Latest 30 Comments

But I do ask that you don't have the opposite of faith. Like, try not to be determined that we're going to do the wrong thing here.

That is a fair request. Many loud-mouths are whiny critics who assume everything that happens in the world is against them. It's really arrogant to think everyone thinks of you that much. Get over yourself and have faith in others.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: CaldathrasYet, I am not sure this is entirely GOG's fault. Oftentimes, it seems like the developer is slower to update their Linux packages on GOG than they are on Steam.

It's still GOG's fault. Other platforms got to use the Galaxy SDK to handle uploads and updates; Linux builds they had to use manual FTP and wait for it to be approved on GOG's side. They improved the process somewhat after a number of years, but it's still not as good publishing Linux builds as for other platforms.

Steam just has the same build and update pipeline for all platforms.

You would know better than I would. I see your point...

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: MarlockPutting it plainly, you can plug a PC to a TV since forever, and all PC games are playable on a typical PC setup (monitor+kbd+mouse on a desk)... but a TV usually means a couch or bed instead of a desk and kbd+mouse doesn't really work on a couch or bed.

If the Steam Machine is meant to compete with consoles, then it's essential that Valve pressures for controller support in its games catalog to improve.

Just to be cheeky, if "forever" is about 25 years, then yea. In those early days, connecting to the TV was not seamless and it was frustrating to have a widescreen TV but only be able to get 4:3 resolutions on it. But, HDMI greatly improved the situation.

Have to say, though, that "kbd+mouse doesn't really work on a couch" was not the case for me. I set the keyboard and mouse up with extension cords on a wooden TV tray and had a great time (I've never been all that comfortable with controllers). Now, I game on a laptop. My comfort level with controllers is likely to change too, as I find they seem to help with the vertigo.

My spouse would never have tolerated my gaming in bed, LoL.

In all seriousness, though, I think that Valve really is targeting the Steam Machine as a console not a desktop PC.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: CaldathrasYet, I am not sure this is entirely GOG's fault. Oftentimes, it seems like the developer is slower to update their Linux packages on GOG than they are on Steam.

It's still GOG's fault. Other platforms got to use the Galaxy SDK to handle uploads and updates; Linux builds they had to use manual FTP and wait for it to be approved on GOG's side. They improved the process somewhat after a number of years, but it's still not as good publishing Linux builds as for other platforms.

Steam just has the same build and update pipeline for all platforms.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: LoftyI think the sandboxing would require an appimage software center that you check box 'sandbox' and it automatically firejails the application.

I'd have to check but I think that AM / AppMan (AppImage Package Manager) can do this. It is CLI rather than GUI, however. Perhaps @Bestia can verify.

Quoting: BestiaI'm using AM

(Just to catch @Bestia's attention.)

i suppose some distros could ship this out of the box and integrate that into the system. But at this point i think Flatpak has the mind share. A GUI is kind of essential i think for mass adoption.

Thanks for the software suggestion.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: LoftyI think the sandboxing would require an appimage software center that you check box 'sandbox' and it automatically firejails the application.

I'd have to check but I think that AM / AppMan (AppImage Package Manager) can do this. It is CLI rather than GUI, however. Perhaps @Bestia can verify.

Quoting: BestiaI'm using AM

(Just to catch @Bestia's attention.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: Cyba.CowboyI'm not obsessed with the GOG.com like seemingly everyone else; but I'd love to see more games natively supporting Linux (there's a heck of a lot of games in my Steam library that support Linux natively, with no Linux package under GOG.com).

I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with GOG but I do prefer having their offline installers instead of depending on the Steam client. Still, I find myself considering Steam for any game running in Linux natively just because the Linux packages tend to be more up-to-date and better supported (what with the Linux runtimes and all).

Yet, I am not sure this is entirely GOG's fault. Oftentimes, it seems like the developer is slower to update their Linux packages on GOG than they are on Steam. It would be lovely if GOG could find a way to copy the Linux runtimes idea and make them work with their offline installers. A guy can dream...

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: LoftyThere is no perfect solution tbf. But i do prefer the system of flapak and it's easy configuration of permissions + integration with software centers for the latest features.

