- cross-posted to:
- steam@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- steam@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/39480859
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney opposes Steam’s “Made with AI” label for games, arguing AI involvement is inevitable in future development and such tags are unnecessary outside art and licensing contexts. He emphasizes that mandatory AI disclosures for games are impractical and not meaningful for consumers.
You must log in or # to comment.
If AI was so great and such a good business move they would be asking for this tag. Instead they produce slop without paying anyone so they can keep more profit and complain about being labeled as exactly what they are.
This is literally what the phrase “the customer is always right” is about.
If you’re a company that sells red widgets, but the customers want blue widgets, then you should sell blue widgets or perish.
The customers have made it clear they want a made with AI label. Even if Tim is right(unlikely) and all future development will use AI, it just means that all games will have the tag. If the customers want it, it should be there.
Oh Timmy boy, those AI disclosures mean a lot to people who actually give a shit about wanting good games and don’t want to destroy the environment. But considering your greasiness is enough to power every McDonald’s, you are going to try to squeeze through some loophole. Aren’t you?
Sweeney, as always, is turning a nugget of truth into the most offensive thing possible.
Line-by-line autocomplete when coding is fine. It’s helpful. That’s what he’s sort-of trying to say, no that it needed saying.
Selling vibe coded, SEO’d AI slop on storefronts is not fine. That is obviously what the Steam tag is for, and railing against that is so out-of-touch, it’s… unreal.
He’s the same with EGS. “A store with a 30% fee and a price-dictating monopoly is not ideal” is a simple message to agree with. Yet somehow he’s turned that into radioactive sludge.
He’s the same with EGS. “A store with a 30% fee and a price-dictating monopoly is not ideal” is a simple message to agree with. Yet somehow he’s turned that into radioactive sludge.
The somehow:
- Creating EGS for the benefit of the seller, not the consumer
- Lower fees are pocketed by the publisher
- No public reviews
- No forums or workshop equivalent
- Refusing to add warning labels about things people care about (DRM, AI generation, etc.)
- Failing to benefit small games
- Poor on-platform discoverability for games
- Using anti-consumer tactics to drive adoption
- Paying third-party devs for permanent exclusivity
- Paying third-party devs for timed exclusivity
- Paying influencers to push narratives that “steam bad for you, Epic good”
Lower fees are pocketed by the publisher
To be fair, they can’t price below Steam. That’s the problem.
The rest of it is a tire fire, yeah. It doesn’t have to be steam, but basic tagging + reviews would’ve gone a long way.
- Creating EGS for the benefit of the seller, not the consumer
If it’s without weight then let people have it, what’s the difference?
But it does have weight, doesn’t it? It does influence sales, doesn’t it?!
how is this just not manufactured obfuscation between “ the entire game is made with AI “ and “ I consulted gpt or vscode’s intellisense because I could not remember how to do a bubble sort or the syntax to an iteratable’s stream… “?
Was ZZT made with AI? Was Jill of the Jungle?
Would they be today?
“has agreed”?
It probibly should be a sliding scale from purist no ai was used, to ai assistance in programming, to genritive ai is used throughout, to hot slop. But if there is a label that says there is AI it could mean slop or the inturn used ai to flesh out a menu in a game file.
“Coke says they shouldn’t have to disclose sugar content because every other soda has sugar too.”
