Every article tag can be clicked to get a list of all articles in that category. Every article tag also has an RSS feed! You can customize an RSS feed too!
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

With AI generated content continuing to spread everywhere, the itch.io store has made a change to now require AI generated content disclosures.

In the announcement it specifically mentions it's now required for "Asset Creators" meaning developers who provide things like graphics, sounds and more for developers to use in their games. All pages get the option though, so game developers can tag their creations as using or not using AI.

From their updated guidelines:

We recently added the AI Disclosure feature. You will have time to review and update your pages accordingly, but we are strictly enforcing disclosure for all game asset pages due to legal ambiguity around rights associated with Generative AI content. Failure to tag your asset page may result in delisting.

Valve made a similar move for Steam back in early January.

This is a good change, because the store is getting flooded with it. Doing a quick search today, and keep in mind this is only those that are correctly tagged, showed 1,214 assets on itch.io that were made using some form of AI generation versus 13,536 now tagged as not using AI generation.

A number of game developers have updated their itch.io pages too, with it showing 337 made using AI generation at time of writing.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Itch.io, Misc
10 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly checked on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly.
See more from me
14 comments
Page: «2/2
  Go to:

kokoko3k about 9 hours ago
[quote=yellow]
Quoting: kokoko3kSomething puzzles me.
The game engine does not make the game for you.

Sure, I never stated it does.
Ehvis about 8 hours ago
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: yellowThe game engine does not make the game for you. The game engine provides a foundation and some building blocks for you, but you still have to know how to put them together and program the game itself. Not to mention creating all of the assets for the game. This is all hard, very time consuming work. Not even using premade assets will spare you from the work it takes to create a high-quality, functioning game. There is a reason asset flips are so easy to spot, and there is a reason why almost nobody plays them.

This does kind of sit at the core of why customers should be wary of AI.

The hardest thing of game development is not programming, but game design. This is why indies can outshine AAA studios with a hundred million budget. Designing interesting engaging gameplay is not a trivial task. I know, I've tried and I've been unable to get above mediocrity.

In parallel you can see that in graphics art design is the core of what makes things visually appealing. No amount of fidelity can make your art look good if the design of the visuals as a whole is not on point. For obvious reasons I've been playing Half-Life 2 again and it's shocking how easy it is to get immersed in that game. Even though models aren't super detailed and texture resolution is very low, you look past it because the design of everything is so good.

Both of these design aspects require careful thought and planning to execute well. This is something AI simply can't do. Even though the "I" is in the name, there is nothing intelligent about it. It's just an algorithm that spits out patterns based on the patterns it was trained on. It does not have any capacity for thought and reason and can't design anything. And honestly, I don't see that changing in the future because they'll run into physical limits of current computer technology well before closing the gap between the ability of skilled people.

Of course publishers would really like to use AI generated graphics because it would be cheap and be beneficial to their bottom line. But as a consumer you should really think twice whether you want to support this development because it's not going to make future games any better. So disclosure help me choose the path I want to support.
Eike about 8 hours ago
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: kokoko3kSomething puzzles me.

...because some time ago, when I expressed my concerns about the extensive and almost exclusive use of game engines like Unity and Unreal, the most frequent response was that it was fine because it allowed anyone, even those who didn’t know how to program, to develop games.
The engine takes care of the programming to a certain extent, you add the graphics and audio, and everyone is happy.

Now, the extensive use of AI for image generation seems to be perceived differently, but the principle remains the same: you handle the programming and audio while paying relatively little attention to the graphical aspect, yet... not everyone is happy.

I want to spend my time with something a human has made. I want to somehow "interact" with that human (these humans). I want to consume art, and I don't feel a generation tool can produce something that has earned the term "art" - even if I probably cannot tell the difference in many cases! -, because it cannot "talk" to me about life.

Yes, you could create art with help of AI probably. I'd always search for the mistakes AI makes, spoiling the fun.

BTW, I just played Stray. Wow.
kokoko3k about 5 hours ago
Quoting: Eike
Quoting: kokoko3kSomething puzzles me.

...because some time ago, when I expressed my concerns about the extensive and almost exclusive use of game engines like Unity and Unreal, the most frequent response was that it was fine because it allowed anyone, even those who didn’t know how to program, to develop games.
The engine takes care of the programming to a certain extent, you add the graphics and audio, and everyone is happy.

Now, the extensive use of AI for image generation seems to be perceived differently, but the principle remains the same: you handle the programming and audio while paying relatively little attention to the graphical aspect, yet... not everyone is happy.

I want to spend my time with something a human has made. I want to somehow "interact" with that human (these humans). I want to consume art, and I don't feel a generation tool can produce something that has earned the term "art" - even if I probably cannot tell the difference in many cases! -, because it cannot "talk" to me about life.

Yes, you could create art with help of AI probably. I'd always search for the mistakes AI makes, spoiling the fun.

BTW, I just played Stray. Wow.

Don't get me wrong,
I don't like it either, and I totally agree with you.
I also think that programming itself is an art as well; I spend time and have a lot of fun just watching demos from scene.org or browsing shadertoy, so the more the use of a single game engine, the less the fun for me.
There is also the "issue" that most games made with the same engine has a fingerprint probably due to the reuse of stock shaders (mainly Unreal).

I've have to admit that procedurally generated levels put myself on the borderline :)
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
Login / Register


Or login with...
Sign in with Steam Sign in with Google
Social logins require cookies to stay logged in.