itch.io Community » Tabletop Gaming » General » Discussion

Using AI generated pictures on print to play games

A topic by Cloud Wyn Studio created 22 days ago Views: 494 Replies: 12

Viewing posts 1 to 6

Is it possible to publish a print to play game / card games with the following conditions :

- pay what you want or possibly commercial game.

- The interface such as the indicator , board tiles, rule/guide book and card basic template & skill description are human made

-No audio is used in this game

- However , the creatures are made by AI. For example a picture of a warrior card. that will be pasted on the card .

What will be the community feedback of this ? Is the game AI generated or AI assisted?

Like Reply

redonihunter22 days ago

I do not understand the question.

/physical-games/store/tag-ai-generated

Is it possible? Of course it is possible. You can publish anything on Itch that is not illegal to publish and that is downloadable. You cannot publish something, if you do not have the rights to publish it, like copyright issues and such.

And why would you ask about audio in a so called physical game? Is there a athmospheric background music available to play, when playing the game?

And what do you mean with feedback? Feedback about what? If people like ai games in general? No, they do not. About 3/4 of those paid ai physical games have 0 sales. Only about 1/5 of the no-ai games have 0 sales in comparison.

Sigh. I complained about the term ai assisted and that people would not undestand it. There is no such thing as a classification of "ai assisted" on Itch. Or ai generated for the game itself. Even if you read it somewhere. It is meaningless. It only means that your game will have text, audio, graphics or code, that has been generated with generative ai tools (even if hand edited later). That's what "assisted" "means". And that is what is asked in the ai disclosure. It is not a seperate category of ai usage.

In your case this would be /physical-games/ai-graphics specifically.

(Oh, and to add to the confusion, /physical-games/ai-assisted is an alias of /physical-games/tag-ai-generated and "ai-generated" also contains a few games that have manually selected this verbatim as a tag.)

Like Reply

Cloud Wyn Studio21 days ago

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

this one is the correct option.

/physical-games/ai-graphics

Like Reply

Aleks SamoylovModerator20 days ago(+1)

It's possible, sure ...

Is it a cool, ethical, or respectable decision? No, not really. People are free to use AI if they want, but they are not owed the unconditional respect of the creative community (which skews anti-genAI, for very good reason, pretty heavily) in doing so, and potential customers are similarly free to reject them and even criticize them for doing so. The product will be seen as lesser and, in my opinion, this will be because it is, in fact, lesser, both in quality and in terms of more abstract intrinsic value. But, my biased opinion aside, it's likely going to negatively impact your sales potential, which, if you're working in the indie space, is already more or less in the gutter (so, I guess it's not that big a deal - if you're not planning to make any money anyway, then there's really no fiduciary pressure, though there may still be some reputational drawbacks).

If you can't afford human artists for bespoke commissions, there are a lot of human made creative commons artwork out in the world, made generously available by the artists who made it with their own hands specifically for this reason, not to mention the absolute plethora of public domain artwork (I suspect that fantasy games in particular should have a veritable treasure trove of early pulp illustrations to draw from already, and that trove is going to grow exponentially in the coming years) out in the world. In my observation, players are going to be much more open to and forgiving of public domain solutions when compared to AI slop, so it's the better (free) option from a purely business perspective, in my opinion, even if you are pro-AI, or have no strong opinions on the matter one way or the other. With good curation / art direction, as well as some solid graphic design chops, one can use Creative Commons and Public Domain artwork to great effect and end up with beautiful and unique transformative products are a result.

Personally, assuming your question is related to potential reception of the product, as opposed to mere classification (I did find it a bit unclear, so I'm sorry if I've misconstrued overall), I don't recommend doing it. Ethical and environmental matters aside, I don't think large scale AI, of a kind capable of generating imagery, is ever going to be "cool" in the way that the CEOs hope and wish. It appears that proponents are waiting for a watershed moment, or a critical mass of adoption, on which they can then market the product to its actual intended clients for its actual intended purpose (the former being governments and government contracters, and the latter being mass data gathering, surveillance, and control), but it's just not coming fast enough ... mostly because those same proponents are themselves profoundly, deeply, unpleasantly uncool people (see Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg ... hell, even Trump, who has been personally slinging slop in a public and unflattering way).

