This isn't much of a response, what they said amounts to that you should work harder to cultivate a community that you can then funnel into their platform. "Launching isn't the finish line" is obviously true but what has been happening is that people are sniped before launch based on their demo and marketing material, so it's not all that relevant.
Valve ought to be funding lawsuits against these bootleggers. Steam can only exist if indie developers feel confident they can publish there. It's as much a threat to them as anyone else, and indie studios can figure out for themselves they need to market harder but can't necessarily embark on a lawsuit.
> Steam can only exist if indie developers feel confident they can publish there.
Why though?
Imagine, there will be an AI agent, which will produce new game everyday and Steam users will like it and keep buying. Steam can only exist if customers keep buying and are not annoyed by games.
Legal depends on details. There are copyright, patent, and trademark laws that apply depending on how the cloning was done. Ask a lawyer for details.
The idea of a game is not protected. The specific graphics, dialog, script, and code are protected. Save the princess in an 8 level game is generic but just a few more details copied and suddenly you are an illegal clone of the NES Mario brothers script...
If you are worried talk to a lawyer about preemptively registering your copyrights (cheap) and trademarks (more expensive).
It's a good question and the answer is mixed. Some of the problem has been directly bootlegging games in other markets like China, so stealing the code and assets outright. That's definitely a copyright violation most places, I would assume it is in China too, but the point is moot without Valve's backing because no indie is going to conduct a lawsuit in a foreign country.
A clean room knockoff isn't but I don't think the cases would necessarily even be brought or won. There's a lot of quick buck artists who see gaming as a soft target. Success is in convincing them there's risk involved rather than actually winning in court or extracting settlements.
That will still leave a lot of AI game development people feel is slop. That's probably the reality going forward. But reducing that to the people who are interested in making games (even if we are unhappy with their results) and removing the people who are revolving through the latest AI get rich quick schemes is probably achievable.
In the same vein that having the same name of functions is a copyright violation. People don't understand that good things are meant to be copied so that consumers have the best product
It does not work that way. This is not the same when Thiel was financing the anti-Gawker lawsuit.
This has no direct precedents and the case and the lawyers involved need to be chosen carefully, because once the precedent is set it is used by the courts for ruling subsequent cases. You don't want a sloppy lawyer, and the case has to be bullet proof, the judges known in advance (hence why certain districts are chosen for certain types of cases) and so on.
A case of this sort would bring into question so many non-game related things, more related to recent AI copyright and IP theft, that it would far exceed what Valve would be able to bring forward in terms of an argument anyway. Computer game mechanics and game designs are already on thin ice in terms of copyright.
Valve isn't going to fund this, and it is not how legal works.
One case does not a precedent set. Sure one case is a precedent and whichever lawyer it helps will be sure the judge knows about it. However any opposing lawyer will find plenty of details that are "different" and thus the judge should ignore it.
In the US you need to go all the way to the supreme court to get a binding precedent. However the supreme court wants to see a lot of other judge's with lots of different things considered before they set a binding precedent. They are well aware that they don't want to get this wrong and so want to review the thinking of a lot of different judges in lots of different circumstances so they can get the precedent right.
the other way to get a binding precedent is if lots of different cases refer to it and all get the same result and so there is no controversy.
It seemed to me like they're hedging until they know which side is more profitable to support. We don't know yet if slop will be widely embraced by consumers. Valve will be happy to profit from AI if it takes over from real developers.
As far as I can tell, "slop" doesn't have a clear definition. It seems to just mean "AI used poorly or obviously". Nobody cares if a developer of a game uses AI as long as it's done well. They might not even know.
The idea that there is a future where game devs don't use AI, while the rest of the industry does, is absurd. We do know that AI will be widely embraced in gaming, because the alternative is, what? The honor system?
It's a very Valve answer, and it's likely the correct one. It feels very similar to their stance on piracy - it's a service problem. If you make the experience good enough people wont do it.
I actually think the games with the best communities are going to see an increase of play time, not a decrease, especially games with mod support or custom games. I had an international flight a week ago and I felt like playing CIV, so I had Claude make me a mod for it before I took off. It built a full new civ, new tile improvements, technologies, and 3d models, and it worked great.
The quality of games became so bad that I sit in front of the steam shop for an hour almost on a daily basis, scrolling through the catalog without finding anything I want to play...
I find myself going back to titles that are over 10 years old over and over again. Every new game I've bought in the recent years I have regretted buying shortly after.
Given I am not a story based gamer, but a gameplay focused one, I just see no true innovation anymore. I mostly play Indie games now, but even those are rarely anything special now. Back to Terraria I guess...
