Gaming Industry Divides Over AI: Indie Developers Push Back as Major Studios Embrace Generative Technology

Indie game developers have a new sales pitch: being 'AI free'

Earlier this month, Junghun Lee -- CEO of Nexon, the parent company behind current live-service shooter du jour Arc Raiders -- made waves in the game development community with a straightforward statement. "It's important to assume that every game company is now using AI," he explained. Indie developers were quick to loudly and vociferously call bullshit. "It's just not true," Alex Kanaris-Sotiriou, cofounder of Röki and Mythwrecked developer Polygon Treehouse, tells The Verge. As similar reactions poured in over social media, many developers shared that avoiding generative AI was not only a matter of personal pride, but also a matter of professional marketing -- one that developers are leveraging to let their players know their games were made by humans. For Kanaris-Sotiriou, the question of adopting the use of gen AI to make games was an easy one to answer. "The foundations that it's built upon, the idea of using other people's work without permission to generate artwork [...] are unfair," he says. Lee's comments are just the latest in a string of notable gaming CEOs declaring that gen AI is the future of the medium. But Kanaris-Sotiriou, along with many of his game development peers, wanted to push back against this assertion. So earlier this year they collaborated on a solution -- a simple image file of a golden cog-shaped seal that declares, "This developer assures that no gen AI was used in this indie game." They made the image (which Kanaris-Sotiriou tweaked to ensure it didn't too closely resemble a more famous seal of approval) freely available for any studio to use in their marketing materials, websites, or game pages. While Kanaris-Sotiriou doesn't have hard numbers on its use, the seal shows up on the store pages for Rosewater, Astral Ascent, Quarterstaff, and more. In the Bluesky thread announcing the seal's creation, multiple indie developers shared that they put it on their Itch.io pages and on Steam, where it serves as the antithesis to the platform's gen AI disclosure rules. Other developers are adopting their own bespoke solutions that act both as an informative statement against gen AI and a philosophical one. "Absolutely everything in Unbeatable was created by human beings without any generative assistance," reads a graphic posted by D-Cell Games on Bluesky about its upcoming game Unbeatable. The image was created specifically in response to Lee's comments. "Every frame drawn, every word written, every model sculpted, every line of code typed, every song sung with a real voice, every guitar played with a real hand, every moment flawed and messy because we are, also." Where other developers have taken a simple declarative approach against gen AI, the passion in D-Cell's statement is apparent and it reads almost like a challenge to those who use the tools. "Ignoring all of the ethical, moral, and legal concerns of using generative AI, it's a huge waste of effort," says Jeffrey Chiao, studio producer at D-Cell Games, in an email to The Verge. "We can produce results that meet our quality standards without its assistance." Gen AI enthusiasts see the technology as a way to unlock hidden creative potential, and to many it's a tool to speed up the time-consuming and costly processes inherent to video game production. Some of the biggest companies are taking advantage of that; EA has announced a partnership with Stability AI, for instance, while Microsoft is using AI to generate gameplay. Ubisoft in particular has had a lot to say about gen AI, with CEO Yves Guillemot calling it "as big [of] a revolution for our industry as the shift to 3D" in a recent earnings call. Players can converse with Ubisoft's gen AI-powered Neo NPCs while the company's Ghostwriter tool generates short snippets of dialogue called barks. Subnautica 2 and PUBG publisher Krafton suggested its employees voluntarily resign if they can't abide by the company's new "AI-first" reorganization. Meanwhile, gen AI assets are showing up in Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 (and again in Black Ops 7), Anno 117: Pax Romana, The Alters, The Finals, Arc Raiders, InZoi, and more. Video game development budgets are ballooning and games are taking longer to release. A tool that can help get games to market quicker and cheaper is an attractive proposition -- especially in the indie space, where investment has significantly dried up and smaller teams require developers to do multiple jobs. And while generative AI is being used across all levels of the industry (with notable exceptions), the loudest pushback is coming from the space that ostensibly stands to benefit from it the most. "Constraints we face as indies inspire us to develop with really creative solutions," Kanaris-Sotiriou says. Tom Eastman, president of Battle Suit Aces developer Trinket Studios, echoes that sentiment. He says that the problems gen AI purportedly solves are the very things that make game development so rewarding. He spoke about how, in the final days of working on the studio's previous title, Battle Chef Brigade, several key locations in the game didn't have finished art. Rather than go through the process of creating the hand-drawn line art that dominates the game's aesthetic, the team decided to use less time-consuming watercolors instead. "Those are the interesting creative decisions that are fun to work through, instead of 'please magic box solve my problems.'" The developers I spoke to acknowledged that as gen AI technology improves, there will be more pressure to use it. And while it's difficult to pin down with hard numbers, they also see how their official anti-gen-AI declarations have resonated with their players and communities. "It's almost definitely going to be all around us at this current rate, but I think the things people want in our works aren't going to change because of it," says Chiao. "So we'll hold on our own and continue doing things our way -- it's more fun that way."

