#AI Tools for Game Development

[l-1-z-a]

Emergent narrative in The Sims 2

Matt Brown at AIIDE 2006

Notes from Matt Brown's (EA/Maxis) invited talk at AIIDE 2006, entitled "The Power of Projection and Mass Hallucination (Practical AI in The Sims 2 and Beyond)".

The general gist of it is that The Sims 2 is a sandbox world that provides some small bits of narrative-promotion to try to encourage emergent narrative sequences to actually emerge, by matching them against pre-authored snippets that seem desirable. In general, Matt Brown has a very AI-minimalist style of AI design.

Some points and claims:

Perception is key: how to seem intelligent, not how to be intelligent ("Big A, little i")

Complicated behind-the-scenes computation is usually interpreted as random behavior by the player, so don't bother

Players have short memories and quickly move on, so your AI should too

Correlary to the above: Local intelligence is good enough, at least for something like The Sims. Just focus on making sure everything makes sense in relation to what comes immediately before and immediately after, and players will fill in appropriate long-term stories themselves.

Consistency leads to player storytelling and ascription of personality

Some randomness helps avoid brittleness; keeps you from getting stuck in repeated or easily exploitable weird behaviors

The Sims/NPCs react to player-driven momentum, rather than initiating much of anything

Much of the local behavior is organized around story trees

Story trees are explicitly authored bits of story, very short

In their experience, the important thing here was the authoring tools, not the AI: given good tools, a few human authors can quickly create and maintain lots and lots of story trees. Important features were sorting of story trees by roles, easy searching/comparison/etc., batch creation/edits, and variable bindings.

He was pretty adamant that it's much easier to write authoring tools to make writing extensional definitions of "good story" feasible than it is to build a generative system with an internal notion of good story, since you'd have to do a lot of manual fiddling on the latter anyway.

Events are matched against all tree prefixes simultaneously, and of high-matching trees, the events that that tree says would come next in its story snipped is scored against a model of player interest ("player likes [x] events") and personality of the NPC, etc.

Players find it easier to give specific outcomes rather than traits — answering "likes hiking (y/n)?" is easy, while "x/10 for extrovert?" isn't.

Focus the player on the details you will actually use; in character design and personalities, don't try to faithfully model things that don't matter very much to your game

Anecdote: They had a complicated model for which urinals Sims would use: if there's 3, and someone's at the leftmost one, the Sim is supposed to use the rightmost one, not the middle one, unless they have some sort of weird personality. It wasn't reliably getting the responses they wanted, so they ripped it out and replaced it with a random-number generator, which people were just as happy to make up stories about and ascribe personality to.

A bit of an admission in the conclusion: As a sort of aimless "sandbox game", The Sims only really needs to make sure something interesting happens, but it hardly matters what. The player is responsible for making up stories (this is their sandbox after all), so the story-AI part of The Sims is only intended to provide some prompts and play off what the player does. That might not be the case in other types of games.

Follow-up: Maxis ended up deviating significantly from this view of Sims narrative with The Sims 3, bringing in Richard Evans to do a less AI-lite version of the AI, which included longer-term planning rather than purely emergent narrative. Evans has given a number of talks on that, which I unfortunately don't have good notes on, but here (archived) is a brief writeup someone else did of his AIIDE 2007 talk.

Mark J. Nelson, 2006-06-21.

<Note index>

Comments welcome: mjn@anadrome.org

Many thanks to @andrevasims for searching in this post:

[trendtracker360]

Nvidia Dominates AI Buzz Before Earnings Week

Nvidia, a powerhouse in the tech arena, continues to capture headlines as it heads into the eagerly anticipated earnings week. The company’s cutting-edge GPUs, particularly the H100 and A100 models, stand at the forefront of the artificial intelligence revolution, deeply shaping the tech landscape.

Utilizing its unparalleled advancements in GPU technology, Nvidia positions itself strategically within high-compute data centers. These GPUs serve as the backbone of numerous AI-driven applications across various industries, cementing Nvidia’s pivotal role in the current and future state of AI proliferation.

Moreover, the semiconductor giant has showcased an impressive financial trajectory, demonstrating robust growth tied to its renowned pricing power. Yet, some renowned investors express skepticism, pointing to potential market saturation and future competitive challenges that could temper Nvidia’s growth outlook. As the market eagerly awaits this week’s earnings report, Nvidia’s dominance in AI remains a focal point of tech events and investor discussions.

Key Takeaways

Nvidia’s H100 and A100 GPUs are at the forefront of the AI revolution.

Strategic positioning within high-compute data centers bolsters its influence.

The company experiences robust financial growth, driven by commanding pricing power.

Market saturation and future competition pose potential growth challenges.

Nvidia’s dominance in AI is a central topic at tech events leading up to this week’s earnings report.

To Read More >>> Click Here Reference Links:

[nicholasandriani]

Welcome to ‘Learn Play Innovate’ - Navigating the Convergence of Educational Technology, Game Design, and Learning Through Storytelling

Unveiling the Synergy Between Learning, Tech Innovations, and Interactive Design Twitter Patreon GitHub LinkedIn YouTube Introduction: Greetings and a warm welcome to Learn Play Innovate! It’s an exhilarating moment to begin this journey with you, delving into the intricate blend of educational technology (EdTech), game design, and the profound influence of cultural narratives. Allow me to…

[treasure-mimic]

So, let me try and put everything together here, because I really do think it needs to be talked about.

Today, Unity announced that it intends to apply a fee to use its software. Then it got worse.

For those not in the know, Unity is the most popular free to use video game development tool, offering a basic version for individuals who want to learn how to create games or create independently alongside paid versions for corporations or people who want more features. It's decent enough at this job, has issues but for the price point I can't complain, and is the idea entry point into creating in this medium, it's a very important piece of software.

But speaking of tools, the CEO is a massive one. When he was the COO of EA, he advocated for using, what out and out sounds like emotional manipulation to coerce players into microtransactions.

"A consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10, 20, 30, 50 hours on the game and then when they're deep into the game they're well invested in it. We're not gouging, but we're charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high."

He also called game developers who don't discuss monetization early in the planning stages of development, quote, "fucking idiots".

So that sets the stage for what might be one of the most bald-faced greediest moves I've seen from a corporation in a minute. Most at least have the sense of self-preservation to hide it.

A few hours ago, Unity posted this announcement on the official blog.

Effective January 1, 2024, we will introduce a new Unity Runtime Fee that’s based on game installs. We will also add cloud-based asset storage, Unity DevOps tools, and AI at runtime at no extra cost to Unity subscription plans this November. We are introducing a Unity Runtime Fee that is based upon each time a qualifying game is downloaded by an end user. We chose this because each time a game is downloaded, the Unity Runtime is also installed. Also we believe that an initial install-based fee allows creators to keep the ongoing financial gains from player engagement, unlike a revenue share.

