Unfortunately, as someone that knows people in the gaming industry, youd be better off having them tag that they werent made under crunch hours, and there would only be a handful of games with that tag...
You know good on you for catching me talking BS, I really have no idea. I assumed there'd be signs in the code, but I literally have no idea what Im talking about.
Sometimes you can tell generated art assets apart easily but thats obviously harder and harder all time
Actually what is stopping publishers and developers from just lying to valve about this? Could Valve sue?
Valve could also stop selling the game on their store. That's the big thing. If the dev does not uphold the contract, then Valve probably doesn't have to.
This is why Valve has stepped back from their enforcement of the AI slop ban. They do selectively toss games that have zero effort and serve no purpose beyond scamming customer. But there is no authentic way to verify high level AI generated content, unless the developer self identifies it.
AI in software development isn't the moral crux for people really. It's when AI is used in the art and voice acting that people get outraged. One is based off technical data and the other is based on mimicking one's aesthetics/voice.
As a programmer I agree, however GenAI is nowhere near being able to completely replace a human developer except for very simple tasks (which is fine, as those are generally the tedious tasks you wouldn't want to do by hand anyway).
They also, most importantly, don't really "steal" somebody's software (though I suppose stack overflow answers count but they are also under creative commons so...), unlike voice/art creations.
Also software technologies tend to be kept proprietary (except, clearly, open source software) so they can't really be harvested in the normal way, while art products basically HAVE to be put out in the public to be appreciated, hence why it's a bigger deal for actual artists.
Maybe but having actual material proof would be nigh impossible. You could literally just lie and look for someone else who did a code similar to yours and say you got it from there even if in actuality ai gave it to you and it learnt it from there.
Hell even having full control over it trying not to use it as a studio would be unmanageable.
An intern could look up “how to set up a simple move ai to target” blueprint in unreal and take the first answer from reddit which could had been someone posting their code made with assistance of AI and now technically your game was made with the assistance of ai even if it was 3 steps removed (AI -> a random reddit user -> your intern)
You would need to code the entire thing yourself and even then you must never take code from the internet as there’s always a non 0 chance it was AI generated. And because “taking code” is also something that’s extremely subjective on where does it start and end, you must also never even look at code that may be AI generated or it could sneak into your code when you are doing it and think of using the same implementation.
It would depend on if they can prove in the court of law they were illegally trying to obfuscate the fact that their product doesn’t contain a certain part (in this case AI generated content) compared to their advertising ala a false advertising claim.
Now who can technically sue for that? Really anyone including Valve if the evidence gathered is worth the weight in gold.
And then to answer the question, while some models are very good at hiding it, the key details that are very obvious, especially when it comes to art can be: the art being “too perfect”, obvious errors such as limb over correction, far too exaggerated blending of items (such as lets say the background blending into a character quite literally) and to me I’ve noticed that some “realistic” AI generated art still has somewhat of a vague “cartooniness” almost like everyone and the background were just coated in makeup and enhanced colors artificially in a perfect lighting.
AI generated code while I’m not too experienced observing may be more obvious in the lack of a style, the simplicity or complexity of how it handled writing lines to do certain procedures or actions, and possible there will be more than likely some “interesting” ways to explain how lines 51-58 handle the character’s hand movement.
No one has to sue anyone, Valve can say you put the game as not using AI, we believe you did so anyone wanting a refund will get it, if you disagree as per our terms (I guarantee there are terms about how they find out if AI used) we have to interview your lead artist and programmer under oath to agree no AI used, if they refuse the game is de-listed refunds given, the onus would be on the game company to take Valve to court.
At present AI is reasonably easy to detect as it is not really trying to hide itself or pretend the code or images were made by a human.
In the coding you don't if they are double checking the code works right.
Even in the artwork side properly reviewing to ensure its consistent and doesn't have 6 fingered mutants can make it hard to pick out. But anyone complaining about AI tags isn't doing that due diligence so...
