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.
Epic games can shove it’s opinion up it’s own corporate ass.
If what Steam does is such a problem for everyone involved, why doesn’t Sweeny make a better product himself then?
Oh, he has but it’s worse?
Whould’ve thought!
Remember when Epic Games Store launched and Tim defended the barebones functionality and quality, in comparison to how Steam launched barebones back then? That was his justification. Having real competition is a good thing, but it has to be a competition, not exclusivity. GOG does a good job and providing value.
While I think I understand what he means with regards to catching hate for being marked “AI”. I think it should be marked, but give a scale of sorts. Then it is easier for people to decide what things they are “okay” with vs what they aren’t. Like “AI voice over” is different than a game done “Mostly/completely AI”. Which would also help the random people that really like AI to find games using it (obviously that crowd is niche).
Maybe allow marking in detail elements that are AI place holders for Early Access games, where the dev is a small team or single person (no excuse for AAA games with huge budgets). The context matters, and people that don’t want any AI would already be leaving really bad reviews when they find out AI was used at all (along with demanding refunds). Could even be good for those Early Access games to find people to work with in replacing the place holders if people see things are still needed and reach out.
Would also be good if the same kind of scale markers could be applied to games that don’t use AI but do use pre-made assets. Not like AI is the only cause for all the slop games.
My god!
A well thought out and reasoned opinion? I can’t believe it took me this long to leave reddit!Honestly, if visual elements are ai created I am not sure I even care. AI is (now) really good at that and if it saves the devs weeks or months of drawing graphics that they can spend on the story or the action of a game, I (so far) think I am ok with that.
“If you want to launch a
gamesnack, and get it as widely publicized as possible, you’ve got to put it onSteamstore shelves so people canwish listsee it and if you want toplay it on Steameat ot, then you have to get this Scarlet Letter ofAIingredients attached to your product, and now there is a hater community [of parents] trying to kill thegamesnack. … I think it’s really irresponsible ofValvethe FDA. They shouldn’t do it, because it makes it much, much, much harder for agame developersnack company to have a chance of success. You have to choose from either not using tools that can makeyou way more productiveyour product way more addictive, and probably failing due to competition that does [in less regulated markets?]."Your only problem is that Valve is not the only market.
By a long shot
His last “point” doesn’t make any sense.
You have to choose from either not using tools that can make you way more productive, and probably failing due to competition that does.
If “you’ve got to put it on Steam” and Steam tells you whether a game used AI or not, then everyone is on the same playing field.
That means if you think your game will fail because everyone is boycotting AI games, you are free to not use AI… and you won’t “probably fail due to competition that does,” because their games are also on Steam!
Hope I am explaining what that sounds like to me (a contradiction of his whole statement).
Also he can go to hell. Gaming is being kept alive by Steam and It’s always little timmy trying to tear it down with his shitty manipulations. Why doesn’t he buck up his ideas and go make an actual competitor to Steam?
Epic Games CEO can go fuck himself!
If disclosing the use of genai will make a game fail, then not using it can’t make studios “fail due to conpetition that does”, because said competition will fail. You just said that, Tim.
If you’re proud of your use, it’s a non-issue, if you’re ashamed of it, why are you using it?
Transparency is only ever an issue when concealment and deceit are core elements of the activity.
What a piece of shit. Stfu.
Here is a more nuanced argument. Steam marks ai use generally, so even if your game just uses text to speech for accessibility reasons, the hate will immediately go towards ai use even tho nobody would mind it if the rest is handcrafted.
Yeah I feel like some uses are fine. When it’s used as a tool with thought and consideration.
These giant companies just want to replace people with AI though and flood the market. It would be nice to have more information
Steam lets developers include a description of the AI use, not just whether they used AI. This is the “AI Generated Content Disclosure” for Stellaris:
The developers describe how their game uses AI Generated Content like this:
We employ generative AI technologies during the creation of some assets. Typically this involves the ideation of content and visual reference material. These elements represent a minor component of the overall development. AI has been used to generate voices for an AI antagonist and a player advisor.
I really want to be a voice actor and that last part makes me so sad. Games and stuff used to be one of the best ways to break into the market
I agree with you. I think using an AI tool to figure out what type of voice you want and then hiring someone to perform the actual game dialogue would be more appropriate. It would be like using ai images to help a storyboard project. I guess you could use an artist for that and have them do different iterations is an argument against it. Voice acting seems to be more limited unless you know who will be the voice despite knowing the end target. Early dirty work that never makes it further is the only place I want to see AI in gaming. Unless the game is based around AI as the core component like procedurally generated rogue likes. I don’t enjoy that style of game so I’d be fine with that not happening either.
Yes, I wouldn’t mind a more detailed description of how and where AI is used.
Why should they fail when the competition fails by default in his argument.
Then he’s more than welcome to hide the ai label on his own sales platform. Oh right, no one using epic games. So unfair
I don’t care that much, but I rather have that information then not.
Tim Sweeney
Fuck him, and fuck Unreal engine.
Tim Sweeney claims it’s a “Scarlet Letter” which makes players “try to kill the game”
That’s because we don’t want slop in our media, and we have a right to not want it.
What this shithead is saying is that customers should be lied to so they can’t chose a product based on what they actually want.
He’s also saying that “choosing not to purchase” is the same as “killing a game.”
Guess I’d better pour one out for the literal thousands of games I’ve personally killed.
I don’t get it, if AI is so great and the future, wouldn’t you be happy to disclose your use of it in your product?
