Anego Studios Development update, June 2026

[hstone32]

I love just about everything about this post. Was kinda hoping for new lore content in 1.23, but a combat update is also very welcome. The story trailer you're working on tells me you haven't totally given up on it. I quite like the story a lot.

Very pleased with how you decided to handle the AI controversy. It's a good example of the lost art of compromise. Since much of modern day society has seemingly forgotten how to compromise, I expect there will be some vocal few who are very unhappy, but I believe capitulating to one side or the other does irreparable damage to a community, both online and IRL. I quite like the Vintage Story community. Would hate to see it ruined like so many others. Some will claim that anything less than taking a hard non-compromising stance on a divisive issue will ruin the community, but I have yet to see that happen.

Been so curious about the other projects, like Glint and etc. Glad to hear they've not been forgotten about.

There is just one thing that worries me, and that's the creator program. @LadyWYT has already sorta touched on my concerns on that. While I do not at all believe VS is at risk of turning into the minecraft marketplace, I still struggle to think of a case where funding, either through monetization or official license, ever actually benefits a modding community. Who knows though, maybe Anego will be the ones to pull it off. In the mean time though, I sure hope you guys elaborate on what you're planning.

[LadyWYT]

7 hours ago, hstone32 said:

There is just one thing that worries me, and that's the creator program. @LadyWYT has already sorta touched on my concerns on that. While I do not at all believe VS is at risk of turning into the minecraft marketplace, I still struggle to think of a case where funding, either through monetization or official license, ever actually benefits a modding community. Who knows though, maybe Anego will be the ones to pull it off. In the mean time though, I sure hope you guys elaborate on what you're planning.

If it is some sort of monetization program, the best I can think of is some sort of "tip jar" system so that players can donate to their favorite mod authors without needing to rely on a middleman like Patreon or Ko-fi or something. With the understanding, of course, that the mods have to be free by default--no locking things behind a paywall.

Minecraft's Marketplace, as well as the Sims' marketplace, are good examples of how wrong monetization can go. There's also the incident that happened with Skyrim, when monetized mods were allowed there. Aside from the typical "low quality mod attempting to make a quick buck", some of the more prominent mods that other mods/modlists relied on to work correctly were getting locked behind paywalls and thus breaking things, and the modding community itself was going to war over who was okay with the policies versus who was not. Ultimately things got straightened out, at least somewhat, but the damage was already done and I'm not sure that the community has ever really recovered from it.

[VaelophisNyx]

12 hours ago, hstone32 said:

Very pleased with how you decided to handle the AI controversy. It's a good example of the lost art of compromise. Since much of modern day society has seemingly forgotten how to compromise, I expect there will be some vocal few who are very unhappy, but I believe capitulating to one side or the other does irreparable damage to a community, both online and IRL. I quite like the Vintage Story community. Would hate to see it ruined like so many others. Some will claim that anything less than taking a hard non-compromising stance on a divisive issue will ruin the community, but I have yet to see that happen.

It's less about ruining a community for one game and more about openly rejecting the destruction of the planet and people at large, by mega-corporations. You shouldn't use or support the use of the slop machines, and as such it's extremely displeasing to see it's getting any wiggle room here

[Indica]

Concept armor #149 looks so badass. I'm excited for the new armors!

[Farmore]

I already left a comment here but wanted to express concerns about the way gen-AI is meant to be handled on the mod page. I know you mention the possibility of the feature being suggested being abused, but the vote system being considered basically just punishes anyone using gen-AI and puts others at risk of being targeted. If that's the case, why even allow gen-AI on the mod page if people are going to be possibly hidden for doing so (my understanding is that this is still at the behest of the individual to toggle off but still)? If it's a matter of not wanting to moderate it, or simply not being able to, I feel like there's a more intuitive system to use. Not to mention how vague "low-effort" is. Low-effort could easily not have any gen-AI, just be "low-effort" which is already kinda vague.

It makes more sense to have a required gen-AI disclosure like what Steam and Itch.io have. I can't speak for Steam but I know on Itch.io devs are required to answer a "This uses gen-AI" or "this does not use gen-AI" toggle. And then implement a toggle that automatically hides any mod that has disclosed using gen-AI. Granted this system is not full-proof, someone could easily just lie and I'm sure people do on other store pages anyway, but I feel like this is a far easier system that doesn't potentially put innocent devs at risk of voting abuse, even if it's a passive system.

