Valve Clarifies its Stance on AI-generated Game Content

[T0@st]

Last week a small-time developer (who releases titles on Steam) kicked up a lot of fuss about AI-generated content being banned, blocked or removed by Valve. They claim that their game has been rejected repeatedly by Steamworks supervisors due to the presence of "fairly obviously AI-generated" material. The incensed dev took to the r/aigamedev subbreddit to chronicle their experience, and share how their latest and greatest "waifu" mini-game got blocked for a second time (for not owning the necessary rights): "It took them over a week to provide this verdict, while previous games I've released have been approved within a day or two, so it seems like Valve doesn't really have a standard approach to AI generated games yet, and I've seen several games up that even explicitly mention the use of AI. But at the moment at least, they seem wary, and not willing to publish AI generated content, so I guess for any other devs on here, be wary of that. I'll try itch.io and see if they have any issues with AI generated games."

Eurogamer has contacted Valve about this matter, and a company spokesperson responded, albeit with the caveat that Steam's policy on AI-generated content is still a "work in progress." They stated: "Our priority, as always, is to try to ship as many of the titles we receive as we can," but the process is further complicated by not knowing whether the developer has "sufficient rights in using AI to create assets, including images, text, and music." There are many legal grey areas when dealing with this type of content: "it is the developer's responsibility to make sure they have the appropriate rights to ship their game."



Valve's statement continued: "We know it is a constantly evolving tech, and our goal is not to discourage the use of it on Steam; instead, we're working through how to integrate it into our already-existing review policies. Stated plainly, our review process is a reflection of current copyright law and policies, not an added layer of our opinion. As these laws and policies evolve over time, so will our process." The publisher "welcomes and encourages innovation" on its distribution platform and understands that artificial intelligence assistance will play a larger role in the future of game creation, but: "while developers can use these AI technologies in their work with appropriate commercial licences...(they) can not infringe on existing copyrights." They concluded: "Lastly, while App-submission credits are usually non-refundable, we're more than happy to offer them in these cases as we continue to work on our review process."

AI-generated content—not only within the games industry—is a hot topic at the moment and larger outfits have been quick to defend their utilization of related tools. Cyan Worlds faced backlash from parts of its fanbase, following the discovery of "AI Assisted Content" in Firmament—the veteran team recently released a lengthy response to this criticism. They detailed how AI systems were used to modify character voices, generate textures and flesh out bodies of text—and refuted the view that the entirety of Firmament was produced by non-human entities.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[ZoneDymo]

They stated: "Our priority, as always, is to try to ship as many of the titles we receive as we can,"

which is why Steam is so ffing full of pure waste.

 

[Double-Click]

And to that dev I say I'll give my money to humans who make their own content thankyouverymuch.

 

[progste]

Good, keep your AI trash away from me.

 

[Recus]

Assassin's Creed, F1, NBA, FIFA games are procedurally generated. I don't see a problem to use AI for it.

 

[R-T-B]

And to that dev I say I'll give my money to humans who make their own content thankyouverymuch.

Yes, we only pay for digital waifus made by real homosapiens here.

 

[evernessince]

They stated: "Our priority, as always, is to try to ship as many of the titles we receive as we can,"

which is why Steam is so ffing full of pure waste.

Can't say it's really a problem. Steam provides enough tools to tailor what you see, whether that be search filters and just improving upon the automated suggestions.

I'd much rather a platform try to include all games than arbitrarily exclude them based on perceived quality. I'll pass on a platform that only allows AAA games, that would be generic and boring.

 

[LabRat 891]

AFAIK, there isn't a right answer on this issue; and IMHO, there never will be.

Even though Valve's trying to moderate/address the issue, this (and policies like it) will quickly devolve into 'excusatory gatekeeping'. Meaning, someone or something at the end of the day is going to be declaring what is and isn't AI-generated. Considering that genuine Human Artists are already being accused of using AI, even when they show the process of making the piece, this isn't going to end well (and fast).

Maybe, if we're lucky 'AI' will 'ruin things' before our worst nightmares become real

 

[mclaren85]

Why would AI be regarded as a bad thing anyway?

 

[LabRat 891]

Why would AI be regarded as a bad thing anyway?

I await a (legit, and informative) rant from one of our especially up-to-speed users. To call AI 'disruptive' is an understatement.

 

[user556]

Valve are requiring the authors to declare ownership of the copyrights, or have a licence for it. They aren't making a call on the use of so called AI.

 

[Tahagomizer]

Why would AI be regarded as a bad thing anyway?

You're probably going to see a lengthy and fanatical-sounding rant about "content creation" being a part of "human identity" of something, from someone blissfully unaware, or unwilling to admit, that most of music, movies and other media churned out by corporations is already made with generative software. AI is still just a buzzword, there in no "I" in it for now. Just advanced generative algorithms fully controlled by humans.
Personally I think such tools are astonishing in lowering the barrier of entry. I have an idea for a game - one which I don't want to publish, just a learning experience -, and generative tools enable me to minimize the cost. I can do myself what would require spending a lot of money and hiring several people just a few years ago. People with good ideas and no money can realize their vision and don't have to compromise the quality to achieve higher marketability since their investment is much lower.

