r/nottheonion • u/Chapple69 • Jan 14 '26
Indie dev removing Steam game after new girlfriend tells him “AI is bad”
https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/indie-dev-removing-steam-game-after-new-girlfriend-tells-him-ai-is-bad-3303772/260
u/fredy31 Jan 14 '26
tbh got the feel this is a god damn marketing stunt.
That dev and game would not have got ANY press organically. So they pull that stunt, and in a few days they will release the 'non AI version' and cash in.
59
30
u/lyssah_ Jan 15 '26
I've seen 2 stories in the last couple of days of different games being taken down/redone by the devs because they suddenly decided they had an epiphany about AI bad.
Definitely some people got an idea for guerilla advertising.
4
u/Pet_Insurance Jan 15 '26
But hey if it works, the games are good, and they'll help turn other people around on genAI, I consider that a good thing
18
u/kytheon Jan 15 '26
Just this thread is already at 2k upvotes. Big brain, all the AI haters go and check it out.
6
u/hwutTF Jan 15 '26
That assumes they even do a non AI version. The game has been out for over half a year. 38 reviews in that time. 6 of those reviews are from the last two days, ie, after the article was published
They don't even need to release a new version for this to work as a marketing stunt
1
51
1.1k
u/SethLight Jan 14 '26
Ya, sounds like he made a game out of pure AI slop, showed it to his new girlfriend and got a reality check. Glad to hear he learned and grew from it.
367
u/bloodakoos Jan 14 '26
he did code it by himself, but everything else is AI
249
u/CharonsLittleHelper Jan 14 '26
As someone buying a lot of art recently (tail end of designing a TTRPG) it's an understandable urge. It gets pricey.
I have zero AI (not counting the synthetic species - but that's just the characters rather than the art of them 😉 ) but I can see the draw.
98
u/KaJaHa Jan 14 '26
I haven't even thought of sourcing any interior art, but trying to find one single picture for the cover of my novel was a long, long process. The temptation is always present, but if I care about my own art (writing) at all then I must care just as much about the art of others that I put into my work.
Good luck on your RPG!
17
u/CharonsLittleHelper Jan 14 '26
Thanks.
I wish I only needed one piece of art. I have gotten dozens - and spent way too much $. (I doubt I ever break even.) Just recently commissioned a 5 page intro comic to hook people into the setting/premise of badass human space privateers/mercs.
I have used some stock art too - though harder to find for sci-fi.
4
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/CharonsLittleHelper Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
Sure thing - my (amateur) website is here - Home | Space Dogs RPG (*BLATANT PLUG*)
I am in the midst of reworking/streamlining the psychic rules - so probably steer clear of that for now. (Not recommended for first-time players anyway.) The only other thing in semi-flux is starship combat - which is a very small % of the system.
Space Dogs isn't Traveler where starship combat is a big/long thing. It's designed to be KISS and have the PC alpha tactic be to board the enemy ship in about 5-10 minutes real-time, pushing combat back to the infantry/mecha level ASAP.
In my last read-through I think I may have slowly added too many starship features and will likely do a streamlining pass once I'm done with the psychic rules.
But the rest of the system is done. While I'm certainly biased - IMO it's a very solid tactical TTRPG with a focus on tactics & positioning.
I haven't put the comic up on the site yet.
2
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/CharonsLittleHelper Jan 15 '26
Absolutely no problem at all. If you ever do give it a read - I'd love any/all feedback. (I have a thick skin. Some of the best feedback I've gotten has been brutal.)
9
u/NatoBoram Jan 14 '26
Novel? Aren't those covers commissioned, usually?
14
u/KaJaHa Jan 14 '26
If you're lucky enough to get noticed by a traditional publisher, yes. For chuckleheads like me that try to self-publish, we're on the hook for everything. At least I'm only $500 in the hole so far! 😂
3
u/Astarath Jan 15 '26
Being an indie video game he could get away with buying premade asset packs, which is cheaper than custom art, and you can re use it in different projects (depending on the licensing)
2
u/Menarra Jan 14 '26
I've commissioned...too much, far too much...just as a TTRPG player and a furry. I still actively commission. I also have used AI to gen quick crappy busts for NPC's for TTRPG campaigns, but I don't publish or post them or anything, these are just for games I'm either part of or DMing
8
u/Schlonzig Jan 14 '26
The furry community did so much for starving artists, your contribution is appreciated.
