- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Well it’s not like they could stop it.
I do appreciate them at least sitting around and thinking for a second on what to do. The legal landscape on this is till murky. Steam could have opened themselves up to needing mass refunds or even possible payouts to copyright holders if the AI generation produces copyright content.
Sure they can. Just set a tiger trap.
What does that mean here?
That this announcement is bait.
They realised how much money they would get.
Bunch of greedy monopolistic bastards.
You can argue a monopoly only where there are both an active actual monopoly and when there are anti competitive practices in place.
Steam doesn’t do anti competitive, their 30% cut is actually a deal when you consider how much you get in comparison to Epic or Gog, who both take 30% but both offer considerably less. Valve doesn’t push for exclusives the way Epic does and valve doesn’t do anything to make you not able to publish to other stores at all.
Their edge is that they offer a better service for the same price.
I don’t like Epic at all, but they have a 88/12 revenue split, not 70/30
That’s only if you’re using Unreal, it’s 70/30 if you’re not using UE.
Edit, I’m wrong, sorry, the other user is right
Forcing people to download their service for physical media isn’t anti-competitive? Or is that only when it’s Ubisoft or EA?
…that’s how DRM works yeah, and I’m guess you don’t actually know what anti competitive is because that’s not it buddy. You’re conflating two things that are very seperate topics. You can argue about it as it’s own thing, but that’s not anti competitive
Not all content on Steam has DRM either so at worst you need an account and the client initially.
Steam killed off brick and mortar stores for PC games. If that’s not anti-competitive then I don’t know what is.
I guess you don’t know what is, lol
You’re just too far gone to realise.
No? I just don’t think you actually understand what it means. You’re attaching ideas to something that doesn’t fit the ACTUAL definition. You don’t just get to change the definition of things and then say it’s someone else who doesn’t get it.
Being competitive is not the say as being anti competitive, lol.
I don’t think I agree. Steam is a distribution service and it’s up to the publisher to decide if they’re going to use AI in their design. The use of AI content is so wide and applicable to gaming from the code to art to marketing etc that it’s absolutely unavoidable that large publishers will decide to use it.
Starting
in 5 yearstoday, every major game studio will be looking to use AI to cut costs, and if steam blocks this content, they’ll be left behind quickly. What happens when Unreal, Unity and even GameMaker or Godot are utilising AI generation (or aren’t but Adobe already is and their programs are used in many parts of game design already). Do steam block 90% of major and minor developers? What happens when a game is made without AI in an engine that was made with it, or marketed with buzzwords from a language model.Any distributor who blocks AI generated content is embracing rapid obsolescence. Hell, any publisher who makes a lot of money from independent developers such as Sony will be risking becoming obselete by outlawing AI, as many of their developers would likely end up using AI and moving to other publisher’s as contracts ended. P
Sadly these companies are competing with other companies who are willing to do whatever it takes to make the most money. As a distributor, if the publishers is using AI, they need to permit it or die, as the publisher, the same goes for the developers, for the developer, the same goes for them to the game engine developers, or the art software, or the presentation software in their development strategy briefings. If remaining competitive is part of your companies goal, which it probably is, then you basically need to let AI into your production wherever it shows itself as more convenient or die.
