine. When it's used as a tool with thought and consideration.
These giant companies just want to replace people with AI though and flood the market. It would be nice to have more information
Tim Sweeney claims it’s a “Scarlet Letter” which makes players “try to kill the game”
Yes, and?
Transparency sucks
-- Every snakeoil salesman ever
Hmm... Do I side with Epic, famous for:
Or with Steam?
As a fan of AI, I want disclosure. Just as tech vegans get to avoid AI, I too would be able to actively seek out games that are doing neat things with it. Disclosure is good for everyone.