It might be "here to stay" (even that, I am not too sure of, given the bizarre and precarious economic situation, but let's assume it somehow manages to survive intact without the bubble popping), the grass roots adoption is primarily skewed towards boomers (who are not cool) and conservatives (not cool). The "high level" adoption and marketing is primarily associated with rich, white, conservative dudes (very, very uncool). In other words - facebook is probably "here to stay" too, but we all know who its for, who the current primary users are, and while some of them are our parents and grandparents ... well ... let's face it, it's pretty much all parents and grandparents. In other words, even outside of any moral considerations, AI has a distinctly boomer face to it, and that's not likely to change as the new generation comes through (when was the last time kids were falling over themselves to get on board with the stuff their grand parents are into).

Like Reply

Liminary-Dev11 days ago

There is already fairly high rate of hate towards using Ai to make content for your game without the person lifting a finger.

While you can do it, the likelyhood of people not buying your game may be high, esp if the word spreads that your game clearly uses Ai.

Also if you're going to hand make indicators, board tiles and rule book, then finish it by making your own images for the cards.

I recently made my own card game to play just with my family and I used nothing but free-license images and the public domain, and I printed and cut out, making the rules by hand.

Personally, the only time Ai should be used in a project like making a game is brain storming and notes.

Like Reply

redonihunter10 days ago(+1)

without the person lifting a finger.

I used nothing but free-license images and the public domain

Soo, you did not lift a finger to create the images yourself, like you give as advice: then finish it by making your own images for the cards.

This is what irks me in discussions about AI. The inconsistency. If you are against AI because of X, you would have to be against other things involving X. And if it would be pointed out that X is actually not a major factor, you would even have to change your opinion or be a hypocrite.

That particular argument would be, that using ai is akin to not lifting a finger. But using public domain images is lifting even less fingers.

People not liking ai very much is demonstrably true. There are surveys about that kind of thing. It is a valid argument to not use ai. But if you qualify it by things like low effort, you water down your argument. You make it vulnerable to things like the low effort actually not being true in context. One can put a lot of effort into using ai, and using public domain assets would be even less effort.

Like Reply

Liminary-Dev10 days ago

Sorry, let me be more clear, when I say "lifting a finger" I mean go out and put the time and effort into trying to find a good website that hosts images, effort into sorting the images, searching for the ones you like and downloading them.

So yes, I did lift a finger. Also the images I found esp on public domain were all made by humans.

While writing a prompt is somewhat effort the same way I type in the pubic domain search box, but the big difference is how the images are. On one hand the images I got are human made, I had to go through tons of them to get the ones I needed, but on the other hand, you got yours via a ai generator, a generator that was fed stolen art as training data for you to get the image you want in 30 seconds.

So using an Ai image generator is below the "Low effort" bottom of the barrel, cause it shows you can't find what you are looking for yourself without having to get some bot that was trained on stolen artwork that spit out content on mass. To be clear, what I did IS classed as low effort, but I didn't stoop that low that I had to use AI-generated images. And If I were to make a card game and publish it to the public I would create all the images myself.

P.S: To be clear, I'm not telling you don't use Ai to make images, I'm just telling you my pov on the matter. Because using ai to make images for a game is the peak of laziness and one could be slightly less lazy by discovering what they need online that's already there.

Like Reply

redonihunter10 days ago(+1)

Maybe you misunderstood. I advocate for using better arguments.

Opinion/Argument/Advice: Avoid AI. People do not like it. You will have less customers because they do not like it.

That is clear cause and effect and one can even bolster this by citing surveys where people tell their preferences about ai.

Compare to opinion/argument: Avoid AI. It is low effort. People do not like low effort. You will have less customers because of that.