I understand wanting to leave moderation in the community's hands but such a hands-off approach somewhat defeats the purpose of moderation. Overall I think a required gen-AI disclosure is just far less hassle than a system where users can flag "low-effort" content. If the Anego isn't going to take a hard anti-Gen-AI stance (which I have no reason to believe this is the case) I think at bare minimum being upfront about that and implementing a far easier toggle system is better. And I'm saying this as someone fairly against gen-AI, I just think this is a lot of extra work and potential risk. Like, what if someone or a group of people goes flagging random mods they just don't personally like? I dunno how prone to that behavior this community is but any potential abuse that is successful is going to be spread by multiple people... I feel like that's just more work overall to personally vet "are all the flags against this mod valid?" than to just leave it up to mod devs and punish those who are caught lying (which is also improbable but I want to believe people are at least okay with being transparent about gen-AI practices).

Sorry this feels so critical lol..... Like I said in my last comment, keep up the great work  !! I'm glad it's at least being considered how to handle this issue. Gen-AI is still so new and the gaming community is still working out how to moderate it, so I'm not expecting any perfect system.

[LadyWYT]

18 minutes ago, Farmore said:

Like, what if someone or a group of people goes flagging random mods they just don't personally like? I dunno how prone to that behavior this community is but any potential abuse that is successful is going to be spread by multiple people... I feel like that's just more work overall to personally vet "are all the flags against this mod valid?" than to just leave it up to mod devs and punish those who are caught lying (which is also improbable but I want to believe people are at least okay with being transparent about gen-AI practices).

I'm guessing they've already got measures in place to punish those who try to weaponize reports, so I daresay the system will be fine. I'm also guessing that "low quality" flags will apply to stuff that is actually low-quality; that is, it doesn't matter what tools someone used to create the mod if the end product itself is rather terrible. 

 

28 minutes ago, Farmore said:

It makes more sense to have a required gen-AI disclosure like what Steam and Itch.io have. I can't speak for Steam but I know on Itch.io devs are required to answer a "This uses gen-AI" or "this does not use gen-AI" toggle. And then implement a toggle that automatically hides any mod that has disclosed using gen-AI. Granted this system is not full-proof, someone could easily just lie and I'm sure people do on other store pages anyway, but I feel like this is a far easier system that doesn't potentially put innocent devs at risk of voting abuse, even if it's a passive system.

Except mod authors can already flag their mods as using AI by adding disclosure in the mod description or adding the AI tag to their mod. Mod authors who use AI tools in their work tend to disclose such use, but not all of them do. The main problem with requiring everyone to tag their stuff is that there needs to be a clear set of rules of exactly what sort of AI use warrants a tag and what does not(ie, were AI-generated assets actually used, or did the mod author just use AI to get some ideas/information of how to do stuff but did the actual work themselves), and having to check everything for compliance bogs down the system. And it still doesn't stop false reports from happening because some people have personal vendettas or otherwise erroneously assume something is AI when it's not.

 

37 minutes ago, Farmore said:

I understand wanting to leave moderation in the community's hands but such a hands-off approach somewhat defeats the purpose of moderation.

Ultimately, I think making sure that the community has the freedom to make their own choices and punishing those who try to abuse the system is the best way to handle it. Those who don't want anything to do with AI can just use the filter and not have to see it, and those who don't mind AI can browse those mods and determine which they want to use and which they do not. And of course, mods that break TOS will be dealt with the same way they've always been.

[sleeves]

On 6/16/2026 at 6:03 AM, Tyron said:

Our previous trailers were all about showing off as much gameplay as possible while using 100% ingame footage. This time we'd like to try something different and tell you about the games story in a more cinematic format, in fact it might not use ingame footage at all, we haven't fully decided yet.

 

I would recommend doing any cinematics in-game using commands and mod tools, if nothing else. I personally tend to discount any game using out-of-engine renders for significant portions of a trailer. Besides, doing that stuff in-game ultimately results in better tooling, as I know you all experienced first-hand when implementing fake players for the 2022 feature trailer(?). In any case, this is all very exciting!

[MKMoose]

On 6/17/2026 at 1:50 AM, LadyWYT said:

I mean, it is kind of unfinished, after a fashion, in the procedural dungeons only shipped with one general type, and a few of the berry bushes(like the kumquat) seem to have been pushed back. Which is understandable--the devs packed a LOT into 1.22, complete with a lot of restructuring, and at some point one has to say enough's enough and just get what's there polished and shipped so players can play with the new toys and get used to the changes. At that point you can take a break as needed before working on the next update.