Now there are a few red flags to note in this pitch immediately.

Unity is planning on charging a fee on all games which use its engine.

This is a flat fee per number of installs.

They are using an always online runtime function to determine whether a game is downloaded.

There is just so many things wrong with this that it's hard to know where to start, not helped by this FAQ which doubled down on a lot of the major issues people had.

I guess let's start with what people noticed first. Because it's using a system baked into the software itself, Unity would not be differentiating between a "purchase" and a "download". If someone uninstalls and reinstalls a game, that's two downloads. If someone gets a new computer or a new console and downloads a game already purchased from their account, that's two download. If someone pirates the game, the studio will be asked to pay for that download.

Q: How are you going to collect installs? A: We leverage our own proprietary data model. We believe it gives an accurate determination of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project. Q: Is software made in unity going to be calling home to unity whenever it's ran, even for enterprice licenses? A: We use a composite model for counting runtime installs that collects data from numerous sources. The Unity Runtime Fee will use data in compliance with GDPR and CCPA. The data being requested is aggregated and is being used for billing purposes. Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data. Q: What's going to stop us being charged for pirated copies of our games? A: We do already have fraud detection practices in our Ads technology which is solving a similar problem, so we will leverage that know-how as a starting point. We recognize that users will have concerns about this and we will make available a process for them to submit their concerns to our fraud compliance team.

This is potentially related to a new system that will require Unity Personal developers to go online at least once every three days.

Starting in November, Unity Personal users will get a new sign-in and online user experience. Users will need to be signed into the Hub with their Unity ID and connect to the internet to use Unity. If the internet connection is lost, users can continue using Unity for up to 3 days while offline. More details to come, when this change takes effect.

It's unclear whether this requirement will be attached to any and all Unity games, though it would explain how they're theoretically able to track "the number of installs", and why the methodology for tracking these installs is so shit, as we'll discuss later.

Unity claims that it will only leverage this fee to games which surpass a certain threshold of downloads and yearly revenue.

Only games that meet the following thresholds qualify for the Unity Runtime Fee: Unity Personal and Unity Plus: Those that have made $200,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 200,000 lifetime game installs. Unity Pro and Unity Enterprise: Those that have made $1,000,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 1,000,000 lifetime game installs.

They don't say how they're going to collect information on a game's revenue, likely this is just to say that they're only interested in squeezing larger products (games like Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail, Fate Grand Order, Among Us, and Fall Guys) and not every 2 dollar puzzle platformer that drops on Steam. But also, these larger products have the easiest time porting off of Unity and the most incentives to, meaning realistically those heaviest impacted are going to be the ones who just barely meet this threshold, most of them indie developers.

Aggro Crab Games, one of the first to properly break this story, points out that systems like the Xbox Game Pass, which is already pretty predatory towards smaller developers, will quickly inflate their "lifetime game installs" meaning even skimming the threshold of that 200k revenue, will be asked to pay a fee per install, not a percentage on said revenue.

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: Hey Gamers!

Today, Unity (the engine we use to make our games) announced that they'll soon be taking a fee from developers for every copy of the game installed over a certain threshold - regardless of how that copy was obtained.

Guess who has a somewhat highly anticipated game coming to Xbox Game Pass in 2024? That's right, it's us and a lot of other developers.

That means Another Crab's Treasure will be free to install for the 25 million Game Pass subscribers. If a fraction of those users download our game, Unity could take a fee that puts an enormous dent in our income and threatens the sustainability of our business.

And that's before we even think about sales on other platforms, or pirated installs of our game, or even multiple installs by the same user!!!

This decision puts us and countless other studios in a position where we might not be able to justify using Unity for our future titles. If these changes aren't rolled back, we'll be heavily considering abandoning our wealth of Unity expertise we've accumulated over the years and starting from scratch in a new engine. Which is really something we'd rather not do.

On behalf of the dev community, we're calling on Unity to reverse the latest in a string of shortsighted decisions that seem to prioritize shareholders over their product's actual users.

I fucking hate it here.

-Aggro Crab - END DESCRIPTION]

That fee, by the way, is a flat fee. Not a percentage, not a royalty. This means that any games made in Unity expecting any kind of success are heavily incentivized to cost as much as possible.

[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: A table listing the various fees by number of Installs over the Install Threshold vs. version of Unity used, ranging from $0.01 to $0.20 per install. END DESCRIPTION]

Basic elementary school math tells us that if a game comes out for $1.99, they will be paying, at maximum, 10% of their revenue to Unity, whereas jacking the price up to $59.99 lowers that percentage to something closer to 0.3%. Obviously any company, especially any company in financial desperation, which a sudden anchor on all your revenue is going to create, is going to choose the latter.

Furthermore, and following the trend of "fuck anyone who doesn't ask for money", Unity helpfully defines what an install is on their main site.

While I'm looking at this page as it exists now, it currently says

The installation and initialization of a game or app on an end user’s device as well as distribution via streaming is considered an “install.” Games or apps with substantially similar content may be counted as one project, with installs then aggregated to calculate the Unity Runtime Fee.

However, I saw a screenshot saying something different, and utilizing the Wayback Machine we can see that this phrasing was changed at some point in the few hours since this announcement went up. Instead, it reads:

The installation and initialization of a game or app on an end user’s device as well as distribution via streaming or web browser is considered an “install.” Games or apps with substantially similar content may be counted as one project, with installs then aggregated to calculate the Unity Runtime Fee.

Screenshot for posterity:

That would mean web browser games made in Unity would count towards this install threshold. You could legitimately drive the count up simply by continuously refreshing the page. The FAQ, again, doubles down.

Q: Does this affect WebGL and streamed games? A: Games on all platforms are eligible for the fee but will only incur costs if both the install and revenue thresholds are crossed. Installs - which involves initialization of the runtime on a client device - are counted on all platforms the same way (WebGL and streaming included).

And, what I personally consider to be the most suspect claim in this entire debacle, they claim that "lifetime installs" includes installs prior to this change going into effect.

Will this fee apply to games using Unity Runtime that are already on the market on January 1, 2024? Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

Again, again, doubled down in the FAQ.

Q: Are these fees going to apply to games which have been out for years already? If you met the threshold 2 years ago, you'll start owing for any installs monthly from January, no? (in theory). It says they'll use previous installs to determine threshold eligibility & then you'll start owing them for the new ones. A: Yes, assuming the game is eligible and distributing the Unity Runtime then runtime fees will apply. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

That would involve billing companies for using their software before telling them of the existence of a bill. Holding their actions to a contract that they performed before the contract existed!

Okay. I think that's everything. So far.