That is presented as clear cause and effect, but it is flawed. It's simply not generally true. Creating ai images yourself is not as easy as it sounds. And it can be a lot more work than just browsing for free human made images. Also, you could have hand edit your ai images. There is no category for ai images that are heavily hand edited. They are still just denoted as ai graphics.

And it gets worse since you mentioned your own method of using free assets for a contrast. If you can shrug off ai usage as low effort, so can other people shrug off your browsing for the right image as low effort. How would they know that you did not just pick the first result. And if you think selecting the right images is creative input, well, crafting a prompt and selecting the right results is a similar level of input.

In your reply just now you mentioned the stolen art argument. It's a blanket exagerration and technically not correct. Also, you do not know if it is even true in the weak sense of unconsented training data for any particular ai system. An artist can train a network with self made art. The training data could have been 100% consented or public domain. Especially for audio you will even find things that were trained with specifically created training material. This stolen art argument is short sighted and generalizes too much.

So my point here is: you want strong arguments against ai usage. Not weak arguments that might crumble under scrutiny or depend on personal opinion.

That customers on average are not fans of ai is objective truth. No matter what anyone thinks about legality, lazyness or morality.

That ai usage is low effort depends highly on the developer. You do not know how lazy they were.

That art is stolen is subjective opinion. If it were objective, ai would be outlawed and we would not have such discussions.

Like Reply

Liminary-Dev10 days ago

"Creating ai images yourself is not as easy as it sounds. And it can be a lot more work than just browsing for free human made images"

Yet you don't back up your own claim, you just say it does.

"Also, you could have hand edit your ai images."

Once again you never claimed you did.

You claim you advocate for better arguments but you're doing what you're claiming I'm doing.

"If you can shrug off ai usage as low effort, so can other people shrug off your browsing for the right image as low effort. How would they know that you did not just pick the first result. And if you think selecting the right images is creative input, well, crafting a prompt and selecting the right results is a similar level of input."

Biggest difference is people are more likely to spot Ai useage and have a negative reaction compared to an image that looks like it's low effort but real/from public domain. AI images all have that "feel" that gives off it's Ai, the errors in the image, the classic warm hue, missing limbs/extra limbs, background items that don't seem to make sense such as a distorted coffee mug etc. When a person looks at images from the public domain, they'll see no traces of Ai and care less about the effort behind it all. Sure it's subject to the views of each person as each person sees things differently but for the most art, a lot of people don't assume the image they are seeing is real/hand made.

"In your reply just now you mentioned the stolen art argument. It's a blanket exaggeration and technically not correct."
Yet you don't back up your claims like I didn't.

"The training data could have been 100% consented or public domain. Especially for audio you will even find things that were trained with specifically created training material. This stolen art argument is short sighted and generalizes too much"
Yet again you don't back up your claims, "could have" how do you know it could? How do you know it wasn't?

It's one thing to break down my own opinions and arguments, but you can't pick a part my arguments and pointout their flaws while also making arguments that are flawed just like my own, the very same thing you're pointing out that's flawed.

"So my point here is: you want strong arguments against ai usage. Not weak arguments that might crumble under scrutiny or depend on personal opinion."
Just like how you're using weak arguments (such as you claiming training data 'could' have been consented without backing this claim up) or based on personal opinion (such as That ai usage is low effort depends highly on the developer. You do not know how lazy they were.) is a personal opinion.

Lastly,

"That ai usage is low effort depends highly on the developer. You do not know how lazy they were. "
WRONG. Laziness/low effort is highly dependent on how the outside views you and your work. If you think you are not lazy but everyone thinks you are, the likely hood of you being right is fairly low.. It's one thing not to let others sway your thoughts, but if one always thinks "My opinion/how I do things is always right and everyone else is always wrong" is a fairly toxic way of thinking.

