21–30 of 420 posts
This seems utterly impossible to enforce. You really going to guarantee that your design firm didn't use AI to generate the assets?
Where do they draw the line? What about DLSS? Doesn't any game using that have "AI generated graphics"? I guess their email wording focused specifically on assets. Does that mean if you don't pre-bake assets in as artifacts, you're fine?
No one is ever going to accuse DLSS of creating new art works containing some other legal entity's existing IP for example, its literally just a (very clever) upscaling of the original art. If it did, it would presumably render the game being upscaled almost unplayable as it would be changing the output to a state unrecognizable from the input frame.
This seems utterly impossible to enforce. You really going to guarantee that your design firm didn't use AI to generate the assets?
Yes, people will work around it, and some will slip through the cracks. That doesn't mean it's a useless policy with no impact.
I'd wait for more information before making any assumptions about what Valve is doing here. So often these stories here are lacking context due to only one side trying to paint the situation in a very one-sided light.
Valve is quite clear about their reasoning. Since AI models use all kind of sources for their training, they don't want those assets on their platform because they are afraid of copyright claims.
"Valve is not willing to publish games with AI generated content anymore"
Your title changes the meaning- they didn't ban games afaict.
It's also a misleading post, as it's specifically GenAI where authors can't prove or don't have rights to content.
If you use ProcGen etc or have full rights to the data used, I can't imagine there would be any issues.
This seems utterly impossible to enforce. You really going to guarantee that your design firm didn't use AI to generate the assets?
Steam says "we don't allow AI content".
Someone shoves AI content on the platform anyways.
If it can be proved they violated the TOS, they then have the ability to nuke their game and stop someone from suing them. If they can't prove it, well they can't prove it and the game stays.
To do otherwise opens up the door to steam having to "vet" all the AI content. So yes AI content will slip through (in massive droves) but it will be indy scene.
The biggest impact here is going to be AAA devs who can't just neglect to mention they used AI at some point. This is actually the first thing that could "kill" steam or give Epic a competitive advantage. There's 0 doubt that companies like EA/Activision/whatever want to jump all over AI to make yearly releases like FIFA even cheaper, and if Epic is willing to say "come on over" we might see epic exclusivity for that reason alone, rather than the current "here's a pile of money to make up for all the sales you'll miss out on when no one remembers your game released"
Where do they draw the line? What about DLSS? Doesn't any game using that have "AI generated graphics"? I guess their email wording focused specifically on assets. Does that mean if you don't pre-bake assets in as artifacts, you're fine?
DLSS is trained on the games themselves no?
Where do they draw the line? What about DLSS? Doesn't any game using that have "AI generated graphics"? I guess their email wording focused specifically on assets. Does that mean if you don't pre-bake assets in as artifacts, you're fine?
DLSS is trained on the games themselves no?
Strong disapprove. Artificially attempting to slow progress just creates a massive power disparity for those who do not care.
Why do you think Valve is just trying to slow progress? Don't they win when people on their store win?
It seems more likely to me that this is CYA against the major lawsuits that are happening right now from copyright holders.