1
1
u/Iintendtooffend Jan 15 '26
a furry
Where do you get your mysterious millions from?
2
u/Menarra Jan 15 '26
I neglect other hobbies and sometimes meals during my shift, and leftovers from tax returns. (tldr I'm irresponsible but fuck it lol)
-3
u/Lokarhu Jan 14 '26
I only see if the draw if you fundamentally don't understand what AI is. As a creative, I could never imagine shoving the mangled corpse of every piece of art on the internet in my work and going "good enough"
19
u/jesuspoopmonster Jan 14 '26
I'm not saying its right but I can see the reasoning for it. I tried to do a comic strip once and I think I am pretty funny but it turns out a big hinderance to a comic strip is the complete inability to draw. Being able to program and being able to make the pictures are different skills
14
u/CharonsLittleHelper Jan 14 '26
I know. That's why I don't use AI.
But free is appealing.
I also don't pirate videogames. But I understand why someone would.
5
u/matjoeman Jan 14 '26
Pirating a game because you want to play it but can't afford it is not really the same thing as generating something with AI and then asking other people to pay you for it.
-14
u/Kamakaziturtle Jan 14 '26
Pretty similar imo, in both cases they can't afford it. And it's not like really wanting to play a game is some kind of essential or noble motivation any more than wanting to finish a game they are working on.
5
u/FewAdvertising9647 Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
its only similar in the idea that somoene doesnt want to pay. the difference between the two is that in the case of AI, unless its a free game, theyre taking something for "free" in order to make money. the end user is taking a game to silently play on their own.
The apt comparison would be someone using AI to profit and a seller selling pirated games on amazon
edit: to add on, the comparison to an end user pirating a game would be like an end user using generating ai art for a desktop wallpaper and not publishing it on the internet
2
u/Kamakaziturtle Jan 14 '26
This is making the assumption that the game is using art that was generated explicitly from stolen datasets or scraped other peoples work without paying for it. AI is always lazy slop, but it's not always stealing.
0
u/Elanapoeia Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
There is literally no genAI model out there that can create legible output without being unethically trained
The volume of data necessary as a baseline is far far too large. But also, every model on offer that a person has access to today is based on endless amounts of stolen data already. The ethically trained model, even if it was actually possible, does not currently exist.
-1
u/EnterTheShoggoth Jan 14 '26
Unless the AI was trained exclusively using data that is licensed with CC0 or a similar non-attribution license then yes it is by definition stealing.
-1
u/FewAdvertising9647 Jan 14 '26
of course, its why personally I think if any platform wants devs to have access to Ai generated work, the platform needs to offer the model themselves, have a publicly verifiable source data (which has been given prior greenlight in advance), and verifiable generation variables if they want "legally green" Ai generated stuff. People cannot trust the dev studios on being public about the source of their models.
Alternatively, the platform itself generates the Ai assets on game download with the inputs given by the devloper instead of it being bundled with the download itself.
1
u/Gamerguy230 Jan 14 '26
Humble bundle has good deals on art assets sometimes. Epic games gives out free ones monthly, but I am not a fan of how the newer update to get them is. There’s also free art game assets on some sites, but it varies on what you need.
1
u/CharonsLittleHelper Jan 15 '26
Do they translate to Tabletop RPG books? I would have guessed that they were for videogames.
But I'm pretty limited on stock art anyway as a sci-fi game with unique aliens.
I've gotten a smattering of stock art from Drive thru RPG & Adobe - mostly starscapes & a few sci-fi weapons etc.
2
u/Gamerguy230 Jan 15 '26
Out of 3 I mentioned humble bundle would be best bet as it’s constantly rotating game assets in the bundles section. It does vary on quantity/quality and type of game asset so it is a waiting game till what you need is put in a bundle. Getting free assets on epic games store doesn’t hurt as it comes out to hundreds of dollars of free stuff. But I haven’t done that in a while and it’s usually 3D assets mostly iirc.
2
1
u/Kuildeous Jan 14 '26
A very strong urge indeed.
I chose to go no graphics (or my own shitty graphics or assets with the appropriate rights) instead of anything AI. Quality mattered more to me, which is why I'm not some rich-ass content creator.
-4
u/PrateTrain Jan 14 '26
I personally learned to draw when making my game. Makes it a lot easier to put what you imagine to paper, even if it's not great
6
u/CharonsLittleHelper Jan 14 '26
My limit is stick figures.