It's time to have a serious discussion about generative AI in AAA games

We all knew it would happen, and it has now begun - generative AI is now being used in AAA video games instead of being there in just obscure or hardly-selling online games. Plenty of big studios are now using gen AI, because that's just the world we live in now. Whether it's for voice acting, loading screens, or even in-game art, mainstream productions in gaming are now using generative AI for their work, and frankly, it's nothing but worrisome. At its worst, it's certainly sickening. I think the worst part about it is that it's the big AAA studios doing this, because that sends a big, resounding message to the rest of the industry, down to the smallest developers: "it's okay to use generative AI that replaces human effort if that helps you ship your product and move into the profit-making phase faster." Ubisoft quickly admitted their mistake with Anno 117: Pax Romana The company admitted to AI images being used but chalked it up to WIP placeholders Ubisoft's latest production, and the newest title in the beautiful Anno series of games, Anno 117: Pax Romana was actually caught using generative AI. The Anno games, especially 1800, the last one, are genuinely known and appreciated for their in-game art, and the gorgeous loading screens have been part of it too. In Pax Romana, however, players easily caught on to signs of gen AI being used to generate some loading screens - people clipping into each other, men with no hands or arms, and another person with two heads, Professor Quirrell-style. Oh, and to make up for that double head, there's another guy with a missing head entirely. Once screenshots of AI art usage in Pax Romana started making the rounds online, Ubisoft was quick to issue a statement about how one of those images was a placeholder, which "slipped in" to the final product. The next update is going to remove these images, but that doesn't do anything about the bad taste it has left in everybody's mouths. Now, as someone with plenty of friends in design, there is no denying that AI images do help storyboard and conceptualize a lot of stuff while projects are in the WIP stage, but for such images to make it to the released product says either of two things - either hundreds of QC staff were asleep at the wheel, or they thought that people wouldn't look too hard at loading screens. Either way, the result is the same - we're all going to be looking at this game, and the next Anno, if and when it comes, with narrowed eyes. Anno 117: Pax Romana Like City Builder Simulation Strategy Systems OpenCritic Reviews Top Critic Avg: 84/100 Critics Rec: 92% Released November 13, 2025 ESRB Teen / Alcohol Reference, Language, Mild Violence, In-Game Purchases, Users Interact Developer(s) Ubisoft Publisher(s) Ubisoft 7 Images Where to play Close WHERE TO PLAY DIGITAL Franchise Anno Genre(s) City Builder, Simulation, Strategy Powered by Expand Collapse Embark Studios have been using AI voices for both their shooters How far can you take text-to-speech before it throws VAs out of jobs? Arc Raiders has been in the limelight for the past couple of months, and almost entirely for the right reasons. It's on track to be one of the biggest multiplayer games of the year, and it's definitely the most accessible extraction shooter ever made. However, the developers Embark Studios have also been open about their usage of AI in the game, particularly for character voiceovers. Now, that would have had the entire industry, as well as gamers, up in arms, except that Embark stated that they did indeed hire voice actors who also signed contracts, knowingly, to let Embark use AI for replicating their voices. According to the studio, this makes adding new story content and dialog a lot easier, streamlining days worth of scheduling and studio booking processes down to just a handful of hours' worth of work. Now, if the actors consented, then, what's the problem? The problem, of course, is that in an ideal world, no actor would've agreed to such a deal, but in the real one, they knew that some other voice actor would have happily taken on the role and lent their voice to Arc Raiders' AI to secure a paycheck. The studio did try throwing out a reassurance about how eliminating human actors from voice work entirely is not their end goal, but now that the line has been crossed, there's no stopping it. Embark had even done this before in their free-to-play shooter The Finals, where they replaced their human actors voicing the game's announcers for AI counterparts, and were resultantly met with huge backlash. ARC Raiders Like