Is it one of those “play the whole main story and then focus on the side content” situations or “Save the final mission for later because its a proper ending” situations?

Its mostly just that I want a Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim with a sci-fi setting. A solid story, lots of side-quests, and a dynamic world that reacts to the player. I’d probably enjoy a modern metropolitan criminal setting as well for an RPG like GTA’s settings but Elder-Scrolls/3D-Fallout gameplay but you never see that at all.

Space is cool though.

I wish there were more new sci-fi RPGs of that quality.

I do hear CP2077 is good now and I keep meaning to play it.

TBH I’ll probably end up enjoying Starfield once I get around to trying it as well.

First, thanks for elaborating. I welcome the challenge to my views, but now I need to counter.

they shouldn’t be advocating for copyright, i.e. don’t base your whole business model hypocrisy. “Copyright for ther but not for me”.

I never suggested that they are advocating for copyright. Utilizing the rules of a system to get ahead doesn’t mean you actively advocate for it. That said, I somewhat agree, if a small indie dev was using gen AI and then however gets litigious over people pirating their game that indicates a ruthlessness that is significantly unpalatable and I certainly would not support them. I’d view them as extremely petty and stupid to the point that the potential hypocrisy almost comes second to me though.

I do believe generative AI to be copying rather than learning, unlike humans.

I don’t see a difference. There is nothing intrinsically special about a human’s learning methods that can’t be replicated by computer systems. Even if the current generative AI methodologies wasn’t exactly the same process, that is immaterial. If I created a humanoid robot that learned to physically paint based on paintings I showed it, would that be merely “copying” instead of learning?

What if they came out with neurological enhancement implants to human brains that sped up the process of humans learning how to do art to the point that they also could trivially replicate other artist’s styles?

The difference is purely in economic consequences. In both of my questioning examples producing art becomes economically trivial, that’s the problem. The meta-physical question of whether its “art” or whether only humans are truly creative is all cope and gibberish.

The third paragraph tries to put a class barrier on good morals. Let’s assume that is true. I’d argue that anyone that has the time and money to start their own venture into game development also is quite “comfortable” and should therefore be measured by the same stick.

This is all relative/subjective and I largely just disagree. I think this is an easy position to hold if you’ve already “made it” so to speak. It comes off as someone rich tut tuting someone poorer than them for “taking shortcuts” and saying “Look, you have a computer, smart phone, a microwave! You should be happy with what you have and just work harder if you want more.”

“Good morals” is also extremely subjective. When it comes to meta-ethics, I only care about consequences, not about the virtue of individuals. Virtue only matters in my personal relationships.

Most open source is created by people in their spare time. They mostly have full time jobs to do as well, the collaboration is done for fun or as a calling to do good for the world.

Having spare time and energy to contribute to open source is a privilege in today’s society regardless of how it is achieved. You can argue that in our time of abundance this should not be the case but unfortunately it is.

Again though, I don’t view this as a negative on the part of people who contribute to open source. I strongly support such people and hope at some point I’ve reached a point in my life that I can do the same.

Perhaps you could elaborate on why?

I don’t agree with the scolds who claim that every GenAI use is immoral by default, but I do think that the tech itself when applied within capitalist practices is immoral as it’s meant to deskill and disenfranchise workers.

All capitalist practices are immoral in functionally the same way. Capitalism works to use worker exploitation but also use of the commons for private gain. Generative AI is now part of the commons that capitalists will inevitably use for profit. The fight over worker disenfranchisement in this case was functionally instantly lost the moment generative AI became usable at all.

Anyway, any defense you can make for your “little indie game” can be made by mega-corporations using GenAI just as well.

They already do and are going to regardless. In fact, using Generative AI will likely become functionally mandatory given a capitalist market system. If you take on labor costs that other firms don’t, then you will not be able to compete. This applies to big corporations and small indie devs already. A company wont abstain from Gen AI if their competition wont and all it takes is one company to start using Gen AI.

A person working to make profit might not actually believe in copyrights. Nor hold any ideological kinship with the system they exist in.

Further, virtually all resources to do anything originated in “the commons” and the sort of person who’s trying to produce a game as their means of making money probably are just trying to get away from a miserable 9 to 5 (or not live under a bridge).

People who work and give away their shit for free are good people, but they are also usually people who are financially comfortable already. Its not right to dictate what resources some individual game dev is trying to use to make a living off their work.