Makes sense. We discussed this in the thread about Canonical and their snaps. @sarmad made a great point about that in regards to AppImages.

Quoting: sarmadIf distros adopted AppImages and have it all configured out of the box it would've been as easy to use as flatpaks, but with extra flexibility, which actually is the essence of Linux.

Comment 288267

Right now, flatpaks have the advantage simply because the distros do the work of putting in all the backend support beforehand. They could do the same for AppImages but right now, those of us that prefer them have to put in the backend support ourselves.

Quoting: sarmadOut of the three formats, AppImage provides the most flexibility: you can download an appimage directly, or use a hub. You can use it sandboxed, or not. You can have appimages auto update themselves. You can use it for cli or gui, etc.

yes, agree. i was rooting for appimage in the begging, i do occasionally use them. i admit that the convenience of configuration and the tighter system integration is the draw. And
i think the sandboxing would require an appimage software center that you check box 'sandbox' and it automatically firejails the application.. and then there would need to be a flatseal type application either integrated into the appimage sofware center or a separate app or desktop features for managing appimage permissions like KDE now has for Flatpak.

i admit, complacency shouldn't be a reason for me. But im busy and have around 50 flatpaks installed that get updated daily and i can quickly set permissions in any way i want.
ohh and uninstalling flatpaks is no problem usually with menu entries correctly removed.

but i take your point, like for like properly managed there shouldn't be much difference.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

It's a bummer for it to go. I think the game is pretty well designed. I wish players had better management options for the chat rooms as player communication was my only sour taste I got from playing the game (and it was only one occurrence).

As far as losing time investment into a video game... this isn't as large of a concern of mine as it used to be. I invest myself into real life more these days. Games are a time for R&R, not a replacement to real-life hardships to overcome.

Community-run servers would be nice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: LoftyThere is no perfect solution tbf. But i do prefer the system of flapak and it's easy configuration of permissions + integration with software centers for the latest features.

Makes sense. We discussed this in the thread about Canonical and their snaps. @sarmad made a great point about that in regards to AppImages.

Quoting: sarmadIf distros adopted AppImages and have it all configured out of the box it would've been as easy to use as flatpaks, but with extra flexibility, which actually is the essence of Linux.

Comment 288267

Right now, flatpaks have the advantage simply because the distros do the work of putting in all the backend support beforehand. They could do the same for AppImages but right now, those of us that prefer them have to put in the backend support ourselves.

Quoting: sarmadOut of the three formats, AppImage provides the most flexibility: you can download an appimage directly, or use a hub. You can use it sandboxed, or not. You can have appimages auto update themselves. You can use it for cli or gui, etc.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

On the copyright front, apparently researchers at Stanford tested the AIs from the main companies by prompting them with the first line of various books and asking them to continue the story verbatim. There were variants between engines on how sneaky they had to be with the query (Grok: not sneaky at all), but they pulled out 95% of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", "The Hobbit" and so on. All those engines would just give you chapter after chapter. This matters because the AI companies had repeatedly claimed that they don't actually store the texts they train on in any way (originally they also claimed they didn't pirate actual copyrighted books, either, but that got found out so the fall back was that they sort of didn't keep them). There's copyright lawsuits going on, so it may matter that it turns out they totally do store those texts they stole.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: EikeSurveillance of all their developers?

We can use Ai for that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Now, the important thing is if we can use DLSS 4.5 on Linux right now...

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I, for one, am an AI vegan (no AI consumed).

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: poiuzIf you don't have any arguments then simply don't join the discussion.

I join whatever discussion I wish to, thank you very much.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: EikeReally, you're getting the source code of the games?

Yeah, I know, we do get the binary code, which is translated by a compiler from the source code, ...

Correct, we receive what was generated by the AI in binary form. What's your point here? You wouldn't receive the assets as-is either, they get processed, too (e.g. exported into the correct format).

Quoting: EikeThis is not leading anywhere.

* Developers do use AI to code.
* You cannot find out if they did from the binaries.

It's not worth the discussion.

What's the difference? I doubt you could distinguish the AI source code anyway.

And you think that's an argument for what you're asking for?