Extraction Shooter Third-Person Shooter Survival Systems OpenCritic Reviews Top Critic Avg: 87/100 Critics Rec: 91% Released October 30, 2025 ESRB Teen / Violence, Blood Developer(s) Embark Studios Publisher(s) Embark Studios 7 Images Where to play Close WHERE TO PLAY DIGITAL Engine Unreal Engine 5 Genre(s) Extraction, Shooter, Third-Person Shooter, Survival Powered by Expand Collapse Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 is open to its AI use, too For a billion-dollar franchise to resort to AI slop is... something It's absolutely baffling that a billion-dollar franchise like Call of Duty - a game that is a household name across the entire planet, still ended up having to use generative AI for some of its in-game art, but that's just what has happened. Black Ops 7 came out just a couple of weeks ago at the time of writing this, and players were naturally quick to notice that there were a few blatantly AI images in some of the calling cards in the game's multiplayer and zombies mode. Soon after the latest Black Ops title launched, players noticed, rather easily, how AI art had been used for some rather cheap-looking calling cards in the multiplayer section. They look like cheap imitations of the recent Ghibli-fication images everyone and their dog made earlier this year, and are so clearly low-effort that it's impossible not to be turned off by it. Despite being some of the highest-budget games ever, the COD franchise's use of AI to develop their in-game art is just depressing. The worst part, without a doubt, is the fact that this is Activision and their billion-dollar IP we're talking about. Black Ops Cold War was the most expensive COD game ever vis-à-vis development costs, and Black Ops 7 couldn't have cost any less. Even then, they decided to use artificial intelligence to develop several of their calling cards, which is just depressing. In fact, Activision just updated the game's Steam page very quickly, mentioning that the game uses "AI assets" - a clear sign that they know what we're all talking about, and they're not apologizing. Instead, they're just making sure they've got their bases covered. Oh, and it all just seems entirely pointless, too, because these Ghibli-esque calling cards that are clearly AI? They're also just... bad. What was the point? Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 Like Action FPS Sci-Fi Systems OpenCritic Reviews Top Critic Avg: 65/100 Critics Rec: 38% Released November 14, 2025 ESRB Mature 17+ / Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Suggestive Themes, Use of Drugs Developer(s) Treyarch, Raven Software Publisher(s) Activision 5 Images Where to play Close WHERE TO PLAY SUBSCRIPTION DIGITAL Genre(s) Action, FPS, Sci-Fi Powered by Expand Collapse If this is the future of AAA, count me out One loading screen today means full missions tomorrow What I can't wrap my head around is how these big-shot companies are so open and vocal about using generative AI for their systems, which would only ensure that AI replacements of human-made assets and art increase industry-wide. AI slop remains AI slop. As much as I love Arc Raiders, it does leave an icky feeling in the soul, because even with the VAs' consent, they were most likely bought off with a single paycheck instead of perpetuity payments, which is the only way I'd have been able to come to terms with it. If we allow one loading screen, one voice line, and one calling card to be automated today, the "why not more?" argument isn't far off. That makes these gen-AI art and voices in AAA games the first domino before AI usage is normalized in major titles, replacing human creativity with AI sludge. The push back against AI in AAA games must be immediate If we don't push back now, the AI machine will first automate its own soul, and then come for ours. At the end of the day, I don't care how efficiently a corporation can render a loading screen or whip up a new line of dialog. Games are supposed to feel alive, and they can only achieve that by being built on the weird, messy beauty only human imagination has. If billiond-ollar studios think that replacing real artists and real actors is good business, then it must be up to the players to make it bad business. At the very least, keep the conversation going so that more discourse is had, leading to the goalposts being defined and set. Once we accept AI slop in the biggest games on earth, it won't stop at just loading screens. It would seep into recycled story beats, mission design, and full-blown scripts. If we don't push back now, the AI machine will first automate its own soul, and then come for ours.