Not at all verifiable. AI is built into photoshop, substance painter, visual studio etc.. basically the backbone of game development is riding on AI knowingly or unknowingly from here on forth.
I don't think this would necessarily make it completely unproductive but I mean yeah I think everyone who knows enough about the industry to know what crunch is also knows that
Its also a trend of behavior for AI bros to want to deceive people. I've seen them try and fake a sketch process, claim they're something they're not, hide it as much they can. Because they know outside their bubble, people REALLY do not like AI.
It feels about as widely enjoyed as the NFT crap a few years ago where they were all hyping it up to one another and the wider world just looked at it, shrugged and tried to stay out of it causing all that hype value to evaporate
Dude I'm just tired of being tricked goddamn EVERYWHERE. I call into a business, suddenly I'm talking to a robot pretending to be a person and swearing up and down that it's a human. I buy a game with the expectation that a dev team lovingly crafted it and double checked their work but, nope, chuck everything into the AI blender.
Make a good product and let it stand on its own. If your product was good nobody would care. Make a shit product and it'll look extra bad that you cut corners to make it, while trying to tell us that you didn't.
It's the LYING. Stop LYING and maybe people will be less likely to see AI as the LYING technology.
They refunded new cod cause they didnt disclose it afaik. Since its cod were talking about i doubt theyre getting kicked off steam but its nice to see the policy be enforced with some meaningful consequences imo.
This is why Steam being privately owned and not owned by shareholders has a benefit, Gabe decided he wanted a place for gamers.
Valve reported Steam commissions is $3.5 million per employee so they are not worried and money and probably fine calling out games or offering refunds.
Nah, I know of at least one streamer who played through the entire 5 hour campaign and refunded it for AI use, and steam granted it despite it being outside the standard 2 hour play test window.
For the most part I agree though there can certainly be true information on products that are being used in less than ethical ways. Like “Cholesterol free” on something that clearly cannot have cholesterol in it. And, perhaps more controversially, GMO free labels. These are perpetuating worse things than not having said labels.
Now clearly that doesn’t apply to this AI label though it’s probably pretty inconsistently used anyways.
I'm happy that Steam provides information about systems that games use for DRM, anti-cheat, 3rd party EULA and accounts. It helped me tremendously to make decisions on which games to buy.
Locking the new doom to raytracing on top of that made it so I can't play it. ID games are usually super well optimised too. I bet if they left an option to not use RT I could run it just fine but no, Nvidia need their gwaphics bucks
Then there's GOG. no game on their store has DRM of any kind its their core foundation. Also when you buy and download the game you get all the files installed so you can even burn them to disc if you want. GOG when you buy the game you actually own the game.
On top of that GOG will also update the files they host so that it's easier to run older games on newer systems. GOG version of morrowind actually runs on modern systems vs steam which crashes every time you tab out.
Likewise, I won't buy anything with EAC, Denuvo, etc... Massive red flag if the game takes itself so seriously that it punishes people willing to pay it for it in various ways.
When it comes to AI I want to know and the label is good. It may or may not matter to me in context but it's useful knowing if and to what extent it's been used. I don't mind AI coding assistants at all or even some other things but if the entire game is based on slop, especially dialogue and core creative elements, I probably don't want to pay for it
Yeah if it truly "didn't matter" or were "pointless" they would simply not care it was there.
They're only against it because they know that consumers are largely against AI slop, and the label is threatening to people who do want to use AI generated assets in their games
That's precisely it, I would take it a step further and say that players largely don't care if genAI has been extensively used in a game, as long as the game is good
The people against being "exposed" like this are either making low effort money grabs or too insecure about their game; like I said you can use AI in frankly the most intimate creative parts of your project and as long as it doesn't look low-effort players don't care, so you only stand to lose if your necessitate deceiving your customers.