There is one thing that I want to mention before ending this post, unfortunately it's a little conspiratorial, but it's so hard to believe that anyone genuinely thought this was a good idea that it's stuck in my brain as a significant possibility.

A few days ago it was reported that Unity's CEO sold 2,000 shares of his own company.

On September 6, 2023, John Riccitiello, President and CEO of Unity Software Inc (NYSE:U), sold 2,000 shares of the company. This move is part of a larger trend for the insider, who over the past year has sold a total of 50,610 shares and purchased none.

I would not be surprised if this decision gets reversed tomorrow, that it was literally only made for the CEO to short his own goddamn company, because I would sooner believe that this whole thing is some idiotic attempt at committing fraud than a real monetization strategy, even knowing how unfathomably greedy these people can be.

So, with all that said, what do we do now?

Well, in all likelihood you won't need to do anything. As I said, some of the biggest names in the industry would be directly affected by this change, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they're not just going to take it lying down. After all, the only way to stop a greedy CEO is with a greedier CEO, right?

(I fucking hate it here.)

And that's not mentioning the indie devs who are already talking about abandoning the engine.

[Links display tweets from the lead developer of Among Us saying it'd be less costly to hire people to move the game off of Unity and Cult of the Lamb's official twitter saying the game won't be available after January 1st in response to the news.]

That being said, I'm still shaken by all this. The fact that Unity is openly willing to go back and punish its developers for ever having used the engine in the past makes me question my relationship to it.

The news has given rise to the visibility of free, open source alternative Godot, which, if you're interested, is likely a better option than Unity at this point. Mostly, though, I just hope we can get out of this whole, fucking, environment where creatives are treated as an endless mill of free profits that's going to be continuously ratcheted up and up to drive unsustainable infinite corporate growth that our entire economy is based on for some fuckin reason.

Anyways, that's that, I find having these big posts that break everything down to be helpful.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Google’s enshittification memos

[Note, 9 October 2023: Google disputes the veracity of this claim, but has declined to provide the exhibits and testimony to support its claims. Read more about this here.]

When I think about how the old, good internet turned into the enshitternet, I imagine a series of small compromises, each seemingly reasonable at the time, each contributing to a cultural norm of making good things worse, and worse, and worse.

Think about Unity President Marc Whitten's nonpology for his company's disastrous rug-pull, in which they declared that everyone who had paid good money to use their tool to make a game would have to keep paying, every time someone downloaded that game:

The most fundamental thing that we’re trying to do is we’re building a sustainable business for Unity. And for us, that means that we do need to have a model that includes some sort of balancing change, including shared success.

https://www.wired.com/story/unity-walks-back-policies-lost-trust/

"Shared success" is code for, "If you use our tool to make money, we should make money too." This is bullshit. It's like saying, "We just want to find a way to share the success of the painters who use our brushes, so every time you sell a painting, we want to tax that sale." Or "Every time you sell a house, the company that made the hammer gets to wet its beak."

And note that they're not talking about shared risk here – no one at Unity is saying, "If you try to make a game with our tools and you lose a million bucks, we're on the hook for ten percent of your losses." This isn't partnership, it's extortion.

How did a company like Unity – which became a market leader by making a tool that understood the needs of game developers and filled them – turn into a protection racket? One bad decision at a time. One rationalization and then another. Slowly, and then all at once.

When I think about this enshittification curve, I often think of Google, a company that had its users' backs for years, which created a genuinely innovative search engine that worked so well it seemed like *magic, a company whose employees often had their pick of jobs, but chose the "don't be evil" gig because that mattered to them.

People make fun of that "don't be evil" motto, but if your key employees took the gig because they didn't want to be evil, and then you ask them to be evil, they might just quit. Hell, they might make a stink on the way out the door, too:

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/13/google-china-search-engine-employee-resigns/

Google is a company whose founders started out by publishing a scientific paper describing their search methodology, in which they said, "Oh, and by the way, ads will inevitably turn your search engine into a pile of shit, so we're gonna stay the fuck away from them":

http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf

Those same founders retained a controlling interest in the company after it went IPO, explaining to investors that they were going to run the business without having their elbows jostled by shortsighted Wall Street assholes, so they could keep it from turning into a pile of shit:

https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/ipo-letter/

And yet, it's turned into a pile of shit. Google search is so bad you might as well ask Jeeves. The company's big plan to fix it? Replace links to webpages with florid paragraphs of chatbot nonsense filled with a supremely confident lies:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/14/googles-ai-hype-circle/

How did the company get this bad? In part, this is the "curse of bigness." The company can't grow by attracting new users. When you have 90%+ of the market, there are no new customers to sign up. Hypothetically, they could grow by going into new lines of business, but Google is incapable of making a successful product in-house and also kills most of the products it buys from other, more innovative companies:

https://killedbygoogle.com/

Theoretically, the company could pursue new lines of business in-house, and indeed, the current leaders of companies like Amazon, Microsoft and Apple are all execs who figured out how to get the whole company to do something new, and were elevated to the CEO's office, making each one a billionaire and sealing their place in history.

It is for this very reason that any exec at a large firm who tries to make a business-wide improvement gets immediately and repeatedly knifed by all their colleagues, who correctly reason that if someone else becomes CEO, then they won't become CEO. Machiavelli was an optimist:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/28/microincentives-and-enshittification/

With no growth from new customers, and no growth from new businesses, "growth" has to come from squeezing workers (say, laying off 12,000 engineers after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years), or business customers (say, by colluding with Facebook to rig the ad market with the Jedi Blue conspiracy), or end-users.

Now, in theory, we might never know exactly what led to the enshittification of Google. In theory, all of compromises, debates and plots could be lost to history. But tech is not an oral culture, it's a written one, and techies write everything down and nothing is ever truly deleted.

Time and again, Big Tech tells on itself. Think of FTX's main conspirators all hanging out in a group chat called "Wirefraud." Amazon naming its program targeting weak, small publishers the "Gazelle Project" ("approach these small publishers the way a cheetah would pursue a sickly gazelle”). Amazon documenting the fact that users were unknowingly signing up for Prime and getting pissed; then figuring out how to reduce accidental signups, then deciding not to do it because it liked the money too much. Think of Zuck emailing his CFO in the middle of the night to defend his outsized offer to buy Instagram on the basis that users like Insta better and Facebook couldn't compete with them on quality.

It's like every Big Tech schemer has a folder on their desktop called "Mens Rea" filled with files like "Copy_of_Premeditated_Murder.docx":

https://doctorow.medium.com/big-tech-cant-stop-telling-on-itself-f7f0eb6d215a?sk=351f8a54ab8e02d7340620e5eec5024d

Right now, Google's on trial for its sins against antitrust law. It's a hard case to make. To secure a win, the prosecutors at the DoJ Antitrust Division are going to have to prove what was going on in Google execs' minds when the took the actions that led to the company's dominance. They're going to have to show that the company deliberately undertook to harm its users and customers.