 

[R-T-B]

Why would AI be regarded as a bad thing anyway?

tl;dr: It puts legit artists out of work, and worse yet, often references public art they made as source material for training. So kind of a an iffy legal and ethical ball of wax in general.

You're probably going to see a lengthy and fanatical-sounding rant about "content creation" being a part of "human identity" of something, from someone blissfully unaware, or unwilling to admit, that most of music, movies and other media churned out by corporations is already made with generative software. AI is still just a buzzword, there in no "I" in it for now. Just advanced generative algorithms fully controlled by humans.
Personally I think such tools are astonishing in lowering the barrier of entry. I have an idea for a game - one which I don't want to publish, just a learning experience -, and generative tools enable me to minimize the cost. I can do myself what would require spending a lot of money and hiring several people just a few years ago. People with good ideas and no money can realize their vision and don't have to compromise the quality to achieve higher marketability since their investment is much lower.

nah it doesn't take a rant to explain the base issue dude, I just did it in a oneliner.

 

[Tahagomizer]

tl;dr: It puts legit artists out of work, and worse yet, often references public art they made as source material for training. So kind of a an iffy legal and ethical ball of wax in general.


nah it doesn't take a rant to explain the base issue dude, I just did it in a oneliner.

You didn't explain, just stated an obvious advantage as a disadvantage. Lower cost is great for people who don't have venture capital behind them. Legal issues will be fixed by greedy corporations just paying politicians, ahem, lobbying for them to look the other way. Ethical woes are easily soothed by money. In the short-to-mid term it will be great, then the negative feedback of generative networks increasingly training on their own work will create a lot of problems and, consequently, a lot of good science trying to fix them.
When low quality mass market garbage became the norm, people creating bespoke items became a lot more successful. IKEA is selling cheap cardboard trash but many people concluded they want something better and, at least where I live, I've seen an increase in the number of small companies building custom, good quality furniture.

 

[R-T-B]

obvious advantage

It puts legit artists out of work

I think you need to explain this as an "obvious advantage" because it's anything but obvious here, and that's coming from someone who might've benefitted from AI. I still don't see it.

I was a game developer whose game failed largely due to being unable to pay artists but I didn't blame the artists for it. People have a right to jobs they enjoy. Job replacement is not an advantage at all. And yes, it can do the same thing to coders.

Relevant website I hang onto:

https://glacialsoftware.net

 

[JoeTheDestroyer]

Valve are requiring the authors to declare ownership of the copyrights, or have a licence for it. They aren't making a call on the use of so called AI.

This.

By law, Valve needs permission from the copyright holders to distribute (sell) a game. The game developers own the copyrights to anything they have created (code, etc).

But there are huge questions about who owns the copyright to AI-generated media, that lawyers and politicians are still working through, and probably will be for decades.

It's seems entirely reasonable to me that Valve doesn't want to take the risk.

 

[Tahagomizer]

I think you need to explain this as an "obvious advantage" because it's anything but obvious here, and that's coming from someone who might've benefitted from AI. I still don't see it.

I was a game developer whose game failed largely due to being unable to pay artists but I didn't blame the artists for it. People have a right to jobs they enjoy. Job replacement is not an advantage at all. And yes, it can do the same thing to coders.

Relevant website I hang onto:

https://glacialsoftware.net

The obvious advantage I see here in a lower barrier to entry for a lot of people who want to start in gamedev, for example. With the only option being hiring expensive artists one might not be able to do anything at all, with the option of creating something usable cheaply one might create a viable product, get into the market and maybe the next time use the income stream to pay an artist to create something of higher quality. "AI" creates opportunity when there was none.

The "people have a right to jobs they enjoy" seems to be a misguided sentiment. There is no objective entity bestowing a "right" to do anything. You can do whatever you want, just know that some things might not generate financial reward. I used the furniture example for a reason, availability of mass produced low quality rubbish allowed talented people to show that there's a better way and grow a market for higher quality furniture. I myself did exactly that, seeing the quality of mass produced "furniture" I looked for a local manufacturer and got something much better.

That's how I see the "AI" generated things, at least for now. They're good enough for most situations - honestly, which consumer would distinguish if another superhero mass market movie was written by a three year old using a crayon, AI, or a focus group and pencil pushers? - but if quality is a main concern, maybe look somewhere else.

 

[R-T-B]

The "people have a right to jobs they enjoy" seems to be a misguided sentiment.

Ah, that's where I massively disagree. If your life is not fullfilling what is it? You have your priorities backwards IMO, but of course on an opinionated matter like this disagreements are not unusual and you have every right to your view.