Valve now allows the "vast majority" of AI-powered games on Steam(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Valve now allows the "vast majority" of AI-powered games on Steam
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/01/valve-most-games-made-with-ai-tools-are-now-welcome-on-steam/
62 comments
Steam's basically already flooded with low quality games, but the recommendation systems (human and otherwise) seem to do a decent job at dealing with it.
Steam already has issues with fake reviews and other scams. I doubt they'll manage to clean them up any better when there's a sudden flood of garbage to take down and within minutes after a bad actor gets banned they can create a new account and publish a new "game"
True. Perhaps it will end up not quite as bad as it could be for the lowly consumer, but for game developers who do put in the effort instead of focusing on store visibility tricks it will inevitably get even worse than it already is. Remember when the YouTube suggestion bar wasn't dominated by impossible photo edits, cleavage and/or that shocked face? Me neither.
YouTube's fine for me mostly, unless logged out which is a nightmare.
I think that games are a medium where it's a lot harder to flood a store with garbage, since you've got to go through and actually make the game. There are plenty of shovelware games on Steam already but they're using marketplace content that's been created by real humans for game systems. If you're going to make some shovelware garbage you've got to put a lot of work in - game systems, saving, loading, achievements - and every game costs you the Steam creator fee. Also, 3D model generation isn't up to scratch yet, so it's only going to work on 2D elements.
My game has a few elements which I used AI for, but I don't think that it's particularly obvious which. Here's a screenshot: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yM_3Ih40breLznsqy7wrA0y7_iF...
My game has a few elements which I used AI for, but I don't think that it's particularly obvious which. Here's a screenshot: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yM_3Ih40breLznsqy7wrA0y7_iF...
Not really.
See: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03/a-dev-trained-robots-...
In this article a developer made a completely automatic game generator for Android. A terrible slot machine game with graphics pulled from an image search, generated names, sound is text-to-speech, etc... Even the application process was automated. In the end, they published 1500 apps at a rate of 15/day, the maximum allowed by the Play Store. They are now all dead, but in the meantime, they made $50k.
In this article a developer made a completely automatic game generator for Android. A terrible slot machine game with graphics pulled from an image search, generated names, sound is text-to-speech, etc... Even the application process was automated. In the end, they published 1500 apps at a rate of 15/day, the maximum allowed by the Play Store. They are now all dead, but in the meantime, they made $50k.
Hmm this sound like a bad deal for that developer. Looks more like a performance art than business plan. The amount of work needed to automate all that stuff probably took more than a few months for only 50k income.
Would this be any worse with generative AI though? You'd just be replacing the images from Google with images from Stable Diffusion. You couldn't let AI generate the code for it because you'd have to actually check that it successfully compiles.
I admire your optimism. Look at the iOS App Store to see heaps and heaps of trash games. Even without any “AI” support.
"I think that games are a medium where it's a lot harder to flood a store with garbage, since you've got to go through and actually make the game."
Have you not seen mobile app stores?
Have you not seen mobile app stores?
> I think that games are a medium where it's a lot harder to flood a store with garbage, since you've got to go through and actually make the game.
That was only true before you could tell an AI to make a game for you while having zero programing skills, zero artistic skills, and zero writing skills. The better AI game generators get at creating whole games from nothing more than descriptions the worse things will get.
That was only true before you could tell an AI to make a game for you while having zero programing skills, zero artistic skills, and zero writing skills. The better AI game generators get at creating whole games from nothing more than descriptions the worse things will get.
You couldn't make an entire game without those skills. In 10-20 years? Maybe. But at the moment unless you know how to code you'll have a million compiler errors and no game as the LLM hallucinates half the engine functions and gives you a ton of unconnected code which you can't put together. It's the same with the artistic skills, unless you know some artistic basics you're going to end up with art that clashes so badly (different styles, different themes etc) that people will be put off just by a screenshot.
You could use AI to make entire games without those skills at least three years ago!
Here's one from 2022 https://andrewmayne.com/2022/03/17/building-games-and-apps-e...
Here's another: https://nitter.cz/ammaar/status/1635754631228952576?lang=en
sites like this show where things are heading: https://www.rosebud.ai/ai-game-creator
Here's one from 2022 https://andrewmayne.com/2022/03/17/building-games-and-apps-e...
Here's another: https://nitter.cz/ammaar/status/1635754631228952576?lang=en
sites like this show where things are heading: https://www.rosebud.ai/ai-game-creator
I'm not too impressed with these examples. I mean it's impressive that it can build code, but it's a very long way off building entire games that you'd want to play.