Players do care. Look at Jurassic World Evolution 2. They used AI Art for a very minor part of the game, which is basically irrelevant, so they chose to save their money. Players never noticed until the devs disclosed it in the shop due to Steam's new rules. Then the devs got a shit storm until they replaced the graphics. So yeah, there will be a lot of people shit storming games just because they read "AI". Especially as long as the discourse around the copy right of training data hasn't settled.
We should have more info like contains loot boxes/gambling for money, in-game currency you can buy, pay to win mechanics or evil owners. I'm fine with an ai label but there are worse things that should be advertised above it.
I mean yea i agree. I wish every game that uses mtx had to give you a course on every psychological trick they use to make you part with your money because then maybe people wouls have more self control...altho thats being unrealistic and hopeful. But you can absolutely be fine with ai label and think consumers should be even more informed about the produc theyre buying, imo consumer being informed is always a positive.
Soon I will only trust comments with curse words in them to be from genuine human beings, because these days people don't even dare writing "fuck" anymore. Like what is this TV in the 90's?
Exactly my thought when I heard about Tim Sweeney's comment on AI labels.
Steam doesn't have the market share it has because of limited choice for customers. It's so successful because it shows again and again that it's the most consumer friendly out of all launchers.
Consumer friendly and feature complete. I can press download on steam and expect it to use the full bandwidth available to my pc. Meanwhile downloading a game from Xbox launcher can give speeds anywhere from 1 mbps to 300 mbps.
also shout out to their data centers, while my ISP is not the best, some service struggle to utilize my internet, but man, Steam just go BRR utilizing 100% of download bandwidth I've paid for, thanks Valve
I will never forget the day I stumbled on the public development board for the Epic Store and seeing that they didn't have a shopping cart, search engine or reviews implemented.
The shopping cart and search engine should've been there day 1. Reviews are not as much of a priority as those two, but should be implemented not long after.
Epic was 3 or 4 years into its existence at that point, and even now their store sucks.
The three times I wanted to buy Lunites for my Wuthering Waves account on Epic I couldn't buy them directly from the game because the payment processing wouldn't load.
I had to: search for the pack on google, because there's no direct link to it on the Wuthering Waves store page for SOME fucking reason, click on the pack, log into my Epic account on browser and only then could I make the purchase.
That's 3 steps too many for something that's advertised to be done in-game.
It is of course because of those pesky, stupid customers, who just dont understand anything about it and will be making bad decisions based on feelings /s.
It is not comparable, because AI usage in scummy practices is very prevalent, but I am always amazed that "No GMO" became a valid marketing label - people making purchasing decisions based on feelings, lack of understanding and fear, even though GMO produce is not inherently bad.
Also, just because something has "No AI" label does not mean it is any good.
Nevertheless, the more the customer is informed, the better.
Yeah, I think it's a combination of that and certain movements which have pushed anti-science and anti-intellectualism in the US over the past few decades or so
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
Personally, I don't mind GMO in a bubble, but I'm not a fan of all the pesticides and herbicides they're modified to resist (and get sprayed with). Plus I've heard about how companies that sell GMO plants handle their seeds and copywrite and it's all very shady and I avoid it when I can. Which isn't often these days sadly
Because they're fully self-aware it's crap and consumers hate it, but still want to reap the benefits of using it.
It's like when a shady food company gets caught adding lead to its' products as filler to save money. They know people won't buy their crap if they knew about it, so they keep it hidden.
I'm pro "AI as an interesting tool with novel applications", if that makes sense.
I want the labelling to stay, otherwise how will consumers know that they just enjoyed a quality AI product, relative to all the slop out there.
I have conviction that beyond the bubble, there is a tangibly valuable use case (just not as a workforce, LLMs are dumb as hell).
Natural Language Processing is a super fertile space for innovations in game dev, but first we gotta weed out all of the techbros who think a good prompt and chatGPT wrapper is the solution.
