Assets are very easily duplicated because of the editor that ships with the game. Not as impressive as it would be if it were other games with more tightly-locked assets.
What does AI generated even mean, really? Because there is a pretty big difference between “make a star craft game” and a sequence of very specific small prompts to build it up. They are both AI generated, but will vary wildly in quality and implementation.
In snowball games like this, losing a unit marks the beginning of the end. As such, you really have to go out of your way to lose units in the tutorial.
If you play as Raynor, you can warp in units with the E key. Just hit your timings and always warp in immediately when it's ready. Also, once the airstrike gets 3 stacks, always fire one off. Finally, every time a unit gets close to touching your firebat, press Q to stim them or whatever. This should take you to level ~44 as soon as Raynor unlocks.
I have to pick a new upgrade every 3 seconds. I thought they did that to stave off boredom, but actually it increases decision fatigue. (I just wanna shoot!)
Tale as old as time. The second half of what we now call the singular novel Don Quixote is actually the sequel to the original Don Quixote, published ten years later. In it the characters lament that someone published bootleg Don Quixote stories, which really happened!
They can't sue everyone, comrade. AI tools will hopefully trigger a rewrite of what copyright means, it's always been silly that it prevents derivitive works.
Law firms are cautious about AI tools, they got burned a couple years ago by hallucinated citations.
Citing made-up cases sure looks like lying to the court, which is a punishable offense. Lawyers have been sanctioned, fined, and in one case received a 30-day license suspension.
The number of conglomerates has, unsurprisingly, continued to shrink. It's long overdue for a rethink. Maybe if the US political system ever stabilizes, we might get to it in a hundred years. Until then Copyright sucks and Disney is bad.
> creators should be allowed to exert control over how their assets and brand are used
I hate to be glib, but no they shouldn't.
Creators should be allowed to create things and sell them. No one, whether the creator, or the company the creator worked for when they first created the thing, should be able to stop someone else from creating something.
> Creators should be allowed to create things and sell them.
I'm in two minds over this.
In a free for all, money wins. No small-money creator would get to profit from a truly great idea. Someone with more money simply copies it, builds it bigger/faster/better-logistics with more market budget.
At least let the creator sign over rights to their idea - even if the terms are unfair.
But once an object is in your hands. It should be free for you to do what you want with it for yourself. Deadmau5 legalities over his purrari should not be a thing.
See my sibling reply elsethread - you really don't want to be advocating for reducing consumer protections. You think you are advocating for a reduction in producer protections, but trademarks protect consumers, not producers.
I've always found that defending laws that don't benefit people to be a stange attitude on a place called "hacker news".
Creative people should be able to create. Trademark/copyright laws, protecting assets for the great-grandchildren of who actually created the art, has never been a positive. The only people who benefit, are themselves not creative (or else they would create, instead of defending "rights" and "image").
How about protecting assets for the people who made the art in the first place, geeze.
And seriously wtf why shouldn't, like, Jack Kirby's grandkids get a share of the huge bounty of stuff he created for Marvel, but Elon Musk gets to inherit emerald mines from his dad?
IP is not scarce, in the sense that you can have your own intelectual product that does the same than others, and you having and using an idea don't limit other people ability to have and use similar ideas. But one emerald mine is just one, and only one person can extract from it at any given time. Thus property laws as a replacement of stick-and-stone laws take place.
If you feel that your idea is worth IP protection, just protect it as a trade secret, not as a patent or copyright. Very famously Disney have a copyright over drawing three close circles.
Humans go from birth to being released into the public domain as an adult in roughly that time. Why are ideas somehow not in the Public Domain after a generation has grown up?
That way Jack Kirby gets to make his money. Jack's kids can live off his money. But Jack's ideas are free to use after doing their time.
>but how is using StarCraft and its assets in your random AI game okay?
How is it not ok? What is the issue exactly? From what I can tell it's totally free, and has an indication it is a fan game on the bottom of the screen.
> How is it not ok? What is the issue exactly? From what I can tell it's totally free, and has an indication it is a fan game on the bottom of the screen.
Trademark violation. Trademarks protect consumers, not producers. Surely you can't be advocating for relaxing consumer protections?