I happen to be software developer in a big company (not game related).
It would surprise me if less than 90% of the developers use AI every now and then.
We've got very different types, from developers finding it hard to do development when the AI access is broken for an hour, to those that use it like once a week. Yes, there's also some that don't use it at all, but you'll have hard times to find a whole development team where nobody is using AI.

If what you're asking for would be done - which I still find unreasonable - you'd end up with about every game being marked as "AI was used for code development". What would you gain?

*edit*
And how would the company even know if their game contains AI generated code? Surveillance of all their developers? Strong filters in the office? What about working in home office...?

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Just recently I asked AI to write a snippet for an insertion sort. It provided a loop that iterated to array[-1].
I thought I’ll play along playing dumb and wrote something along the lines of 'Oh no! It crashes!'
The tool was adamant that I check if my array is sane while never catching it’s mistake in trying to touch array[-1]. I let this go on for a full hour (not joking) before finally caving in telling it that it’s iterating to array[-1].

While the AI was apologetic for not catching the bug it would from that point on only refer to the snippet as 'your code' and straight up deny responsibility for the snippet it provided. 😅

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Instead, it is concerned with the use of AI in creating content that ships with your game, and is consume by players.

Is that a typo, should it be consumed instead?

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

All I'm gonna say is two things:

Vibe coding is a joke for a reason, too many problems arise from it, ESPECIALLY when it comes to security (and you should care about the security of your machine!). Wasn't the whole AI code on Windows thing a hot topic just about now? You realize why?

Far as I know, there is absolutely no punishment for not disclosing AI specifically anyway, so whatever rules Valve puts up on this doesn't really make it enforcement and won't encourage honestly either way, which means we can never be sure.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: Linux_RocksI really like that desktop background!

They always had sick wallpapers, you might want to check out their older wallpapers

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

A great game indeed. I hope they can get a big 1.0 launch soon, this game is special and I hope they succeed massively.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: EikeReally, you're getting the source code of the games?

Yeah, I know, we do get the binary code, which is translated by a compiler from the source code, ...

Correct, we receive what was generated by the AI in binary form. What's your point here? You wouldn't receive the assets as-is either, they get processed, too (e.g. exported into the correct format).

Quoting: EikeThis is not leading anywhere.

* Developers do use AI to code.
* You cannot find out if they did from the binaries.

It's not worth the discussion.

What's the difference? I doubt you could distinguish the AI source code anyway. If you don't have any arguments then simply don't join the discussion.

If the outputs get better then it's no longer possible to recognize AI assets either.

And thousands of developers have been fired in recent years. I'm sure some speak about their working experience. In fact, potential new employers will require that their AI experience is disclosed. So I really doubt it's possible to keep it secret.

But as was said: The whole thing is just a charade for the hypocrites.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: EikeThat example seems to be quite accurate to me:
The tools used to write the code are not an ingredient of the game. Unlike e.g. the assets. Which seems quite close to what Valve is asking for to be declared.

Obviously, the code the AI is generating is an ingredient of the game. Why should this be exempt from the disclosure?

Really, you're getting the source code of the games?

Yeah, I know, we do get the binary code, which is translated by a compiler from the source code, ...

This is not leading anywhere.

* Developers do use AI to code.
* You cannot find out if they did from the binaries.

It's not worth the discussion.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Let's go back to the topic: The disclosure is not about using AI tools. The disclosure is about generating content using AI tools.

Quoting: KROMOf course. It's a tool. Nobody stops you from taking the horse, but I'll be probably faster than you using my car.

There's absolutely no difference between generating code & generating assets. Both is created by a tool which serves to be more efficient. Both can & should be disclosed but Valve made this exempt because they know their customers will go crazy if basically every game becomes an AI game.

Quoting: EikeThat example seems to be quite accurate to me:
The tools used to write the code are not an ingredient of the game. Unlike e.g. the assets. Which seems quite close to what Valve is asking for to be declared.

Obviously, the code the AI is generating is an ingredient of the game. Why should this be exempt from the disclosure?

How about Photoshop? How much AI tooling is allowed?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPWell, yes.
You'd have to enforce open sourcing everything and even THEN you could almost never be certain.
Unenforceable rules are pointless.