When I say "unfinished", I very much mean that some things were shipped in a barebones or buggy state, not just that some features didn't make it in or were explicitly labeled as proof-of-concept. There's a few things that just cannot reasonably qualify as finished features, fishing most notably.

I can understand the more aspirational features getting pushed back, but I do not know why things get rushed when the devs have all the control over what gets teased, what gets pushed back and when the update releases, with no publisher setting deadlines and no big release date announcements months in advance. There are even a few features which explicitly were supposed to make it in (unlike the stuff on the "not a single feature was promised" roadmap) and yet were delayed regardless. In several cases we don't even know if there are any significant plans to include them in or before 1.23 - certainly not mentioned in this dev update.

I don't think I'm speaking just for myself when I say that I would prefer less frequent or smaller updates which are well thought-out, extensively tested and thoroughly enjoyable, rather than a barrage of new stuff which just seems rushed. Tyron himself has admitted that they should feature freeze harder in the RC phase, which was very nice to hear, though I prefer to hold off cheering until I see how 1.23 unstable goes.

 

On 6/16/2026 at 12:03 PM, Tyron said:

Dana, Pizza2004, Sekelsta and Maltiez have been active in doing code cleanup, bugfixing and improving mod support.

This part is, frankly, the best part of this dev update for me, and it's been really nice seeing Maltiez cleaning up the old reports in the issue tracker.

[sleeves]

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

I don't think I'm speaking just for myself when I say that I would prefer less frequent or smaller updates which are well thought-out, extensively tested and thoroughly enjoyable, rather than a barrage of new stuff which just seems rushed.

Agreed. I'd say, generally, that updates should contain two major features at most.

[sleeves]

On 6/20/2026 at 12:04 PM, LadyWYT said:

If it is some sort of monetization program, the best I can think of is some sort of "tip jar" system so that players can donate to their favorite mod authors without needing to rely on a middleman like Patreon or Ko-fi or something. With the understanding, of course, that the mods have to be free by default--no locking things behind a paywall.

Alternatively, a mod bounty program where anyone can contribute to the bounty pools would be interesting. For instance, if I were to submit a $20 bounty for a wheelbarrow mod, someone else could add $15 to that prize. Whoever implements the described mod would get $35. Of course, you'd need to account for differing opinions on how the mod is made, but I think most such issues could be resolved by requiring conditions along with a contribution. If someone adds $5 with the condition that the wheelbarrows need an animated model, they're allowed to refuse payment for the completed mod should it miss that feature. (This whole thing is probably overcomplicated - it's just an amusing thought I had some time ago :-p)

Edited June 22 by sleeves
Clarify mod rejection

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, sleeves said:

Alternatively, a mod bounty program where anyone can contribute to the bounty pools would be interesting. For instance, if I were to submit a $20 bounty for a wheelbarrow mod, someone else could add $15 to that prize. Whoever implements the described mod would get $35. Of course, you'd need to account for differing opinions on how the mod is made, but I think most such issues could be resolved by requiring conditions along with a contribution. If someone adds $5 with the condition that the wheelbarrows need an animated model, they're allowed to refuse payment for the completed mod should it miss that feature. (This whole thing is probably overcomplicated - it's just an amusing thought I had some time ago :-p)

It's an interesting idea, but aside from users submitting conflicting bounties, it also presents the issue of determining who wins the prize. 

[sleeves]

24 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

It's an interesting idea, but aside from users submitting conflicting bounties, it also presents the issue of determining who wins the prize. 

True. My thought would be that any mod author can submit a respective mod, then each contributor chooses whether it meets their criteria. The service would act as an escrow, only refunding if the contributor's rejection is valid (corresponds to an unmet condition). Once again, though, very overcomplicated.

[Moltrey]

Regarding the AI slop issue; I'd say the minimum QoL response if it's allowed would be to have an "AI exclusion" toggle for the Mod Page so we don't end up with a crap ton of mostly useless mod instances we would be obligated to swim through.

In general, I am against pure AI stuff. Just like our cell phones, as a 62 yr old I view them as tools, nothing more. They have no power over you if you keep them as such. Yes, I know it is easy for me because I grew up with rotary phones with bad AT&T lines and 3 TV networks and PBS. For all you "youngsters", don't let modern convenience rule your life, give your brain a break; you will thank yourself later.