Except it's not claiming to be official content and I don't see how it is harming anyone, or do you think the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of it?
Usage of the trademark is a claim to official content. That's kinda the point of a trademark. The Starcraft font and logo as presented on the screen is a claim to be official content. That the fine-print clarifies "well, not really" doesn't make the claim go away.
If you were allowed to use a trademark "Coke" and tack on "well, not really" in the fine-print, it's still infringement.
It's to protect the consumer who doesn't read the fine-print.
We don't want a situation where where have cans of "Coke" at the supermarket with a 2mm-high "not really" printed on the back of the can.
Just do like they do in Japan where you have Gundam fighting Pokemon, but you have to use a new, unique name for it. "Fighting Pon" instead of GundamXPokemon
They do that anyway today. You really think authors, book writing being the lucrative industry for writers that it is, are suing Universal/Sony/whoever to prevent their IP being infringed?
I do really want a world however where fans/communities can riff on and make derivative works of culturally relevant material without being legally nuked from orbit. The last few weeks have been amazing in the gaming world, creativity abounds and there seem to be no limits as to what we can redesign to our own whims.
You really think authors, book writing being the lucrative industry for writers that it is, are suing Universal/Sony/whoever to prevent their IP being infringed?
They don't do it anymore because the studios just pay for the movie rights upfront. The rights are cheaper than litigation, in many cases the studios only pay $100k, which is why it is news when they pay more than that.
Is 20-30 authors per year making it big really worth the massive suffocation that prevents tens of thousands of authors from writing the stories that are in their hearts?
> Is 20-30 authors per year making it big really worth the massive suffocation that prevents tens of thousands of authors from writing the stories that are in their hearts?
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but just in case it isn't: I don't think anything is preventing people writing the stories in their hearts.
> It's a legal issue, and the legal part has always been bullshit regardless of which specific label happens to apply.
You are so far off-base I dunno if you're being sarcastic or serious.
Sure, Copyright might be bullshit, but Trademark is not!
Copyright protects the creator, trademark protects the consumer[1]. I sure hope that you aren't suggesting reducing consumer protections :-/
----------------
[1] When a consumer buys a trademarked product, like Coke, or (in this case) Starcraft, they know what they are getting. If you remove trademark protections, then anyone can sell anything as anything else! For example, you would be able to bottle colored water into exact-replica Coke bottles, with exact same labelling, and you would be able to do it legally.
100% a problem. but tight legal regulations never really work long term when technology overpowers it. AI is clearly exposing how fragile IP/copyright is and something a lot more extraordinary needs to exist for it to work properly. Perhaps cryptography related
Perhaps, but I'm curious about what the person meant by "it's always been silly that it prevents derivitive works". AI may have exposed something (although the photocopier could've exposed something similar, so I don't know yet what the problem is) but IP protections are definitely important. As you say, perhaps there will now need to be a way to better protect IP, but that comes with downsides too.
204 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] threadBesides, does it matter if a game is easy or hard if you enjoy spending the time playing it?
I only played through it once, but I'm convinced I'd do better on a second run, and a third, etc.
Could be a nice little game, though. Strip the IP and let the AI implement a bit more for the user to do.
wayyyy past my bedtime.
A few colossus for anti small.
Tempests and archons for splash
Stack anti armor like immortal and tempest and upgrade anti big damage
Terran units: tanks and Thor.
Keep 40+ zealots at all times
Upgrade recursive self improvement, most wild card options like bigger unit size , upgrade units when offered bonus 10% damage.
Battlecruiser upgrade : slow, guard, barrier, everything defensive.
Stack spells so you can spam them when you hit lane 47
Never fuse units
Works pretty hands free, zealots never need to engage until Lane 47 or 48 when a screen full of zerglings ended the game for me.
https://progressquest.com/play/newguy.html
I guess you have built a lot of very creative and original games yourself? Feel free to share here so we can shit on them.
I have to pick a new upgrade every 3 seconds. I thought they did that to stave off boredom, but actually it increases decision fatigue. (I just wanna shoot!)
Citing made-up cases sure looks like lying to the court, which is a punishable offense. Lawyers have been sanctioned, fined, and in one case received a 30-day license suspension.
