Rendered at 06:44:41 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
ticulatedspline 3 hours ago [-]
I suspect that won't last long for a number of reasons
- AI is already capable of creating some assets that are indistinguishable from human made ones. Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.
- devs in Countries that care a lot less about the legal stuff are going to be cranking out and studios will want in on it.
- If the primary blocker is legal someone will find a way to get around it and provide a model/service/workflow that allows a game with AI assets to claim copyright on said assets.
- Games are literally one of the absolute best uses for this tech. Someone is going to figure out a way to leverage this stuff as a first class function of the gameplay. Player directed assets or procedural world creation, dynamic quests like never before seen. They're going to hit the nail on the head and produce a banger with this tech and the landscape is never going to be the same again.
valiant55 2 hours ago [-]
> Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.
I disagree, you can object on moral grounds of which there's a few angles that could take.
ragequittah 12 minutes ago [-]
This typically doesn't matter at all when it comes to sales. Take the fervent Hogwarts Legacy boycott that was all over the internet for a very long time. That ended with checks notes the first game to beat sales of a Call of Duty or a Rockstar game in 14 years and 40 million+ copies sold. My guess is a similar thing will happen with EA being Saudi owned as well.
fzeroracer 1 hours ago [-]
> Games are literally one of the absolute best uses for this tech. Someone is going to figure out a way to leverage this stuff as a first class function of the gameplay. Player directed assets or procedural world creation, dynamic quests like never before seen. They're going to hit the nail on the head and produce a banger with this tech and the landscape is never going to be the same again.
I see the AI boosters say this over and over again. People do not want it. Games have tried the whole dynamic NPC stuff along with generated quests and it's immersion breaking and more importantly, not fun.
add-sub-mul-div 2 hours ago [-]
I'm going to guess you've never worked in game dev and I'd be shocked if I was wrong.
CorvusCrypto 1 hours ago [-]
Can you add a bit more? It would be great to hear the actual counters of how that industry thinks.
forestrywat 1 hours ago [-]
I've worked in the industry and agree with the parent. This person hasn't worked in the industry.
AI is a bad for the industry for a few reasons:
Players hate it. You think the vitriol over "asset store flips" is bad? AI is seen by players as lazy and low quality.
Copyright is uncertain. IP matters a lot to studios. Until that's settled, it's caution.
Art is never the bottleneck in games. It's why so much DLC is cosmetic items. Artists finish and gotta be making more stuff, but the rest of the studio is still powering through the final feature list.
Games are perceived as expressive, artistic, and creative works. Everyone is working together to build something with their human identity stamped in it. This is what we're making, together. The moment you invite slop in, the product isn't art anymore. It's just a product. Sure, maybe shovelware titles will use AI, but audiences will know.
The quality of AI assets is pretty mid. They feel samey and tacky. No one wants to play games that feel like the average game. They want games that are novel or familiar in unusual ways.
It's expensive to even try. Studios run on razor thin margins and tight deadlines. You want to spend two months on some spike to see if AI might pay off? Good luck, we'll go bankrupt.
Production schedules have orders, estimates, and processes. People do stuff in a particular order and timeframe. Disrupting a machine that works and replacing it with a machine that may work is a risk. Best case it pays off, worse case it's development hell, worst case it's a canceled game.
Worker solidarity. It's thin in game dev, but it's growing. There's a sense that the top is keeping the profit, and AI is a management driven tool to keep the worker suppressed. It's not universal, but it's present.
There's probably a dozen more reasons. Cost of tokens, tracking provenance (did this artist copy another artists work is really really important to be able to prove), high degree of change in AI ecosystem right now disrupting tool chains, it's uncertain how the market will react in the long term to games with AI assets (gamedev is a conservative industry). Etc.
CorvusCrypto 38 minutes ago [-]
Thanks. It's hard as an outsider to evaluate the counters when you have nothing but vague criticism of the comment. I think you laid out the reasons clearly, thanks for taking the effort.
garciansmith 3 hours ago [-]
So many companies and individuals using AI and are like, here's our (sloppy) product! Whether it's a game or program or just a blog post. But it's not theirs. They didn't create it. They can't claim copyright over it. Even if they change it a little bit, I don't get how that somehow is transformative enough to grant any protection. So unless how copyright works drastically changes, I don't understand what they think is going to happen, at least from a perspective of a person or company who is doing this to make money.
