Tim Sweeney

carmack-defends-ai-tools-after-quake-fan-calls-microsoft-ai-demo-“disgusting”

Carmack defends AI tools after Quake fan calls Microsoft AI demo “disgusting”

The current generative Quake II demo represents a slight advancement from Microsoft’s previous generative AI gaming model (confusingly titled “WHAM” with only one “M”) we covered in February. That earlier model, while showing progress in generating interactive gameplay footage, operated at 300×180 resolution at 10 frames per second—far below practical modern gaming standards. The new WHAMM demonstration doubles the resolution to 640×360. However, both remain well below what gamers expect from a functional video game in almost every conceivable way. It truly is an AI tech demo.

A Microsoft diagram of the WHAMM system.

A Microsoft diagram of the WHAM system. Credit: Microsoft

For example, the technology faces substantial challenges beyond just performance metrics. Microsoft acknowledges several limitations, including poor enemy interactions, a short context length of just 0.9 seconds (meaning the system forgets objects outside its view), and unreliable numerical tracking for game elements like health values.

Which brings us to another point: A significant gap persists between the technology’s marketing portrayal and its practical applications. While industry veterans like Carmack and Sweeney view AI as another tool in the development arsenal, demonstrations like the Quake II instance may create inflated expectations about AI’s current capabilities for complete game generation.

The most realistic near-term application of generative AI technology remains as coding assistants and perhaps rapid prototyping tools for developers, rather than a drop-in replacement for traditional game development pipelines. The technology’s current limitations suggest that human developers will remain essential for creating compelling, polished game experiences for now. But given the general pace of progress, that might be small comfort for those who worry about losing jobs to AI in the near-term.

Ultimately, Sweeney says not to worry: “There’s always a fear that automation will lead companies to make the same old products while employing fewer people to do it,” Sweeney wrote in a follow-up post on X. “But competition will ultimately lead to companies producing the best work they’re capable of given the new tools, and that tends to mean more jobs.”

And Carmack closed with this: “Will there be more or less game developer jobs? That is an open question. It could go the way of farming, where labor-saving technology allow a tiny fraction of the previous workforce to satisfy everyone, or it could be like social media, where creative entrepreneurship has flourished at many different scales. Regardless, “don’t use power tools because they take people’s jobs” is not a winning strategy.”

Carmack defends AI tools after Quake fan calls Microsoft AI demo “disgusting” Read More »

nvidia’s-50-series-cards-drop-support-for-physx,-impacting-older-games

Nvidia’s 50-series cards drop support for PhysX, impacting older games

Nvidia’s PhysX offerings to developers didn’t always generate warm feelings. As part of its broader GamesWorks package, PhysX was cited as one of the reasons The Witcher 3 ran at notably sub-optimal levels at launch. Protagonist Geralt’s hair, rendered in PhysX-powered HairWorks, was a burden on some chipsets.

PhysX started appearing in general game engines, like Unity 5, and was eventually open-sourced, first in limited computer and mobile form, then more broadly. As an application wrapped up in Nvidia’s 32-bit CUDA API and platform, the PhysX engine had a built-in shelf life. Now the expiration date is known, and it is conditional on buying into Nvidia’s 50-series video cards—whenever they approach reasonable human prices.

Dune buggy in Borderlands 3, dodging rockets shot by a hovering attack craft just over a sand dune, in Borderlands 3.

See that smoke? It’s from Sweden, originally.

Credit: Gearbox/Take 2

See that smoke? It’s from Sweden, originally. Credit: Gearbox/Take 2

The real dynamic particles were the friends we made…

Nvidia noted in mid-January that 32-bit applications cannot be developed or debugged on the latest versions of its CUDA toolkit. They will still run on cards before the 50 series. Technically, you could also keep an older card installed on your system for compatibility, which is real dedication to early-2010’s-era particle physics.

Technically, a 64-bit game could still support PhysX on Nvidia’s newest GPUs, but the heyday of PhysX, as a stand-alone technology switched on in game settings, tended to coincide with the 32-bit computing era.

If you load up a 32-bit game now with PhysX enabled (or forced in a config file) and a 50-series Nvidia GPU installed, there’s a good chance the physics work will be passed to the CPU instead of the GPU, likely bottlenecking the game and steeply lowering frame rates. Of course, turning off PhysX entirely raised frame rates above even native GPU support levels.

Demanding Borderlands 2 keep using PhysX made it so it “runs terrible,” noted one Redditor, even if the dust clouds and flapping cloth strips looked interesting. Other games with PhysX baked in, as listed by ResetEra completists, include Metro 2033, Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag, and the 2013 Star Trek game.

Commenters on Reddit and ResetEra note that many of the games listed had performance issues with PhysX long before Nvidia forced them to either turn off or be loaded onto a CPU. For some games, however, PhysX enabled destructible environments, “dynamic bank notes” and “posters” (in the Arkham games), fluid simulations, and base gameplay physics.

Anyone who works in, or cares about, game preservation has always had their work cut out for them. But it’s a particularly tough challenge to see certain aspects of a game’s operation lost to the forward march of the CUDA platform, something that’s harder to explain than a scratched CD or Windows compatibility.