Maybe it will, but this ain't a copyright issues, it's a trademark issue.
Copyright sucks, and Disney is bad etc, but how is using StarCraft and its assets in your random AI game okay?
I mean, creators should be allowed to exert control over how their assets and brand are used.
Because it's cool.
I hate to be glib, but no they shouldn't.
Creators should be allowed to create things and sell them. No one, whether the creator, or the company the creator worked for when they first created the thing, should be able to stop someone else from creating something.
I'm in two minds over this.
In a free for all, money wins. No small-money creator would get to profit from a truly great idea. Someone with more money simply copies it, builds it bigger/faster/better-logistics with more market budget.
At least let the creator sign over rights to their idea - even if the terms are unfair.
But once an object is in your hands. It should be free for you to do what you want with it for yourself. Deadmau5 legalities over his purrari should not be a thing.
if you feel so strongly about it share your wifes face so we can make pornos with it
See my sibling reply elsethread - you really don't want to be advocating for reducing consumer protections. You think you are advocating for a reduction in producer protections, but trademarks protect consumers, not producers.
Creative people should be able to create. Trademark/copyright laws, protecting assets for the great-grandchildren of who actually created the art, has never been a positive. The only people who benefit, are themselves not creative (or else they would create, instead of defending "rights" and "image").
And seriously wtf why shouldn't, like, Jack Kirby's grandkids get a share of the huge bounty of stuff he created for Marvel, but Elon Musk gets to inherit emerald mines from his dad?
If you feel that your idea is worth IP protection, just protect it as a trade secret, not as a patent or copyright. Very famously Disney have a copyright over drawing three close circles.
Limit IP laws to 20 years.
Humans go from birth to being released into the public domain as an adult in roughly that time. Why are ideas somehow not in the Public Domain after a generation has grown up?
That way Jack Kirby gets to make his money. Jack's kids can live off his money. But Jack's ideas are free to use after doing their time.
Trademarks benefit people - see my explanation in a different response to you.
Trademark violation. Trademarks protect consumers, not producers. Surely you can't be advocating for relaxing consumer protections?
Usage of the trademark is a claim to official content. That's kinda the point of a trademark. The Starcraft font and logo as presented on the screen is a claim to be official content. That the fine-print clarifies "well, not really" doesn't make the claim go away.
If you were allowed to use a trademark "Coke" and tack on "well, not really" in the fine-print, it's still infringement.
It's to protect the consumer who doesn't read the fine-print.
We don't want a situation where where have cans of "Coke" at the supermarket with a 2mm-high "not really" printed on the back of the can.
I think maybe this would have a lot more weight if he were selling this as a product, but he isn't
>It's to protect the consumer who doesn't read the fine-print.
I'm going to ask, protecting the consumer from what in this case?
Just because you give your crap away for free does not mean that you can fool the consumer into thinking it is someone else's crap.
The protection of branding is to protect the consumer against being deceived. The item being free or not is irrelevant.
Also, do you really want a world where big film studios can just adapt books of writers without compensating them?
I do really want a world however where fans/communities can riff on and make derivative works of culturally relevant material without being legally nuked from orbit. The last few weeks have been amazing in the gaming world, creativity abounds and there seem to be no limits as to what we can redesign to our own whims.
They don't do it anymore because the studios just pay for the movie rights upfront. The rights are cheaper than litigation, in many cases the studios only pay $100k, which is why it is news when they pay more than that.
I'm not sure if this is sarcasm, but just in case it isn't: I don't think anything is preventing people writing the stories in their hearts.
You are so far off-base I dunno if you're being sarcastic or serious.
Sure, Copyright might be bullshit, but Trademark is not!
Copyright protects the creator, trademark protects the consumer[1]. I sure hope that you aren't suggesting reducing consumer protections :-/
----------------
[1] When a consumer buys a trademarked product, like Coke, or (in this case) Starcraft, they know what they are getting. If you remove trademark protections, then anyone can sell anything as anything else! For example, you would be able to bottle colored water into exact-replica Coke bottles, with exact same labelling, and you would be able to do it legally.
For example though, if you spend two years writing a novel and I change one word of it and sell it for half what you do, isn't that a problem?