Gaming industry splits as Dragon Age creator condemns generative AI while Epic CEO champions it

Dragon Age Lead Writer Condemns AI As A 'Virulent Plague'

David Gaider doesn't hold back when explaining why genAI is so bad for games development The co-creator of Dragon Age, David Gaider, has said generative AI is a "virulent plague," and resoundingly condemned its use in games development. Speaking to GamesRadar, the former BioWare writer called the tech "terrible at iteration" and called the results of genAI "soulless." GR spoke to Gaider for the site's extensive investigation into why developers are so loudly against genAI, published earlier this month, and have now published an extended version of the Dragon Age writer's comments. Gaider, who was lead writer on Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age II and Dragon Age: Inquisition (and not forgetting a senior designer on Baldur's Gate II and Knights of the Old Republic!), has multiple issues with genAI, beginning with its basis in plagiarism. "I think the fact that generative AI is frequently trained on data regardless of whether creators or owners have agreed to have their data pillaged in this manner opens up any use of it to all sorts of future legal issues - even if one chooses to ignore the moral implications, which one really shouldn't," he told GR. He added, "'If we're not allowed to steal whatever we need, then the AI won't work as well!' isn't a very compelling argument." Mentioning the spate of AI-created assets finding their way into games, he adds, "Honestly, what does it help with? Does it make the work more efficient? Does it improve the work?" Later he says, "In all my time as a narrative designer I've never once encountered a situation where editing an inferior product took less time than simply throwing it out and redoing it." The drudgery But perhaps the stand-out point Gaider makes is how the past promises of an AI future have been entirely flipped on their head. We are the butlers to the robots, rather than the other way around. "It wouldn't be so bad if generative AI was seen more as an assistant, doing the drudgery while leaving more important tasks for the worker, but we seem to be seeing more and more of the reverse: the AI is set to do the important work and the worker is around to 'clean up'." The legendary writer also notes that even replacing the drudgery isn't necessarily a good idea. "I also think we have to be very careful about not eliminating every task which is useful for training juniors. Howe are we going to train up the next generation of devs if we eliminate every entry-level task?" Condemning genAI as "terrible at iteration," Gaider questions how it can possible to bug fix so-called vibe coding. "What's the point of creating prototypes with AI when the final result is that nobody on the team has actually learned anything about how to make the final product?" GamesRadar saves his most savage comment for last. Until some regulation is in place? Until we can be confident that it's only trained on legally sourced data? Until the people making decisions regarding its use finally realize that it's not the source of cheap labour replacement they want it to be, and don't cut off their teams at the kneecaps to force it on them while expecting unrealistic results? It should be treated like the virulent plague it is. It's well worth reading Austin Wood's full investigation into why developers are so against genAI, despite publishers and big tech trying their best to impose it upon them, where the site speaks to other important industry names like Dusk's David Szymanski, Vlambeer legend Rami Ismail, and Marvel Rivals executive producer Danny Koo.

Iron Lung and Dusk creator says using generative AI in games is great if you want "a big neon sign for your audience that says 'I don't give a f***'"

While he isn't against AI "as a whole technology," indie game dev veteran David Szymanski of Dusk and Iron Lung fame is not at all interested in using generative AI to make games. Speaking with GamesRadar+, Szymanski echoes much of our report on why so many game developers don't want to use gen AI. He says any discussion on the tech has to start by waving off "all the ethical concerns about plagiarism, environmental impact, and job security, which on their own are enough to put me off the technology in its current forms." Even if you can get past those roadblocks, Szymanski really only sees gen AI as "a complicated machine for generating subpar stock photos, buggy code, and a big neon sign for your audience that says 'I don't give a fuck,' and I'm not really in the market for any of those." Creative work probably just doesn't suit AI, Szymanski reasons, even if the tech has other "areas where it could be really beneficial." "There are still way too many concerns about what damage it's doing or it could do," he says. "And it would need to be useful in a way that doesn't undermine important parts of the creative process. "Right now the siren's song of AI is that it's really fast and really easy. There's definitely a place for fast and easy, but there's also a place for slow and difficult. I tend to believe creativity manifests in solving the problems that show up between an idea and the finished result. Your creative voice is defined by your limitations and how you work around those limitations, as much as it's defined by the ideas you have. If you have a copying algorithm solve all those problems for you, what exactly sets your finished work apart from the things the algorithm copied?" I asked Szymanski and many, many other game developers how they want to see gen AI treated in the games industry. He says, "I don't think we have any say over that, one way or the other. We just have control over how we personally respond to what the industry is doing, and whether or not we follow it. In its current form I don't have any interest in generative AI as a development tool and I don't think my audience has any interest in me using it either."