Rules are there to be complied with. Usually there is a punishment if someone is violating a rule. I don't see why this wouldn't work here, too. If it's not directly evident then it'll require someone reporting the violation. Happens in law enforcement all the time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

I think this decision is being done as a matter of pragmatism. Nobody likes generative AI and game creators currently do lie about using it regularly. And it's not really possible to prove someone used it when coming up with ideas for their game because generic and uninspired games have existed long before chat bots.

The magic trick that neural networks were actually built to do is finding biases and patterns in large sets of data. They can link snakes to water, dwarves to fire, and help you build the next completely unoriginal fantasy rpg by including these links other people have made in your game. And though people might claim to not want this, people still pay good money for bethesda games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

TLDR: The train has already left the station.It's now the same as a car or a smart phone, it has been integrated into our daily life.

Quoting: scaineMan, I can't believe we're still defending genAI. As I've pointed out in many other comments, the top reasons I hear for the "negative resentment" are, in no particular order:

1. Negative impact on environment, slap bang in the middle of a climate crisis.
5. Driving a nuclear age .....(Meta, Google and Microsoft have now all commissioned their own reactors)

True.

Quoting: scaine6a, 6b, 2, 3, 7. (social impact and allegations)

These things are not relevant or have overlaps with (game) development. Sure, they are valid in other contexts, bu not this. This is also the issue with these AI Witch Hunters who toss everything into one bowl and don't differentate.

Quoting: scaine4. Slows down development (even in cases where developers claimed it sped them up, evidence showed otherwise)
6c. Societal impact - genAI "slop" now devalues everything on the internet. When you see something cool, you think "meh, it's probably just AI shite". Or it actually IS shite, in which case, genAI is on a race to the bottom, since the next generation of genAI will be taught on today's internet - mistakes will be compounded, biases reinforced.

Not really, unless you do use LLMs only locally (unless you have enough hardware), using only free versions of public LLMs and LLMs which are known to have issues, once a project gains a certain size threshold.

If you are properly defining the project, the feature list and all its stuff surrounding it, you can do amazing things properly coded if you keep oversight, test, debug, review code, make appropriate changes and hold the assitant on a very short leash.

You still have to read the code, understand its workings, architecture and program flows, to make a well rounded project.

And yes, you pay for assistance enough, to achieve it, but you can really accelerate development tool-assisted. You also have to do your research and do decisions.

On the other side, if you just throw a LLM some rough paragraphs, that are not well defined, you will end wit slop (and projects that are at some point borked).

Quoting: scaine8. Hallucination (multiple cases of invented bullshit, including court filings, leading to lawyers being debarred).

regarding coding, this does not happen, and any bullshit code is quickly remedied once you have tested and reviewed it.

Aside that, for (game) development that is not relevant.

Quoting: scaine9. Obnoxious marketing (see MS especially).
10. Diverting investment away from targeted solution, and into a financial bubble (because #7).

Quoting: scaine11. All genAI engines are built on plagiarised work, for which the original authors/artists got no recognition, nor commission. Same with code - all code was scraped, regardless of license, and that code can be regurgitated in new, OR snippet form, by genAI, without recognition of that license.

Not really true, if that LLM has general programming and knowledge about standard algorithms. For example, if there is some undocumented RESTA API not documented anywhere on the web and you reverse that and give it a summary how the program flow is and works, at least the paid LLMs are able to integrate that in your application.

Free LLMs and locally run LLMs are way more prone to that and mostly try to throw dirt at the wall and try to be sneaky hard coding stuff or trying to implement shortcuts to just satisfy the requirement that "it works".

Quoting: scaine12. Impact on website scraping from multiple companies building genAI models. Wikipedia in particular has had to actively block enormous ranges to prevent the scraping from leading them into financial run. Again, can't be bothered to find the link, but there's a Wikimedia blog talking about it.

Most web sites already have taken active measures against that scraping and that is sadly a fact of life now.

Quoting: scaineAnyone offering the "it's just a tool" argument, is being deliberately obtuse. They're basically arguing that the ends absolutely justify the means, no matter the cost.

IT IS A TOOL, especially one that has to be used properly and given enough input data that is not wishy-washy.