Nvidia’s 50-series cards drop support for PhysX, impacting older games Read More »

“you-a—holes”:-court-docs-reveal-epic-ceo’s-anger-at-steam’s-30%-fees

“You a—holes”: Court docs reveal Epic CEO’s anger at Steam’s 30% fees

Not just for show —

Unearthed emails show the fury that helped motivate Epic’s Games Store launch.

Epic Games founder and CEO Tim Sweeney.

Epic Games founder and CEO Tim Sweeney.

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has long been an outspoken opponent of what he sees as Valve’s unreasonable platform fees for listing games on Steam, which start at 30 percent of the total sale price. Now, though, new emails from before the launch of the competing Epic Games Store in 2018 show just how angry Sweeney was with the “assholes” at companies like Valve and Apple for squeezing “the little guy” with what he saw as inflated fees.

The emails, which came out this week as part of Wolfire’s price-fixing case against Valve (as noticed by the GameDiscoverCo newsletter), confront Valve managers directly for platform fees Sweeney says are “no longer justifiable.” They also offer a behind-the-scenes look at the fury Sweeney and Epic would unleash against Apple in court proceedings starting years later.

“I bet Valve made more profit… than the developer themselves…”

The first mostly unredacted email chain from the court documents, from August 2017, starts with Valve co-founder Gabe Newell asking Sweeney if there is “anything we [are] doing to annoy you?” That query was likely prompted by Sweeney’s public tweets at the time questioning “why Steam is still taking 30% of gross [when] MasterCard and Visa charge 2-5% per transaction, and CDN bandwidth is around $0.002/GB.” Later in the same thread, he laments that “the internet was supposed to obsolete the rent-seeking software distribution middlemen, but here’s Facebook, Google, Apple, Valve, etc.”

Expanding on these public thoughts in a private response to Newell, Sweeney allows that there was “a good case” for Steam’s 30 percent platform fee “in the early days.” But he also argues that the fee is too high now that Steam’s sheer scale has driven down operating costs and made it harder for individual games to get as much marketing or user acquisition value from simply being available on the storefront.

Calculating.... calculating... profit maximizing point found!

Enlarge / Calculating…. calculating… profit maximizing point found!

Getty / Aurich Lawson

Sweeney goes on to spitball some numbers showing how Valve’s fees are contributing to the squeeze all but the biggest PC game developers were feeling on their revenues:

If you subtract out the top 25 games on Steam, I bet Valve made more profit from most of the next 1,000 than the developer themselves made. These guys are our engine customers and we talk to them all the time. Valve takes 30% for distribution; they have to spend 30% on Facebook/Google/Twitter [user acquisition] or traditional marketing, 10% on server, 5% on engine. So, the system takes 75% and that leaves 25% for actually creating the game, worse than the retail distribution economics of the 1990’s.”

Based on experience with Fortnite and Paragon, Sweeney estimates that the true cost of distribution for PC games that sell for $25 or more in Western markets “is under 7% of gross.” That’s only slightly lower than the 12 percent take Epic would establish for its own Epic Games Store the next year.

“Why not give ALL developers a better deal?”

The second email chain revealed in the lawsuit started in November 2018, with Sweeney offering Valve a heads-up on the impending launch of the Epic Games Store that would come just weeks later. While that move was focused on PC and Mac games, Sweeney quickly pivots to a discussion of Apple’s total control over iOS, the subject at the time of a lawsuit whose technicalities were being considered by the Supreme Court.

Years before Epic would bring its own case against Apple, Sweeney was somewhat prescient, noting that “Apple also has the resources to litigate and delay any change [to its total App Store control] for years… What we need right now is enough developer, press, and platform momentum to steer Apple towards fully opening up iOS sooner rather than later.”

To that end, Sweeney attempted to convince Valve that lowering its own platform fees would hurt Apple’s position and thereby contribute to the greater good:

A timely move by Valve to improve Steam economics for all developers would make a great difference in all of this, clearly demonstrating that store competition leads to better rates for all developers. Epic would gladly speak in support of such a move anytime!

In a follow-up email on December 3, just days before the Epic Games Store launch, Sweeney took Valve to task more directly for its policy of offering lower platform fees for the largest developers on Steam. He offered some harsh words for Valve while once again begging the company to serve as a positive example in the developing case against Apple.

Right now, you assholes are telling the world that the strong and powerful get special terms, while 30% is for the little people. We’re all in for a prolonged battle if Apple tries to keep their monopoly and 30% by cutting backroom deals with big publishers to keep them quiet. Why not give ALL developers a better deal? What better way is there to convince Apple quickly that their model is now totally untenable?

After being forwarded the message by Valve’s Erik Johnson, Valve COO Scott Lynch simply offered up a sardonic “You mad bro?”

GameDiscoverCo provides a good summary of other legal tidbits offered in the (often heavily redacted) documents published in the case file this week. Wolfire is now seeking a class-action designation in the suit with arguments that largely rehash those that we covered when the case was originally filed in 2021 (and revived in 2022). While Epic Games isn’t directly involved in those legal arguments, it seems Sweeney’s long-standing position against Valve’s monopoly might continue to factor into the case anyway.

“You a—holes”: Court docs reveal Epic CEO’s anger at Steam’s 30% fees Read More »