Sweeney Claims AI Could Have Saved Destiny From Its Demise, but Clair Obscur Founder Fears Games Made in 5 Seconds

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney continued to share his pro-AI sentiments in a tweet, noting that AI could have helped Bungie produce Destiny content faster, potentially avoiding its eventual demise (and subsequent layoffs at the studio). If only some sort of newfangled technology could come along and make it possible to overcome bullet point #1 and enable games like Destiny to thrive! Sweeney recently championed AI on a couple of different occasions. First, he claimed that the MCP integration of LLMs into Unreal Engine can be a "real accelerant" for game creators; then, he slapped Valve's Steam for "forcing" AI disclosure on game pages. However, not everyone thinks AI will be a boon to game developers. Sandfall Interactive founder Guillaume Broche, who rose to fame after the release of the award-winning JRPG-inspired game Clair Obscur: Expedition 33. In an interview with YouTuber Konbini, Broche spoke of the fear that generative AI could soon "churn" out a complete game in a matter of seconds, and he hopes they won't be any good. I think everyone's a little scared, though, of the road ahead, of how things might turn out. Video, for starters, is scary, with everything that's happening, with things that used to just keep getting better and better. With video games, we're still somewhat protected because, technically speaking, it's a different ballgame. But I think the day will come when we'll be able to churn out a game in 5 seconds with a prompt. Will it be a good game? I hope not. But I think everyone's asking themselves that question, and admitting that it's a little scary. And that's why I'm also glad I got here early, because we're a studio that's secure. So even if we're not doing things the best way possible, we don't care. When asked by the interviewer whether Sandfall Interactive will leverage generative AI, Broche echoed the sentiment expressed by Grove Street's Thomas Williamson in our recent interview: no to creative uses, but he left the door open to administrative and coding use. Our approach is for the creative side of things, no. I feel like it takes away some of the joy of doing creative things. So why change? We had so much fun making our first game that we're going to do the same thing. The artists at Sandfall love to draw and do 3D work, so we're sticking with that. And then, when it comes to administration, and even the code itself, it depends. It's hard to say how the industry will evolve. In any case, one thing's for sure: the way we love making games is by creating... So we're going to keep doing it this way. Sweeney's comments underscore a growing split in the industry: for some, AI is a survival tool; for others, it risks stripping away the joy of making games. And as the debate intensifies, that divide may widen still. Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.

Generative AI is a "plague," says Dragon Age vet David Gaider: "It's not ready for prime time. There's just a lot of executives who really, really want it to be"

