“The potential here is absurd,” wrote app developer Nick Dobos in reaction to the news. “Why write complex rules for software by hand when the AI can just think every pixel for you?”
“Can it run Doom?”
“Sure, do you have a spare datacenter or two full of GPUs, and perhaps a nuclear powerplant for a PSU?”
What the fuck are these people smoking. Apparently it can manage 20 fps on one “TPU” but to get there it was trained on shitload of footage of Doom. So just play Doom?!
The researchers speculate that with the technique, new video games might be created “via textual descriptions or examples images” rather than programming, and people may be able to convert a set of still images into a new playable level or character for an existing game based solely on examples rather than relying on coding skill.
It keeps coming back to this, the assumption that these models, if you just feed them enough stuff will somehow become able to “create” something completely new, as if they don’t fall apart the second you ask for something that wasn’t somewhere in the training data. Not to mention that this type of “gaming engine” will never be as efficient as an actual one.
I mean, you’ve never seen a purple elephant with a tennis racket. None of that exists in the data set since elephants are neither purple nor tennis players. Exposure to all the individual elements allows for generation of concepts outside the existing data, even though they don’t exit in reality or in the data set.
Try to get an image generator to create an image of a tennis racket, with all racket-like objects or relevant sport data removed from the training data.
Explain the concept to it with words alone, accurately enough to get something that looks exactly like the real thing. Maybe you can give it pictures, but one won’t really be enough, you’ll basically have to give it that chunk of training data you removed.
That’s the problem you’ll run into the second you want to realize a new game genre.
There are more forms of guidance than just raw words. Just off the top of my head, there’s inpainting, outpainting, controlnets, prompt editing, and embeddings. The researchers who pulled this off definitely didn’t do it with text prompts.
But at what point does that guidance just become the dataset you removed from the training data?
The whole point is that it didn’t know the concepts beforehand, and no it doesn’t become the dataset. Observations made of the training data are added to the model’s weights after training, the dataset is never relevant again as the model’s weights are locked in.
To get it to run Doom, they used Doom.
To realize a new genre, you’ll “just” have to make that game the old fashion way, first.
Or you could train a more general model. These things happen in steps, research is a process.
I know the input doesn’t alter the model, that’s not what I mean.
And “general” models are only “general” in the sense that they are massively bloated and still crap at dealing with shit that they weren’t trained on.
And no, “comprehending” new concepts by palette swapping something and smashing two existing things together isn’t the kind of creativity I’m saying these systems are incapable of.
Bloated, as in large and heavy. More expensive, more power hungry, less efficient.
I already brought it up. They can’t deal with something completely new.
When you discuss what you want with a human artist or programmer or whatever, there is a back and forth process where both parties explain and ask until comprehension is achieved, and this improves the result. The creativity on display is the kind that can unfold and realize a complex idea based on simple explanations even when it is completely novel.
It doesn’t matter if the programmer has played games with regenerating health before, one can comprehend and implement the concept based on just a couple sentences.
Now how would you do the same with a “general” model that didn’t have any games that work like that in the training data?
My point is that “general” models aren’t a thing. Not really. We can make models that are really, really big, but they remain very bad at filling in gaps in reality that weren’t in the training data. They don’t start magically putting two and two together and comprehending all the rest.
You keep moving the goal posts and putting words in my mouth. I never said you can do new things out of nothing. Nothing I mentioned is approaching, equaling, or exceeding the effort of training a model.
You haven’t answered a single one of my questions, and you are not arguing in good faith. We’re done here. I can’t say it’s been a pleasure.
My argument was and is that neural models don’t produce anything truly new. That they can’t handle things outside what is outlined by the data they were trained on.
Are you not claiming otherwise?
You say it’s possible to guide models into doing new things, and I can see how that’s the case, especially if the model is a very big one, meaning it is more likely that it has relevant structures to apply to the task.
But I’m also pretty damn sure they have insurmountable limits. You can’t “guide” and LLM into doing image generation, except by having it interact with an image generation model.
To be fair, half of the AAA gaming industry is all about trying to clone the latest successful game with a new coat of paint. Maybe using AI to make these clones will mean that the talented people behind the scenes are free to explore other ideas instead.
Of course in reality, it just means that the largest publishers will lay off a whole lot of people and keep churning out these uninspired games in the name of corporate profits, but it’s nice to dream sometimes.
This is perfect for capitalism with Matrix bio-fuel-cells-human/battery tech!
It would have been too easy to just chill peacefully and unbothered in my cozy pod - they would feed me a hallucination of a dead-end job the whole time, complete with all the stupid office buttons I have to press.
It’s basically like. Someone drawing a picture. Then watching the buttons you’re pressing on a controller. And then drawing a new picture. And based on the game that they think you’re playing in their head trying to guess what the next picture ought to look like. With no error correction and no conceptualization other than what the next picture should look like.