[Tyron]

On 6/20/2026 at 11:07 AM, hstone32 said:

There is just one thing that worries me, and that's the creator program. @LadyWYT has already sorta touched on my concerns on that. While I do not at all believe VS is at risk of turning into the minecraft marketplace, I still struggle to think of a case where funding, either through monetization or official license

This is not about monetization. Mostly about trying to get a more direct line with creators, listening to their needs as creators specifically, and showcasing some of their work.

On 6/22/2026 at 4:32 AM, Farmore said:

I understand wanting to leave moderation in the community's hands but such a hands-off approach somewhat defeats the purpose of moderation.

I fear this will be a nightmare to manually moderate now and an even bigger nightmare in the future once AI models are even more advanced - because where do you draw the line from where it counts as GenAI? People seem to love Eco Machina, yet it is 100% vibe coded. Only difference - it doesn't have an AI generated thumbnail. 

If we moderate this by hand, then suddenly Anego Studios becomes the decision maker as to what counts as AI generated and what doesn't. And defining that in a way that's satisfactory to everyone is impossible. Plus every moderator would need to be on the same page on this, or there will be complaints about over- or under-moderation of mods. 

Not even speaking of the amount effort needed for moderators to investigate 15+ mods daily in order to evaluate if a mod counts as genai or not. They would need decompile every mod by hand then. 

 

[MKMoose]

11 hours ago, Tyron said:

If we moderate this by hand, then suddenly Anego Studios becomes the decision maker as to what counts as AI generated and what doesn't. And defining that in a way that's satisfactory to everyone is impossible. [...]

Not even speaking of the amount effort needed for moderators to investigate 15+ mods daily in order to evaluate if a mod counts as genai or not. [...]

I somewhat worry that lack of an authoritative definition still leaves that definition up in the air for people to decide. There will inevitably be false or malicious reports which might unfairly cause mods to be hidden for people which set a low threshold (potentially especially dangerous for large mods which might attract negative attention), as well as honest reports which create pushback either way, and those cases would also take time to resolve and may require moderators to make the potentially contentious decision on whether to revert unjustified reports (and most of the time the answer will probably be to keep things as they are, except when an account gets banned).

 

At risk of repeating what some other people might have already mentioned, I will also note three things, mainly because it kind of feels like the system might be needlessly trying to reinvent the wheel:

• I think it seems counterintuitive to give people the ability to effectively "downvote" AI/low-effort content - a broadly antagonistic interaction - but not "upvote" high-quality content. There is technically the possibility to follow mods, which kind of does the job to an extent, but I feel like this whole new reporting functionality could also be easily implemented as a simple like/dislike or reaction system.
• It is somewhat odd to introduce the ability to report AI/low-effort content but not have broader reporting functionality integrated into the website (not that I can find anyways, and I feel it should have been part of the ModDB a while ago). It is a natural way to report malware, offensive content etc. (which is thankfully rare) and it concentrates the effort of moderators by allowing to react to clusters of reports instead of having to carefully scan all mods that come onto the site or get updated. An AI/low-effort report category could fit right in, and the combined number of all reports could still be used for some kind of filtering.
• It seems to me that if a user reports a mod, it would be worthwhile to hide that mod from the user regardless of any threshold that they've set, mainly because the frustration of still seeing a mod that they've reported would likely drive more negativity and increase risk of mass-reporting. Keep in mind that a dedicated "hide this mod" button or "hide mods from this author" button would do the same functionality about as well. I'd imagine that it's probably obvious enough that it's been considered at the very least, but I find it worth mentioning given that I haven't caught any mention of it by any of the devs.

Ultimately a system like this is certainly not easy to build in a fully satisfactory way regardless of the exact method, but it will probably end up fine. At the very least, it will be better to have something once it rolls out, and then we'll see if it actually does what the community has been asking for, rather than to have nothing at all.

Edited June 26 by MKMoose
Finish a sentence.

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, Tyron said:

This is not about monetization. Mostly about trying to get a more direct line with creators, listening to their needs as creators specifically, and showcasing some of their work.

Ah okay, that's good to hear!

59 minutes ago, MKMoose said:

There will inevitably be false or malicious reports which might unfairly cause mods to be hidden for people which set a low threshold (potentially especially dangerous for large mods which might attract negative attention)

That is the risk one takes by being rather aggressive with how they set their filters. Most users, I daresay, will set their thresholds pretty high, and only filter out the stuff that has multiple reports--that should filter out most of the actual low quality work and make it easier to sort through the rest and pick out whatever they find interesting. And I assume that if someone feels their mod has been unfairly tagged, they could submit an appeal to the moderators along with evidence to support their case.

