Oh, that's cool, I respect that.
Anyone know offhand their stance on jackbooted thugs kicking in the doors of people who write emulation software and sending them to prison? Just trying to get a pulse on that
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
195 points (94.1% liked)
Gaming
19967 readers
5 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Nintendo is probably the most anti emulation company. They tried to make emulation completely illegal, they sued yuzu (the devs did some things that encouraged that) and made the devs pay a couple million and never develop emulators again. They are also the reason why dolphin didn’t come to steam as they wanted to sue valve if they allowed it on their platform. They also took down various tools that allowed one to rip your own switch games. I think they are for the second point
Pretty sure they're on the pro side of the latter
Can you share what specifically you're referring to?
Article: https://www.polygon.com/23688170/gary-bowser-hacker-nintendo-released-restitution
In this interview he claims he was simply paid to develop like a contractor and the people running the business still haven't faced consequences: https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/136/
I mean, it feels kinda obvious. If there's any company in this space that would never need to use generative AI, it's Nintendo. They already employ some of the most talented art teams in the industry, they're not exactly struggling to produce art or assets.
If this was from a developer who maybe hasn't been a gaming monolith for the last 30+ years, that'd be different. This is like if Bill Gates says he promises not to open his 401k early; like, okay cool, I don't think that was ever in doubt in the last 30 years, Bill, but thanks for letting us know.
Activision, Ubisoft, and EA, all multibillion game dev company, said they'll be using generative AI to make their game, so no, it's not really obvious. It's also mentioned in the article
Nintendo's stance differs from that of other gaming giants. Earlier this year, Ubisoft introduced Project Neural Nexus NEO NPCs, which uses generative AI to simulate in-game conversations and interactions with NPCs.
Similarly, Square Enix President Takashi Kiryu views generative AI as a business opportunity to create new content using cutting-edge technologies. Electronic Arts (EA) has also embraced generative AI, with CEO Andrew Wilson predicting that over half of EA's development processes will benefit from advancements in generative AI.
The investor probably heard it's a trendy thing that can make better profit, so they asked nintendo about it in the briefing.
Activision, Ubisoft, and EA, all multibillion game dev company, said they’ll be using generative AI to make their game
Because these companies don't care stealing assets and work of others. AI makes it very easy and it won't be too obvious. Problem with AI is, its trained on data they probably have no rights to use for. But its hard to provide evidence, until its too late and obvious.
They don't even care to make good games anymore.
Yes and no. The developers mostly still care making good games. Therefore some games are still good. Also we got a few good surprises in the last few years from these companies, so its not all lost.
Developers yes, the companies? No.
Also we got a few good surprises
I can only think of Jedi Fallen Order and that was 5 years ago, maybe Diablo IV but I didn't play it.
Those are the companies that have contributed to the fast churn of creatives getting overworked and leaving the industry, leaving their projects to be driven entirely by excess man-hours and lack of innovation.
The switch could not even run an LLM fast enough LOL.
I doubt most console or phone does, one workaround is to have a server that process everything then send the result to the client side, be it a generated video, picture, or text, i bet most AI stuff is done this way, they don't download all the required data and process locally.
Also generative AI doesn't mean it need to be generated live ingame, it can be dialog script, concept art, all sort of production stuff.
We haven't really seen high quality art that uses AI as part of the creative process yet, but this could be similar to the animation studios of the 90s who refused to use computers. They're all out of business now.
The reality is, generative AI is a really powerful tool, so they will be at a disadvantage going forward if they don't use it.
The situation is different from the 90s companies not wanting to use computers. Using AI today is a risk of violating copyright. The reason is totally different and is not comparable.
The copyright issue is tangential. You don't have to train a model using unethically sourced artwork, just like you don't have to build a structure using slave labor. Nintendo has the resources to legally protect themselves one way or another if they actually wanted to use generative AI.
God dammit Nintendo.
You're somehow great AND the actual worst and I fucking hate you for it.
And I know why it happens, but still. FUCKING HELL.
Instead of generative AI for game assets, id much rather see something like a LLM in game that dynamically controls NPC behavior. That would be cool as hell.
Like an RPG where you can type what you want to say to an NPC instead of choosing a fixed dialogue tree.
When a bunch of RPGs start doing that, they are all just going to start feeling the same.
Only if they use it the same way and within the same context. But isn't that what always happens when a new gaming system/idea explodes and clones start poping up? I don't think that matters much, in fact competition might actually be a good thing.