Of course, it helps that Google put it all in writing.

Last week, there was a huge kerfuffile over the DoJ's practice of posting its exhibits from the trial to a website each night. This is a totally normal thing to do – a practice that dates back to the Microsoft antitrust trial. But Google pitched a tantrum over this and said that the docs the DoJ were posting would be turned into "clickbait." Which is another way of saying, "the public would find these documents very interesting, and they would be damning to us and our case":

https://www.bigtechontrial.com/p/secrecy-is-systemic

After initially deferring to Google, Judge Amit Mehta finally gave the Justice Department the greenlight to post the document. It's up. It's wild:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-09/416692.pdf

The document is described as "notes for a course on communication" that Google VP for Finance Michael Roszak prepared. Roszak says he can't remember whether he ever gave the presentation, but insists that the remit for the course required him to tell students "things I didn't believe," and that's why the document is "full of hyperbole and exaggeration."

OK.

But here's what the document says: "search advertising is one of the world's greatest business models ever created…illicit businesses (cigarettes or drugs) could rival these economics…[W]e can mostly ignore the demand side…(users and queries) and only focus on the supply side of advertisers, ad formats and sales."

It goes on to say that this might be changing, and proposes a way to balance the interests of the search and ads teams, which are at odds, with search worrying that ads are pushing them to produce "unnatural search experiences to chase revenue."

"Unnatural search experiences to chase revenue" is a thinly veiled euphemism for the prophetic warnings in that 1998 Pagerank paper: "The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users." Or, more plainly, "ads will turn our search engine into a pile of shit."

And, as Roszak writes, Google is "able to ignore one of the fundamental laws of economics…supply and demand." That is, the company has become so dominant and cemented its position so thoroughly as the default search engine across every platforms and system that even if it makes its search terrible to goose revenues, users won't leave. As Lily Tomlin put it on SNL: "We don't have to care, we're the phone company."

In the enshittification cycle, companies first lure in users with surpluses – like providing the best search results rather than the most profitable ones – with an eye to locking them in. In Google's case, that lock-in has multiple facets, but the big one is spending billions of dollars – enough to buy a whole Twitter, every single year – to be the default search everywhere.

Google doesn't buy its way to dominance because it has the very best search results and it wants to shield you from inferior competitors. The economically rational case for buying default position is that preventing competition is more profitable than succeeding by outperforming competitors. The best reason to buy the default everywhere is that it lets you lower quality without losing business. You can "ignore the demand side, and only focus on advertisers."

For a lot of people, the analysis stops here. "If you're not paying for the product, you're the product." Google locks in users and sells them to advertisers, who are their co-conspirators in a scheme to screw the rest of us.

But that's not right. For one thing, paying for a product doesn't mean you won't be the product. Apple charges a thousand bucks for an iPhone and then nonconsensually spies on every iOS user in order to target ads to them (and lies about it):

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

John Deere charges six figures for its tractors, then runs a grift that blocks farmers from fixing their own machines, and then uses their control over repair to silence farmers who complain about it:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/31/dealers-choice/#be-a-shame-if-something-were-to-happen-to-it

Fair treatment from a corporation isn't a loyalty program that you earn by through sufficient spending. Companies that can sell you out, will sell you out, and then cry victim, insisting that they were only doing their fiduciary duty for their sacred shareholders. Companies are disciplined by fear of competition, regulation or – in the case of tech platforms – customers seizing the means of computation and installing ad-blockers, alternative clients, multiprotocol readers, etc:

https://doctorow.medium.com/an-audacious-plan-to-halt-the-internets-enshittification-and-throw-it-into-reverse-3cc01e7e4604?sk=85b3f5f7d051804521c3411711f0b554

Which is where the next stage of enshittification comes in: when the platform withdraws the surplus it had allocated to lure in – and then lock in – business customers (like advertisers) and reallocate it to the platform's shareholders.

For Google, there are several rackets that let it screw over advertisers as well as searchers (the advertisers are paying for the product, and they're also the product). Some of those rackets are well-known, like Jedi Blue, the market-rigging conspiracy that Google and Facebook colluded on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

But thanks to the antitrust trial, we're learning about more of these. Megan Gray – ex-FTC, ex-DuckDuckGo – was in the courtroom last week when evidence was presented on Google execs' panic over a decline in "ad generating searches" and the sleazy gimmick they came up with to address it: manipulating the "semantic matching" on user queries:

https://www.wired.com/story/google-antitrust-lawsuit-search-results/

When you send a query to Google, it expands that query with terms that are similar – for example, if you search on "Weds" it might also search for "Wednesday." In the slides shown in the Google trial, we learned about another kind of semantic matching that Google performed, this one intended to turn your search results into "a twisted shopping mall you can’t escape."

Here's how that worked: when you ran a query like "children's clothing," Google secretly appended the brand name of a kids' clothing manufacturer to the query. This, in turn, triggered a ton of ads – because rival brands will have bought ads against their competitors' name (like Pepsi buying ads that are shown over queries for Coke).

Here we see surpluses being taken away from both end-users and business customers – that is, searchers and advertisers. For searchers, it doesn't matter how much you refine your query, you're still going to get crummy search results because there's an unkillable, hidden search term stuck to your query, like a piece of shit that Google keeps sticking to the sole of your shoe.

But for advertisers, this is also a scam. They're paying to be matched to users who search on a brand name, and you didn't search on that brand name. It's especially bad for the company whose name has been appended to your search, because Google has a protection racket where the company that matches your search has to pay extra in order to show up overtop of rivals who are worse matches. Both the matching company and those rivals have given Google a credit-card that Google gets to bill every time a user searches on the company's name, and Google is just running fraudulent charges through those cards.

And, of course, Google put this in writing. I mean, of course they did. As we learned from the documentary The Incredibles, supervillains can't stop themselves from monologuing, and in big, sprawling monopolists, these monologues have to transmitted electronically – and often indelibly – to far-flung co-cabalists.

As Gray points out, this is an incredibly blunt enshittification technique: "it hadn’t even occurred to me that Google just flat out deletes queries and replaces them with ones that monetize better." We don't know how long Google did this for or how frequently this bait-and-switch was deployed.

But if this is a blunt way of Google smashing its fist down on the scales that balance search quality against ad revenues, there's plenty of subtler ways the company could sneak a thumb on there. A Google exec at the trial rhapsodized about his company's "contract with the user" to deliver an "honest results policy," but given how bad Google search is these days, we're left to either believe he's lying or that Google sucks at search.

The paper trail offers a tantalizing look at how a company went from doing something that was so good it felt like a magic trick to being "able to ignore one of the fundamental laws of economics…supply and demand," able to "ignore the demand side…(users and queries) and only focus on the supply side of advertisers."

