"We might deal in derivative IP, but it's our derivative IP!"
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
90 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
12595 readers
809 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Derivative over generative any day if you ask me.
To be fair Nintendo was heavily inspired by other artists work when designing Pokemon.
Nintendo wasn't "inspired" by shit. They made an ice cream cone a Pokémon. Keys on a ring? Pokémon. 8 varieties of elemental flavored dog? Check. Oh hey cool look a 2d image on a computer oh wait it's actually a Pokémon. Dog? Cat? Snake? Bird? Horse? All Pokémon. IMO nothing in Pokémon is actually "inspired", only ripped off.
Im casually suggesting they were "inspired" by other artists work. Many of the Red/Blue era were rip offs.
you forgot rock.
There's Rock, Rock With Arms, and Big Rock Snake
What a silly thing to say.
Is Mickey Mouse uncreative because it's just a mouse? Is Yogi Bear uncreative because it's just a bear?
Is Sherlock Holmes uncreative because it's just a British guy? Especially if giving things magical abilities doesn't count, then vampires, zombies, magicians, pretty much the entirety of fantasy is just "ripping off" humans. You think Tolkien was a good writer? You fool- the Ents are just trees, how boring! Gandald is just an old human, frodo is just a short dude!
So what does that leave that is original? Should all of our ficitiln need entirely new ideas? Do our writers need to invent new qwarks and new rules for how they interact, so that fictional universes can have different elements where we can imagine life forms without carbon that interact? Would it still be derivative to you if we keep the strong nuclear force the same in this fictional universe?
Inspiration is taking your peanut butter and putting it in my chocolate. You can't just take the chocolate slap some eyes on it, and call it chocomon. Make it do cool shit like turn into a giant angel or trex or some shit like a properly inspired pocket monster. Or make a funny little blue slime guy and give him apocalypse level magic spells or something. Yeah That sounds good.
They made Goth Mommy GF into a pokemon with "Gothita"
How many sentient clouds are also pokemon? Or that one that's literally just a balloon?
I swear pokemon ran out of creativity by gen 3 - and I'm not even a pokemon fan.
Derivative IP is so fucking different from gen AI. It's stupid IP laws that force what could have been a commercial fangame to instead be legally distinct.
Pocketpair Publishing boss John Buckley
Any relation to loss guy?
We're all cousins, so probably?
But... The developers of Palworld made a game featuring AI generated images.
Companies can change their mind about stuff like this.
Yes. Except they're still selling that game.
Yeah because they spent money making it. If you spend millions of dollars making a video game, you can't just shut it down and refund every order of it without putting your studio in serious jeopardy financially. That's not an option for them, so the best they can do is just not rely on AI anymore. Clearly they tried it and learned that it actually sucks ass.
It's a small game. They have Palworld to rake in the big bucks, so if their stance on AI use has changed, they can just remove that game.
They're currently being sued by Nintendo and palworld did not make anywhere near the kind of money that would let them survive a lawsuit AND a game cancellation.
You're making assumptions about their financials that are only ever true for enormous studios like epic games, which pocketpair is not. The gaming industry does not operate as simply as you think it does and companies don't have the freedom to throw money away on something as simple as virtue signaling.
It doesn't matter if a company used AI back in 2022 when it was new and less understood; it matters what companies choose now. If you're going to throw blind skepticism at them for not making arbitrary financial risks just to appease you, then you're not worth appeasing anyway because you're too cynical to be a potential customer.
I'm not making assumptions about their financial situation. I'm critical of their hypocrisy. I don't care about the excuses.
Your expectations are too high and your cynicism is clouding your judgment.
My expectations are perfectly reasonable, and my cynical judgement of the industry keeps getting justified.
You sound like me when I was young and stupid. Have a good one my dude
I think it could work to give dynamic and varied answers to secondary characters given good prompts and other guardrails to preserve the immersion. As long as the core elements of the games are not AI generated slope, and developers are honest about where it was used.
As an amateur game dev, I believe AI will crash out for the public before it becomes truly useful for programming. I’ve heard colleagues try to use AI , but it often just creates more work. When the AI doesn’t know the answer, which is often. it makes something up, leading to errors, crashes, or hidden issues like memory leaks. I’d rather write the code correctly from the start and understand how it works, than spend hours hunting down problems in AI-generated code, only to never find the issue. Full disclosure I use Chatgpt to edit my dialogue as my English is not great.