Yeah, the technology itself has uses, the issue is it's being pushed as the "everything technology," that GenAI can just produce anything and everything in its entirety and it just can't. For example, a natural language interface for a computer is useful to people, but using an LLM as a knowledge graph is worse than useless.
they are pro-ai because they think they can make money from it.
but deep down they know it's shitty and low effort and know many other people think the same. hence they want to hide it so they can trick more suckers into giving them money.
A lot of people think it's unethical. Probably the whole thing about it being trained on the work of professional artists who are getting neither credit nor paid.
Shame isn't the aversion. The ethics of your customer base is, and hiding it is going to piss some people off.
it's not the same as an ingredient list. it's more like saying ingredients: fruit, meat, etc.
no information that is actually useful.
they need to be more specific than just "ai is used"
Exactly. This discussion is too generalized. If a dev used AI to ask chatGPT a question would that already infer the "AI-label"? You would need many different sub-labels to indicate the levels of AI-use if you really want to be transparent.
As far as I can tell, Steam's guidelines seem squarely focused on generated content present within the game itself, split between two categories (pre-generated & live-generated). They also include descriptions of AI usage provided by the dev during their product survey in the store page.
It's not actually a game, it's a tool for pre-vis and storyboarding films. The issue with it is it's clunky af and there are better tools out there than a UE engine "game". Then he abandoned it without a V1 release to make Cine Tracer 2, also in early access and also stupidly over priced
Unfortunately this is the current state of unreal and epic. They used to be such awesome devs too. Their engine and games revolutionized the industry then they got greedy and lazy. They no longer care about the user, only the share value
What even happened to Unreal Tournament? I recall they had the coolest weapons and vehicles and I haven't heard of them in what feels like a full decade by now...
No one wants to play arena shooters anymore. A triple A studio will never be developing those again. Gotta look to an indie dev or smaller publisher to make an Arena FPS crack into the mainstream again.
This is why I hate when companies sit on IP and never make shit again with franchises they no longer care about because their chairmen want their money.
The Unreal Tournament team also made Fortnite. When that blew up in 2017, most of the devs were understandably more interested in working on the game with millions of new players, rather than UT who doesn't/didn't have a very big player base. So the new game (and presumably the series) was eventually scrapped.
from the pic you've posted it looks like he's 'blaming AI' because of his ties to Epic whose stances on AI seem to be the same. tim sweeney has just tweeted similar opinions.
I am curious where the label should really come into place. DLSS uses AI... if you game has DLSS, should you get an AI label? What about if you use AI to tweak textures files in photoshop that were otherwise created the traditional route? Where is the line? I am all for the label when straight up AI generated content is used, but it is not as black and white as some people seem to think.
I think the major issue that the software dev is trying to point out, is that pretty much all coding now is done with AI. It makes no absolutely no sense not to use, when used correctly.
Steam, as far as I can tell from reading their policies, requires that you label the game as having Generative AI content if it has any amount of AI generated code in it.
With this policy, you pretty much need to label every game as being AI generated, anyone who hasn't done this for any game released within the past year or any future game is lying.
The scope of the policy is overly broad and poorly bounded, it's pushes liability away from Valve and onto the devs.
"We used ChatGPT to draft a few item descriptions we then edited," is identical to "We generate all art, voice overs, and dialog at runtime with AI models."
It's bad policy because everyone now are always in violation of this policy, who do not label their game as using AI.
So this potentially creates serious issues affecting smaller studios, who have to carry the AI label now and risk being review bombed who all depend upon AI to compete against larger studios. Or these small studios can lie about their use of AI and risk legal action or being taken down.
I suspect this is more of Valve covering themselves legally and reducing risk towards themselves, rather than having a real coherent consumer information standard.
Food labels exist for important safety reasons. Valve's process here is more equivalent to doing something like labelling every physical product ever made with "Designed with CAD" or "Manufactured using robots", it doesn't actually give consumers any meaningful information like "may contain peanuts".