The human still has to provide the creative input - the concept of the game, the rules, and multiple steps of guidance to get anywhere (when it works).
The code is sometimes generated correctly, but only if a) it's fairly trivial and b) the model can generalise from something else it's seen. There's squillions of maze examples out there so models build slight variations on this easily enough, but as soon as you inject some originality, the model flounders.
The human still has to provide the creative input - the concept of the game, the rules, and multiple steps of guidance to get anywhere (when it works).
The code is sometimes generated correctly, but only if a) it's fairly trivial and b) the model can generalise from something else it's seen. There's squillions of maze examples out there so models build slight variations on this easily enough, but as soon as you inject some originality, the model flounders.
Try something more recent:
https://www.techspot.com/news/100718-someone-created-video-g...
Play it yourself here: https://bestaiprompts.art/angry-pumpkins/index.html
This is exactly the kind of crap I expect to see on steam
https://www.techspot.com/news/100718-someone-created-video-g...
Play it yourself here: https://bestaiprompts.art/angry-pumpkins/index.html
This is exactly the kind of crap I expect to see on steam
He had to know how to code to tell it what to fix and diagnose what the errors were and it sounds like it was more arduous than simply writing it himself, so while technically it was entirely written by ChatGPT it still seems like it's not going to make a big difference in the short term - it wasn't just "ChatGPT, write me an Angry Birds clone".
> steam is going to be flooded with massive amounts of games that are nothing more than AI generated trash.
How is this different than the floods of human generated trash that shows up from time?
How is this different than the floods of human generated trash that shows up from time?
Massively higher potential output. It's the difference between sending spam e-mails out by hand and having a bot do it.
Output will not be much higher compared to the Unity store's asset flips. AI still gives you less types of content compared to Unity store (which provides you with whole game mechanics/features/scenarios that you can use). AI will lower barrier a little more - you will not need to buy a lot of resource packs anymore to finish a game.
The only thing that will change is that it will be little harder to detect if the game is just asset flip or something more.
The only thing that will change is that it will be little harder to detect if the game is just asset flip or something more.
This still translates into being a worse state of affairs for the store, and for the consumers who now have to contend with more scams that are harder to detect before pressing "buy".
I never had problem on Steam to find good games. Steam also very rarely recommends something really bad.
Not sure how it is implemented but for now crappy games are not even visible on the main page (even on the new games list or soon to release list), you need to expand those sections to really see every game.
Not sure how it is implemented but for now crappy games are not even visible on the main page (even on the new games list or soon to release list), you need to expand those sections to really see every game.
Steam's refund policy makes this a non-issue. It takes way less than 2 hours to figure out you have a bad game.
It certainly helps a lot, but I wouldn't call it a non-issue. It deteriorates the user experience. From the scammer's point of view, with a low barrier to entry, they don't need very many people to fall for it before some number of them will fail to get a refund for whatever reason.
Even if literally nobody loses money, it's adding noise to signal.
Even if literally nobody loses money, it's adding noise to signal.
The volume, I'd presume.
Steam is already filled with low quality games, without any AI. But they're mostly either unremarkable clones or one-off shitposts made as a reaction to something, not "low-effort trash to get rich quick". This scheme doesn't make much sense on Steam which is organized like a ladder where games compete for attention, unlike the books on Amazon which is flat in structure, and your low-effort garbage can pass for a legitimate book at first and is guaranteed to attract someone.
Cheap AI-generated features will fill every game, of course. It's inevitable and will soon pass, just like every trend - bloom shaders, piss filters, cloning minecraft and battle royale, etc. Some of it will stay, like hiding the lack of developer-hours behind the low-res pixelart. Some of it will be even good!
Cheap AI-generated features will fill every game, of course. It's inevitable and will soon pass, just like every trend - bloom shaders, piss filters, cloning minecraft and battle royale, etc. Some of it will stay, like hiding the lack of developer-hours behind the low-res pixelart. Some of it will be even good!
Steam is basically a monopoly, thus it's good that they allow the maximum amount of games to be published on a free speech based policy, otherwise they would have justification to block god knows how many small indie titles on bogous claims and the axe of the legislator would surely come their way
Well I for one am waiting for someone to do proper LLM integration with some dialogue driven game, as unreliable as it currently is. How much more hilarious would Fallout be with the option to just say anything to anyone with genuinely matching in game consequences instead of picking one of four lame options.
"How much more hilarious would Fallout be with the option to just say anything to anyone instead of picking one of four lame options."