Gaming Exec Says That "Gen Z Loves AI Slop"

"The upcoming generation of gamers are Bane in 'Dark Knight Rises' saying 'You merely adopted the slop, I was born in it.'" A video game executive has sparked a fierce debate surrounding the widespread use of generative AI in the industry by claiming that "Gen Z loves AI slop." In a recent tweet, interactive video game company Genvid CEO and former Square Enix director Jacob Navok said that "for all the anti-AI sentiment we're seeing in various articles, it appears consumers generally do not care." Navok pointed to the "biggest game of the year," called "Steal a Brainrot," which, as its name implies, is filled with AI slop characters. The game, which is based on the extremely popular online gaming platform Roblox, became the first game to surpass 25 million concurrent players on any platform last month. "Gen Z loves AI slop, does not care," Navok wrote. "The upcoming generation of gamers are Bane in 'Dark Knight Rises' saying 'You merely adopted the slop, I was born in it.'" The exec's inflammatory rhetoric fueled a fiery debate. Just because people are playing a game called "Steal a Brainrot," does that mean they're voting in favor of AI slop? As companies continue to double down on the use of generative AI, audiences have often become alienated by the trend, sparking widespread outcry. The use of AI in video games, in particular, has already led to plenty of blowback. Most recently, the developers behind a highly popular third-person extraction shooter called Arc Raiders came under fire for using AI to generate character voices, sparking a debate over AI replacing human voice actors -- and human creativity wholesale. The developers of "Call of Duty: Black Ops 7" were also heavily criticized this week for featuring AI-sloppified artwork that unabashedly ripped off the style of iconic Japanese animation house Studio Ghibli. And "Assassin's Creed" publisher Ubisoft was also forced to remove lazily AI-generated artwork for its upcoming title, "Anno 117: Pax Romana," following widespread backlash. Nonetheless, Novak said that the industry's embrace of generative AI was inevitable and that gamers should get ready for a lot more slop coming their way. "I should add that in-game art and voices are merely the tip of the spear," he wrote in his tweet. "Many studios I know are using AI generation in the concept phase, and many more are using [Anthropic's AI chatbot] Claude for code." Novak claimed that a "lot of AI sentiment is being driven by emotion rather than logic." Unsurprisingly, those accusations didn't sit well with many. After all, making the leap from "this Roblox game has a lot of concurrent players" to "Gen Z loves AI slop" is certainly a stretch. "Zero nuance posts is just bait slop," one user replied. Others accused Novak of comparing apples to oranges. "Just because McDonald's has thousands of locations around the world doesn't mean people don't care about good food," a separate user added. "I think comparing a Roblox game with a Steam game doing [average revenue per user] of $30+ is a mistake," another user wrote. "It's like comparing cars and bicycles." "Well-executed games (or other media) will be accepted and adored," a different user argued. "Poorly executed will not, no matter how many no-AI stickers they'll wrap themselves with." "Yet here we are, needing to say the obvious that the most important conclusion for every creative in the field: self-importance and Twitter wars don't convert into happy audiences," they added. Despite the widespread backlash, many gaming execs remain convinced that AI slop is the future. For instance, Electronic Arts CEO Andrew Wilson recently said that "AI is the very core" of its business and could give developers "richer colors" to paint "more brilliant worlds." Sure, while there are plenty of ways to implement AI in the development of a video game, like AI-generated code, that likely won't prove nearly as controversial as replacing human voice actors' performances, presupposing that an entire generation "loves AI slop" seems at best like a vast oversimplification -- or at worst, a provocation. Besides, not every gaming exec is convinced that pumping games full of AI slop is the future. Case in point, video game developer Pocketpair CEO John Buckley announced last month that the company doesn't "believe in" AI-generated games. "We're very upfront about it," he told Game Developer. "If you're big on AI stuff or your game is Web3 or uses NFTs, there are lots of publishers out there [who'll talk to you], but we're not the right partner for that."