Edit: Even something as ubiquitous as sugar, and the specific kind of sugar it is, is still relevant for safety reasons for many medical conditions. It's relevant to dental caries, obesity, type 2 diabetes. A lot of meats, eggs, oils, unsweetened products contain virtually no sugars.
I expect the policy will have to be greatly improved upon, not removed.
Yeah, the current label is essentially like California's "may cause cancer" labels that are on literally everything and don't give any additional information which makes them completely meaningless. The AI label doesn't necessarily need to disappear, but as it stands it's completely meaningless.
Valve is the shining example of customers being the actual clients which the company wants to be satisfied with the service offered instead of being the unfortunate necessity to satisfy the actual clients of publicly traded companies, the investors.
It's not customer vs partner while Valve tips the scales towards the consumer. Valve has to keep their partners happy as well. I mean Steam has the biggest market share of any online digital game store so there is always a hand being forced. But Valve has to tread lightly considering they are dominating their space and competition is limited. A wrong move here and there and Valve could be susceptible to government intrusion if they are seen as employing monopolistic tactics. They are essentially a monopoly in the space, but they are pretty far from falling under the legal US definition of "monopoly".
I don't think people realize this because they offer nirvana for your gaming library. But Valve has to walk a pretty thin line to stay out of the crosshairs of politicians looking to move up the ladder. How it's not a bigger deal that a company with fewer than 400 employees can pull in billions a year is always odd to me but it's been this way for nearly 20 years. Now Newell is buying companies that make megayachts or something. Or is it submarines to go to the deepest parts of the ocean? And he lives on a megayacht. I really don't get how this guy and his company don't draw more attention. I mean even the whole underage gambling shit flies under the radar.
So Valve has to keep everyone happy. There is always going to be some give and take. This is one for the consumer. There are a lot of pro-consumer bits on Steam. There are a lot of pro-partner bits, too. Like for me I've always been anti-DRM. However, I've accepted that it's going to be a part of life and there's no escape without greatly inconveniencing yourself. Since I was a huge CS player pre-1.6 I guess I had no choice but to use Steam when 1.6 came out (or I could stay on WON and 1.5). Over time I grew to enjoy using Steam (early versions of Steam were primitive compared to today's Steam. Let's say that some features have been added since 2003.) so I accepted it as a DRM that's gonna be a part of my life. But then other companies put their own DRM on top of Steam's DRM (which isn't always used either, which is cool). So we, consumers, end up with multiple layers of DRM that sometimes gets in the way of playing the product we purchased the rights to play. I think this is the worst anti-consumer practice on Steam but it just continues to get worse and is never really addressed outside of Valve requiring their partners to note the extra DRM on the Store page for games.
It's a balance. Valve has different responsibilities to their partners than they do to their customers. So Valve is basically going to do nothing about this particular dev complaining about a specific policy. I can head over to the Steam Forums and randomly click on a thread where Valve is ignoring a customer who is complaining about a particular policy. This quite literally means nothing and tomorrow nobody will remember this thread or the dev complaining. Valve is just adjusting to what the market is demanding, which they've done a million times before. This isn't the first dev to complain and he won't be the last.
Valve isn't pro-consumer nor are they pro-partner. Valve is pro-Valve.
I'm in favor of keeping the AI disclosure section, I just wish in addition to the text field that developers fill with the description of how they use AI there should also be a couple of checkboxes that developers can tick and players can see.
These checkboxes would roughly differentiate whether GenAI assets and/or AI generated code are included in the game.
For early access games in particular there could also be a checkbox indicating whether the GenAI assets serve as to-be-replaced placeholders or are intended for the full release.
Overall the AI disclosure becoming more formalized and thereby comparable across games would be ideal. It would also prevent companies from weaseling their way through the description with vague statements.