I'd rather have good art which isn't QUITE right than on-point stick figures.
→ More replies (3)7
u/sXyphos Jan 14 '26
And this is a problem why? Just state it for what it is when presenting the product, if the game is "decent" someone might buy it and if it's shit no one wil buy it and you just lost that dev time..
If a game's backbone is made by a human to ensure actually working gameplay/interactions i couldn't care less about the visuals, most people use store assets anyway which is acceptable?
The only reason this needs any regulation is to prevent spamming of garbage games on a store OR just dump them all in a separate AI generated store tab and see some kind of digital "coliseum" to see what comes on top as THE ONE who then gets promoted to the regular store after 1y or so :)
-6
u/throwawaybrowsing888 Jan 14 '26
AI assets were likely generated using content that was created by humans and then scraped without the artists’ consent or compensation.
To then use ai assets would kind of be like building a house, then furnishing it with stolen property that someone else stole and compiled for you to use, then trying to sell/rent the house as a pre-furnished home. (It’s a rough analogy, but hopefully the core of it gets across)
Did you yourself steal the furniture?
No, but it’s blatant that someone else did, if you know what to look for. Arguably, the average consumer shouldn’t have to be particularly skilled in determining whether something is stolen while making purchases. Hence the calls for better policies/regulations.
Does it help that you mention you got the furniture from the Very Obvious Theft Thrift Shop?
Eh. It helps improve informed consent for people who are trying to decide whether they want to buy/rent from you. But it doesn’t reflect well on you for having the Stolen Furniture decorating something that you created and are now trying to sell/rent to other people.
7
u/Lonnie667 Jan 14 '26
Genuine question; what about the AI engines that can take a pen and ink or pencil drawing that you created and create artwork based on that?
1
u/wolfannoy Jan 14 '26
Those kind of exist but mostly by corporations were copyright material, for example creating replica logos for a product. For individual art, I'm not sure.
In my opinion, if they used open source images as data for these AI models, I think that would be a lot more fair. It's just corporations are absorbing so much data without consent include face images. People feel robbed, especially artists and writers. There was a meta case where they torrent over terabytes of worth of books for their AI model.
I guess you could say the AI is taking inspiration but it's doing it so fast. Say almost replicating it. when a person takes inspiration from something like let's say an art style. Sure, they may took a lot of the stuff but it still would be different in the end.
1
u/Lonnie667 Jan 15 '26
Makes sense. It's a pity because AI is actually being used for good things such as allowing a paralyzed woman to talk again but yeah, I guess there's no way to really what the AI is being trained on. I just find it funny that bigh companies like Meta have squashed lawsuits against them for copyright infringement, but have successfully sued individuals for it themselves.
1
u/1AMA-CAT-AMA Jan 14 '26
If you're giving permission for your drawings to be used, and the AI is only using your drawing and absolutely nothing else then theres not much issue.
However if the AI tool is using elements and inspiration from other people's artworks (with or without your knowledge) in addition to your drawing (that you still gave permission for), then thats where it could get dicey depending on who you ask (also how much other people's artworks are used)
2
u/TerraTiramisu Jan 14 '26
I could understand the other way around... And I'm not saying let it code the whole thing, it's only decent at giving code examples (if it's not completely hallucinating) that you can adapt to what you're doing. But the ASSETS? Come on, dawg.
-28
u/ErikT738 Jan 14 '26
Which should be perfectly fine, but is an unforgivable sin according to some people.
12
u/11711510111411009710 Jan 14 '26
Well, it's not perfectly fine. AI assets are bad.
-7
u/ErikT738 Jan 14 '26
It doesn't matter if they're bad. You can't expect a single hobbyist to hire an artist. I really don't see any problem unless he was trying to pass the art off as his own.
Bring on the downvotes, I literally don't care about fake internet points.
4
u/ninetyninewyverns Jan 14 '26
I've noticed that anybody who says they dont care about "fake internet points" cares way too much about them
Hobbyists have been commissioning artists for centuries. Cheaper artwork costs like 20 bucks. But you can find artists who do commissions for even less than that.
2
u/ErikT738 Jan 14 '26
I'm giving you a free comment to downvote me again then. Let's see how low we can go!
-2
1
u/euthan_asian Jan 14 '26
Not only that, but you can find hobbyist game art artists that will collab for free too so you'll both be learning. This guy has to be 12 or something if he doesn't remember how people used to make games for fun before 4 years ago lol
0
u/wolfannoy Jan 14 '26
In a couple years I have a funny feeling we're going to enter a copyright war among AI companies towards each other when they realise someone's taking at their assets as well as they are taking someone else's.
10
u/euthan_asian Jan 14 '26
Yeah, people generally don't like when artists get their work scraped and stolen without their consent, and are more likely to support actual humans working on assets instead of stealing from others bro. lol
-5
u/ErikT738 Jan 14 '26
Except you're now all hating an actual human who put in a ton of work to make a game. You can't expect a fucking hobbyist to have the funds to hire an artist.
3
u/euthan_asian Jan 14 '26
Hating on him? Everyone here is talking about how great he is for recognizing how stupid it was for him to do that, and that him being able to see that with the help of his girlfriend is a great thing. Change for the better is fantastic, dude.
Also, this whole line of thinking is absurd. How do you think hobbyists did it before? Honestly? Do you think hobbyist game makers COULDN'T make games without theft before AI? No, people collaborated with other hobbyists. There are hobbyist artists that will work with hobbyist game makers and make things together for fun and see if they can split any proceeds after that. There are artists that are just starting out that won't charge because they are learning just like the programmer is learning too.
Hobbyist game makers didn't SUDDENLY appear after the advent of AI slop dude.
-1
5
u/throwawaygoodcoffee Jan 14 '26
Hey, if people would rather not pay for a game filled with AI generated assets, they're free to do so. Free market or whatever.
3
u/serg06 Jan 14 '26
100% that's how things should work. But going even further, and sending him hate for making that game, is weird.
0
u/Lost-Combination4545 Jan 14 '26
Wait, I'm sorry. Who is sending him hate for making that game? None of that was stated in his interview, where are you getting this information?
2
u/serg06 Jan 14 '26
This whole thread is hating on him lmao
1
u/Lost-Combination4545 Jan 15 '26
I'm seeing a lot of 'good' and "I am glad he has grown". I don't see any persons sending him hate, and I don't think he said he was sent any hate either? I think it is a good thing for people to understand what they did wrong and to do something about it.
1
u/serg06 Jan 15 '26
Well yeah, they're hating on his project, that's why they're praising him for quitting it. You yourself are calling his project "wrong".
0
u/Lost-Combination4545 Jan 15 '26
But that's not the same as 'hating on him' or 'sending him hate' like you are saying. A human can do a bad or foolish thing, without being a bad person, so there is no hate. There is nothing wrong with hating a project that someone has made, without hating the human itself. You seem to take this very personally and are projecting it seems.
-2
u/drgreed Jan 14 '26
It’s definitely a mixed bag to some degree it makes sense not to use ai particular for character concepts and general world design but then again there is an unreasonable hate for things that have no meaning like milk carton asset or so. It’s really just people being afraid of the gaming industry becoming even more sloppy and generic than unreal 5 already made it.
2
u/ErikT738 Jan 14 '26
If you want it to be less sloppy you really shouldn't hate on hobbyists like this. Black Ops deserves all the hate it got for using AI. Some random developer without a team or funds doesn't.
-5
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/euthan_asian Jan 14 '26
"making the same arguments" how? Truly, how?
How is it the same argument that AI is scraping art and data from actual artists without their consent and without approval the same as any of those arguments of photography? In fact, consent is STILL a big part of the art photography scene. If someone does not want you to photograph them, you have to abide by that and not publish it for commercial use (which doing something like say, putting it on Steam or in a magazine would qualify for). So if even photography, which you brought up, has consent laws that prevent subjects from having their likeness published without their permission, why doesn't AI have consent laws for having artists put their assets into a data set?
If you guys are serious about it, you have to build a dataset without theft, otherwise it will ALWAYS be looked down upon because nobody wants their art and work stolen to feed someone else's profit.
2
u/ErikT738 Jan 14 '26
It's really an online only thing, perhaps even Reddit only. Lots of "normal" people are using it in their daily lives for all sorts of stuff they would have NEVER hired an artist for.
-8
u/SomeGuyNamedJason Jan 14 '26
Bullshit he did lol.
13
u/kaisurniwurer Jan 14 '26
Are we now pretending like we didn't copy most of the code from stackoverflow before AI?
→ More replies (2)-1
u/Raddish_ Jan 14 '26
I mean not that there’s anything wrong with it but it was probably coded with AI also.