To put it mildly, longtime Dragon Age narrative lead David Gaider, who's long since left Bioware to become a co-founder of Malys and Stray Gods maker Summerfall Studios, is not impressed by generative AI. To put it less mildly, he reckons the technology is a "virulent plague" among games. Speaking with GamesRadar+ as part of a larger report unpacking why so many game developers don't want to use generative AI, Gaider examines the proposed benefits of the tech alongside its observable effects. "I think the fact that generative AI is frequently trained on data regardless of whether creators or owners have agreed to have their data pillaged in this manner opens up any use of it to all sorts of future legal issues - even if one chooses to ignore the moral implications, which one really shouldn't," Gaider begins. It's often unclear exactly what materials AI models were trained on, but given the track records of many of the biggest companies in the space, you can safely assume that a significant chunk of that material was scraped without permission. Gaider says, "'If we're not allowed to steal whatever we need, then the AI won't work as well!' isn't a very compelling argument." He examines one commonly supported use case for gen AI in games: the "concepting or iterating phases," where there may be no plans for AI-made assets to be included in the final game. But he sees risks even with sparing or early use. We've already seen plenty of games mistakenly ship with placeholder AI assets. "All you'd need is one lazy developer or one temp asset that's been forgotten or was placed by someone who's since left the team and you'd have an issue on your hands," Gaider says. "Honestly, what does it help with?" he wonders. "Does it make the work more efficient? Does it improve the work? It wouldn't be so bad if generative AI was seen more as an assistant, doing the drudgery while leaving more important tasks for the worker, but we seem to be seeing more and more of the reverse: the AI is set to do the important work and the worker is around to 'clean up'. "In all my time as a narrative designer I've never once encountered a situation where editing an inferior product took less time than simply throwing it out and redoing it would have or resulted in anything better than mediocre. And while there's potential for AI handling the drudgery, I also think we have to be very careful about not eliminating every task which is useful for training juniors. How are we going to train up the next generation of devs if we eliminate every entry-level task?" Gaider struggles to find an angle on gen AI that doesn't render "the entire thing problematic." He sees "some potential" for it as a "useful development tool" in theory, but not in the technology we have today. "It's not ready for prime time. There's just a lot of executives who really, really want it to be," he says. So, he doesn't want to use gen AI at all. While he hopes there's potential in it, he stresses that "generative AI is terrible at iteration" because you can't "tell it to adjust minor things and get a consistent result," which is kind of the whole point of iteration. "It would be frustrating as hell," he continues. "I can't even imagine using it for bigger tasks like programming. How does one bug fix 'vibe coding'? What's the point of creating prototypes with AI when the result is that nobody on the team has actually learned anything about how to make the final product? Why use AI to create concepts which are inevitably going to be soulless and contain errors and which aren't going to be something your own artists can replicate? Why have systems that nobody on your team really knows how they work? I could go on and on." And he does, indeed, go on. Gaider echoes many developers who don't wholly reject the idea of supporting development with new technology in this space, but do wholeheartedly reject gen AI as we know it today. Asked how he wants to see gen AI treated in the games industry, Gaider minces no words. "Until some regulation is in place? Until we can be confident that it's only trained on legally sourced data? Until the people making decisions regarding its use finally realize that it's not the source of cheap labour replacement they want it to be, and don't cut off their teams at the kneecaps to force it on them while expecting unrealistic results? It should be treated like the virulent plague it is."

Moon Studios' Thomas Mahler Draws a Clear Line on AI: Use It for Repetitive Tasks, But Not for Art/Storytelling

The debate over AI use in game development has raged across the industry over the past year or so, with some developers swearing they'd never touch it, others openly embracing it, and quite a few placing themselves somewhere in the middle. Epic famously opened the gates to Claude, Gemini, and other LLMs with Unreal Engine 5.8 (and 6)'s MCP server, with a mixed reception from the development community. In our recent exclusive interview with Thomas Mahler, CEO of Moon Studios and Game Director on the Ori games and the upcoming No Rest for the Wicked, we asked him what kind of stance the Austrian developer has settled on when it comes to AI tools. I think there's a big difference between using generative AI for tasks that a human could obviously do better and letting a computer do what a computer should do. For example, I just caught one of our gameplay designers putting together a big Excel for our animators that contained information they needed... but then I jumped in and had AI write a little exporter that just gives them all that information without even having to open up our editor. So... letting a computer do the insanely laborious tasks that we had to do in the past is A-OK in my book. Those are the tasks we always dreaded to do anyway. When it comes to AI creating art or telling stories... we're just not there yet. I actually tried it a few times and the result is always the same. The art is generic and the stories and dialogue are laughably bad compared to what talented artists can do. And even if the results would be there, I think at Moon we just enjoy crafting things by hand so that we're in total control of the quality of our work. So, Mahler is taking a pragmatic approach: generative AI can help a lot with many repetitive tasks, but not with creative work for art or storytelling because it's just not good enough in those areas. He then added that the folks at Moon Studios want to be in complete control of the quality of their work, suggesting that even if tools improved, they might not use them anyway. Mahler's position is clear: AI can streamline the boring stuff, but when it comes to art, writing, and overall creative direction, Moon Studios would rather keep the wheel in human hands. Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.