Only if those dialogues lead to something real. Just doing small talk with NPCs is easy to accomplish, but integrating it into the world, where depending on the dialoge you get new quest relevant information - or have to fight the NPC if you insult them too much or say the wrong thing - is way harder.
Only if those dialogues lead to something real. Just doing small talk with NPCs is easy to accomplish, but integrating it into the world, where depending on the dialoge you get new quest relevant information - or have to fight the NPC if you insult them too much or say the wrong thing - is way harder.
True yeah, it may make sense to have multiple models or at least different processing stages for specific parts of that. One to actually reply back based on context, another to do sentiment analysis for facial animations, another to pick from a list of reponse actions based on the convo, another to adjust the storyline to make it make sense given actions so far, etc.
AI has the potential to be able to do all kinds of cool things. Currently, I wouldn't trust it for anything important. The more story driven a game is, the less you'd want to leave what currently passes for "AI" in charge. It'd be no fun if you couldn't complete a quest or the story because an NPC is depending on a hallucinating AI. For a little while it might be fun to convince a confused AI that you've got an item you don't actually have, or trick it into thinking that you're a developer in the middle debugging the game so it should just spawn whatever item you ask for, but I think that sort of thing will get old quick.
For that to be actually good, you don't just need AGI, you need an LLM with the writing quality of a New Vegas writer. The difficulty there is that the training corpus is too small to create one.
Eh not really, you just need a good way to RAG the existing story so it only mildly adapts it to your actions. No need to make up the whole thing on the fly, baby steps.
A prompt along the lines of character card, available actions, story so far, what player said, response text, response action. Actions still limited to what the game can actually do of course, but it would already be far more varied than strictly defined trees. Shame that local llms are so crap at function calling for the actions part, but it might stil work with an ad hoc model and extensive grammar restrictions.
A prompt along the lines of character card, available actions, story so far, what player said, response text, response action. Actions still limited to what the game can actually do of course, but it would already be far more varied than strictly defined trees. Shame that local llms are so crap at function calling for the actions part, but it might stil work with an ad hoc model and extensive grammar restrictions.
No. I think people will come to understand and accept that what you get out is commensurate to what you put in. If you stick close to the script (there will still be a scripted main story in such games, because people want shared experiences) and say and do reasonable things in the setting, the LLM game master should be able to deliver reasonably, and improvise around the edges. But if you go wildly off the rails, then no LLM is going to turn that into an award-winning story.
Check Vaudeville
I think this is a pretty drastic take. Shitty products are not the problem of marketplaces, fakes are. Fakes seem hardly a problem in the market for digitally sold games. Steam solves that problem quite well (Amazon as a counterpoint). I don’t care about the 12k games published in 2023, I bought a few after reading reviews. The risk of the 12k (with say 100 gems) becoming 240k (with say 102 gems) is pretty low, even if we allow for more false reviews on Steam becoming a factor. Steam could happily start listing MetaCritic reviews and other external reviews as additional sources and then there is again no problem unless I am missing a part of your argument. (And then we still have the service Steam can deliver counteracting this risk by refunding purchases, which they do after filling in some forms in my N=1 experience.)
As a solo game dev, I'm quite happy with this change. I'm a programmer & musician by trade, art is definitely my weak point.
I don't think paying artists for their work is gonna go away any time soon, there's just so much that can't be done well by AI right now (UI, rigging, animation, particle effects). However I think allowing AI assets will enable many new types of games to be financially viable. Yes, that will include low effort asset flips, but I think it will also include unique games made by developers with a powerful, singular vision.
I don't think paying artists for their work is gonna go away any time soon, there's just so much that can't be done well by AI right now (UI, rigging, animation, particle effects). However I think allowing AI assets will enable many new types of games to be financially viable. Yes, that will include low effort asset flips, but I think it will also include unique games made by developers with a powerful, singular vision.
How do you justify using AI for your game art? I have thought about this, and couldn't justify it. I also know that I hold on to morals almost to a stubborn degree.
So instead I recently started learning Blender, texturing, drawing and while it takes time to get to where I want, I'm passionate enough to learn the craft instead of "cheating", as I unfortunately see it.
EDIT: To add, I don't put games which revolve around AI as a mechanic to this same category. They're a new thing and they're cool for exploring the frontiers.
So instead I recently started learning Blender, texturing, drawing and while it takes time to get to where I want, I'm passionate enough to learn the craft instead of "cheating", as I unfortunately see it.