 

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

as well as honest reports which create pushback either way, and those cases would also take time to resolve and may require moderators to make the potentially contentious decision on whether to revert unjustified reports (and most of the time the answer will probably be to keep things as they are, except ).

To my knowledge, this is how the current system already operates. There's just no easy report button to click when it comes to reporting things on the database, unlike how it is on the forums.

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

It seems to me that if a user reports a mod, it would be worthwhile to hide that mod from the user regardless of any threshold that they've set, mainly because the frustration of still seeing a mod that they've reported would likely drive more negativity and increase risk of mass-reporting. Keep in mind that a dedicated "hide this mod" button or "hide mods from this author" button would do the same functionality about as well. I'd imagine that it's probably obvious enough that it's been considered at the very least, but I find it worth mentioning given that I haven't caught any mention of it by any of the devs.

I don't know that things should automatically be hidden from a user as soon as said user reports the content. Yes, it would keep the user from further aggravating themselves by looking at something they have a problem with, but at the same time, it also deprives the user of knowing whether or not their report was addressed. Generally, the way you can tell if a report had an effect, outside of the occasional DM from a moderator, is seeing if the problem thing is removed from the page or if a moderator comments publicly. Or in some cases, if the offending party lets some details slip.

I do agree though that users should be able to ignore specific mods and mod authors separately from the filter and report functions. We already have those tools on the forums for dealing with content and users, and it would be a nice feature to have on the database as well.

1 hour ago, MKMoose said:

I think it seems counterintuitive to give people the ability to effectively "downvote" AI/low-effort content - a broadly antagonistic interaction - but not "upvote" high-quality content. There is technically the possibility to follow mods, which kind of does the job to an extent, but I feel like this whole new reporting functionality could also be easily implemented as a simple like/dislike or reaction system.

Rating systems can be useful, but they can also be easily abused. I think I would prefer to stick with the system we have currently on the database--that is, leave it to download and follow count. People who are really interested in the mod tend to follow it, and people who really like using the mod tend to download new releases, so mods that have both a high download count and a high follow count tend to be fairly high quality. A reaction system like what we have on the forums wouldn't be the worst thing either, but the reactions should have usernames attached so that it's easier to tell if the reactions are legitimate or if somebody's just got a personal vendetta.

[Farmore]

6 hours ago, Tyron said:

I fear this will be a nightmare to manually moderate now and an even bigger nightmare in the future once AI models are even more advanced - because where do you draw the line from where it counts as GenAI? People seem to love Eco Machina, yet it is 100% vibe coded. Only difference - it doesn't have an AI generated thumbnail. 

Arguably that's more-so a point in favor of asking devs to disclose AI-usage in their work, at least on a courtesy level in my opinion. Though I suppose at a certain point, the community could just label it as AI enough times that it would be automatically hidden from anyone with that toggle? I certainly don't expect the average person to know how to do-compile and read an entire code for a mod. I don't think anyone is doing that for any piece of software. I'm certainly not (tbh at this point I assume most if not all software is using some sort of AI-assistance or the devs at bare minimum asks ChatGPT questions). Personally I think anything that's been vibe-coded to its core should come with some sort of courtesy disclaimer, but that's my opinion. I'm sure a lot of people don't know that mods like Eco Machina are vibe-coded, I certainly didn't, but I honestly have never played with it.

6 hours ago, Tyron said:

If we moderate this by hand, then suddenly Anego Studios becomes the decision maker as to what counts as AI generated and what doesn't. And defining that in a way that's satisfactory to everyone is impossible. Plus every moderator would need to be on the same page on this, or there will be complaints about over- or under-moderation of mods. 

Not even speaking of the amount effort needed for moderators to investigate 15+ mods daily in order to evaluate if a mod counts as genai or not. They would need decompile every mod by hand then. 

Understandable, thank you for the honest opinion. I figured defining what "counts" as gen-AI was going to be a topic of discourse, since it doesn't seem that everyone has a unifying definition on that. I suppose we'll just have to see how the moderation changes pan out in the long run? I'm not really sure how programmers and devs really "count" gen-AI usage broadly. It seems that, like with anyone else, opinions are pretty mixed. So from that sense, I can understood wanting to leave it in the community's hands.

[MKMoose]

9 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

To my knowledge, this is how the current system already operates. There's just no easy report button to click when it comes to reporting things on the database, unlike how it is on the forums.