The… many limitations of this is the inability of image generators to rationalize 3 dimensional space. It can only approximate it based on what it thinks should appear on the screen. It lacks any ability to keep track of variable information. It really is more like a Doom-style hallucination than anything else. Some of the videos on that article are truly bizarre looking. I’d imagine after a few minutes every single one of them would devolve into an endless loop of being trapped in non-sensical geometry or killing the same enemy over and over again as the AI has no way of remembering the enemy existed to begin with, let alone that you killed it.
I’ll be honest I don’t think there is much use in this at all. It suffers from the same limits as any other model AI. Believability at a glance is not believability under scrutiny and if it’s only believable at a glance then there’s not much practical use in it. The advance in computational power and model sophistication required to stand up under scrutiny is massive.
A lower cut. 30% revenue cut means we pay more than necessary for games and we also miss out on some indie games that cannot be profitable with such a large cut.
We already know lowering the cut doesn’t make us pay less. All it does is put more money into the pockets of the publisher.
And I very much doubt Valve’s cut is a reason indie game can’t be profitable. There are asset flips going up on Steam on a daily basis. If asset flipping wasn’t profitable we wouldn’t see them propping up like mushrooms after rain. When asset flips are more profitable than an indie game there’s something wrong with that game.
I like the fact they tried to compete with Steam from the begining. I have a large library of games and some real gems that I wouldn’t normally look at.
EGS is ok, GOG is ok and also Steam is just ok too for what I want from a store/launcher.
It would hold water if their solution was proprietary and closed source. But it isn’t, and anyone else, literally anyone, can take Proton and use it in their project for profit.
Even if they closed shop tomorrow, or even just gave up work on Proton itself, we’d all still reap the benefits at no cost to us.
Steam is just ok to for what I want from a store/launcher.
It’s not just ok, compared to the alternatives. A games library that cannot be matched, regular sales, easy no-frills refunds, cloud saves, beta support, family mode, big picture support, seamless integration with the Steam deck, which in its own right, has pushed right-to-repair and Linux gaming to new heights. The competition doesn’t even have any of this stuff, including the console market, and if they can’t compete, they don’t deserve my money.
No digital game store is worth your loyalty.
I’m fine being loyal to a privately-owned company that actually gives a shit about its customers. As long as Gabe is still alive and they will continue to be privately-owned, the company will stay in good graces.
It isn’t even loyalty for me, I just have to real reason to go to the other store with 99% of my games being on steam, mostly purchased during a sale. The only exception is GoG, because they actually offer something the others don’t with their DRM-less versions of games.
When that store is run by a company that contributes massively to open source and works harder and puts more money into enabling alternate platforms for gaming than all other companies combined; ya, they have my loyalty.
I gave Epic’s store a chance but even after all this time it’s still shit and very far from feature parity with Steam. There’s not even proper reviews. No big-picture equivalent. No good out-of-the-box Linux support. No Steam-Deck. The list is very very long. Until Epic starts delivering, the 30% cut Valve takes is more than justified.
I gave it a chance when they took over Rocket League. The damn platform doesn’t even support profile avatars while Steam did. So to get a basic nice feature working all you had to do was… not use their platform.
Oh really? I haven’t played since they disabled trading items.
I mean, the cyber truck probably looks better than some of the other cars, and you’ll probably get better FPS due to the lowered polygon count! But yeah… no bueno.
Heroic launcher works pretty well to get epic and gog games in the deck. But yes, support could be better, especially since i remember unreal tournament being Linux friendly early on.
Yeah i get and play the free games from there, but they don’t seem to want to do more than the bare minimum for the storefront so I won’t purchase anything through them.
It’s beyond me how they can affors all of these free games and exclusive but not a single capable developer to make this platform beyond just the bare minimum.
FWIW, my understanding is that the owner of Epic is actively anti-Linux, so your third feature is a unlikely at best. The fourth was only remotely likely due to market share.
Hell, Epic does not have any social features, didn’t have cart, refund process through support only, very basic search, I am not sure about cloud saves and if they don’t break completely when you play offline (is there even offline mode?).
Steam, on the other hand, is constantly adding and improving features - like the new beta family sharing which is finally what an easy way to share with my GF and sister.
The only things that Epic has are free games, exclusivity, and lower fees - and that’s about it. All three, as you can see, are not really hard to implement for the developer team, but easy to throw large sums of money at for a quick boost so they can boast numbers.
Fuck Epic, seriously. Money can solve lots of stuff, but not by throwing it at the wall. Meaningless.
Oh, completely forgot about my Steam Deck, it is just that seamless.
I also hate the other side of the coin that is against both Steam and EGS. Citing Steam doesn’t “deserve your loyalty”. Why not? I can’t really pinpoint any particular fuckup in the 15 years I’ve been using it. Sure, some delays in games, updates, and other minor shit - but imagine if like game ratings broke, I am sure they’d get fixed in an hour.
The hotdog vendor keeps going on about how he’s the good guy because he pays more to the sausage suppliers. As if that’s at all relevant to his customers.
To be fair, with regular groceries, it’s not uncommon for consumers to be concerned about whether or not the person who manufactured or processed the good or food you are buying was paid a fair wage. So in that sense, it is kind of relevant to the hotdog vendors customers.