EDIT: To add, I don't put games which revolve around AI as a mechanic to this same category. They're a new thing and they're cool for exploring the frontiers.
> "cheating", as I unfortunately see it.
This is the product of the time. I'm old enough to remember digital painting, 3D CGI, and digital matte painting/photobashing being fought and ridiculed as cheating or impure. Not old enough to remember this about cameras, audio recording, and synths, but you can be sure they also were met with this.
> I recently started learning Blender, texturing, drawing
You make the end result, not the tool. Your message and rigorous execution is what matters. Of course you'll need the skill in visual arts and enough discipline for the attention to detail to be able to make something worthy, the tool alone won't supply all that for you, but diving into the established area helps a lot. As well as having the message to tell.
And of course you won't be able to create anything interesting using AI alone, just yet - it doesn't pass the quality bar, you'll be using it as a shortcut in certain steps.
This is the product of the time. I'm old enough to remember digital painting, 3D CGI, and digital matte painting/photobashing being fought and ridiculed as cheating or impure. Not old enough to remember this about cameras, audio recording, and synths, but you can be sure they also were met with this.
> I recently started learning Blender, texturing, drawing
You make the end result, not the tool. Your message and rigorous execution is what matters. Of course you'll need the skill in visual arts and enough discipline for the attention to detail to be able to make something worthy, the tool alone won't supply all that for you, but diving into the established area helps a lot. As well as having the message to tell.
And of course you won't be able to create anything interesting using AI alone, just yet - it doesn't pass the quality bar, you'll be using it as a shortcut in certain steps.
> This is the product of the time. I'm old enough to remember digital painting, 3D CGI, and digital matte painting/photobashing being fought and ridiculed as cheating or impure. Not old enough to remember this about cameras, audio recording, and synths, but you can be sure they also were met with this.
Very good point, thanks. I need to think on this more.
Very good point, thanks. I need to think on this more.
I don't think it's as black and white as that. I'm not looking to take shortcuts, I'm looking to use the tools at my disposal to make a game that couldn't be otherwise possible.
On that note, the plan is to make certain icons & portraits on my own, in a consistent artstyle that's easy enough for me. Some assets will be purchased from traditional asset stores, while critical pieces of artwork such as the Steam capsule art will be commissioned. Chiefly I wanna use image generation for background images & pictures describing events - arguably not that important or up-front, so not a great use of artist time.
On that note, the plan is to make certain icons & portraits on my own, in a consistent artstyle that's easy enough for me. Some assets will be purchased from traditional asset stores, while critical pieces of artwork such as the Steam capsule art will be commissioned. Chiefly I wanna use image generation for background images & pictures describing events - arguably not that important or up-front, so not a great use of artist time.
Yeah I agree that it's not as black as white, that's why I wanted to hear your justification for using it, to maybe update my thinking on it. And your use case definitely is one that is easier to justify in my brain than others perhaps.
How is
> How do you justify using AI for your game art? I have thought about this, and couldn't justify it. I also know that I hold on to morals almost to a stubborn degree.
different from
> How do you justify using Blender for your game art? I have thought about this, and couldn't justify it. I also know that I hold on to morals almost to a stubborn degree.
Aside from a vague implication that it is immoral to use an AI tool instead of <some other tool> to generate your own game art?
> How do you justify using AI for your game art? I have thought about this, and couldn't justify it. I also know that I hold on to morals almost to a stubborn degree.
different from
> How do you justify using Blender for your game art? I have thought about this, and couldn't justify it. I also know that I hold on to morals almost to a stubborn degree.
Aside from a vague implication that it is immoral to use an AI tool instead of <some other tool> to generate your own game art?
I've thought about this, and it's true Blender allows you to take a lot of shortcuts to be creative, like displacement based on generated noise. It has made work faster, and probably cut some low paying modeling jobs, because those automated shortcuts it has do things better and faster.
The distinction is that it's a widely accepted tool, and you still need to devote time to learn to use it good enough for you to be able to make satisfying art. It's like a brush for a traditional painter, only in 3d. In another comment below I explained a bit more why I value the amount of work seen in art.
The distinction is that it's a widely accepted tool, and you still need to devote time to learn to use it good enough for you to be able to make satisfying art. It's like a brush for a traditional painter, only in 3d. In another comment below I explained a bit more why I value the amount of work seen in art.
I think an important distinction in good or poor quality AI art is similar to good or poor quality models made in Blender. A modeler can spend hours or days on a model; testing different cuts and resolutions and extrusions etc to get it just right. Similarly, the difference for AI generated assets will come down to how much time the prompt engineer will spend tuning their prompts, looking into different models, possibly training models for specific styles and outcomes, regenerating over and over again to get things just right.