What I mean is that having this AI/low-effort content reporting system doesn't fully take away the responsibility of the moderators to make decisions on what actually counts as AI/low-effort, which was given by Tyron as one of the reasons for this system to be chosen. Apart from obvious cases like when an account gets banned and its reports can be reverted, any decision to leave things as they are or revert unjustified reports may be about as contentious as deciding whether to let a mod be, flag it as AI or remove it from the database.

 

9 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Rating systems can be useful, but they can also be easily abused. I think I would prefer to stick with the system we have currently on the database--that is, leave it to download and follow count. People who are really interested in the mod tend to follow it, and people who really like using the mod tend to download new releases, so mods that have both a high download count and a high follow count tend to be fairly high quality. A reaction system like what we have on the forums wouldn't be the worst thing either, but the reactions should have usernames attached so that it's easier to tell if the reactions are legitimate or if somebody's just got a personal vendetta.

The main reason why I tend to prefer something like a like/dislike system, besides simply that it allows people to clearly support and appreciate good mods rather than just report bad ones, is that it allows to set a visibility threshold as the ratio between positive and negative reactions rather than some arbitrary number. How do you determine the appropriate number of reports which make a mod count as AI/low-effort? A small mod may struggle to get enough reports to get hidden despite being completely AI-made and of poor quality, whereas a large, popular mod could easily hit the same threshold even if it actually has no AI involvement - there needs to be some way to scale that threshold based on mod popularity. Having a ratio between positive and negative reactions largely solves that problem.

Edited June 26 by MKMoose

[Teh Pizza Lady]

5 hours ago, Farmore said:

Arguably that's more-so a point in favor of asking devs to disclose AI-usage in their work, at least on a courtesy level in my opinion. Though I suppose at a certain point, the community could just label it as AI enough times that it would be automatically hidden from anyone with that toggle? I certainly don't expect the average person to know how to do-compile and read an entire code for a mod. I don't think anyone is doing that for any piece of software. I'm certainly not (tbh at this point I assume most if not all software is using some sort of AI-assistance or the devs at bare minimum asks ChatGPT questions). Personally I think anything that's been vibe-coded to its core should come with some sort of courtesy disclaimer, but that's my opinion. I'm sure a lot of people don't know that mods like Eco Machina are vibe-coded, I certainly didn't, but I honestly have never played with it.

And to that, I ask, what does it even matter? If people truly enjoy playing with the mod and it works and it's fun and doesn't have any major bugs, what does it matter that it was vibe-coded?

If your mechanic uses basic wrenches and fixes your car in a day and it falls apart in a week and my mechanic uses power tools and fixes my car in a day and it lasts for years, which mechanics are you going to want to use? The one that did it by hand or the one that used a power tool? If both mechanics used power tools, but your car falls apart and mine doesn't, then clearly it's not the fault of the tool. How is AI any different? (Without citing alleged theft of code because you and I both know that every dev here has shamelessly copied from Stack Overflow at some point in their lives.)

Spoiler

Here's a secret. Using AI to code is no different from using power tools to wrench on a car.

The end. No further discussion. 

When everyone has free access to the same tools, blame the worker, not the tool.

 

[Tyron]

16 hours ago, MKMoose said:

but not have broader reporting functionality

that was planned and is now a thing as of today

16 hours ago, MKMoose said:

It seems to me that if a user reports a mod, it would be worthwhile to hide that mod from the user regardless of any threshold that they've set

an alternative suggestion we heard was to just give users to block individual mod authors, which might be the better option. We'll experiment with the current idea, see how well it works and adapt. Its possible this idea won't work well. We'll try another one then. Feel free to give feedback in #moddb on discord

[Farmore]

9 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

And to that, I ask, what does it even matter? If people truly enjoy playing with the mod and it works and it's fun and doesn't have any major bugs, what does it matter that it was vibe-coded?

Because people don't just care about whether something works, people care about how something was made. Pretty much any service product that works, people use But I am not of the opinion people should be inconsiderate of the ethics of how something was made, got delivered to their house, etc. I am of the opinion that people have a responsibility to consider the ethics of what they are doing or using. And to be clear I'm not shaming anyone for using AI. Everyone makes ethics decisions. Some people don't make the cut-off at AI, others do. That is their decision. I certainly think people should use it less if they are going to use it at all, as with anything else. But, people clearly do think it matters? Is this wrong to say?

