no

All ai does is steal

Opening Animation Commissions again! 🎨 Info in replies👇

I don't really understand Tim's beef with this. Whether you're pro or anti, there's nothing wrong with customers having that information. Only angle I see is that he may not like the idea of Steam being a direct competitor on this issue.

Before I buy, I also want to know which compiler (and compiler version) you used to compile your game, which programming language, your coding conventions, and which OS was used during development. I also want a full list of all libraries you used.

I really want to believe this, because it soothes my creative soul... but the more I’ve studied video games, the more naive I find the idea that this industry has ever been driven purely by creativity, separate from business. One of the most painful realizations for me was learning how deliberately arcade games were designed around dollars per hour. Atari’s Gauntlet operator manual literally includes a section called “Maximizing Earnings,” instructing operators to adjust difficulty according to how many seconds of play each quarter buys. Commercial considerations shaped the game experience itself, and they did it from the get-go. The very first coin-op arcade game, Computer Space, exists because Nolan Bushnell played Spacewar! and wanted to turn that experience into something people would pay to play. Experimentation and creativity are central to what makes games exciting, absolutely. But treating independent development as something separate from the realities of the market and economics is naive. It also dismisses generations of creative people who navigated complex technical and financial constraints to deliver games people truly loved. Their work being a product doesn’t diminish their creativity, or their achievement. I’ve made games for more than 20 years, and for the most part I’ve never sold any of them. Some have never even been shown publicly and exist purely on my hard drives. I’ve done countless game jams, worked on demo after demo, built exploratory pieces, and much more... all work that served no purpose beyond me simply wanting to create something. And it’s not just games. I write fantasy stories, I’m a photographer, I’ve worked in film. I understand creativity for its own sake because I’ve spent much of my life pursuing it. I am absolutely not distant from art for art’s sake. If I make a game purely for myself, satisfying that creative urge can be the entire point. It’s no different than buying a canvas, painting something on it, and hanging it on my own wall. I support that, and I encourage anyone to do it, especially when it comes to making video games. But when I offer that work for sale, I’m also offering a product to the market, subject to the whims of that market and everyone in it. It remains art... that soul is never gone, just like a painting is still art after it’s sold. But now I’m asking other people to spend their money on it. Their expectations, the market itself, and the economics of producing and delivering the game all become part of the equation, whether I like it or not. Making games can absolutely be an artistic pursuit. Building a livelihood around them also means navigating a business. Calling that work “indie” doesn’t make those realities disappear. Reference: arcade-museum.com/manuals-vi…

My most honest and real thoughts on AI in games. Not defending sides. Just me talking about why I use AI.

Making indie games has always been about games as an art form. Pushing the genre forward through inventive experimentation and creativity. Using indie devs as an argument for why AI should be embraced shows a complete lack of understanding of the medium and the people behind it.