I guess I just don't see the appeal. If I wanted to interact with an AI, I can do it right now without launching a game to do it. And pointless NPCs are already one of the most annoying parts of games for me. I don't want to waste my time reading meaningless dialogue from 100 characters trying to find the 1 person who will actually let me advance and continue playing the game. It will be even worse when they are all taking an unlimited stream of shit instead of 1 or 2 canned responses, because it will just be even harder to know who is wasting your time.
As with all things, it will come down to how its used and the prompt.
For instance, filler characters could have a built in plan tonger more abrasive and use shorter responses when engaged.
The plot can still be set and the dialogue is used to advance that, however you choose to proceed.
I'm sure some will be seamless and great. Others will be clunky. Its not the tool, but how its used. If generative AI is just used to make assets and dialogue instead of paying artists, it will be crappy. If artists use it to plan characters and plots that flow more freely but still allow engagement and sandbox, it'll be awesome.
To each their own. For me, a good lore and dialog is what makes a good RPG stand out.
If I want action and reflexes, I'd go play an action game. If I want strategy, I'd go for a puzzle game, or a 4X, deckbuilder, etc. But in a proper RPG what I look for is good lore, engaging story and some level of freedom that makes me feel I'm having an impact in that world. If AI can help with immersion and/or dynamic changes, I'm all for it. Of course, for that to happen they need to make sure it does stay in character and does not hallucinate something incoherent.
If there's an AI chatbox that actually can stay coherent and be set up as a game without feeling like you have to input too many instructions to the AI to push the narrative (I think AI Dungeon gets close) then well, you could almost consider that being an RPG already. After all, the first RPGs were all text based. So I would already consider that the first iteration of AI-based RPG game. But translating that to a live 3D environment would be the next step.
Not gonna happen. Not really.
So far research suggests the guardrail and hallucination problems are unsolvable, and we are seeing diminishing returns from increasing the complexity of these systems.
Hence devs will never have the necessary control required to author an actual narrative. NPCs will end up talking about mechanics that don't exist, or saying things that contradict an overrall narrative.
Even with actual people, if you just throw them in a room and have the improv a world into existence, it never ends up quite as good as a properly authored narrative.
And LLMs are nowhere near achieving the level of internal consistency required for something like the worlds of Elden Ring or Mass Effect.
Baldur's Gate 3 contains truly staggering amounts of writing, multiple times that of classical literary works. The hallucination problem means that if all that were AI generated, small parts of it might pass inspection, but trying to immerse yourself in it as a fictional world would have you noticing immersion breaking continuity errors left and right.
I want to see that too. Guaranteed to go off the rails aat the moment. Like what does the NPC reply to "I be fartin' loud as fuck on metal chairs"?
I've seen some cool controlled demos though.
Maybe it would say "wtf are you saying, try asking me about the haunted manor instead"
Edit: ugh, I lost myself in this reply. It's just geeking about the future what could be possible, mostly not worth reading if you value your time.
This is one of the most exciting developments to me, the actual AI of bots or NPCs. Not only for RPG games, I can also envision multiplayer games to be more fun playing offline with bots. Imagine they act like humans, with their hearings and trying to trick you out in Mario Kart, Street Fighter and Counter Strike. Obviously we are long way from this, but this is very exciting to me.
Also GTA where people act normal and do stuff humans would probably try too is exciting as well. In RPGs imagine you hear about a hero in a village who defends its town and you recruit him, finding out its just a normal NPC for other players, but got strong because it found a holy weapon you dropped near to him in the beginning of the game. Just totally wild idea I know, but what if the future of games (probably 50 years from now... sheesh) is extremely rich and dynamic? I have no idea how this vision could be accomplished without AI and always server connection to power servers...
I'm with the stance of Valve here. Don't use AI, if you didn't train the data yourself. Generative AI can be useful and safe, if you trained it yourself. Using AI itself is not the problem and even Nintendo can benefit from it.
I can only assume someone made them an offer they could refuse
They mentioned IP right, and since Japanese police do arrest and charge people for infringing copyright, and since some artist do recognize their work being smashed together to create something else, they might skip this thing for the foreseeable future just to be on the safe side. They know because they're the one that send police to arrest people.
If I recall correctly, there isn‘t even a single procedural generated game, no?
Edit: made by Nintendo
Animal Crossing could benefit from it, but not in its current form tho
The article talks about how they are ok with using AI for things outside generating images, texts and so. For example, they are fine using the rudimentary AI of any typical enemy in one of their games. So I expect procedural generation that does not rely on trained bayesian network models is ok for them.
It looks like they just seem to be concerned about the legality of it... so they might just start using it as soon as the legal situation for AI models is made safe.
BAS- oh wait it's about IP, not as based as I thought, I wish they cared about their artists at least.
I think they do, even if they don't say it publicly. They recognize that they have very talented artists and don't need AI for anything really