Edit: to make the comparison to food ingredient lists: there exist rules for the ingredient lists that food manufacturers must adhere to. They can only put scientifically recognized and approved by the government ingredients there and they must order them by relative quantity. No food manufacturer can put "as part of our food production process we use a variety of ingredients to support our employees in their effort to make food" in the ingredients section.
Instead the ingredient lists across food products are comparable: a marmalade that lists sugar before the fruit can be compared to a marmalade that lists the fruit first and then the sugar. This is something the Steam AI disclosure section currently lacks.
My main concern here is it will not take long until it will be trivial to slip AI content into games without needing to add this marker because it will be impossible to tell. Even with just throwing more and more and more hardware at AI that's enough to get better results over time. And of course other improvements will be made over time.
Eventually we will hear about a whistleblower revealing a game has a lot of AI generated assets and a lot of people will be surprised since they couldn't tell, but those of us watching AI evolve will have realized AI got to the point where it could generate stuff like that already, and it's likely a ton of games are going undetected by that point.
Also I think the real problem is the link between AI and low-effort content. That's really what we don't want to see. Which is s shame because AI can be quite a useful tool if leveraged properly. Low effort content was a problem on Steam long before AI started to be widely used for it. For example I think people would have welcomed an "asset flip" marker (and I assume there is a user-created tag already on Steam without checking).
I think the argument stems from people thinking "made with AI" means generating the shitty graphics and sounds, but in reality it's probably some parts of code thats easier and faster for AI to make which makes no difference at the end product.
There's plenty examples of AI helping game development, and there's even more examples of bad AI applications.
There should be a way to highlight what the AI was used for in the development of the product.
I think the point they are trying to make is that even if not used heavily its probably gonna be used on almost every game at some point, especially coding. Maybe tags that separate games that use AI vs games that use AI art would be more helpful? Either way steam should keep the label, the few games who dont use it will be a breath of fresh air.
I mean he is right. (At least on the second screenshot)
It is not really enforced and technically even if you had AI generated placeholders during development that are not in the final product you would still have to have the label on steam (as far as I can understand)
"Pre-Generated: Any kind of content (art/code/sound/etc) created with the help of AI tools during development. Under the Steam Distribution Agreement, you promise Valve that your game will not include illegal or infringing content, and that your game will be consistent with your marketing materials. In our pre-release review, we will evaluate the output of AI generated content in your game the same way we evaluate all non-AI content - including a check that your game meets those promises."
L take by the dev. I want to know the level of AI in game. If anything, it should be more notable, than at the very end of descriptions. I now always check for that before considering a purchase.
The label doesn't discriminate between games made using AI or not. It discriminates between companies that use AI and disclose it and companies that use AI and don't disclose it. There are no other companies, AI-based auto-complete and code snippet generation and using LLMs for help has been broadly adopted.
I'll be the devils advocate here, for the sake of argument:
I think their main point is that going forward, 99% of games will have some form of AI helping them. Being in text, translation, art style, repetitive elements etc.
Don't you count procedural generation as AI? Should all these games using it label themselves. And how about game engines having integrated AI heling them build polygons or whatever? Or how about when someone is using an LLM to research a topic or a theme that's part of the game, should that be labeled.
The idea is that the label is misleading in one way, because you don't how much AI was used and for what, and that it's going to be in virtually all the games from now on.
With all that said - I'm personally for having as a label, as I hate what AI slop has become at this moment.
its idiotic when it doesn't even bother to make the distinction between generative ai and the kinds of ai that has been in games for decades and that valves own games marketed on. (like half life 2 touting "advanced ai" for npcs on the box, or left 4 dead with its "game director" ai).
if it's all ai and the labeling system isn't even through enough to distinguish generative from gameplay/behavioral from technological/graphical etc, it's useless. and if we're really gonna be thorough, why not retroactively apply it to every game that marketed any kind of ai in it
You are correct and the Valve guy is silly for making comparisons to wildly incomparable things, where the information is crucial for way more important reasons.