Maybe you would like Hardspace Shipbreaker? That's a good game with unusual mechanics. Or maybe Factorio if you enjoy Terraria. Maybe Ark Raiders or Valheim if you like action multiplayer games?
I think its easier to discover a game with a good story then a game with novel mechanics, but they exist.
I do enjoy Valheim and Cracktorio. Ark Raiders looks cool, but I hate PvP experiences as I suck at shooters and prefer to avoid online dick measuring contests. Also wouldn't get my friends to play it with me. Gotta check out the Shipbreaker thingy
Arguably some mass market AAA games already were slop.
In a future with millions of games released every day discoverability or curation of the great games will be really important (even more than it is now).
The contrary, marketing was already important on Steam since the indie boom of some years ago. Now it's something you cannot escape if you want to earn money from indie games.
Valve ought to be funding lawsuits against these bootleggers. Steam can only exist if indie developers feel confident they can publish there. It's as much a threat to them as anyone else, and indie studios can figure out for themselves they need to market harder but can't necessarily embark on a lawsuit.
Why though?
Imagine, there will be an AI agent, which will produce new game everyday and Steam users will like it and keep buying. Steam can only exist if customers keep buying and are not annoyed by games.
Is cloning the games in this way illegal? Has there been a precedent set?
The idea of a game is not protected. The specific graphics, dialog, script, and code are protected. Save the princess in an 8 level game is generic but just a few more details copied and suddenly you are an illegal clone of the NES Mario brothers script...
If you are worried talk to a lawyer about preemptively registering your copyrights (cheap) and trademarks (more expensive).
A clean room knockoff isn't but I don't think the cases would necessarily even be brought or won. There's a lot of quick buck artists who see gaming as a soft target. Success is in convincing them there's risk involved rather than actually winning in court or extracting settlements.
That will still leave a lot of AI game development people feel is slop. That's probably the reality going forward. But reducing that to the people who are interested in making games (even if we are unhappy with their results) and removing the people who are revolving through the latest AI get rich quick schemes is probably achievable.
Valve could just not publish them, they don’t have to risk suing.
This has no direct precedents and the case and the lawyers involved need to be chosen carefully, because once the precedent is set it is used by the courts for ruling subsequent cases. You don't want a sloppy lawyer, and the case has to be bullet proof, the judges known in advance (hence why certain districts are chosen for certain types of cases) and so on.
A case of this sort would bring into question so many non-game related things, more related to recent AI copyright and IP theft, that it would far exceed what Valve would be able to bring forward in terms of an argument anyway. Computer game mechanics and game designs are already on thin ice in terms of copyright.
Valve isn't going to fund this, and it is not how legal works.
One case does not a precedent set. Sure one case is a precedent and whichever lawyer it helps will be sure the judge knows about it. However any opposing lawyer will find plenty of details that are "different" and thus the judge should ignore it.
In the US you need to go all the way to the supreme court to get a binding precedent. However the supreme court wants to see a lot of other judge's with lots of different things considered before they set a binding precedent. They are well aware that they don't want to get this wrong and so want to review the thinking of a lot of different judges in lots of different circumstances so they can get the precedent right.
the other way to get a binding precedent is if lots of different cases refer to it and all get the same result and so there is no controversy.
Regardless, I don't see why Valve couldn't fund a lawsuit based on a novel legal theory.
I don't know why people are downvoting me. Folks, Valve aren't going to fund these lawsuits. It's a fantasy.
The idea that there is a future where game devs don't use AI, while the rest of the industry does, is absurd. We do know that AI will be widely embraced in gaming, because the alternative is, what? The honor system?
I actually think the games with the best communities are going to see an increase of play time, not a decrease, especially games with mod support or custom games. I had an international flight a week ago and I felt like playing CIV, so I had Claude make me a mod for it before I took off. It built a full new civ, new tile improvements, technologies, and 3d models, and it worked great.
I find myself going back to titles that are over 10 years old over and over again. Every new game I've bought in the recent years I have regretted buying shortly after.
Given I am not a story based gamer, but a gameplay focused one, I just see no true innovation anymore. I mostly play Indie games now, but even those are rarely anything special now. Back to Terraria I guess...
I think its easier to discover a game with a good story then a game with novel mechanics, but they exist.
In a future with millions of games released every day discoverability or curation of the great games will be really important (even more than it is now).
So marketing wins again, I guess.
I'm hopeful that the jewels will rise to the top on their own merits, but with millions of games released every day it's gonna be difficult.
Maybe I'm a romantic but I hope there are some genius game designers in the world that now can release their dream games with the help of AI.