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.
_aavaa_ 24 minutes ago [-]
> Valve ought to be funding lawsuits against these bootleggers.
Is cloning the games in this way illegal? Has there been a precedent set?
mm263 19 seconds ago [-]
It’s not, but the commenter you are replying to wants it to be
bluGill 9 minutes ago [-]
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).
maxbond 8 minutes ago [-]
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.
braiamp 14 minutes ago [-]
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
Tade0 10 minutes ago [-]
You will not find a business willing to take such risks, so the net effect will be no products at all.
drdexebtjl 19 minutes ago [-]
Are the bootlegs illegal?
Valve could just not publish them, they don’t have to risk suing.
FLeXMurphy 29 minutes ago [-]
Valve doesn't have a case here to bring. It is not their legal fight to begin with.
maxbond 27 minutes ago [-]
The developer or publisher would bring the case. Valve would fund it.
FLeXMurphy 19 minutes ago [-]
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.
bluGill 6 seconds ago [-]
> once the precedent is set
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.
maxbond 6 minutes ago [-]
We're simply imagining different cases. I'm thinking about straightforward copyright violations I've read about recently in the games industry.
Regardless, I don't see why Valve couldn't fund a lawsuit based on a novel legal theory.
FLeXMurphy 6 seconds ago [-]
Share links to these violations, cases, case outcomes, etc.
I don't know why people are downvoting me. Folks, Valve aren't going to fund these lawsuits.
hluska 2 minutes ago [-]
Absolutely nothing that you wrote precludes Valve from funding a lawsuit. You wrote a cost-benefit analysis.
add-sub-mul-div 28 minutes ago [-]
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.
spiderice 4 minutes ago [-]
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?
jjcm 51 minutes ago [-]
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.
sevenzero 42 minutes ago [-]
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...
georgeecollins 18 minutes ago [-]
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.
sevenzero 11 minutes ago [-]
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
snapcaster 23 minutes ago [-]
yeah i have same experience but not sure if its just me getting older. the youngest game i play regularly is still 5 years old
yomismoaqui 50 minutes ago [-]
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).
So marketing wins again, I guess.
virgil_disgr4ce 47 minutes ago [-]
I can't figure out the sentiment of your comment. Are you trying to say marketing should not be necessary for some reason?
yomismoaqui 38 minutes ago [-]
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.
sevenzero 41 minutes ago [-]
I fear it'll be a slop market just like the Google Play Store. Yes there are millions of games, none of which are good.
yomismoaqui 33 minutes ago [-]
True, even some orders of magnitude larger.
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.
dunderhill 20 minutes ago [-]
[flagged]
Rendered at 15:12:24 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
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.
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.
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.
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.