"That art is stolen is a subjective opinion. If it were objective, ai would be outlawed and we would not have such discussions."
It's no an opinion, it's a fact that has been covered by media. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/apr/12/is-ai-the-greatest-art-heist-in-hi... https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Getty-Images-v-Stability-AI....

Also there is a website called "Seaartai" that has a ton of free use ai models that has a ton of image models that were used to train on a lot of artist's art styles.

You respond to my reply to OP trying to pick a part my arguments saying they're weak and have personal opinions.. but then you try to correct me with said weak arguments and person opinions.. surely you see the irony right?

Anyways, It's clear this bickering isn't providing any useful point at all and I'll end it right here.

Like Reply

redonihunter9 days ago(+1)

What I am still trying to tell you is this: you need better arguments. The one you brought was weak and you undermined it. You made your anti-ai argument about low effort while talking at the same time of the little effort you yourself used. You gave advice but did not use your own advice. Would you listen to someone preaching water instead of cola, if they brag about their private homebrew lemonade party?

If you use arguments that depend on opinion, you can only convince people that already share your opinion. If you cite ai as low effort to someone that spent days to create a few images that barely fit the requirement for a project, your claim does not fit their experience. And if you claim low effort to ai users that do hand edit their works, you also fail here. You are just accusing them of lazyness.

Your refusal of my points boils down to me not bolstering them with citations? Then were is your citation that ai usage equals low effort while at the same time downloading free images would not be low effort?

Where is your citation that all ai training data is stolen? Oh, wait you did cite articles. Let's see. The guardian thing is an opinion piece. The only thing this proves is that the author of the article has an opinion. So to refute my arguments you cite an opinion? Come on.

And you cite a document about a legal dispute against one specific ai model, in response to my claim that it is not generally accepted that ai art is stolen. I argued if this were true, we would see consequences of that, like a legal ban on ai.

Please read the conclusion of that document you cited. The legal claims were dismissed, except for a minor claim. And that involves basically recreating something where someone else has rights to it. And that is trivially true, as it would also not be legal do this with pen and paper.

The plea of Aleks above was better. The product will be seen as lesser

Also your own plea just now was good: to spot Ai useage and have a negative reaction

It explains some reasons behind: Avoid AI. People do not like it.

You could even argue that some people think it is stolen, and therefore do not like it. But do not try to argue it is stolen. Because that ain't true in a legal sense. If potential ai users fact check this, they might just decide to use ai, since the ai opponent used a faulty argument.

Fact checking if people dislike ai yields this: https://quanticfoundry.com/2025/12/18/gen-ai/ 62% very negative. Only 7% positive.

Like Reply

Liminary-Dev9 days ago

Like I said, this argument isn't going anywhere. Good Day.

Like Reply

Thonygm9 days ago (1 edit) (+1)

I do not consider the use of AI to be unethical or a sign of a lack of imagination. I believe that if you already have a vision of how something should look and what it should convey, you can use AI tools to give it shape—without simply settling for the first thing it generates—and then build upon that foundation with colors and forms to achieve the desired effect. It is no different from using a wooden mannequin or real-life models as a reference.

Ironically, the people who demonize AI often lack the imagination to harness it effectively; they can only envision a scenario where the AI controls the user. Sadly, much like traditional designers who struggled with the advent of Photoshop and Illustrator, they will ultimately be left behind for failing to adapt to progress.

Like Reply

redonihunter9 days ago

I do not consider the use of AI to be unethical or a sign of a lack of imagination.

Me neither. That is why I think we need good arguments to convince any developer that might potentially use ai, to avoid it - if possible. It's just not enough to tell them they do evil or that they are lacking in skill, or are lazy.

As you said, maybe they just cannot use the tools of the trade. But they might be able to use the skills of another trade to achieve some results.

For such devs it is a choice between using ai where they have some creative input, or using stock assets, or just not have a game at all.

From that viewpoint I accept some ai in some hobby projects. But I do not tolerate it in bigger productions. Same as I would tolerate eating microwaved food at a friend's house, but not at a fancy restaurant.

Like Reply