CorvusCrypto 1 hours ago [-]
I think you're right in the scenario there was no human involvement in design. my guess which may be naive is that the tool use will be mixed. You may see gen AI used more for placeholder assets for example. I also think the landscape is shifting to the point codegen is acceptable in those circles.
If there is mixed usage of AI and human design then like the article said those components generated likely aren't copyrightable but the specific way you cobbled them together could be and that wouldn't need much change it seems. I'd like to follow the revenue anyway, last article I read was from about 6 months ago that steam AI-gen declarations accounted for almost 700million in revenue but it was unclear then to what extent ai tools were used (https://www.gamesradar.com/games/steam-games-that-openly-use...)
NoPicklez 4 hours ago [-]
Its happening in other industries as well, as legal and contract management teams have stepped up their maturity in considering these things.
I work in Consulting and we're seeing this across our industry as well. Multiple clauses popping up around no or limited AI use, which comes from those organisations being risk averse, through not knowing how to deal with the reputational risk if AI were to cause an issue.
We see some organisations being very strict on no AI usage, to other organisations naming particular platforms or particular classifications of information, which is a smart way to go about it.
- AI is already capable of creating some assets that are indistinguishable from human made ones. Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.
- devs in Countries that care a lot less about the legal stuff are going to be cranking out and studios will want in on it.
- If the primary blocker is legal someone will find a way to get around it and provide a model/service/workflow that allows a game with AI assets to claim copyright on said assets.
- Games are literally one of the absolute best uses for this tech. Someone is going to figure out a way to leverage this stuff as a first class function of the gameplay. Player directed assets or procedural world creation, dynamic quests like never before seen. They're going to hit the nail on the head and produce a banger with this tech and the landscape is never going to be the same again.
I disagree, you can object on moral grounds of which there's a few angles that could take.
I see the AI boosters say this over and over again. People do not want it. Games have tried the whole dynamic NPC stuff along with generated quests and it's immersion breaking and more importantly, not fun.
AI is a bad for the industry for a few reasons:
Players hate it. You think the vitriol over "asset store flips" is bad? AI is seen by players as lazy and low quality.
Copyright is uncertain. IP matters a lot to studios. Until that's settled, it's caution.
Art is never the bottleneck in games. It's why so much DLC is cosmetic items. Artists finish and gotta be making more stuff, but the rest of the studio is still powering through the final feature list.
Games are perceived as expressive, artistic, and creative works. Everyone is working together to build something with their human identity stamped in it. This is what we're making, together. The moment you invite slop in, the product isn't art anymore. It's just a product. Sure, maybe shovelware titles will use AI, but audiences will know.
The quality of AI assets is pretty mid. They feel samey and tacky. No one wants to play games that feel like the average game. They want games that are novel or familiar in unusual ways.
It's expensive to even try. Studios run on razor thin margins and tight deadlines. You want to spend two months on some spike to see if AI might pay off? Good luck, we'll go bankrupt.
Production schedules have orders, estimates, and processes. People do stuff in a particular order and timeframe. Disrupting a machine that works and replacing it with a machine that may work is a risk. Best case it pays off, worse case it's development hell, worst case it's a canceled game.
Worker solidarity. It's thin in game dev, but it's growing. There's a sense that the top is keeping the profit, and AI is a management driven tool to keep the worker suppressed. It's not universal, but it's present.
There's probably a dozen more reasons. Cost of tokens, tracking provenance (did this artist copy another artists work is really really important to be able to prove), high degree of change in AI ecosystem right now disrupting tool chains, it's uncertain how the market will react in the long term to games with AI assets (gamedev is a conservative industry). Etc.
If there is mixed usage of AI and human design then like the article said those components generated likely aren't copyrightable but the specific way you cobbled them together could be and that wouldn't need much change it seems. I'd like to follow the revenue anyway, last article I read was from about 6 months ago that steam AI-gen declarations accounted for almost 700million in revenue but it was unclear then to what extent ai tools were used (https://www.gamesradar.com/games/steam-games-that-openly-use...)
I work in Consulting and we're seeing this across our industry as well. Multiple clauses popping up around no or limited AI use, which comes from those organisations being risk averse, through not knowing how to deal with the reputational risk if AI were to cause an issue.
We see some organisations being very strict on no AI usage, to other organisations naming particular platforms or particular classifications of information, which is a smart way to go about it.