On the other side, you have the modeler who barely sticks six rectangles together as a “human” and the AI art prompter who ships the first image they get back.
To me, neither is a moral issue. They both require using tools effectively.
On the other side, you have the modeler who barely sticks six rectangles together as a “human” and the AI art prompter who ships the first image they get back.
To me, neither is a moral issue. They both require using tools effectively.
For my game I am generating thousands of distinct level elements. I cut them out and rearrange them into level terrain and backgrounds. There is definitely a craft to this kind of work: figuring out what you want, creating the prompts, photoshopping the assets, composing the elements, etc. You could say that I am cheating in the art department, but my role includes the programming, animations, game design, level design, sfx, etc, etc. I justify it because I want to create something great, and AI generated art at least makes that a possibility.
Using tools is cheating? Why would I need to justify it at all?
I see games as an art form, and I see that the creative decisions are in game design, like levels, puzzles, and mechanics but also in the art style. Using AI to skip over the creative process of creating a distinguished art style and assets doesn't appeal to me.
It comes down to the question of how much you value the amount of human work in an art piece. When something is easy to do automagically, it loses some part of its value - to me at least, and I know I'm not alone in this.
Think how easy it is to create renaissance style paintings now with AI. Do you value those as much as the original ones? It's also part of the reason why traditional film photography has started to trend again, because there are people who value the amount of human work that goes into framing and compositing when they can't be easily fixed in post process.
You might think different and it's ok, just wanted to understand your reasoning.
It comes down to the question of how much you value the amount of human work in an art piece. When something is easy to do automagically, it loses some part of its value - to me at least, and I know I'm not alone in this.
Think how easy it is to create renaissance style paintings now with AI. Do you value those as much as the original ones? It's also part of the reason why traditional film photography has started to trend again, because there are people who value the amount of human work that goes into framing and compositing when they can't be easily fixed in post process.
You might think different and it's ok, just wanted to understand your reasoning.
This is an interesting take, I read your earlier message and assumed the morality part was about the "AI generated" artwork being (IMO) a derivation of the unauthorised unpaid use of the copyrighted work of other human artists.
Traditional film photography involved a lot of darkroom tricks! You can definitely reframe a shot with an enlarger, and it's also where "dodging" and "burning" effects/tools got their names. And of course, photography itself has been thought of as cheating - "real artists paint".
I think using tools in general is OK, and we already seem to draw a line between art (the creativity) and craft (technically perfect oil painting) so that seems consistent with mainstream opinion. Using "AI" for stuff currently feels a lot more like curating than making though.
Traditional film photography involved a lot of darkroom tricks! You can definitely reframe a shot with an enlarger, and it's also where "dodging" and "burning" effects/tools got their names. And of course, photography itself has been thought of as cheating - "real artists paint".
I think using tools in general is OK, and we already seem to draw a line between art (the creativity) and craft (technically perfect oil painting) so that seems consistent with mainstream opinion. Using "AI" for stuff currently feels a lot more like curating than making though.
TIL about those darkroom tricks!
Thanks for bringing the distinction between art and craft, it's a good way to rephrase my points. My point indeed is in valuing the craftmanship in addition to the art. And with current AI generators, seeing "AI used" label in a product immediately lowers my expectations towards the craftmanship of that product.
Also I'm building a traditional game with some new mechanics, so knowing that there are shortcuts now to building games like these makes me uneasy, as the craft of what was once appreciated can now be undervalued. Though I probably just need to swallow the truth.
Thanks for bringing the distinction between art and craft, it's a good way to rephrase my points. My point indeed is in valuing the craftmanship in addition to the art. And with current AI generators, seeing "AI used" label in a product immediately lowers my expectations towards the craftmanship of that product.
Also I'm building a traditional game with some new mechanics, so knowing that there are shortcuts now to building games like these makes me uneasy, as the craft of what was once appreciated can now be undervalued. Though I probably just need to swallow the truth.
AI isn't some sort of devil that takes your soul and magically makes your game successful. If you shoehorn AI art into your game without any knowledge of art, you're gonna end up with generic AI art. And if people buy it, then honestly, that's on them.
I think instead of crusading for/against the technology, you should look at what it can/can not do for you and then make a rational decision. For example, I regularly use AI to generate boilerplate. Not because I can't write it myself but because I've done it thousands of times already. On the other hand, I hardly ever use AI when dealing with obscure libs, because it's easier to just read the documentation than trying to debug hallucinations.