I don't think AI code generation is going to be a revolution anytime soon, but AI voice and AI image generation is likely going to stay.
I am using them as a side tool for development. I think LLMs are already very performent for web knowledge search (e.g. replacing a search on stackoverflow), suggestions, explanations and error detection. Although is it worth the resources consumption? Not sure, but I can't afford not staying on top of the tooling available for my job. However, I agree, in my experience, the edit/agent modes are not efficient for coding, for now.
Generating secondary dialogues for a video game is quite a lower quality requirement than software engineering. So I think it could work there. It requires sounding natural, not being exact, LLMs are good at this.
Your anecdote checks out with a study I heard about. Office teams that were using LLMs for a few months reported that results are faster, but editing took longer than doing it conventionally in the first place. Generating boiler plate code and documentation could be another very useful use case in software dev, and I don't really care if that's used. Like in your use case, spell/grammar checking, using LLMs is a natural development of the tools that we already had. Your text processors marks errors, who cares if it's powered by an LLM or by a huge heuristic rule set?
You'd think that that's the one thing LLMs should be good at – have characters respond to arbitrary input in-character according to the game state. Unfortunately, restricting output to match the game state is mathematically impossible with LLMs; hallucinations are inevitable and can cause characters to randomly start lying or talking about things thy can't know about. Plus, LLMs are very heavy on resources.
There are non-generative AI techniques that could be interesting for games, of course; especially ones that can afford to run at a slower pace like seconds or tens of seconds. For example, something that makes characters dynamically adapt their medium-term action plan to the situation every once in a while could work well. But I don't think we're going to see useful AI-driven dialogue anytime soon.
I am really praying for the day corporate drops this foolish nonsense of foisting it on their company and employees - maybe even gasp enabling their teams to access and use the tools that help them do better and more creative jobs.
Because AI can fit into a lot of people’s toolsets really nicely, especially in creative fields like game design. Just need to drop the idea that AI is an authoritative final answer to our design problems and instead realize that it’s just another tool to help us get to those solutions.
The difference between "generative AI" and "procedural generation" cannot be meaningfully nailed down.
Procedural generation is theoretically deterministic, but it's a fairly minor distinction.
Generative AI is too. Maintain your seed and you should get the same result every time.
Most of the SaaS AI tools don't expose control over their RNG, but some self-hosted ones do.
Generative AI is by definition non deterministic.
Neural networks are deterministic. In LLMs, it outputs probabilities, which are picked from via seeded RNG. Image generation tries multiple options based on different seeds, then picks the best fit as identified by a neural network and repeats. For both, if you give a specific model the same inputs, you'll get the same output.
The public-facing interfaces don't give seed control, which means they give a different output each time, but that isn't an inherent property of generative AI.
You don't need any preexisting training data for procedural generation
Where are all these prompt based image generators that identify themselves as procedural generation?
I think it can - procedural generation consist of procedures, that is elements designed by humans, which are just connected into a bigger structure. Every single template, rule and atomic object (e.g. a single room in a generated house) is hand-designed, and as such no matter what comes out the elements and connections were considered by a real human. On the other hand, generative AI is almost always some sort of machine learning, that is an approximation of what a good structure of something should be, but it is only a very poor, randomised approximation. You have absolutely no guarantees nor constraints on what might pop out of the model - that is my main concern with genAI, though the whole outputted thing looks reasonable, upon closer inspection it has a lot of inconsistenties.
I think you are reading in the "designed by humans" part. Even when that is nominally true, the whole point of procedural generation is to create a level of complexity and emergence that the outputs are surprising and novel. Things no one expected are desirable. I think the distinction being drawn is not meaningful; in both cases, it is entirely possible and likely that no human being understands how a given output was arrived at.
Nonsense. Procedural generation is a rule-based deterministic system while generative AI is probabilistic and data driven. It's fundamentally different.
Markov chains are both probabilistic and data-driven. For example. LLMs are not that far removed from markov chains. Should game developers be allowed to use latent spaces or is that too sloppy AI?
🤣🤣🤣👌👍
Yeah the company that ripped off Nintendo (I couldn't give two shits, don't screech) totally hates AI 🤣👌👍.
Hello AI!