What's more, this is a system where everyone loses (except for Google): this isn't a grift run by Google and advertisers on users – it's a grift Google runs on everyone.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/03/not-feeling-lucky/#fundamental-laws-of-economics

My next novel is The Lost Cause, a hopeful novel of the climate emergency. Amazon won't sell the audiobook, so I made my own and I'm pre-selling it on Kickstarter!

[lucubratemagazine]

Without Technology School will become Irrelevant

Harnessing the value of tools like ChatGPT to unlock powerful new learning capabilities and all learner possibility has the potential to prepare students to navigate a world in which artificial intelligence becomes the curve and our inherent human skills

Lucubrate Magazine, February 1st, 2023 ChatGPT is the Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool taking the world by storm. The biggest lesson about the real world and the future of work is that technological change is not looming over a distant horizon – but now – and many in education are already late.  Students return to their school. In the coming weeks, students in Australia will return to their…

[tagxdata22]

Artificial Intelligence in Gaming

What is AI in Gaming?

AI in gaming is the use of artificial intelligence to create game characters and environments that are capable of responding to a player’s actions in a realistic and dynamic way. AI can be used to create believable characters that can interact with the player, create dynamic levels, and generate new gaming experiences. AI can even be used to create challenging opponents that require the player to think strategically.

AI Development in Gaming

AI development in gaming refers to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to create non-player characters (NPCs) that can interact with players in a game environment. AI development is used in modern video games to create immersive and realistic gaming experiences. AI development has been used to create NPCs that can respond to players in various ways, such as offering advice and guidance. AI can also be used to create NPCs that can challenge players and offer a more realistic gaming experience. Additionally, AI development is used to create more complex and lifelike game environments, such as virtual worlds and cities. AI can also be used to create more intelligent game enemies that can react to players’ actions and strategies. AI development is also being used to create autonomous game characters that can act on their own or interact with players.

Features in AI Gaming include: 

1. Dynamic Environments: AI games can have dynamic environments that change in real-time. This allows for greater complexity and unpredictability compared to games that have a fixed environment.

 2. AI Opponents: AI opponents can be programmed to use a range of strategies to challenge the player and make the game more interesting. 

3. Adaptive Learning: AI games can learn from their mistakes and adjust their strategies over time to become more challenging. 

4. Procedural Generation: AI games can generate levels and opponents in real-time, making the game more unpredictable and providing an ever-changing challenge. 

5. Natural Language Processing: AI games can use natural language processing to interpret player commands and understand the player’s intent. 

6. Real-Time Decision Making: AI games can make decisions in real-time, allowing the game to be more responsive to the player’s actions. 

7. Realistic Physics and Animation: AI games can use realistic physics and animation to create a believable game world.

8. Audio Recognition: AI games can use audio recognition to interpret player commands and understand the player’s intent.

How is AI used in Video Games?

Ai is used in video games to bring realism and challenge to the gaming experience. This can include non-player characters (NPCs) that react to the player’s actions, enemy units that use strategic decision-making, environment-specific behaviors, and more. AI can also be used to create and manage dynamic in-game events and levels, as well as to generate opponents that can adapt to the player’s skill level.

Application of AI in Games:

1. Autonomous Opponents: Autonomous opponents are computer-controlled characters in a video game. AI can be used to create autonomous opponents that can adapt to the player’s behavior and provide a challenging gaming experience. 

2. Pathfinding: Pathfinding is a cornerstone of game AI and is used to help the characters and enemies move around the game environment correctly. AI techniques such as A* search and Dijkstra’s algorithm are used to calculate the best possible routes for characters to take.

3. Natural Language Processing: Natural language processing (NLP) is a form of artificial intelligence that allows machines to understand and interpret human language. AI can be used to create virtual characters in games that are capable of understanding and responding to the player’s input in natural language.

4. Decision-Making and Planning: AI can be used to create characters that can make decisions and plan actions based on the current game state. AI techniques such as Monte Carlo Tree Search and Reinforcement Learning are used to help characters make decisions in the most optimal way.

5. Procedural Content Generation: Procedural content generation is a form of AI that can be used to generate content in games such as levels, items

Advantages of AI in Gaming: 

1. Improved User Experiences: Artificial Intelligence technology can be used to enhance the user experience in gaming by providing players with more engaging and immersive gameplay. AI can be used to generate more interesting scenarios, create more challenging puzzles, and provide better feedback to the player.

 2. Increased Realism: AI can be used to create more realistic environments, characters, and stories. This can lead to a more believable and engaging gaming experience. 

3. Improved Performance: AI can be used to optimize the performance of a game. AI can be used to analyze the user’s gaming experience and provide feedback on how to improve performance. 

4. Greater Variety: AI can be used to generate more diverse and interesting content. This can create more dynamic and exciting gaming experiences. 

5. Improved Accessibility: AI can be used to create more accessible gaming experiences. AI can be used to create more intuitive and user-friendly interfaces, making gaming more accessible to a wider range of players.

Top 5 AI Innovations in the Gaming Industry:

1. Autonomous AI Agents: Autonomous AI agents are programmed to act independently in a virtual environment. These agents are able to interact with a game’s environment and other characters, as well as make decisions about when and how to act. 

2. Natural Language Processing: Natural language processing (NLP) is the ability of AI to understand and interpret human language. This technology is used in many video games to help players communicate with each other and the game itself. 

3. Adaptive Difficulty: Adaptive difficulty is a feature that allows the game to adjust its difficulty level based on the player’s performance. This helps keep the game interesting, as the challenge can be adjusted to match each player’s skill level. 

4. Automated Level Design: Automated level design is a technology that uses AI to create levels for video games. This allows developers to quickly and easily generate a variety of levels for their games. 

5. AI-Driven NPCs: Non-player characters (NPCs) are characters in a game that are controlled by the AI. This technology allows NPCs to act realistically and react to the player’s actions.

Conclusion:

AI in gaming has come a long way since its early days, and it will continue to evolve in the future. AI has changed the way games are designed, developed, and played, and has opened up new possibilities for gamers. It can help create immersive experiences, create smarter opponents, and create more realistic and varied gaming experiences. It will continue to be used to explore new ways of playing games, providing gamers with ever more exciting and engaging gaming experiences. AI is being used in various aspects of gaming, from game design and development to helping players with strategy and tactics.AI can help game developers create games with more complex environments and have more intelligent opponents. It can also help players find better strategies and tactics to win games. AI can also be used to create games with more sophisticated storylines and narrative arcs. In the future, AI can be used to create virtual worlds with more diverse and complex populations, allowing for more immersive and dynamic gaming experiences.