Epic boss Tim Sweeney thinks stores like Steam should stop labelling games as being made with AI: 'It makes no sense,' he says, because 'AI will be involved in nearly all future production'

Look at any of a number of Steam store pages -- Arc Raiders, for instance -- and you'll see a fairly prominent "AI generated content disclosure" laying out which parts of the game make use of AI generated content. Go to the Epic Games Store, however, and you'll see nothing of the sort. And that's a difference that's not likely to change, for one simple reason: Epic boss Tim Sweeney thinks AI disclosures are a waste of time. "The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation," Sweeney wrote on X (via GamesRadar), agreeing with a user who called for Steam and other digital storefronts to eliminate the gen AI labelling. "It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." This isn't the first time Sweeney has expressed support for generative AI: Earlier this month, for instance, he waded into the debate over Arc Raiders' use of AI-generated voices with a fantasy about games with "infinite, context-sensitive, personality-reflecting dialog based on and tuned by human voice actors." And he's probably not wrong that in the coming years, more and more game companies will take advantage of generative AI to some extent. His comment about "the rights situation" alludes to one of the biggest worries about generative AI: That it steals and reuses actual creative work without acknowledging or paying the people who created it in the first place. Sweeney is well aware of that issue, because it's something he's voiced concerns about in the past, and I'm pretty confident he knows full well that those legalities are still being settled as major media companies fight to preserve their little slices of the pie. The presence of potentially infringing content in gen AI games alone justifies the existence of AI labelling, as far as I'm concerned. But I think the bigger question amidst all this right now is, quite simply, what purpose would eliminating the label serve? There are plenty of game companies who don't use generative AI, and hopefully that will remain the case even as its use expands overall. And a significant portion of gamers obviously care -- just look at the blowup every time the presence of generative AI in a game or image comes to light. I suspect that's the real reason AI boosters would like to see AI labelling in games go away: Not because it's "irrelevant," but because a lot of people don't like plagiarized bullshit in their games, and it's harder for them to make informed decisions and push back on AI use if it isn't disclosed.. Maybe someday Sweeney will get his wish, and we'll be so awash in AI generated sights and sounds that we'll be forced to throw up our hands in surrender. But I imagine that if we do ever reach that point, we'll have plenty of other, more pressing things to keep our thoughts occupied.

AI may be causing 'more problems than it solves' for game developers

TL;DR: Major tech companies are integrating generative AI to streamline game development, but challenges persist. Ubisoft, Microsoft, and EA use AI tools to boost workflows, yet developers face increased cleanup due to AI errors. This may hinder content refinement, causing more problems than benefits in gaming production. The world's largest tech companies are embracing AI in the hope of streamlining workflows and eliminating waste, but the move might be backfiring for the games industry. Just days ago, Ubisoft confirmed that generative AI is now being used organization-wide, with every office and development team incorporating gen AI. The entire tech sector is betting big on AI, especially in gaming. Microsoft created gen AI tools like MUSE that eliminate the need for game dev coding, and EA is creating a ChatGPT-like chatbotthat can change gameplay in real time. The widespread use of AI comes with some drawbacks and growing pains, though. Recent reports say AI is causing problems for EA, leading to extra work as developers have to come in and clean up critical mistakes made by the tech. Despite the presentations and assurances, dev teams aren't really showing how AI is used in their games, perhaps to avoid controversy. Or perhaps, as Bloomberg's Jason Schreier suggests, AI is causing more harm than good for game developers. In a recent interview with 404 Media, Schreier briefly talked about AI in gaming, saying that his own personal use of AI has led to "hallucinations" that were flat out incorrect. Apparently, game devs have told Schreier that the AI tech isn't incredibly helpful in some aspects> "In my experience, and in the experience of the people who I've talked to about this, it seems like it causes more problems than it solves," Schreier said. It's an interesting contrast to all the public-facing words and assurances of cost-savings and accelerated content production. If this is the case, and AI is able to increase the workflows of developers, this could end up being a bad thing as asset pipelines become more crowded and more time is needed to sift through the content. Like all media production, making games requires a lot of wasteful content creation. Much of what is produced and made doesn't make it into the final game. Accelerating content production in this way could make it even harder for game development teams to refine and single out the best content that shows up in the final game.