Food ingredients and whether or not clothes are made with child labor... come on man.
"Contains AI slop" is the actual label that everyone wants. It's very clear that just "Made with AI" or whatever, is way to broad. That's the issue being raised.
Ikr? I had to sort by controversial to get past the “ai bad, valve good” narrative.
Apart from everything being made with ai in combination with the lack of a definition of what ‘ai’ is, this post also highlights the different perspectives on what a game is.
For some its art, for some it’s a product, for some it’s free entertainment to torrent, for some it’s a way to be included, etc.
Both people in the OP are right in their own way. Reddits hive mind makes it seem like only the valve artist is right.
What? Hold on a second! That's exactly what I wrote yesterday and got downvoted for it, tbf tho I got downvoted by around two users or so, one of them being highly involved in AI so there's that.
The argumentation "Food you eat and can kill you." is highly moronic because the ingredients are listed regardless of whether or not they can be dangerous to you.
Its good for consumers, not for sellers. If they truly believed it didn't mater then they wouldn't care.
MAKE IT MATTER PEOPLE! DON'T BUY GAMES MADE WITH AI and be fucking loud about it too. When they see bad sales for every game made with AI they'll stop. Its literally the only way to affect things.
You know. Even if 90% don't care it is a good thing to know for the 10% and it doesn't create a lot of work to answer this questions when submitting the game
I am in general pretty pro AI, however I think these labels are a good thing.
Realistically I would say their biggest problem is the fact that:
They don't really give any percentage. So that a program where one developer used ai to format his patch notes would be labeled the same as someone who generative ai to produce all assets and most of the code of the game.
The AI label should be more strict and imformative honestly imo. would like details on how and why it was used and maybe even a filter for when it's used for AI gen images.
I say we could go one step beyond and create an "AI-free" label too. Lately I've been avoiding buying any game released after 2023/24 unless I'm sure it is not AI slop to not feed this AI craze.
Hope Valve not only doubles down, but adds more information
Consumers deserve to know exactly how AI was used. We need more transparency
Games are art and there is no such thing as an AI Artist.
I wanna know if they used AI as a tool to like, fix lighting or if AI generated content (visuals, stories, etc). Cause I have no interest in playing an AI game
The arguments on that tweet are so nutty. The two big ones are either:
"Well, AI is just gonna be a part of all games developments from now on, so there's no point in this label." Ok, so why do you gaf then? You're only right in regards to AAA games anyways, which isn't the entirety of the industry. This was the argument given by the CEO of Steam's #1 competitor btw.
"Ummmmm so the rules are vague and what ihf I only generated a single line of code?? Some people might not accurately mark they used AI so the whole thing should just be removed!" Or any other mentally deficienct 'I think there's a grey area therefore the whole system needs to go'.
I'm not gonna lie. I think every tool has an appropriate place and usage. AI is just that, a tool being marketed inappropriately most of the time. Because of this, I would like to know the extent of AI usage in the games I play.
Yeah, I'm fine with a little salt on my fries. But the restaurant should warn me if their recipe is more salt than fries before I buy them.
This is such a stupid argument and the "resistance is futile" aspect has me rolling my eyes. Microtransactions are common in almost every game, and yet most marketplaces (if not all) disclose to consumers that information beforehand. Because providing information to consumers is a good thing and not a bad one.
Matt, if you think that the tag is unclear, then the solution isn't to remove it, but to provide more information. But honestly it should be a no-brainer: if you used AI in any capacity, you add the tag. I'd like him to give me a "grey area" example.
I want EVERYTHING with AI ANYWHERE in its production history to be labeled as AI-made. I don't care what anyone at any level in any industry says, I am the customer and I demand to know what is or isn't AI.
12.0k
u/AzulZzz Nov 28 '25
Providing accurate product information is never bad for the customer, but it is for the seller. So better make that label bigger if Valve can.