9 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

If your mechanic uses basic wrenches and fixes your car in a day and it falls apart in a week and my mechanic uses power tools and fixes my car in a day and it lasts for years, which mechanics are you going to want to use? The one that did it by hand or the one that used a power tool? If both mechanics used power tools, but your car falls apart and mine doesn't, then clearly it's not the fault of the tool. How is AI any different? (Without citing alleged theft of code because you and I both know that every dev here has shamelessly copied from Stack Overflow at some point in their lives.)

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of why so many people like myself are wary of this sort of tech. It's not about whether the Thing In Question works, we don't care. It's a boycott. The concern is 1. How it was made? 2. Why it was made? 3. Who made it? 4. What are it costs? Convenience sure is nice, but if convenience comes at a rising cost, I am okay with being inconvenienced and learning things the hard way. I could care less about whether or not gen-AI works. Of course it works, that's why people use it.

And I don't know what you mean by this comparison. Gen-AI is not similar to a power tool in my opinion. Most people do not have power tools. Most people do not know how to use power tools. Power tools are used by specialists. They've got experience, make mistakes, probably some form of certification. They can diagnosis errors, learn, trial and error, etc. Humans make mistakes. As does AI.
Gen-AI is in just about every single piece of software, for free, by just about anyone, regardless of experience or intent. No certification. No preliminary screening. No guarantee the person using it even knows what they are doing. This isn't remotely similar.

The ramifications of using a power tool incorrectly on a car is that the car breaks. Not good for business, or yourself, or the customer, or the car.
The ramifications of such extreme implementation of gen-AI is largely (currently) disconnected by the people who use it. A guy in XYZ city having chat conversations in chatGPT doesn't feel the direct effects of the now un-recyclable water being poured into neighborhoods where data centers are being built. Eventually he will. Maybe not right now, but eventually as more of them are built. People's drinking water turns black, the planet gets a little hotter, more databases are scrubbed for content to be regurgitated, more people are laid-off, more content stolen, more people rely on gen-AI to do their thinking, more gen-AI in schools, etc. because the corporations selling you this technology are selling the answer to all the problems they created in the first place for profit. And they're collecting your data while doing it (nothing is free).

So it's not about whether or not it works or is "better". It's about the consequences of allowing gen-AI to become as unavoidable (genuinely impossible) to avoid. It's an open discussion about whether or not people in a community want to see it or not, and if we should tolerate it any further just because everyone else is doing it.

9 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

 

  Hide contents

Here's a secret. Using AI to code is no different from using power tools to wrench on a car.

The end. No further discussion. 

When everyone has free access to the same tools, blame the worker, not the tool.

Everyone's a hypocrite about something. There's hardly anything ethical about iphones. I consider corporations implementing irresponsible creation and use of technology more responsible than the individual. Having said that, I choose to personally find alternatives and limit or end usage of anything made under concerning standards. Some things are worse than others, some things are more subjective. I recognize the lines I draw aren't 100% agreeable, and that's fine. I don't think a dev asking an AI chatbot how to do XYZ once or twice is on the same level as vibe-coding an entire video game complete with generated assets from the ground up, even if I personally don't use AI chatbots. 

But if your argument to is to blame the worker, not the tool (which is only something I partially agree with as my ire is more-so directed at the people and corporations making this technology irresponsibly accessible for profit as opposed to specific individuals) then I hope you're willing to take the responsibility as an individual and advocate for stronger corporate accountability. I hope you make an effort to use it as responsibly and ethically as you can. I hope you make an effort to learn about the serious damage AI data centers are doing. I hope you listen to the people rightfully upset at losing their jobs, moving out of hometowns, having their work stolen, resources drained, etc.
If we're not even going to consider the conditions and variables in which a tool was created and why then as "workers", individuals, consumers, it is absolutely our responsibility to have a "further discussion" about the ethics of the tools we use. As not just with gen-AI, but all tools and tech.

At the end of the day, I just think disclosing gen-AI is a courtesy. But I think we clearly have a fundamental mismatch in worldview. I don't want to spark any more discourse on this topic here so I won't be responding to anything relate to this specific discussion any further on this forum anymore. I've said my piece, make of it what you will.

Edit: To encapsulate my point, all I am asking is people be more mindful of the services and tech they use, and make an effort to negate the harm of what they are doing. I'm not asking for perfection or moral purity. I'm asking folks to consider it. My personal(!) stance is that gen-AI is not something I want to engage with at all. That's all.

