cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/49263187
Tim Sweeney claims it’s a “Scarlet Letter” which makes players “try to kill the game”
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has criticised rival Valve for forcing studios to disclose when they use AI in game development.
Epic recently showed how it was integrating AI into Unreal Engine 6.
Time Sweeney said:
“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, and now there is a hater community trying to kill the game.
“I think it’s really irresponsible of Valve. They shouldn’t do it, because it makes it much, much, much harder for a game developer to have a chance of success. You have to choose from either not using tools that can make you way more productive, and probably failing due to competition that does.”
Which is totally ignoring the factor that the user should know about the purchase it makes and be able to decide for themselves. Transparency for the player is not a bad thing.
Indie games like Stardew Valley and Undertale don’t need generative AI, skill issue much?
What next, it’s “irresponsible” to mention the system requirements because people won’t buy games that are too advanced for their device, which is depriving devs of sales?
Maybe being anti-consumer isn’t the best strategy to bring those “consumer” things to your marketplace, Tim.
Games developed before generative AI was widely available and usable for software development.
TBF I believe indie games will benefit the most from generative AI. Letting a model have to worry about quaternions definitely makes things easier.
This is the one point where my opinions on GenAI split:
On one hand, art assets can be a lot of effort and time to create manually, which may hamstring games with interesting concepts and mechanics whose devs don’t have the skills or time to wrap them into suitable aesthetics. Voice acting is also a difficult point that can fill a world with life (like background chatter in villages), but isn’t always trivial for smaller teams or solo developers, particularly if they aren’t good at voice acting themselves and don’t have the money to pay someone up-front.
For those reasons, I think using GenAI to handle creative aspects is understandable if the devs themselves can’t shoulder that burden.
On the other hand, I feel like there should be better solutions. This reasoning to justify GenAI might be leveraged to justify not hiring artists or VAs. Sure makes your studio look smaller, and also leaves a larger margin of profit. Who’s gonna be able to tell whether you even looked for people to help you instead of just taking the shortcut?
I assume it comes down to economic and competitive pressures too. I’m sure there are plenty of artists or VAs that would lend their time and craft to an interesting game for the promise of a cut once the game releases, if they didn’t have to worry about paying bills right now instead of an uncertain future income.
I find myself returning to the topic of Universal Basic Income, or at least shorter working times for equal income: Imagine how much art people could create if they had the leisure to, instead of maximising profits for some money addicts’ “number go up” fix.