[kayuripax]

Valve news and the AI

So. I assume people saw some posts going around on how valve has new AI rules, and things getting axed. And because we live in a society, I went down the rabbit hole to learn my information for myself. Here's what I found, under a cut to keep it easier. To start off, I am not a proponent of AI. I just don't like misinformation. So. Onwards.

VALVE AND THE AI

First off, no, AI will not take things over. Let me show you, supplemented by the official valve news post from here. (because if hbomberguy taught us anything it is to cite your sources)

[Image id: a screenshot from the official valve blog. It says the following:

First, we are updating the Content Survey that developers fill out when submitting to Steam. The survey now includes a new AI disclosure section, where you'll need to describe how you are using AI in the development and execution of your game. It separates AI usage in games into two broad categories:

Pre-Generated: Any kind of content (art/code/sound/etc) created with the help of AI tools during development. Under the Steam Distribution Agreement, you promise Valve that your game will not include illegal or infringing content, and that your game will be consistent with your marketing materials. In our pre-release review, we will evaluate the output of AI generated content in your game the same way we evaluate all non-AI content - including a check that your game meets those promises.

Live-Generated: Any kind of content created with the help of AI tools while the game is running. In addition to following the same rules as Pre-Generated AI content, this comes with an additional requirement: in the Content Survey, you'll need to tell us what kind of guardrails you're putting on your AI to ensure it's not generating illegal content. End image ID]

So. Let us break that down a bit, shall we? Valve has been workshopping these new AI rules since last June, and had adopted a wait and see approach beforehand. This had cost them a bit of revenue, which is not ideal if you are a company. Now they have settled on a set of rules. Rules that are relatively easy to understand. - Rule one: Game devs have to disclose when their game has AI - Rule two: If your game uses AI, you have to say what kind it uses. Did you generate the assets ahead of time, and they stay like that? Or are they actively generated as the consumer plays? - Rule three: You need to tell Valve the guardrails you have to make sure your live-generating AI doesn't do things that are going against the law. - Rule four: If you use pre-generated assets, then your assets cannot violate copyright. Valve will check to make sure that you aren't actually lying.

That doesn't sound too bad now, does it? This is a way Valve can keep going. Because they will need to. And ignoring AI is, as much as we all hate it, not going to work. They need to face it. And they did. So. Onto part two, shall we?

[Image ID: a screenshot from the official Valve blog. It says the following: Valve will use this disclosure in our review of your game prior to release. We will also include much of your disclosure on the Steam store page for your game, so customers can also understand how the game uses AI. End image ID]

Let's break that down. - Valve will show you if games use AI. Because they want you to know that. Because that is transparency.

Part three.

[Image ID: A screenshot from the official Valve blog. It says the following:

Second, we're releasing a new system on Steam that allows players to report illegal content inside games that contain Live-Generated AI content. Using the in-game overlay, players can easily submit a report when they encounter content that they believe should have been caught by appropriate guardrails on AI generation.

Today's changes are the result of us improving our understanding of the landscape and risks in this space, as well as talking to game developers using AI, and those building AI tools. This will allow us to be much more open to releasing games using AI technology on Steam. The only exception to this will be Adult Only Sexual Content that is created with Live-Generated AI - we are unable to release that type of content right now. End Image ID]

Now onto the chunks.

Valve is releasing a new system that makes it easier to report questionable AI content. Specifically live-generated AI content. You can easily access it by steam overlay, and it will be an easier way to report than it has been so far.

Valve is prohibiting NSFW content with live-generating AI. Meaning there won't be AI generated porn, and AI companions for NSWF content are not allowed.

That doesn't sound bad, does it? They made some rules so they can get revenue so they can keep their service going, while also making it obvious for people when AI is used. Alright? Alright. Now calm down. Get yourself a drink.

---

Team Fortress Source 2

My used source here is this.

There was in fact a DCMA takedown notice. But it is not the only thing that led to the takedown. To sum things up: There were issues with the engine, and large parts of the code became unusable. The dev team decided that the notice was merely the final nail in the coffin, and decided to take it down. So that is that. I don't know more on this, so I will not say more, because I don't want to spread misinformation and speculation. I want to keep some credibility, please and thanks.

---

Portal Demake axed

Sources used are from here, here and here.

Portal 64 got axed. Why? Because it has to do with Nintendo. The remake uses a Nintendo library. And one that got extensively pirated at that. And we all know how trigger-happy Nintendo is with it's intellectual property. And Nintendo is not exactly happy with Valve and Steam, and sent them a letter in 2023.

[Image ID: a screenshot from a PC-Gamer article. It says the following: It's possible that Valve's preemptive strike against Portal 64 was prompted at least in part by an encounter with Nintendo in 2023 over the planned release of the Dolphin emulator for the Wii and Gamecube consoles on Steam. Nintendo sent a letter to Valve ahead of that launch that attorney Kellen Voyer of Voyer Law said was a "warning shot" against releasing it. End Image ID.]

So. Yeah. Nintendo doesn't like people doing things with their IP. Valve is most likely avoiding potential lawsuits, both for themselves and Lambert, the dev behind Portal 64. Nintendo is an enemy one doesn't want to have. Valve is walking the "better safe than sorry" path here.

---

There we go. This is my "let's try and clear up some misinformation" post. I am now going to play a game, because this took the better part of an hour. I cited my sources. Auf Wiedersehen.

[girlballs]

something i never really see brought up re: AI art/software tools is that they could actually help a fucking ton with some of the extremely tedious shit nobody actually enjoys doing

like. from the perspective of someone doing game development. it would be Great to be able to do some Star Trek shit inside Unreal Engine like. hey computer set up these three new collision channels with these properties, and also create an interface with these two signals that each have these inputs and outputs

y'know so in the meantime i can actually use my human brain power to focus on the artistic & design side of things instead of tedious shit

[wauzmons]

Last month I started development on the "Elysian Mesh" tool, which allows the game to procedurally generate 3D models. Here are some of the first results: These castle walls were generated randomly at runtime without any input from players!

While they don't look interesting at all right now, the concept has big potential for the civilized stages of the game. For example we could have a way more advanced building editor than Spore, where you could drag parts of the building, similar to joints in the creature editor and the game would automatically create walls between the parts.

Or instead of every city just being a circle layout, the AI empires could actually build an unique city or castle with this system.