Edited June 26 by Farmore

[Teh Pizza Lady]

5 hours ago, Farmore said:

And I don't know what you mean by this comparison. Gen-AI is not similar to a power tool in my opinion. Most people do not have power tools. Most people do not know how to use power tools. Power tools are used by specialists. They've got experience, make mistakes, probably some form of certification. They can diagnosis errors, learn, trial and error, etc. Humans make mistakes. As does AI.
Gen-AI is in just about every single piece of software, for free, by just about anyone, regardless of experience or intent. No certification. No preliminary screening. No guarantee the person using it even knows what they are doing. This isn't remotely similar.

Wait... so....... you're saying I need to be a specialist in construction... with certifications --  as well as have the knowledge to diagnose errors, etc just to use the $50 Black and Decker cordless drill I got from Walmart??!?

Honestly I think you've proven my point about AI being a power tool even better than I ever could... especially since some of the best coding LLMs are only a $20/mo subscription away...and offer instant access to the latest models (Claude Fable 5 for example was recently pulled because of a vulnerability but when I used it, it blew me away with how in-depth and accurate it was... It was almost better than me and I have a 4-year degree in computer programming!)

[HalfAxd]

15 hours ago, Teh Pizza Lady said:

20 hours ago, Farmore said:

And I don't know what you mean by this comparison. Gen-AI is not similar to a power tool in my opinion. Most people do not have power tools. Most people do not know how to use power tools. Power tools are used by specialists. They've got experience, make mistakes, probably some form of certification. They can diagnosis errors, learn, trial and error, etc. Humans make mistakes. As does AI.
Gen-AI is in just about every single piece of software, for free, by just about anyone, regardless of experience or intent. No certification. No preliminary screening. No guarantee the person using it even knows what they are doing. This isn't remotely similar.

Wait... so....... you're saying I need to be a specialist in construction... with certifications --  as well as have the knowledge to diagnose errors, etc just to use the $50 Black and Decker cordless drill I got from Walmart??!?

Honestly I think you've proven my point about AI being a power tool even better than I ever could... especially since some of the best coding LLMs are only a $20/mo subscription away...and offer instant access to the latest models (Claude Fable 5 for example was recently pulled because of a vulnerability but when I used it, it blew me away with how in-depth and accurate it was... It was almost better than me and I have a 4-year degree in computer programming!)

We all have our hills to die on... 

I still avoid buying things on Amazon to support local brick-n-mortar jobs.  Is Amazon more convenient? Yes... that's why it wins...  

AI tools are the same thing... they make it more convenient...  we can't close that door regardless how loud we yell about it.

We just have to make personal choices and remember that others make their own choices.

Enjoy VS in whatever way you wish. 

[sleeves]

On 6/25/2026 at 3:00 PM, Tyron said:

Not even speaking of the amount effort needed for moderators to investigate 15+ mods daily in order to evaluate if a mod counts as genai or not. They would need decompile every mod by hand then. 

In my opinion it should be up to the creators to indicate their own LLM use, preferably via a simple checkbox or the like. Failing that, a number of user reports would flag it for moderator review, leading to a warning or penalty if clear evidence was given in the reports. For instance, I could report a mod for unmarked LLM use and include a link to a commit made by an agent.

Edited June 27 by sleeves

[VaelophisNyx]

On 6/25/2026 at 2:00 PM, Tyron said:

I fear this will be a nightmare to manually moderate now and an even bigger nightmare in the future once AI models are even more advanced - because where do you draw the line from where it counts as GenAI? People seem to love Eco Machina, yet it is 100% vibe coded. Only difference - it doesn't have an AI generated thumbnail. 

If we moderate this by hand, then suddenly Anego Studios becomes the decision maker as to what counts as AI generated and what doesn't. And defining that in a way that's satisfactory to everyone is impossible. Plus every moderator would need to be on the same page on this, or there will be complaints about over- or under-moderation of mods. 

Not even speaking of the amount effort needed for moderators to investigate 15+ mods daily in order to evaluate if a mod counts as genai or not. They would need decompile every mod by hand then. 

 

So require source files to be included with each mod, or accessible on github. You have tools, you have the power. Rate limit mod uploads and mandate moderator approval before it's live if that's a concern. This extremely lax behavior around a violently destructive technology is seriously disappointing from you and your studio. You're taking the stance that slop is fine because you don't want to do any work to ensure a clean and healthy modding community exists, free of slop.

A lot of people use mods they have literally never looked at the mod page for, because they're joining servers that autodownload them for them. It's a bad metric to claim that people like vibe coding. It's like saying people enjoy lead in their cakes because they didn't see or taste it.

Edited June 28 by VaelophisNyx