Quoting: LupertEverett

1: Steam "price parity clause"

This is only for Steam keys that are sold OUTSIDE Steam.

There are several occasions - confirmed by Valve - that they told publishers they expect the same price or prefer not to sell a game.

Quoting: LupertEverett

2: In-game purchases yadda yadda

"Hey Sony, so I have this DLC for a game I bought from GOG, can I play this on PlayStation?", said nobody ever.

Whataboutism! If you think anyone else should be sued, then take legal actions! Besides: Apple & Google are being scrutinized, too.

Quoting: LupertEverett

3: Commissions commissions

The fee, that is... 30%...

You know... the same amount Sony and Apple also gets, yet somehow it is only Steam who is constantly put on target for it.

That's simple not correct.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeSorry, no.

The way Mario jumps is art.

The process of putting that in code...
Well, I'd call it engineering.
(I am professional software developer, if that plays a role.)

PS: The quote button is back!

The game design is directly influenced by the limitation of the implementation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeI find it unreasonable not to.

Code is supposed to shove numbers around. It's outcome can be defined. And tested. The outcome of code generated by humans and by AI must be the same - the one defined. By a human.

Art is supposed to convey feelings. Optimally tell us something about life. The outcome of making art cannot possibly be defined. And hardly be tested for "correctness". And AI does not have anything to tell about life.

What feelings should supposedly be conveyed by a tile like this?
https://opengameart.org/content/ancient-civ-in-the-jungle-seamless-textures-tile-without-moldpng [External Link]

Most textures don't tell a story, they're only a representation of something real.

A game can become art as a composition - but this includes code.

And the disclosure is not here to define art - it documents how it was created. It must therefore include code.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeI join whatever discussion I wish to, thank you very much.

Except you said you won't discuss it. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Quoting: EikeAnd you think that's an argument for what you're asking for?

Yes.

Quoting: EikeI happen to be software developer in a big company (not game related).
It would surprise me if less than 90% of the developers use AI every now and then.
We've got very different types, from developers finding it hard to do development when the AI access is broken for an hour, to those that use it like once a week. Yes, there's also some that don't use it at all, but you'll have hard times to find a whole development team where nobody is using AI.

If what you're asking for would be done - which I still find unreasonable - you'd end up with about every game being marked as "AI was used for code development". What would you gain?

We'd have all games using generative AI marked as using generative AI. What's the loss? I mean, that's exactly what the disclosure is for: Disclosing that generative AI was being used. If it's only 1% of all games or 99,9% of all games doesn't matter.

Quoting: Eike*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

The same can be said about any generative AI. Overall you fail at explaining why there should be a distinction between artists & coders.

Any company will have a policy regarding AI usage & infringement can lead to a warning & even termination. The same policies exist for copying code from any source or even what's allowed with a company device.

I find it unreasonable to distinguish between coding & art. The same concerns apply to both. Bad AI usage results in both cases in bad products. Supervised AI usage could improve productivity (whether this leads to better products has to be seen) but can't replace the people working at the games.

Now we have selective AI disclosure (which will be bogus in many cases, too) so that people can proudly say they don't buy AI games while playing their AI coded games. Great stuff.

And again: What's with AI assisted applications like Photoshop.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeReally, you're getting the source code of the games?

Yeah, I know, we do get the binary code, which is translated by a compiler from the source code, ...

Correct, we receive what was generated by the AI in binary form. What's your point here? You wouldn't receive the assets as-is either, they get processed, too (e.g. exported into the correct format).

Quoting: EikeThis is not leading anywhere.

* Developers do use AI to code.
* You cannot find out if they did from the binaries.

It's not worth the discussion.

What's the difference? I doubt you could distinguish the AI source code anyway. If you don't have any arguments then simply don't join the discussion.

If the outputs get better then it's no longer possible to recognize AI assets either.

And thousands of developers have been fired in recent years. I'm sure some speak about their working experience. In fact, potential new employers will require that their AI experience is disclosed. So I really doubt it's possible to keep it secret.

But as was said: The whole thing is just a charade for the hypocrites.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Let's go back to the topic: The disclosure is not about using AI tools. The disclosure is about generating content using AI tools.

Quoting: KROMOf course. It's a tool. Nobody stops you from taking the horse, but I'll be probably faster than you using my car.

There's absolutely no difference between generating code & generating assets. Both is created by a tool which serves to be more efficient. Both can & should be disclosed but Valve made this exempt because they know their customers will go crazy if basically every game becomes an AI game.

Quoting: EikeThat example seems to be quite accurate to me:
The tools used to write the code are not an ingredient of the game. Unlike e.g. the assets. Which seems quite close to what Valve is asking for to be declared.

Obviously, the code the AI is generating is an ingredient of the game. Why should this be exempt from the disclosure?

How about Photoshop? How much AI tooling is allowed?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPWell, yes.
You'd have to enforce open sourcing everything and even THEN you could almost never be certain.
Unenforceable rules are pointless.

Rules are there to be complied with. Usually there is a punishment if someone is violating a rule. I don't see why this wouldn't work here, too. If it's not directly evident then it'll require someone reporting the violation. Happens in law enforcement all the time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Let's translate Valve's message:

Efficiency gains through the use of these tools is not the focus of this section.

"Basically everyone is using AI."

Instead, it is concerned with the use of AI in creating content that ships with your game, and is consume by player. This includes content such as artwork, sound, narrative, localization, etc.

"Let's stop being transparent & declare only stuff we obviously can't deny."

But reading the article it seems to work - ignorance is bliss.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: fenglengshunA lot of it seems great. Hopefully, this does mean Steam moving to Wayland and 64bit this year to be possible.

Where comes this idea from that Steam's 32-bitness & X11ness are tied to Proton? I mean it absolutely makes no sense because then we'd be stuck with X11 & 32-bit forever. The system itself would not be able to run deprecated software like Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think they calculate proton to be part of the Steam client(with which I agree)

It's not, it's a separate component downloaded with the game.

while the 32 bit trickery of the windows api did come build in with Windows

I'm not sure what you're meaning. Even if it was necessary on Windows, doesn't mean it's necessary on Linux. Aren't Proton games even run in a container (pressure-vessel), so the host system doesn't matter that much.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It just shows: There's a reason why most Linux work is done by third parties & not directly by Valve.

But we should give some credit to Valve: It must've been rocket science to port such a bloated software like Steam to 64-bit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments