Monday, July 3rd 2023
Valve Clarifies its Stance on AI-generated Game Content
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.
Sources:
Eurogamer, AIGameDev Subreddit Post
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.
17 Comments on Valve Clarifies its Stance on AI-generated Game Content
which is why Steam is so ffing full of pure waste.
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.
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 :laugh:
I await a (legit, and informative) rant from one of our especially up-to-speed users. To call AI 'disruptive' is an understatement.
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.
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.
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:
glacialsoftware.net
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.
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.