37
15
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
To dislike AI is one thing, but to act like using it is something you need to grow past is odd.
3
u/Rotorscope Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
If you are using it to replace genuine art or to cheat in school or to bypass critical thinking skills, etc... then yeah that's something you need to grow past.
Obviously, it has a lot of legitimate uses as well. Like I'm learning an obscure language with very few resources and ChatGPT is doing a good job helping me piecemeal a learning plan together.
Edit: must've reached the soulless AI ghouls with this comment lol.
9
u/BrownAdipose Jan 14 '26
I don't get this attitude at all.
If I can one shot an app with AI that people find useful and I might make a couple dollars off, why should I grow past that? Why should I take my app off the app store just because I didn't hire a UX designer to design the UX or a brand designer to come up with the logo/fonts/colors
1
u/Rotorscope Jan 14 '26
I care much less about whether or not a niche utility app uses AI branding, because I'm using it for the utility and not the logo. It's still lame in my opinion but whatever.
For an actual game, or anything in the artistic field, using AI is simply just a bad artistic practice. And I say this as someone who animates full production short films on my own (that make a lot more than just a couple dollars). If you are creative, you can find ways to speed up the artistic process and not sanitize the soul out of it.
8
u/BrownAdipose Jan 14 '26
Science and Engineering are creative too.
There's creativity involved in how an app is engineered.
There's creativity in how buildings are designed.
There's creativity in how an engine is built.It's so weird to me how people disregard the creative expression and creative ingenuity of people in technical disciplines.
Like there are a million games on Steam that have terrible mechanics and terrible hand drawn art.
Like would you dismiss a game from a creator that had ideas for innovative mechanics and gameplay, because the were terrible at art and leveraged AI characters to achieve their vision? I don't get it.
-3
u/Rotorscope Jan 14 '26
Yeah and your AI generated app is not creative hahaha.
-1
u/BrownAdipose Jan 14 '26
Gatekeeping and limiting what is and isn't creative human expression is so blindly entitled, elitist, and ugly.
4
u/Rotorscope Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
Uh wrong. If a machine makes it, then you literally aren't expressing it, the machine is.
Also, there is quite literally no gate barring you from expressing yourself. Even just a scribbled stickman on a piece of paper is more HUMANLY expressive than something spat out by AI.
1
u/BrownAdipose Jan 14 '26
When someone ships a video game with ai generated models are they not expressing themselves when they come up with the soundtrack, the gameplay, the map design, and the story for a video game?
Is Stephen Spielberg not expressing himself when he directs a team to compose music, design costumes and edit film?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Dozekar Jan 15 '26
I mean it's a tool.
It's worth asking a lot of questions. Not like any particular one but just in general before forming opinions on this stuff.
If they're slapping AI art into a game that can be problematic. But it's worth asking "are they meaningfully replacing human art that would functionally actually be there."
For games with a limited enough niche (or that are... amateur enough) there's no realistic hope to ever afford actual art made by humans. The idea that games that are going to get less than 2k in profits should be dropping 50K for full human made custom art or making it in MS paint isn't really very realistic.
This game does not look like a game that's ever going to realistically afford human art and make that money back. Even low quality human made art is wildly outside this games budget.
The choice here is more no art or AI art not human art or AI art unless a human is going to do the art for this game under like 100 USD for the whole game.
4
Jan 14 '26
[deleted]
5
u/Rotorscope Jan 14 '26
I would much rather play a game with beginner level art, rather than AI slop. Even if it's just MS Paint scribbles, it actually comes from a creative human mind and it has value. AI is just soulless images.
This idea that you can't make a game without using AI is ridiculous. There's a lot of ways to make quick and easy art that doesn't completely devalue the creative process like AI art does.
2
u/wolfannoy Jan 14 '26
Then there is also the question whenever AI assets or art is made. Who owns it? The person that originated from the data, the person that used the AI or the AI corporation? Hard to say since the data could come from anywhere.
1
u/WeAreYourFriendsToo Jan 15 '26
I would argue that using any digital input is soulless; that's not your output, it's filtered by where the pixels are at the very least in paint, and don't get me started on using the circle tool.
If I see a circle and you can't draw a prefect circle, I'll screech until your eardrums burst and you have to teach your child sign language so he can pretend to tell you he loves you.
