I vaguely recall hearing that his son had no interest in running the company but that was also years ago. Hopefully whoever is set to take over when he goes shares his exact same views on keeping the company private.
I think if he really wants that plan to shake out he needs to transition ownership while he’s alive. Just dumping it on them with no discussion, no cultural adjustment and no preparation time will cause a lot of problems.
And this is why we shouldn’t rely on steam to be the one and only saviour. GoG and pirating is needed so we can make sure we can enjoy our games in the future.
I don’t think Gabe has any interest in that. He’s so filthy rich, at this point everything is just a hobby paid from change he found under a couch cushion.
I had been playing some Warzone recently because I hate myself, and I had thought some of the cards and banners seemed fucked up, but most of them also look hand drawn (such as the Black History Month loading screen) so I assumed maybe it was just the style, but now I can’t help but think they’re just AI generated.
It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:
Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful
comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and
recommendations:
• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law,
without the need for legislative change.
• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect
the availability of copyright protection for the output.
• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author,
even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there
is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute
authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not
alone provide sufficient control.
• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are
perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination,
or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI-
generated content.
Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.
It doesn’t read like AI to me, but their takeaways about copyright made me think the author had read an AI summary rather than the actual source material.
i agree at first glance, but being confidently incorrect (especially getting the source material correct but drawing a dead wrong conclusion) is sort of a hallmark of the model.
a couple years ago i was pretty good at spotting AI work but it does get harder as time goes on.
I don’t see why this stuff even matters. Like say they fully AI generate a loading screen for their game, and therefore they don’t have copyright on it. That doesn’t stop them from selling the game, it would only stop them from suing someone copying that specific part of the game for their own purposes. But such a person would have no way of knowing whether the image was fully AI generated or not, so even though in actuality they couldn’t be sued successfully, they will still be taking the risk. And there isn’t much reason to anyway that I can think of.
So why would a company like Activision even give a shit?
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by why this stuff matters, but the stuff that you’d be generating with AI for a game wouldn’t be a loading screen or something - it would be assets. Character models, weapons, buildings, textures, voices, that’s the kind of stuff that companies want to generate with AI. Right now, you can buy stock assets to use, and that’s where all the garbage asset flips come from, but companies want to replace employees with software that makes their own assets for them for cheap. Replace the people who make games with software that spits out gacha products. But if they aren’t protected under copyright, then any asset flipper can use your main character - taking the model right from your AAA game - and throw it into their 99-cent asset flip scam, and you can’t do anything about it.
I believe Steam has the policy on AI that they do both because of public opinion about the use of AI (and the way it’s being used to steal from creators) and because AI generated games tend to fall into the same category of outright scams that NFT games do, and games containing NFTs are straight up banned from Steam.
Edit: Going back and reading through the article, I see that they were straight up putting in AI generated images into the game as skins and loading screens and stuff. These also fall under the asset flip thing, especially if they’re so obvious that they have six fingers like the zombie Santa. The same goes for their social media promotional material. You can just straight up use CoD’s ads for your own game and they can’t do anything about it.
People are upset by the use of it because of the poor quality, and, as I said, these companies want to replace the people who make games with software that churns out slop to consume. They think of gamers as pigs at a trough and developers as leeches stealing their hard earned profits.
But if they aren’t protected under copyright, then any asset flipper can use your main character - taking the model right from your AAA game - and throw it into their 99-cent asset flip scam, and you can’t do anything about it.
They could send a DMCA claim and Steam would probably just take it down right? Again, really hard to prove it was 100% AI, and in the case of a full usable 3d character model, with current technology it definitely was not. I guess what I mean by “why it matters” is, it doesn’t seem like it would practically make any difference to how things will go or what will happen.
When it gets to be possible to just about fully autogenerate games, yeah then they might have a reason to wish they could have more copyright.
I believe Steam has the policy on AI that they do both because of public opinion about the use of AI (and the way it’s being used to steal from creators) and because AI generated games tend to fall into the same category of outright scams that NFT games do, and games containing NFTs are straight up banned from Steam.
Games using AI used to be banned from Steam, but they changed it to allow them. Requiring tags seems like a nice compromise.
This sounds like something steam would be willing to do. I have no idea if it is, but adding this feature ALONE will ward off a good bit of it, I’d think.
I was kinda meh about CoD. I stopped after BO2, haven’t had any of them installed or played since it was dead. I didn’t mind its continued existence, but I wasn’t the target anymore.
But now I would guide a predator middle right on their headquarters and feel no guilt.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Steam is a last bastion of integrity. Given the present timeline, it will probably be bought out by EA.
Gabe has stated several times that as long as he is running things he will never go public and let it get ruined like that.
Once he’s gone though I suspect steam will sell for 18 quintillion dollars to Microsoft or something.
It’ll probably go to shit immediately afterwards.
Gonna get bought by Pepsi and you’ll need to drink the Mt dew verification can to launch it every time
hey, if Gabe gets a navy out of it…
Really hoping (He probably does) he has a succession plan in place to prevent that when he’s gone
I vaguely recall hearing that his son had no interest in running the company but that was also years ago. Hopefully whoever is set to take over when he goes shares his exact same views on keeping the company private.
Only time will tell.
Ready player one.
It would be great but we all know that IRL it wouldn’t work and elon would just pay the best player to win it for him.
Isn’t that vaguely what the villain of ready player one does?
Yes but he doesn’t end up getting it in the movie. That’s the part where i don’t think it’s real.
