I think he accidentally killed UEFN. Why bother shipping something only in Fortnite when you could ship it to Fortnite, PC, consoles and mobile?
They're going after the Roblox market.
News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
There are 500 million Fortnite accounts now. The most recent source I could find showing the number of accounts prior to today's announcement was 400 million back in 2022. (I know there are >900 million Epic accounts, but that includes everything that uses EOS and shoehorns it into other platforms).
Also the announcement indirectly confirms the rumor Fall Guys will be ported into Fortnite. Rocket League will likely get ported at some point as well.
Everyone is gunning for that UGC pie. Epic, Roblox, Mihoyo, Rockstar and probably some more companies I'm missing.
I installed Fortnite on the Xbox PC store on a lark and it doesn't install EGS or EOS. I wasn't expecting to be forced to install the Epic client, but not being required to install EOS was a pleasant surprise. Fortnite on Steam is a possibility if Tim ever gets that stick out of his ass.
The sponsored row in Fortnite is live. It's buried lower than I would have thought and you have to scroll through the home row, a carousel promoting the new Stranger Things map, a list of modes using different IPs and Epic's modes until you reach it.
It's amazing how he continues to have the worst takes in the industry. I'm still mad over him claiming his fucking lawsuits were like the civil rights movement.
Phoenix RISING
A phoenix always RISES!
Won't somebody please think of the consumers? Keeping them informed I'd actually bad for them. Thankfully Tim really cares about them
One of the strangest aspects of the whole EGS thing was some developers actively supporting keeping customers in the dark and trying to trick them into buying a game they might not enjoy. Several developers that were posting on Era were in favor of no reviews, no refunds, no performance tests, no forums, basically no ways for the customer to make an informed decision.
I don't know if those opinions were widespread among developers or if those specific ones just drank Tim Sweeney's kool aid. It was pretty shocking to me that no one seemed to realize how important building the customer's trust is.
It was a joke about the story of them letting Unity devs publish their games with Fortnite.
Maybe devs should hide their use of UE5 too. Customers don’t need to see that obvious red performance flag.
I'm very AI-skeptic, but I don't think Tim's take is incorrect here.
Nearly all code produced now has AI-derived aspects.
I personally try to avoid using straight-up generated code, and I generally use AI as an alternative to searching on Stack Overflow (also thanks to the fact that I'm experienced enough to tell when an answer is broken, both in a GPT chat or on Stack Overflow).
Should I disclose my AI usage? And what if I used some generated code somewhere? Is it that much different from an artist, like, generating some background detail instead of drawing it manually? I honestly don't know, but virtually everyone is already using AI one way or the other.
Nearly all code produced now has AI-derived aspects.
I personally try to avoid using straight-up generated code, and I generally use AI as an alternative to searching on Stack Overflow (also thanks to the fact that I'm experienced enough to tell when an answer is broken, both in a GPT chat or on Stack Overflow).
Should I disclose my AI usage? And what if I used some generated code somewhere? Is it that much different from an artist, like, generating some background detail instead of drawing it manually? I honestly don't know, but virtually everyone is already using AI one way or the other.
Yeah when it comes to code I dont know what degree of disclosure should be applied. As you I use AI instead of googling code related stuff. And to find bugs AI can be very helpful.
Weirdly for anything other than code, I would like to know if AI was used. I just assume that for the code AI was used to some degree.
I'm like that too, and it makes me so uncomfortable!
Is it personal bias? Is it because we are used to think of visual and sound as art (so worthier of human origin) whereas code is just a tool?
Kind of? I think we are so used to using code that we haven't written every line of, everything from getting code from googling to something like bootstraps, CMSes, libraries and so on.
It comes from the top. He's shown active disdain for users.
Also re; the AI disclosures. I reread Valve's blog post and they mention AI generated code, but I think the point of contention for most people are AI art and music assets. Maybe Valve should revise it to include those, but I'm not a programmer so I won't pretend like I know what I'm talking about.
FWIW I appreciate the conversation happening right now, e.g. how the disclaimer should be treated as a "list of allergens" for software.
I still think that AI is used at all levels already, and we are only annoyed when it's visible. Which is fair, I guess, but it really begs for more detailed information.
Again I can't say how biased I am, but surely using AI as a search engine is different than generating an artwork, which is different than only changing a detail in the background, or upscaling an image, etc.
I guess I find this whole thing fascinating because we (enthusiasts, industry workers, etc.) are in the very middle of one of the biggest paradigm shifts in our lives, and nobody really knows how to handle it.
I still think that AI is used at all levels already, and we are only annoyed when it's visible. Which is fair, I guess, but it really begs for more detailed information.
Again I can't say how biased I am, but surely using AI as a search engine is different than generating an artwork, which is different than only changing a detail in the background, or upscaling an image, etc.
I guess I find this whole thing fascinating because we (enthusiasts, industry workers, etc.) are in the very middle of one of the biggest paradigm shifts in our lives, and nobody really knows how to handle it.
Another consideration is how the disclaimer fundamentally attributes all the responsibility to the end-user of the AI, and not on who should regulate and control the AI in the first place.
Perhaps it would me more interesting if the disclaimer would say "this game uses an AI model trained only on authorized or open source material" (which might be ethically correct) vs "this game uses a model trained on copyrighted material so the main character might have the face of george clooney and the voice of darth vader".
Perhaps it would me more interesting if the disclaimer would say "this game uses an AI model trained only on authorized or open source material" (which might be ethically correct) vs "this game uses a model trained on copyrighted material so the main character might have the face of george clooney and the voice of darth vader".
Think transparency is always good, on all levels of the chain, as Copons says even on the model level it would be good to know the sources.