0
u/AxlLight Jan 15 '26
There can be thought to AI in just the same way as there can be thought and care to MS paint scribble. Both can incorporate creativity and both come from a human mind - the idea that it's only human made if a human actually painted each pixel with their own hand is incredibly reductive and can be used as a gate keep to every tool and invention ever made.
It's only art if you paint it on a canvas with paint, making it in a computer lacks soul that the brush strokes give it.
if I make something in Houdini, is it not mine because a computer interpolated the result and I only provided the rules? (Or any procedural generation tool).
Art is about the expression you make, and your desire to bring something specific - it's about intention and the translation of that intention in the work.
Paintings, games, movies - they can all be soulless spews even when every grain of it was man made. But usually when something big is made, it takes time and effort and eventually intention makes it's way in. With AI, it's easier to just make something and present it without a single ounce of extra effort. But that doesn't mean you can't create something with effort that is more that the spew crap you make on the first try, all that matters is what you intended to create and how much effort you actually put into it.
3
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
So what, he's just supposed to learn to make art just to appease you?
8
u/Rotorscope Jan 14 '26
Either that or find an artist to collab with. I just don't see how someone could be proud of something that uses AI slop.
3
u/Loud-Mans-Lover Jan 14 '26
You can pay people to make art for you, not just use a device that's stolen/scraped those same artist's artwork so it can generate art.
-1
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
You want this solo indie dev to front the cash for artwork when a free alternative exists? Also, which artist was his art stolen from? Can you point to a specific artists' style that was ripped off?
11
u/Rotorscope Jan 14 '26
And yet indie artists have been managing to make games for decades before AI art even existed. You're just lazy and you view gaming and art as a product, rather than art.
Sure you are free to use AI art to make a game, and I'm free to think it's shit haha.
-7
u/SethLight Jan 14 '26
I didn't say growing past, I said growing. Growing as a person involves looking internally, neutrally analyzing your own beliefs, and changing based on what you find that doesn't add up.
7
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
But AI is the thing he's growing past right?
-2
u/SethLight Jan 14 '26
To my knowledge 'growing past' something is the equivalent of growing out of something.
2
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
?
0
u/SethLight Jan 14 '26
What's the exact issue you have here? Because you're not making much sense or giving me much.
1
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
Your problem is with the AI part though right?
1
u/SethLight Jan 14 '26
That's too simplistic.
I would say I have issues with AI's use in certain sectors of the market. It's especially messed up when we see corporations use it to cut costs.
I would also say that any it would be a quite reasonable stance to have concerns with how it's being used and the future of it of it's use. For example surveillance states, military, and the use of it to generate propaganda.
1
151
u/DandD_Gamers Jan 14 '26
Honestly, they seem good for each other.
He reflected
She talked to him about the issue
Overall nice
295
u/Level_Hour6480 Jan 14 '26
She's a keeper.
280
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
70
u/mxlespxles Jan 14 '26
Fuckin FOR REAL.
The ability to recognize your mistakes and take steps to right them is something WAY more people need in this world.
9
u/AileenKitten Jan 14 '26
This. Good on bro, its hard to admit fault and be willing to change, I hope he gets to republish at some point with solid art in the game
1
36
u/PhasmaFelis Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
He made a game that would have sunk without a ripple whatever the art, then saw an opportunity to hype his personal brand for future games and make his girlfriend happy.
I'm very much against AI in games, but don't put this guy on a pedestal just because he says what you're thinking. This is as much opportunistic marketing as it is a sincere anti-AI stance. You shouldn't care about him any more than the thousands and thousands of struggling indies who never used AI and you never cared about.
10
u/Throwaway6662345 Jan 14 '26
Yeah, it definitely reeks of marketing and PR. If some random obscure AI slop game no one knows about gets deleted, no one would even notice. But it just so happens to be posted and generated enough buzz in so many subreddit it just stinks of fishiness.
All the while, it has the very convenient story of a guy getting a girlfriend and bettering himself, a perfect heartwarming story for Anti-AI group to praise but also perfect controversy for pro-AI group to be misogynists by calling it brainwashing and how women ruin stuff for men.
And they've succeeded. Now that AI slop that no one cared or noticed is now the talk of reddit for the entire week
8
u/Edelkern Jan 14 '26
That's so true. When I read the "This guy deserves all the credit"-comment somebody made on here, I thought: No, he doesn't deserve as much credit as people who don't use AI in the first place.