He should give it to the employees collectively.
I think if he really wants that plan to shake out he needs to transition ownership while he’s alive. Just dumping it on them with no discussion, no cultural adjustment and no preparation time will cause a lot of problems.
And this is why we shouldn’t rely on steam to be the one and only saviour. GoG and pirating is needed so we can make sure we can enjoy our games in the future.
The problem with gog, is that it’s owned by CD project red…and they are publicly traded
Gog keeps hitting me with admin access requests when I’m not even doing anything on it. Repeatedly. Until I kill the task. Not a fan.
Because of the DRM free nature of GOG, you do not have to use their GOG Galaxy client.
You could use a different client (like Heroic) or you could just download the games straight from the GOG website.
I don’t think Gabe has any interest in that. He’s so filthy rich, at this point everything is just a hobby paid from change he found under a couch cushion.
Also: EA cannot afford Valve.
I had been playing some Warzone recently because I hate myself, and I had thought some of the cards and banners seemed fucked up, but most of them also look hand drawn (such as the Black History Month loading screen) so I assumed maybe it was just the style, but now I can’t help but think they’re just AI generated.
This is basically completely unrelated to CoD… but…
Halo Infinite released some Juneteenth (a holiday celebrating the end of slavery in the US/ themed cosmetics a year or two back.
The color scheme for armor was named ‘Bonobo’ somewhere in the filename or metadata… which is a monkey.
Oops.
https://kotaku.com/halo-infinite-juneteenth-bonobo-freedom-emblem-nameplat-1849065291
… MegaCorps are not your friend, they’re just doing performative marketing.
Fucking 343. That’s so on-brand it hurts.
llmao
Large Language Model Ass Off?
Just enjoy the acropun and scram punk
Tankie llama, obviously.
Lenin Lectures Mao?
That’s a bit harsh. AI can be a great tool for assisting creativity.
That’s so much worse, wtf? airbrushed slop is fine but using it as inspiration, which good luck proving that, isn’t?
This whole AI thing is fucking cooked.
It’s okay, the author of the article didn’t actually read (or understand) the Copyright Office’s recommendations. They are:
Pretty much everything the article’s author stated is contradicted by the above.
i’m not familiar with windowscentral.com.
what’s the over-under on the article being AI slop too?
It doesn’t read like AI to me, but their takeaways about copyright made me think the author had read an AI summary rather than the actual source material.
i agree at first glance, but being confidently incorrect (especially getting the source material correct but drawing a dead wrong conclusion) is sort of a hallmark of the model.
a couple years ago i was pretty good at spotting AI work but it does get harder as time goes on.
I don’t see why this stuff even matters. Like say they fully AI generate a loading screen for their game, and therefore they don’t have copyright on it. That doesn’t stop them from selling the game, it would only stop them from suing someone copying that specific part of the game for their own purposes. But such a person would have no way of knowing whether the image was fully AI generated or not, so even though in actuality they couldn’t be sued successfully, they will still be taking the risk. And there isn’t much reason to anyway that I can think of.
So why would a company like Activision even give a shit?
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by why this stuff matters, but the stuff that you’d be generating with AI for a game wouldn’t be a loading screen or something - it would be assets. Character models, weapons, buildings, textures, voices, that’s the kind of stuff that companies want to generate with AI. Right now, you can buy stock assets to use, and that’s where all the garbage asset flips come from, but companies want to replace employees with software that makes their own assets for them for cheap. Replace the people who make games with software that spits out gacha products. But if they aren’t protected under copyright, then any asset flipper can use your main character - taking the model right from your AAA game - and throw it into their 99-cent asset flip scam, and you can’t do anything about it.
I believe Steam has the policy on AI that they do both because of public opinion about the use of AI (and the way it’s being used to steal from creators) and because AI generated games tend to fall into the same category of outright scams that NFT games do, and games containing NFTs are straight up banned from Steam.
Edit: Going back and reading through the article, I see that they were straight up putting in AI generated images into the game as skins and loading screens and stuff. These also fall under the asset flip thing, especially if they’re so obvious that they have six fingers like the zombie Santa. The same goes for their social media promotional material. You can just straight up use CoD’s ads for your own game and they can’t do anything about it.
People are upset by the use of it because of the poor quality, and, as I said, these companies want to replace the people who make games with software that churns out slop to consume. They think of gamers as pigs at a trough and developers as leeches stealing their hard earned profits.
They could send a DMCA claim and Steam would probably just take it down right? Again, really hard to prove it was 100% AI, and in the case of a full usable 3d character model, with current technology it definitely was not. I guess what I mean by “why it matters” is, it doesn’t seem like it would practically make any difference to how things will go or what will happen.
When it gets to be possible to just about fully autogenerate games, yeah then they might have a reason to wish they could have more copyright.
Games using AI used to be banned from Steam, but they changed it to allow them. Requiring tags seems like a nice compromise.
I mean, Activision could just lie. I wouldn’t put it past them. And if they get found out blame it on some fall guy.
Probably just fire 1000 employees
Can I key off of this Gen AI disclosure like a tag, and auto hide any games that mention it?
This sounds like something steam would be willing to do. I have no idea if it is, but adding this feature ALONE will ward off a good bit of it, I’d think.
I was kinda meh about CoD. I stopped after BO2, haven’t had any of them installed or played since it was dead. I didn’t mind its continued existence, but I wasn’t the target anymore.
But now I would guide a predator middle right on their headquarters and feel no guilt.