If you are into open source, give Remnants of the precursors a try, it’s a modern spiritual successor of the oldie Master of Orion.

To each their own. For me, a good lore and dialog is what makes a good RPG stand out.

If I want action and reflexes, I’d go play an action game. If I want strategy, I’d go for a puzzle game, or a 4X, deckbuilder, etc. But in a proper RPG what I look for is good lore, engaging story and some level of freedom that makes me feel I’m having an impact in that world. If AI can help with immersion and/or dynamic changes, I’m all for it. Of course, for that to happen they need to make sure it does stay in character and does not hallucinate something incoherent.

If there’s an AI chatbox that actually can stay coherent and be set up as a game without feeling like you have to input too many instructions to the AI to push the narrative (I think AI Dungeon gets close) then well, you could almost consider that being an RPG already. After all, the first RPGs were all text based. So I would already consider that the first iteration of AI-based RPG game. But translating that to a live 3D environment would be the next step.

Only if they use it the same way and within the same context. But isn’t that what always happens when a new gaming system/idea explodes and clones start poping up? I don’t think that matters much, in fact competition might actually be a good thing.

The article talks about how they are ok with using AI for things outside generating images, texts and so. For example, they are fine using the rudimentary AI of any typical enemy in one of their games. So I expect procedural generation that does not rely on trained bayesian network models is ok for them.

It looks like they just seem to be concerned about the legality of it… so they might just start using it as soon as the legal situation for AI models is made safe.

In that counter argument they are essentially admitting that 99% of their content was distributed without the copyright holder’s consent.

In the CDL lawsuit, they have admitted that of the millions of books we have digitized, they themselves have only made about 33,000 available to libraries; only about 1% of what we have done, and only under restrictive and expensive license agreements. This is, they claim, the essence of their copyright rights: the ability to restrict access to information as they see fit, to further their theoretical economic interests, without regard to libraries traditional functions and the greater public good.

Was it fair use in the past to redistribute reprints/format-conversions of works without the copyright holders consent?

I agree that copyright law sucks… but that’s why it needs to change so it actually serves “the greater public good”. The judiciary system is not the right place to advocate for that (they don’t make the law, just interpret it), so I don’t really think there’s much hope in them winning this. Sadly.

If they really think there’s no reason to hide anything, why are they prosecuting Snowden for exposing something that was hidden?

Before having surveillance on people, they should have it on themselves.

Imagine how many corruption cases could have been prevented if the government was publicly monitored, with live streams from all offices, like a “big brother” show set up in the white house with live recordings of all calls and communications, so the voters can judge by themselves and monitor if the person they employed as the servant for the country is doing its job.

The thing is that being “willfully ignorant” has served them well, so it makes it the smart move when the goal is “line go up”.

Give me money and call me stupid, why would I care what a few “smart” people think when millions of “stupid” people give me all I want?

I think it’s more that executives think the average consumer is stupid and cares too much about IP branding. And I feel they are not completelly wrong. Though I think the OGL fiasco showed the D&D fanbase might be smarter than that …hopefully.