Opposing Steam's AI disclosures, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney says game stores should drop "the AI tag" because "it makes no sense" when "AI will be involved in nearly all future production"

Echoing recent and divisive claims that "every game company is now using AI," per Nexon CEO Junghun Lee, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney advocates for removing AI-generated content disclosures from stores like Steam and the Epic Game Store on the grounds that AI will be used in "nearly all" games. Responding to a Twitter user who argued "Steam and all digital marketplaces need to drop the 'Made with AI' label," Sweeney agreed. (And before we go any further, I do want to ask: if a game using gen AI is so great and normal, why do so many people seem keen on hiding its use from players?) "The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation," Sweeney reckons. "It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." The Epic Games Store does not feature AI-generated content disclosures as a default, whereas PC gaming forerunner Steam has actually made them more visible in recent years. Arc Raiders, which has recently been in the crosshairs of this debate for its heavy use of AI voices, makes for an easy comparison. On Steam, Arc Raiders has the following blurb pinned to the bottom of its store page: "The developers describe how their game uses AI-Generated Content like this: During the development process, we may use procedural- and AI-based tools to assist with content creation. In all such cases, the final product reflects the creativity and expression of our own development team." We've only just seen an outpouring of devs shutting down Lee's claim that AI use should be treated as a default assumption in game development, and all of the reports from devs pushing AI-removed art and interrogating the labor implications of the tech can just as easily be aimed at Sweeney's comments here. Yes, a ton of large gaming companies and executives are investing in or talking up AI, from Ubisoft's AI teammates and EA's company-wide push to Take-Two's bold claims on productivity and Gabe Newell's predictions for an AI-heavy future, but equally a ton of teams actively avoid using the technology on principle, and are very vocal about that. This is partly why Sweeney's remarks can seem overzealous. "The rights situation" he mentions is central to ongoing discussions of gen AI use across disciplines, and perhaps especially in games where art and text may be scraped and repurposed without clear sourcing or permission. Multiple major game companies have come out to fend off potential unauthorized use of their IP by AI tools, for instance. On the topic of store disclosures, it's also worth revisiting the counterpoints in Valve's post about "AI Content on Steam" from January 2024, which laid out guidelines to make AI-aided games more transparent and, ultimately, releasable. "Under the Steam Distribution Agreement, you promise Valve that your game will not include illegal or infringing content, and that your game will be consistent with your marketing materials," the company said. "In our pre-release review, we will evaluate the output of AI-generated content in your game the same way we evaluate all non-AI content - including a check that your game meets those promises." "Authorship disclosure" is a big reason stores like Steam make these gen AI blurbs so prominent. No matter how many executives suggest everyone is doing it and nobody cares, a sizable portion of people buying - and, again, making - games are demonstrably put off by gen AI and do want to know if and how it's been used. Just look at the sour player response every time a game is caught using AI-generated assets without clear acknowledgement. Many people explicitly want real, human art made with observable intent, care, and methodology. This whole discourse pocket feels like a microcosm of the AI wave in general: the biggest proponents, who often have the most to gain, treat an imagined AI future as today's reality and incredulously question why everyone else hasn't had the same, almost religious vision.

"Gen-Z loves AI slop," according to former Square Enix executive

Jacob Navok, former director of business development at Square Enix, believes games have reached a tipping point when it comes to the use of AI. Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 and ARC Raiders have both been called out for their use of AI-generated assets and art, but both remain some of the most successful recent releases. "For all the anti-AI sentiment we're seeing in various articles, it appears consumers generally do not care," Navok said in a post on Twitter/X. "Gen Z loves AI slop, does not care...Activision isn't shying away from AI, neither is ARC Raiders. Tipping point has been reached." "I should add that in-game art and voices are merely the tip of the spear. Many studios I know are using AI generation in the concept phase, and many more are using Claude for code," he adds, making it sound pretty rough for anyone who wants to avoid all AI generation in their games in the future. While there are definitely people who loathe the use of AI and want to defend real artists, it does seem like the general consumer does not care and takes the use of generative AI as something that's just going to be part of the process from now on.

Consumers Generally Don't Care About AI in Video Games, Former Square Enix Executive Says

