General Game Chat

[Maniakkid25]

So someone is taking the absolute piss out of the Steam Store. Like, moreso than usual, which is impressive given the shit that clogs up that storefront. See, someone has released a game that is fully AI. Well, it's not AI-coded (that we know of), but all its art assets and voice work is AI generated, and I wouldn't be surprised if the script isn't AI generated as well.

That game is Kryonull, and while any other time this would be just another day on Steam, this game is selling for 100 dollars. Oh, no, that wasn't a typo; ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS for an AI-slop game. And here I was calling Big Rigs a rip-off at $6! It's a freaking Visual Novel, bro; that would be a rip-off at a fifth of that price! Hell, I'd even question buying it at 10 bucks! It's crap like this that just shows Steam does not give a single fuck about its storefront. As long as the cash rolls in, they'll let you sell whatever you want.

[Moonface]

Well so far it hasn't got a single review, which hopefully indicates nobody has bothered to buy it. I also love how they have the gall to say "Original 1920x1080 background art for Europa, the under-ice ocean, laboratories, orbit, and mission-critical scenes" as if AI generated slop has any originality to it, and the screenshot of what I assume is meant to be a drill going into the ice but it's at the completely wrong angle.
I can't find it now, but this reminded me of a video I saw of someone scrolling through the upcoming games list on Steam, and using an extension to highlight any game that was disclosing AI use. The result was probably more than half the games on the list being highlighted, and keep in mind that's just the games that actually admitted to using it.

[Maniakkid25]

Given the consequences of not disclosing AI usage include getting your game ripped off the storefront and banned for life as a developer, if anything, we are seeing people be overly cautious about disclosing AI. See, you only need to disclose AI usage if it would affect the consumer experience. If you, say, as an example, used it in generating the concept art that would later be used to design the world by actual humans, you don't need to disclose that. But, because the threat is so big (even with the deluge of games, gaining any traction on Steam is VERY lucrative given the amount of cash that flows through it), people will disclose ANYTHING that might be even remotely relevant, which means that they show up on thay plugin as "using AI".

The solution to this dilemma? Doing the one thing customers never do: READING! If you see a game you like has a disclaimer, you need to actually READ the disclaimer, and decide if that's overstepping a boundary. This is going to take effort, and there will be hardliners that say "any AI usage is unacceptable", but most people are gonna have a little leeway. For example, the example I gave wouldn't be overstepping in my personal opinion. Different people are going to have different opinions. But this is going to take -- god forbid -- actual effort to determine this.

[Moonface]

Ah, I didn't realize that there could be cases where AI is being used for something that is an aid to the developers but not actually used for the final game that is being admitted to for fear of it resulting in a ban for not disclosing AI use, even though technically it isn't in the game.

For me I'm in a similar boat to you about AI being used for the development process but not being in the final product. The new Tomb Raider game is doing something like that where the developers are using AI to generate rough assets quickly to test puzzles or other stuff in the game, and anything that they feel works well for the game will then be created from scratch by hand, so that time isn't spent making assets from scratch that end up being cut because they don't work out. Given the high costs and time for making games nowadays, that's actually a use of AI that uses it as a tool to help with something rather than it just doing the whole job.

[Maniakkid25]

Yeah, it's never that simple. In the name of escaping AI, there are going to be some casualties because there isn't a grading system for how much AI is used. It's a binary "Yes/No". I will be the first to say that plugin has good intentions, but there are more uses for AI than just writing the code or creating the actual assets. And, in an abundance of caution, those uses are going to come up. This is why this is going to take effort: you have to actually read the disclosure to make sure it's not crossing the line. Where that line is for you, I don't know -- I barely know where it is for me!

However, with the original game I posted, that is clearly a lazy bastard who didn't do anything, and is charging 100 bones for that shit. It's absurd.

[Moonface]

I don't even understand what their goal is supposed to be with that game in particular. Charging $100 for it, AI or not, is clearly an attempt at getting attention, but what use is that when nobody is going to actually purchase it for that price? I guess they can maybe take claim of being the first game to charge $100 after people were wondering if GTA VI was going to be the first one to do it, but I doubt anyone would reference it if/when we see the first $100 AAA game to "ackchyually" folks who call that the first $100 game. Although even if it was referenced, again, who the fuck is going to look the game up and be convinced to buy it?