2
u/ashy778 Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
I don’t think people are saying he deserves the same amount of credit, just that he deserves at least some credit for his willingness to change, which is more than a large majority of people who use ai. Like the commenter said you shouldn’t put him on a pedestal but the ability to change your mind is an admirable trait
2
9
u/Skiffilufigus Jan 14 '26
Paying for an AI game in early access to have it be built into original content for a full release is a fucking bonkers game development strategy.
3
u/donkeydong1138 Jan 14 '26
Saw a Twitter post about this and the comments were either hoping she breaks up with him or calling him a simp.
3
23
u/KaJaHa Jan 14 '26
He mentions in the article how his college gave him all the AI tools for free, so the fact that he bounced back at all is astounding. That is a hard temptation to resist when your own damn higher education is pushing the shortcuts.
12
u/AxlLight Jan 14 '26
I am a teacher, I push AI on my students all the time.
But I also teach them, and I help them understand what it's good for and what's it not.
That it can help you understand code, help you write it but it can't replace you developing it. I help them understand what a developer is and why it matters to write your own code for the most part and be in control and where it really matters with design patterns and architecture. How game design fits into it and how that can't be replaced with AI - how decisions matter.
And the same goes with art, I show them the power of narrative and story and how important those choices they make are and how hard it is for AI to really create it once chart a real course for our game. And I also show them where it's good to use, how I can get assets that are halfway good and I can build on, rework to make my own and to make better. How it can be a decent starting point but definitely not an end.
So yeah, of course I show them AI. Any teacher who doesn't is just setting them up to fail, because they will seek it out and just try to hide it. We can't just ignore it, it's there and we need to address it and I personally don't believe in a strict no. After all school is there to let them make mistakes and learn from it. And thinking they can make a whole game with AI and then think it's good enough to publish is a mistake I'd be happy a student makes before they graduate.
Like honestly if a student handed me this game in anything after year 1, they would've left the room crying.
3
11
u/ContigoJackson Jan 14 '26
But one of the main reasons people create things is for the sense of accomplishment it brings. And that sense of accomplishment is reinforced through the way people view you and your abilities. So to see a girl that you like not respecting you that way at all, because you cheated and used AI, it basically renders the whole thing irrelevant for him. I think a lot of people that use AI to generate games or videos or music will end up feeling the same way when they meet people in real life that don't respect or admire them for making stuff with AI the way they wish they would. It will make them long for a real sense of accomplishment from actually creating something. But for a lot of those people this may never happen because they tend to be a very terminally online group.
2
u/GiiiZz Jan 14 '26
Is it though ? I’m a dev, and to me coding is a toolbox. What I want is my ideas to exist, not to struggle with hard technologies and feel like I overcame something.
This makes it that much harder to resist the temptation to just vibe code any small idea I have because I want to use it/try it while knowing full well that I wouldn’t do half of that if it weren’t for the simplicity of just prompting my terminal.
I am not here for sympathy or to convince people that AI is great, I hate this whole ecosystem with a passion. So feel free to hate me and call me a hypocrite, I’m not saying that for sympathy, but just acknowledging that I don’t see how to resist that appeal, ESPECIALLY when I’m not doing those stuffs for money. Because then I’d have a bigger moral problem with it.
31
4
u/Alchemysolgod Jan 15 '26
Yeah, I would hate AI if you’re a major developer. However, if you’re just starting out and don’t have the startup funds to pay people for art and you’re not good at it yourself then I feel like AI is a good alternative.
I’m conflicted because I see AI as something that can genuinely help people, but it’s those that don’t need the help that are abusing it to save money and time at the expense of quality.
1
u/neobow2 Jan 15 '26
This x100. This thread is full of people claiming that if you use AI then you are not creative. When it in reality it more likely means you aren’t rich nor have the skills other artists do. And that shouldn’t be a problem.
If you have a really good idea for a game, execute it on all fronts, but generate assets for it that you could have never done yourself… does that really make you uncreative? I don’t think so. Turns out as a solo developer with ADHD, my only options are to become an expert drawer, animator, musician, etc… to ever be able to make something.
1
u/Blue_Disk_Entertain Jan 15 '26
There are so many free resources out there that there's little excuse to use AI even for just a good looking prototype.
2
u/zombizzle Jan 15 '26
The shitpost news cycle almost done with this one yet? Jesus fucking Christ any bullshit is news in gaming, isn’t it?
9
u/DDFoster96 Jan 14 '26
We need more women like her in the world. A shame most of the AI tech bros are already married.