Despite the use of AI in video games and creative work being one of the hottest debated ethical topics among enthusiasts, consumers generally remain indifferent, according to a former Square Enix executive. Jacob Navok, Genvid CEO and former Director of Business at Square Enix Holdings, recently chimed in on the debate via X, providing compelling evidence for why this consumer indifference is driving industry change. Navok cited the success of the Roblox title Steal a Brainrot as a prime example. The game, which features 3D models based on AI slop characters, has been a massive hit among Gen Z gamers, reaching a peak of approximately 30 million concurrent players. This massive popularity signals that the current generation of young gamers doesn't care about the matter, and future generations of gamers will care even less. As Navok put it, quoting The Dark Knight Rises: "You merely adopted the slop, I was born in it." With the general consumer base largely uninterested in the matter, AI usage in video games is expected to increase significantly. The former Square Enix executive noted that many studios are already using AI generation in the concept phase, and many others are using tools like Claude for code, suggesting it will soon be hard to find an indie studio that isn't leveraging these tools. While most consumers, especially the younger generation, may not care about AI, how it is used makes all the difference in terms of quality, but perhaps not in terms of sales and revenue. For instance, Embark Studios utilized AI to enhance the player experience in ARC Raiders by generating additional voice lines while ethically compensating voice actors for their voices to serve as the source material. However, while this represents high-quality integration, it may not outperform the AI slop model in terms of scale. Navok notes that the Roblox game is set to earn significantly more money for longer, making between $80 and $90 million since its release and continuing to be highly popular, hitting a 20 million concurrent players count two weeks in a row this month. ARC Riders is the prime example of how AI can be used to enhance the experience of a video game, but other implementations can be just as interesting, and far from falling into the AI slop category that is at the center of the current debate. Everstone Studio's Where Winds Meet, for example, features some NPCs powered by AI chatbots, which can lead to a variety of interactions, ranging from appropriate to wildly hilarious. Other games, however, lean more into the category reviled by many, such as Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, which replaced real art for its calling cards with AI-generated images that leave a lot to be desired. Where do you stand in this raging debate? Does AI usage put you off, or are you okay with it as long as the game is fun? Let us know in the comments.

"Gen Z loves AI slop" says Silent Hill dev

Younger consumers were born into it and don't care, the former Square Enix director thinks. AI slop is everywhere, from memes and other social media content to entire video games. It's one of the things that's most guaranteed to spark a backlash, as shown by the AI Coca-Cola Christmas advert. But do most people care? It's something we've seen branding experts debate, and it's a question that video game developers are asking too. A former director of the game developer Square Enix seems to have little doubt. Jacob Navok reckons Gen Z "loves AI slop". Jacob is now the the CEO of Genvid, a company that's merging the concept of video games with streaming in what it calls massive interactive live events (MILE). Its horror series Silent Hill: Ascension was panned by fans and critics alike. Writing on X, he's now sparked a debate by suggesting that most consumers don't care about generative AI, "For all the anti-AI sentiment we're seeing in various articles, it appears consumers generally do not care," he writes. He cites the example of the infamous Roblox game Steal a Brainrot, which he describes as the "biggest game of the year". Based on the Italian brainrot internet meme, the multiplayer tycoon game challenges players to collect and steal characters, which are 3D models of AI-generated assets. "Gen Z loves AI slop, does not care, Jacob claims. "The upcoming generation of gamers are Bane in Dark Knight Rises saying 'You merely adopted the slop, I was born in it'." He adds: "I should add that in-game art and voices are merely the tip of the spear. Many studios I know are using AI generation in the concept phase, and many more are using Claude for code. "It will be hard to find a non-indie title that isn't using Claude for code, and ignoring Claude's AI use because it's code while focusing purely on art shows that a lot of AI sentiment is being driven by emotion rather than logic." Jacob also suggests that those gamers who decide to "vote with their wallets" and avoid games that use AI-generated assets, should "avoid any Microsoft published games, all products using Nvidia hardware (including all Switch and Switch 2 games), and any game using GCP as a backend" due to these companies' support for the tech powering AI content. In the responses on X, some question whether using Claude to generate code can really be compared to using image generators like Midjourney to generate art. "If devs could, all their work would be open source, not the same as artists," one person writes. Others agree that not all types of generative AI content are received in the same way by gamers, suggesting that people's expectations from a Roblox product and a traditional retail game are very different. "I'm not sure if everyone's educated enough to tell but surely enough to spot the difference between a TTS system blended with recorded voice lines and assets generated with AI like seen in BO7," one person says. "Just because McDonald's has thousands of locations around the world doesn't mean people don't care about good food," another person argues. "Assets flips, whalebait gachas and other low-tier cash grabs that generate millions have existed before AI, and they will after." AI content in gaming will surely continue to generate debate, and we'll soon start to see the impact in numbers. As one person comments, the next wave of games could define the dos and don'ts of AI in game development.