I’m only playing devils advocate though. Fuck epic lol
yesssssssss, but the second hot-dog vendor wants to offer customers lower prices, and the first says they can't because otherwise those hot dogs will be banned from their stand, and the second responds by attempting to throw piss water-balloons at any passers by, or something
the second hot-dog vendor wants to offer customers lower prices, and the first says they can’t because otherwise those hot dogs will be banned from their stand
It’s more accurate to say that the plain hotdog vendor wants to sell the other vendor’s hotdogs at a lower price at his own stand, thereby undercutting the sales of the first vendor for their own hotdogs.
But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.
Nope, you are wrong, this is a common mistake that Epic keeps spreading as missinformation. Valve does NOT enforce price parity on other platforms, there are games that are sold cheaper on other stores, this is up to the publisher to decide, but most publishers find it easier to have the same price across the board. If this was true games that are exclusive on Epic would be cheaper until they come to Steam years later, but they aren’t.
The mistake happens because there is one specific case in which Valve enforces price parity, but for this you need to know three things:
Valve gives away for free infinite steam keys to publishers
Those keys can be sold by the publisher elsewhere
If they do that the publisher keeps 100% of the revenue of that sale
That sale of that free steam key for which Valve is not charging anything is regulated and can’t be sold cheaper than Steam on regular basis, it can be in a sale for cheaper, but the regular price must match Steam and if it goes on sale outside of Steam eventually it needs to do a similar sale on Steam (but not necessarily at the same time).
So one thing that’s amazing that Valve does for people who publish their games with them is getting them hate because of Epic, please stop spreading missinformation.
But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.
In that link you have one person making a claim without any backing or evidence. Even if that did happen there are multiple possible explanations:
The email was not clear about the other stores not selling keys
The person who answered the email did not understand that they weren’t talking about steam keys
The person answering the email doesn’t know what they’re talking about
Etc
And in that same link you have multiple persons in the comments describing the exact opposite experience providing the same amount of evidence, so if the text on that link is evidence that Valve does that, then the comments there are even more evidence that they don’t.
If only there was a way of knowing… Well, they did say they opened a lawsuit, and those are public record so the email would be there since it’s crucial to the case, without it they would have no case, right? Feel free to read the entire complaint here and you’ll notice the email is suspiciously missing, their claims are that Valve wouldn’t give them more keys to resell, which is directly opposite to what the blog claims.
I can do you one better, Overgrowth is a sequel to Lugaru, which is paid on Steam but free if you install via your package manager on Linux, therefore completely disproving the fact that Steam enforces price parity even for games from this company
You provide a link to someone saying “Valve said they would do X” without evidence, I point out that in that same link you have multiple people saying “Valve told me they would not do X” with the same amount of evidence.
I additionally show you the lawsuit the blog talks about where at no point the supposed email is shown
Additionally I show you another game from the same company that has lower price outside of Steam
Um, I’ve read the complaint from top to bottom and it claims way more than just ‘Valve wouldn’t give them keys to resell’ if they’re not at the same price as on steam. It also claims Valve puts a ‘Price Veto’ clause which allows them to delist games from Steam if the publisher gives bigger sales on other platforms, even if they do not using steam keys, which does sound super uncompetitive to me.
Although I’ll agree the evidence listed in the complaint seem a bit on the light side. Do you know if the trial happened yet? And if so, do you know where I can find what resolution they reached?
Thank you for the link! It helped putting things into proper nuance and context (indcluding throwing away that ridiculous notion that the ‘Steam Store’ and the ‘Steam Gaming Platform’ are two completly different things in different markets).
However, reading the whole thing, it sounds to me like while the court dismissed some of the claims (1 to 4 and 7 apparently), they agreed that Wolfire and the other plaitiffs had the right to ‘plausibly allege unlawful conduct’ about the ‘Most-favored-nations restraints’ (the part where Steam forces publishers to set prices on all stores without steam keys being involved) without mentioning anything more on the subject.
I’m not americain so I’m not sure if I understand correctly, but that means the ruling isn’t over and it’ll go into an appeal court, right?
I’m also not American (well, technically I’m, but you meant from the USA not from the American continent) but yeah, I think it’s still ongoing, although I remember hearing a while back that Valve settled some case, not sure if this one (notice that settling doesn’t mean admitting guilt or that they were going to lose, but sometimes it’s just cheaper to settle than to keep defending yourself (the problem is that on the long run this sends a message that you’re a good target).
Also I believe they would have won the claim that they don’t enforce price parity just by pointing at the other game from Wolfire (Lugaru) which is paid on Steam and free outside of it, and Valve never did anything about it.
That, and Gabe’s hotdog stand has spent decades building customer trust by generally acting decently towards its customers, right after it invented the concept of the hotdog stand.
Making the core of your business model revolve around whining about your competitors doesn’t work so great when your main competitor is already significantly better than you are.
arstechnica.com
Aktywne