[elbiotipo]

What are like good AIs for making up inspirations for writing and such? I was trying to make ChatGPT fulfill this function, and like it's good at coming up with names or riddles but actual stories or setting ideas are bad. Not even bad as in nonsensical or lack human touch, bad as in they look like the most generic thing possible

Well, before AIs there was this website, with all sorts of generators for names, NPCs, even random maps and solar systems and more for different settings. It even has a free Markov Name Generator where you can just put a list of names or words and it generates random names from them! I still use it for generating names when I feel lazy (I'm not a good conlanger)

But my favorite right now is one you can find here, @statsbot by @reachartwork. You can add the bot on Discord and ask them for a lot of commands, like creating you a statblock for NPCs or characters (I asked them for example for stats for the Daft Punk guys in a Cyberpunk campaign), a skeleton of an adventure or dungeon with random encounters, random monsters for all kinds of systems, descriptions of settings and places, or my VERY favorite, /elaborate, where you send them a little worldbuilding prompt (for example, "a kobold merchant republic", "a pantheon of fire deities") and it gives you a whole worldbuilding blurb that you can use as you want.

This is one of my favorite outputs:

The outputs are very interesting and creative, I don't even play RPGs that much, I just feed it prompts and see what it comes up with. I think the author is working on a solo version which can remember previous prompts which could be very useful if you are building a setting and want to develop some stuff but don't know how. Do give them a tip if you use it!

[askagamedev]

Do you have any insight as to why annual sports titles have not gone the Live Service model yet given the fact each year it is mostly minor tweaks and roster changes anyway?

I've actually worked on and shipped more than one annual sports title over my career and I want say for the record that the idea that annual sports titles are "mostly minor tweaks and roster changes" is absolutely and categorically false. Annual sports titles absolutely do not have the same scope as AAA games with multi-year dev cycles, but they do absolutely have significant breadth and depth of scope each year beyond "minor tweaks and roster changes".

The majority changes that occur each year are spread out because they must be - there simply isn't enough development time within the ~11ish calendar months between launches to rebuild everything, so decisions must be made about what gets added/updated this year and what waits for next year. That means that, besides roster updates and minor tweaks, this year we're committing to change our animation system, these eight specific stadiums/arenas, these three game modes, update the commentary system, and rework the stat simulation. Next year, we're committing to these other eight stadiums/arenas, these other four game modes, the physics system, the VFX system, and the AI logic. This sort of round-robin approach is necessary - the dev team often isn't large enough to sustain working on everything each cycle so we need to pick and choose what we can do each year within the time we have. It also means that players who only engage with some of the game likely don't necessarily see (or notice) all of the changes we make each time around. This doesn't mean that we didn't do it or that the changes aren't there, but it can certainly look like not much has changed if the player isn't playing those parts of the game.

To your main question - The primary reason that annual sports games haven't transitioned to a live service model is because of inertia. There is a well-established and financially sustainable annual sales model that works. There would need to be a significant and tangible gain to be had by switching to a live service model other than novelty - all of the current existing tools and systems are built with the expectation of delivering a new retail game each year, and all of the dev experience built up is for delivering a new retail game each year. Switching over to an ongoing service would come at tremendous cost. There must be a gain to outweigh that cost in order for the publishers to do it.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[blubberquark]

Things That Are Hard

Some things are harder than they look. Some things are exactly as hard as they look.

Game AI, Intelligent Opponents, Intelligent NPCs

As you already know, "Game AI" is a misnomer. It's NPC behaviour, escort missions, "director" systems that dynamically manage the level of action in a game, pathfinding, AI opponents in multiplayer games, and possibly friendly AI players to fill out your team if there aren't enough humans.

Still, you are able to implement minimax with alpha-beta pruning for board games, pathfinding algorithms like A* or simple planning/reasoning systems with relative ease. Even easier: You could just take an MIT licensed library that implements a cool AI technique and put it in your game.

So why is it so hard to add AI to games, or more AI to games? The first problem is integration of cool AI algorithms with game systems. Although games do not need any "perception" for planning algorithms to work, no computer vision, sensor fusion, or data cleanup, and no Bayesian filtering for mapping and localisation, AI in games still needs information in a machine-readable format. Suddenly you go from free-form level geometry to a uniform grid, and from "every frame, do this or that" to planning and execution phases and checking every frame if the plan is still succeeding or has succeeded or if the assumptions of the original plan no longer hold and a new plan is on order. Intelligent behaviour is orders of magnitude more code than simple behaviours, and every time you add a mechanic to the game, you need to ask yourself "how do I make this mechanic accessible to the AI?"

Some design decisions will just be ruled out because they would be difficult to get to work in a certain AI paradigm.

Even in a game that is perfectly suited for AI techniques, like a turn-based, grid-based rogue-like, with line-of-sight already implemented, can struggle to make use of learning or planning AI for NPC behaviour.

What makes advanced AI "fun" in a game is usually when the behaviour is at least a little predictable, or when the AI explains how it works or why it did what it did. What makes AI "fun" is when it sometimes or usually plays really well, but then makes little mistakes that the player must learn to exploit. What makes AI "fun" is interesting behaviour. What makes AI "fun" is game balance.

You can have all of those with simple, almost hard-coded agent behaviour.

Video Playback

If your engine does not have video playback, you might think that it's easy enough to add it by yourself. After all, there are libraries out there that help you decode and decompress video files, so you can stream them from disk, and get streams of video frames and audio.

You can just use those libraries, and play the sounds and display the pictures with the tools your engine already provides, right?

Unfortunately, no. The video is probably at a different frame rate from your game's frame rate, and the music and sound effect playback in your game engine are probably not designed with syncing audio playback to a video stream.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that it's surprisingly tricky, and even worse, it might be something that can't be built on top of your engine, but something that requires you to modify your engine to make it work.

Stealth Games

Stealth games succeed and fail on NPC behaviour/AI, predictability, variety, and level design. Stealth games need sophisticated and legible systems for line of sight, detailed modelling of the knowledge-state of NPCs, communication between NPCs, and good movement/ controls/game feel.

Making a stealth game is probably five times as difficult as a platformer or a puzzle platformer.

In a puzzle platformer, you can develop puzzle elements and then build levels. In a stealth game, your NPC behaviour and level design must work in tandem, and be developed together. Movement must be fluid enough that it doesn't become a challenge in itself, without stealth. NPC behaviour must be interesting and legible.

Rhythm Games

These are hard for the same reason that video playback is hard. You have to sync up your audio with your gameplay. You need some kind of feedback for when which audio is played. You need to know how large the audio lag, screen lag, and input lag are, both in frames, and in milliseconds.

You could try to counteract this by using certain real-time OS functionality directly, instead of using the machinery your engine gives you for sound effects and background music. You could try building your own sequencer that plays the beats at the right time.

Now you have to build good gameplay on top of that, and you have to write music. Rhythm games are the genre that experienced programmers are most likely to get wrong in game jams. They produce a finished and playable game, because they wanted to write a rhythm game for a change, but they get the BPM of their music slightly wrong, and everything feels off, more and more so as each song progresses.

Online Multi-Player Netcode

Everybody knows this is hard, but still underestimates the effort it takes. Sure, back in the day you could use the now-discontinued ready-made solution for Unity 5.0 to synchronise the state of your GameObjects. Sure, you can use a library that lets you send messages and streams on top of UDP. Sure, you can just use TCP and server-authoritative networking.