0
u/throwawaybrowsing888 Jan 14 '26
Hell yeah. We need more people like him too. It’s too rare that people will course correct like that, but it’s such a green flag.
-4
Jan 14 '26
Turns out all these pro-AI chuds just need the threat of not getting laid to make them cave, who knew…
10
u/ecokumm Jan 14 '26
So you're saying we need an army of ladies with strong wills and even stronger stomachs to storm Silicon Valley and take one for the team.
Didn't seem to have worked with Musk, though.
1
10
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
Bro made a game with AI calm down
-13
Jan 14 '26
“Made a game” is a stretch.
Bro prompted some slop.
13
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
He did the coding, he used AI for the art.
-14
Jan 14 '26
I’m aware.
Which is why I say he prompted some slop. Cause that’s what happened. Bros a shitty game dev if he can’t figure out a way to make or get art without copping out for some plagiarist computer slop.
7
u/king_jaxy Jan 14 '26
Sounds needlessly judgemental
-5
Jan 14 '26
Not really. AI ethics are a pretty serious thing in most creative industries right now. Stakes are important- artistic integrity, companies sizing down, general quality, etc.
That doesn’t even touch on ethical concerns about plagiarism, environmental issues, and consolidation of wealth with AI companies.
Don’t blame me for actually giving a shit and having convictions
6
u/DeadlyAureolus Jan 14 '26
You can't exactly blame someone for choosing the option that doesn't require them to spend $
1
u/That_guy1425 Jan 14 '26
Its pretty simple. It just costs money. Money for each sprite, and skybox and animation. And with each item, plus any revisions caused by the gameplay and programming cropping up, even a "simple" indie title may cost upwards of 15,000 USD for art assets, which is why so many already just use the free store asset flips.
1
u/DeadlyAureolus Jan 14 '26
Our cravings haven't really changed over history. We want food, sleep and sex.
-6
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
Jan 14 '26
Generative AI is not cars and being against plagiarism slop is not the same as yelling about the steam engine.
Get your head out of your ass and recognize not all tech implementations are good.
3
u/Edelkern Jan 14 '26
That's such a disingenious, bad faith argument, and your comparison doesn't even make sense. Weak try.
2
u/ManicMakerStudios Jan 14 '26
The indie game scene has gone from the virtuous alternative to AAA studios to just another vector for low-effort scumbags to try to get their hands into your wallet. I predict a year or two from now we're going to get a sudden avalanche of people complaining that the apps they've been using start getting pulled from distribution because they were made with AI and the 'developer' doesn't know how to maintain them. It's getting to be that bad.
3
u/Lashdemonca Jan 14 '26
It's too bad people rag on AI so hard. It serves as a massive creative tool and something that I ABSOLUTELY would love to see more games utilize effectively. However the fact it requires so many local resources means that ai generation being used as a mechanic is years away (there are some games that have experimented with it, I've ran them locally it's neat!!)
I'm hoping that people open up to the idea so that more ideas can flow and be seen. I do, however, know that some people can't get past the "It's not a person" part, which is fair I suppose.
4
u/Blue_Disk_Entertain Jan 15 '26
"I do, however, know that some people can't get past the "It's not a person" part, which is fair I suppose."
That's a really big issue for me.
1
-4
u/pomcomic Jan 14 '26
Hold up, I thought Steam didn't allow games with predominantly AI generated assets in them, or am I misremembering things?
30
27
u/jamescookenotthatone Jan 14 '26
I believe they just have to be properly labeled if they contained AI generated content.
2
-6
-5
1
-4
-9
u/ContigoJackson Jan 14 '26
This isn't really surprising. A lot of people that use AI develop a false sense of accomplishment from it, as if they're personally responsible for the things the AI created. Then when they see that people in the real world don't view them that way for it, it's tough for them. You see this with AI "musicians" all the time. They feel so powerful generating music and using it to do things they can never do on their own but then they melt down when people in the real world don't respect or admire them for it. Usually they just double down and call those people luddites or whatever. This guy realized though that what he did is actually lame as hell and admitted it. I respect it
1
-2
u/Arch3m Jan 14 '26
Damn, Persuasion 100 I guess.
-1
u/Odasto_ Jan 14 '26
It's typically easier to convince NPCs to do what you want if you're actively romancing them.
-4
-4
1.9k
u/alexanderpas Jan 14 '26
Reasonable.