Keep all the processing on device? Do so in a way that is legal in the jurisdiction you are selling the devices in without claiming it's the owner's responsibility to get consent from all individuals (even if they cannot legally consent because they are, say, a child!?) to comply with wiretapping laws in their own home? Choose not to sell an object that comes with software made to spy on you and sell all it learns to advertisers?
That fact that you read something like this as acceptable "legal boilerplate" just shows how, very sadly in my opinion, invasions of privacy have been normalized by these corporations.
In a place where recording audio requires consent from all parties, I don't think it matters whether "all the processing is on-device" given that the law was probably written with tape recorders in mind. If I buy a device that can record audio, and place it in my home where unsuspecting guests are recorded by it, whether that recording is transmitted to the manufacturer or stays within my home seems irrelevant.
The argument hinges on Ganon's sprite in the original Legend of Zelda looking like the a monster from Kamen Rider and the skull on Ganon's belt looking like the monster group's symbol.
I don't think either looks similar, at all. I don't get how you can look at a symbol of an eagle entwined with a snake and say, oh yeah, the skull pixel art they made for Zelda? Totally inspired by that. Not just a skull, you know, that symbol traditionally associated with evil. And Ganon looks like some kind of big pig man, not some vague crab-bat hybrid (e.g., he has no claws or wings). It then the article goes on to cite an Iwata Asks episode where the say the inspiration was a pig character from the Journey to the West, so I'm not sure why it's trying to seek some odd alternative explanation.
I think the makers of the Playdate have always been pretty clear about what the console is about. And I'm not sure you could ever consider a video game console a "practical" purchase. You never need to play video games.
Video games are always shaped by the hardware they are played on, but there used to be way, way more variance. Hardware limitations forced devs to make choices that resulted in interesting mechanics, interesting ways to tell stories. Which means there are some odd and interesting games on Playdate that probably wouldn't have existed otherwise. That's why I got one anyhow.
...Also it was $170 and came with 20 games when I got it (granted, the price has gone up since). I don't get how that can be considered a luxury good. I get that could be a good amount of money to some people, but compared to other video games, I don't think it is.
But he didn't need to do that before either. He did it because he cared (in a weird way, sure). And some people will still care.
Video game text FAQs in general though were a dying genre before gen AI anyhow. Something I bemoan when I try to find one little piece of info and I'm faced with guides that are spread out on dozens of webpages for impressions of ads that I don't even see, or long videos that I have try to scroll through and take a ton of time just to find out if the person even went to the area I'm interested in. I sure miss Ctrl+F on GameFAQs.
Yup that's my point, and maybe the bigger issue isn't if people care or not but rather... can we distinguish between "they cared" and "they spent 30 seconds on a prompt".
At least in whatever apartment you can afford you won't trip constantly due to each of the four rooms having slightly different floor heights. And you won't have a wall that extends into another room but somehow not take up the space, like you're in some perpetual "House of Blue Leaves"-esque horror. Your apartment will be real and not made by AI.
So many companies and individuals using AI and are like, here's our (sloppy) product! Whether it's a game or program or just a blog post. But it's not theirs. They didn't create it. They can't claim copyright over it. Even if they change it a little bit, I don't get how that somehow is transformative enough to grant any protection. So unless how copyright works drastically changes, I don't understand what they think is going to happen, at least from a perspective of a person or company who is doing this to make money.
I think you're right in the scenario there was no human involvement in design. my guess which may be naive is that the tool use will be mixed. You may see gen AI used more for placeholder assets for example. I also think the landscape is shifting to the point codegen is acceptable in those circles.
If there is mixed usage of AI and human design then like the article said those components generated likely aren't copyrightable but the specific way you cobbled them together could be and that wouldn't need much change it seems. I'd like to follow the revenue anyway, last article I read was from about 6 months ago that steam AI-gen declarations accounted for almost 700million in revenue but it was unclear then to what extent ai tools were used (https://www.gamesradar.com/games/steam-games-that-openly-use...)
> You may see gen AI used more for placeholder assets for example.
Is it worth the risk, though? AI-generated content has become good enough that it isn't always immediately obvious that it is AI-generated. This means some poorly-paid QA tester isn't guaranteed to flag it, so it might very well end up slipping into the final release - as has already happened multiple times now.
Need a placeholder four-headed dog? Grab a dog model from any random library, cut off its head, add four Blender Cubes on stalks, and you're done. Less than five minutes of work and it will stand out as "obviously a placeholder" during QA.
Hmm regarding quality i get mixed signals from this and other comments. To be honest i don't say you're wrong about that risk being real but it's clear reading the other person's comments on quality being actually poor with assets that there is some assessment in both quality and usage that I don't fully understand. The placeholder use is indeed based on my reading of studios own accounts, but if you say it is problematic, I can't argue that as I have no other experience here and tbh if a game is fun I'd take the dog with no head and cubes too.
I would say the quality is usually too poor to ship, but good enough that it can slip through unnoticed.
It's like a web developer using their own photo as a placeholder for the CEO on an "About Us" page: seems like a fun little in-joke, until it accidentally ships and you get an angry phone call from your boss's boss. It's better to do the boring thing and play it save by using a big red cross with "REPLACE ME" on it so you'll definitely catch it during the final review.
That fact that you read something like this as acceptable "legal boilerplate" just shows how, very sadly in my opinion, invasions of privacy have been normalized by these corporations.
reply