It can all work out, or it might not. Your netcode will have to deal with pings of 300 milliseconds, lag spikes, package loss, and maybe recover from five seconds of lost WiFi connections. If your game can't, because it absolutely needs the low latency or high bandwidth or consistency between players, you will at least have to detect these conditions and handle them, for example by showing text on the screen informing the player he has lost the match.

It is deceptively easy to build certain kinds of multiplayer games, and test them on your local network with pings in the single digit milliseconds. It is deceptively easy to write your own RPC system that works over TCP and sends out method names and arguments encoded as JSON. This is not the hard part of netcode. It is easy to write a racing game where players don't interact much, but just see each other's ghosts. The hard part is to make a fighting game where both players see the punches connect with the hit boxes in the same place, and where all players see the same finish line. Or maybe it's by design if every player sees his own car go over the finish line first.

[eruscreaminginthedistance]

Seen lots of talk about this going around lately so thought I'd put the sparknotes of this interview here for posterity.

Baldur's Gate-specific questions:

Swen reconfirms they don't plan to make any DLC or sequels to BG3; they made a start but didn't feel like their hearts were in it. They now have two other games they want to make instead.

When asked if they had plans for a Divinity: Original Sin 3, Swen replied: "Yeah, I can't tell you. No, it will have its proper moment. Hopefully nobody's going to leak it for us, but it's different than what you think it is, but it is still familiar enough for you to recognize that it's something that we are making."

Astarion was originally planned to be a Tiefling.

Ketheric Thorm was intended to be a companion.

Locations that got cut included Hell, Vlaakith's Palace, and Candlekeep (Dx).

BG3 characters now belong to Wizards of the Coast, not Larian.

There were apparently 24 different variations of Shadowheart getting the artifact to you (not sure if this refers to development or the release version of the game).

When asked about how Act 1 was very polished and well-received, but Act 3 had issues, he responded "Yeah. I know. Yeah, one day I'll figure that one out.".

They're currently working with Microsoft and Sony to start rolling out curated mods for console versions of the game.

Epilogue content is still being worked on. They plan to give each ending a full cinematic, and are currently working on the evil endings.

Cross-platform play is still in the works, but it's difficult to implement.

Swen's opinions on the current state of the games industry and general development under the cut:

Lots of righteous rage from Swen about the mass firings in the games industry and how they don't contribute to making good games.

"But because the ones that are making those decisions don't play the games, don't understand the ethos, they don't care about it. They don't understand that fundamental truth that that's in there. It's just, oh, well, it's a technical artist, we can get another technical artist, whatever. Also, who fires their technical artists?!"

He believes that AAA games with massive budgets can be sustainable for the industry because the audience is there, and because these types of games can fuel progression and innovation.

Believes the lists of upsides to early access is way longer than the list of downsides; "it is the model of the future. I mean, it's not only for your mechanics and your balancing, but even your story gets better. You see how players resonate, what they're after."

Swen's stance on AI is that it is a tool to speed up certain processes, but that it couldn't replace the creative elements of development. His current approach to speeding up artistic development is to hire more concept artists and writers, rather than using generative AIs. He does believe that it has a place in the future of game development, though: "I don't buy the full NPC being generated, but most likely everything will feel the same. So I buy more that there's going to be something that's crafted, and then you'll have AI that plugs into it to augment it. And it should be done in such a way that it's invisible, so you don't know that it's shifting around."

Remote work doesn't seem to be feasible for a game of BG3's scale. In their period of working from home, Swen noted that it was a much easier time for senior devs than for the juniors, who needed mentoring, and they had communication issues during this time as well.

[swiriko]

A Pencil and Paper

On September 12th, 2023. Unity announced that it would be adding a "per-install" fee towards developers. [X]

There have already been many indie developers that have already spoken out against it, so I will amplify their voices here:

Inner Sloth, developers of Among Us: [X]

Aggro Crab, developers of Another Crab's Treasure: [X]

However, there's been some interesting takes on where developers are going from here. And the top contenders seem to be two vastly different engines: Godot and Unreal Engine.

Godot, an open source, yet still fledgling game engine.

Unreal Engine, an engine that's been one of the heaviest hitting professional engines for literal decades.

It reminds me of a parallel situation: People fucking off of Autodesk Maya to use literally anything else, people fucking off of Adobe to use literally anything else. Except not everyone can afford to just switch to something else, due to logistical reasons, or that they're entire franchise has been using this engine/software/tool for literal years, and they can't afford to relearn something new.

And to those that switch, there's a siren waiting for those sailing through new waters: Unreal Engine is literally owned by Epic Games, who also own Artstation, who literally ostracized their entire userbase in support of AI art. [X] You're telling me THAT'S one of the main alternatives to Unity? You don't think Epic Games given enough time and greed will pull this same kind of shit or worse once you've built your entire business model upon being dependent of their product?

The internet simultaneously has an entire archive of history, yet the collective memory of a goldfish.

The Unfortunate reality is that it IS one of the main alternatives.

Adobe's main alternatives for digital art has been Clip Studio Paint and Paint Tool SAI, both great software for digital painting, and yet parallel's this same situation. CSP was supposed to be the herald of a new standard, yet fell hard from grace when CELSYS decided to adopt the same dreaded subscription model as Adobe once so many digital artists latched on and became dependent on it. [X] While Paint Tool SAI's lone developer has been rather struggling due to SAI's wide spread userbase being mostly pirates. [X]

At the same time, for 3D Art, the many many other 3D Software packages are also hilariously expensive, with many also requiring subscription models now... EXCEPT for Blender. But blender still isn't considered the industry standard. And yet it's one of the few 3D software I still have installed.

History tends to rhyme, so most likely, Godot will never become an industry standard game engine. But if it has enough people behind it, it can and will be the Blender option for Game Development, with a rich library and marketplace of user-made add-ons and plugins. Open Source, and free.

There is something to be said, however. The Tools DO matter, as much as we hate to admit it, good tools DO matter, ACCESS to good tools matter, the affordability of good tools matter, being able to use the RIGHT tool for an art piece matters, being able to use the most comfortable tool for the artist matters.

That's why Unity's new business model, hell even UNREAL ENGINE'S business model is an insult to game development as an art. John Riccitiello and Tim Sweeney have said to the game industry, "I make the pencil you use, so I get a cut of what you make from it, even if you've already paid to use it."

Fuck off with that shit. Motherfucking RPG Maker had a better business model.

It wouldn't be such a huge issue if it didn't matter. After all, you can make art with just a pencil and paper, but a pencil and paper alone is only a mere FRACTION of the tools we have used to make the raw, unfathomable library of art in the history of art itself.