I think instead of crusading for/against the technology, you should look at what it can/can not do for you and then make a rational decision. For example, I regularly use AI to generate boilerplate. Not because I can't write it myself but because I've done it thousands of times already. On the other hand, I hardly ever use AI when dealing with obscure libs, because it's easier to just read the documentation than trying to debug hallucinations.
I think that any new tool just changes what's possible. At the start, we're all just rehashing the things we used to make, but faster (and possibly lower quality). This is the part that's scary for current practitioners, because the tools now do something basically for free that used to require a lot of human skill and it devalues our current skill set.
However, at some point there are people who really master the new tool and open up an entirely new range of possibilities because of what it can do. The value of craftsmanship just changes as the tools develop, it doesn't end. I don't know what new things will become possible with AI, but I'm confident that there are people with vision out there who will raise the bar on what can be created now that it's a thing.
However, at some point there are people who really master the new tool and open up an entirely new range of possibilities because of what it can do. The value of craftsmanship just changes as the tools develop, it doesn't end. I don't know what new things will become possible with AI, but I'm confident that there are people with vision out there who will raise the bar on what can be created now that it's a thing.
[deleted]
> Those disclosures will be shared on the Steam store pages for these games, which should help players who want to avoid certain types of AI content. But disclosure will not be sufficient for games that use live-generated AI for "Adult Only Sexual Content," which Valve says it is "unable to release... right now."
Considering it was just yesterday we learned how trivial it can be to "jailbreak" most of the models we have today [1], I can't imagine any possible path forward to allowing AI live-generated sexual content ... pretty much ever.
It'll be literally hours or days from the moment they allow such a thing that we'll learn about the ingenious ways folks are "jailbreaking" game models to enable all manner of rape fantasy, child abuse, and everything in between by simply punching in the LLM equivalent of the Konami code when they're prompted to name their rival Gary (or ... their Charmander ... oh god....)
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38934513
Considering it was just yesterday we learned how trivial it can be to "jailbreak" most of the models we have today [1], I can't imagine any possible path forward to allowing AI live-generated sexual content ... pretty much ever.
It'll be literally hours or days from the moment they allow such a thing that we'll learn about the ingenious ways folks are "jailbreaking" game models to enable all manner of rape fantasy, child abuse, and everything in between by simply punching in the LLM equivalent of the Konami code when they're prompted to name their rival Gary (or ... their Charmander ... oh god....)
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38934513
Yes, and? Are you saying we shouldn’t allow these tools because they will be abused?
Automobiles are used to transport kidnapped kids. Kidnapping kids is bad. But that doesn’t mean we have to restrict autos because of their very rare use for illegal and immoral things.
Automobiles are used to transport kidnapped kids. Kidnapping kids is bad. But that doesn’t mean we have to restrict autos because of their very rare use for illegal and immoral things.
The original announcement from Valve is here: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/d...
Do any of these low quality, asset flip or AI everything games make any money? I suppose it's not the largest effort to make them, but scoring a few bucks here and there from them also doesn't sound like it's worth the time.
The most notorious accounts usually have several hundred of these, so if only a few people accidentally buy each game every month, it should accumulate to a pretty nice passive income. - Especially if you live in a region where $1 buys you a more than here.
Hmm true, I wasn't accounting for doing for immense volume. Makes sense.
I'm glad to see sanity prevailing here. I only hope this doesn't result in a deluge of automated asset flips making it onto the store.
We're one "how to get greenlit on steam using AI" Youtube guide away from that, but I suppose we already were. I doubt Steam could've caught all of those games in the first place.
Well now I can release my VR game on steam. I used elevenlabs.io for text to speech and stable diffusion for unit portraits.
Now that costs and barriers to creating what might at first glance pass as a "game" is nearing zero there's a lot of money to be made if you can trick a enough gamers into buying your low-priced trash titles because you can bet that some percentage of those players won't bother requesting a refund and may not even play the game. I myself have a huge amount of cheap games I've paid for, but haven't gotten around to.
Even developers that won't just be spamming out as many garbage-tier games as possible will probably be using AI extensively. Maybe one day, in the distant future, AI will be good enough that it won't matter and AI could even become a good thing, but in the meantime we should expect steam to become a minefield where every other game on the platform is filled with terrible AI generated graphics, terrible AI writing, and "live" AI features shoehorned in because it's easier than creating actual content and allows for new kinds of data collection.