I really hope it was Billy that caved and not TG. Dude really is awful in quite a few ways.
If anyone wants a ridiculously long deep dive on the Billy Mitchell stuff(and is willing to read instead of watching a video), I recommend checking out this. There’s also on that website a huge deep dive into the story about his alleged “perfect Pacman” run, and his history of gaslighting the classic gaming community into thinking he was the greatest gamer ever.
I want to normalize having a sarcastic commentator making scathingly aggressive Youtube videos about people in the news who are doing unethical things.
Reading the entire article, it seems that they still want to tread very carefully with this whole AI ordeal. Valve isn’t just opening the floodgates, as the title would make it seem.
While yes, a healthy dose of skepticism is good to have, I think if I had to trust someone to navigate AI in gaming in the gamers’ favour, I would pick Valve. Or maybe I’m overestimating Gabe’s involvement in the happenings of the legal department’s section that is currently responsible for AI stuff.
EDIT: Shame on me, @princessnorah , I think I had already seen the PMG video about the Steam Marketplace and its lootboxes and the gambling sites. But because I neither play these titles nor participate in the marketplace, I forgot that these serious issues exist. And the documentary concerning actually working at Valve rocked my stance back and forth. On one hand, I love the concept, but there are big problems here as well.
Once more, a genuine thank you for pointing me at these two video documentaries, even if I had already seen one of them.
Oh, People Make Games have not one but two vids on Valve? I never noticed that, thanks. I’ll watch them after work and possibly (because PMG really are good at the whole journalising stuff) change my stance on it.
Well, you know, holders of virtual monopolies are well known for being benficient paragons of prosocial goodness. At least, whenever their owners are known by their screen names and they produced a beloved product once, a quarter century ago.
That last half-sentence really isn’t in good faith. Just in the past couple years Valve made three “beloved products” that come to my mind immediately. Valve Index (the VR set), SteamDeck (the handheld PC) and the Steam Controller (although that one could be a bit older than “just in the past couple years”).
I wouldn’t be surprised if, in just a few years time, pre-AI-era content of all kinds, not just games, ends up becoming cherished by people, to the point that entire fandoms and subcultures develop around preserving and promoting it.
This is no different than anything else, we naturally appreciate the skill it takes to create something entirely by hand, even if mass production is available.
The games will still be designed by humans. Generative AI will only be used as a tool in the workflow for creating certain assets faster, or for creating certain kinds of interactivity on the fly. It’s not good enough to wholesale create large sets of matching assets, and despite what folks may think, it won’t be for a long time, if ever. Not to mention, people just don’t want that. People want art to have intentional meaning, not computer generated slop.
Plenty of games still rely on procedural generation to different degrees. It's a huge selling point in many cases, and in others, it's a pillar of their genre.
@PerogiBoi@jherazob it would be interesting but require a lot of development to make sure the NPCs either didn’t know about spoiler information which may break the plot or don’t just hallucinate answers, which may mislead the player.
“How do you get through the haunted forest?” “You need x item to get through the haunted forest” “are you sure?” “Yes thats how heros get through the forest” the item in question doesn’t even exist in the game or has no bearing on the quest.
You might be interested in inworld.ai/origins , a detective game where all the characters can be interviewed in natural language and respond with AI. They seem to be doing a pretty good job so far
@Ferk@jherazob@PerogiBoi good point, unreliable narrator is one thing, but could harm game enjoyment especially if it’s unintended or harmful. It’s one thing to retell the history of a region with a bias or mis-remembering events, or characters lying because it’s their nature to lie “evil character” but it would get annoying if every character could convincingly just make up unhelpful rubbish, or spoil a plot twist in the game.
@Ferk@jherazob@PerogiBoi I’m not arguing against LLM or conversational AI in games, it could really breathe life into a game if your choices really could have organic responses, but these tools have a lot of pitfalls that scripted responses don’t have, and the dev team will need to be aware of it to not have unintended consequences.
Such AI integration will be separated into categories of “pre-generated” content that is “created with the help of AI tools during development” (e.g., using DALL-E for in-game images) and “live-generated” content that is “created with the help of AI tools while the game is running” (e.g., using Nvidia’s AI-powered NPC technology).
Both are covered by the policies the article talks about, and both were arguably against the rules previously
I understand the statement is about in-game stuff, but I’m guessing a lot of game developers have been using GitHub Copilot and this kind of “AI tools” for months.
Given how many companies have been embracing AI tools it was really only a matter of time until they were allowed on Steam. At least you'll know before hand if you're going into a game with AI-generated content.
As much as I don’t like it (I think art should be something hand crafted by humans) nothing Valve can do. It would take an insane amount of resources to vet all these AI games coming.
It's not like they can really avoid it. AI assisted tools will become a standard in the future ("productivity has to go up" after all) and there's a good chance Valve already received some feedback from AAA publishers on that matter, since they'll be the main players utilizing such tech.
The good thing here is the exsitance of a disclaimer on store pages, as it will allow people to decide for themselves, and the ability to report content straight from in-game overlay.
I’ll add that a blanket ban isn’t necessarily a positive thing, either. AI could be a component of developing unique NPCs, evolving bosses, changing economies, missions/quests, or procedurally generated levels (for example).
Obviously, at least some of that content would still need to pass human play testing, so it’s not like humans would be completely removed, but imagine if players had gameplay experiences that were entirely unique to them or changed based on non-RNG factors.
I agree, though, that reporting the use of AI and how it’s utilized is important for people to make informed decisions about how they spend their money.
Personally I'd love to see a new take on Daggerfall using AI for features you mentioned (though it would have to be an "all in" affair as Bethesda's approach to randomly generated content these days is... not particularly impressive).
arstechnica.com
Aktywne