Quoting: scaineAnd the cost is high. Big tech has absolutely no morals, and this is a race to the bottom, fueled by literally hundreds of billions of investment that could have have so much difference elsewhere.

Corporations always have been that, not just yet, but that is not a justification. Just be happy, that we aren't already in full Cyberpunk 2077 / Shadowrun / Neuromancer territory.

As above stated, the main problem with AI witch hunters is, that these want to turn back time unconditionally to a non-AI world, what would be about the 1970s if you call Weizenbaum's ELIZA an AI. Or what would be the point in time for you? Perhaps you should differentate between the various forms of AI and not toss everything into a barrel and blaze it aflame?

LLMs and AI are nowadays a fact of life, deal with it. It is the same with smart phones: if you are against smart phones (and maybe "dumb mobile phones"), you will have major disadvantages and inconveniences NOT using them. This is the same with LLMs, there are useful applications with them, but I myself only use them for project development and not for other things.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

It must be said that many Linux ports do not improve over time. They are just ports. Usually closed source. Closed source ports for a system that has a strong OSS philosophy. Instead of brutal backward compatibility, it is also common practice in Linux userland to update things in the code. This also happens with orphaned projects, because OSS was invented precisely for this purpose. You are not dependent on the original developer continuing to maintain a project until the end of time. But that is exactly the approach of Linux ports. And the reason why many no longer run properly after a few years and people switch to Proton, if they don't use it from the outset.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: pbWe have obligatory lists of ingredients on food products, cosmetics, detergents - not only because of allergens, but simply because we (the consumers) have the right to know what kinds of shit went in there, before we buy. I'm not necessarily saying it should be obligatory to disclose the full toolbox used to make a game, but it would certainly be well received and I hope it will become a good practice.

That example seems to be quite accurate to me:
The tools used to write the code are not an ingredient of the game. Unlike e.g. the assets. Which seems quite close to what Valve is asking for to be declared.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: pbSo what's stopping them from disclosure?

Nothing. And plenty do.

Quoting: pbAre thy ashamed of using "a tool"?

Shame has nothing to do with that.
But you can see from the absolutely braindead "outrage" over Swen Vincke's very reasonable stance on AI usage why a developer wouldn't even want to talk about it at all.

Anyway, this is about Steam enforcing disclosure when it comes to generating content that is "consumed" with the product.
And as said already, that only makes sense with parts where that can even be reasonably checked.
You can't check if someone uses Mistral in their IDE to help debugging, as a more efficient "Google" with more context, not at all, or writing half their code with it - the dev can tell you what exactly they do, or not.

Quoting: pbIt's also our right to know if the code was produced using genAI,

There is no such right.
You are hallucinating harder than ChatGPT on its worst day.

Quoting: pbWe have obligatory lists of ingredients on food products, cosmetics, detergents - not only because of allergens, but simply because we (the consumers) have the right to know what kinds of shit went in there, before we buy.

Apples and oranges.
You have a right to know what is in the product.
You have no right to know what brand of tool was used to harvest it, nor could that be reasonably checked.

Quoting: pbI'm not necessarily saying it should be obligatory to disclose the full toolbox used to make a game, but it would certainly be well received and I hope it will become a good practice.

I agree, disclosure would be nice and IMO beneficial to devs.
But there is no right to that, and some will do it while others won't.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Quoting: poiuz"Basically everyone is using AI."

Quoting: KROMOf course. It's a tool

So what's stopping them from disclosure? Are thy ashamed of using "a tool"? I don't see developers hiding the fact that they use unity, and some consumers will avoid unity for example because of some specific problems unity games tend to have on their computers. So what? It's our right. It's also our right to know if the code was produced using genAI, because for example some people have a stance against supporting such products because of the social or environmental costs etc. Devs are free to choose their tools, consumers are free to choose their purchases.

We have obligatory lists of ingredients on food products, cosmetics, detergents - not only because of allergens, but simply because we (the consumers) have the right to know what kinds of shit went in there, before we buy. I'm not necessarily saying it should be obligatory to disclose the full toolbox used to make a game, but it would certainly be well received and I hope it will become a good practice.

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment

Just read that ChatGPT will start to show ads. They realized that they're not making money. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments - Report this comment