Most of the focus on this isn't the code. It's the art and music that make up the experience.
This is discussed right in the article.
> 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.
I personally think using AI assistance for the code is much less intrusive than using AI for the art and music -- the code isn't as directly experienced by the player as the art.
Much of it comes from people feeling challenged and threatened by the new tech so they construct elaborate philosophies to justify how they feel, but this rapidly crumbles when you look closer. For instance, artists felt threatened by generative AI and came up with a narrative about copyright stuff. But then Adobe comes along with generative AI which doesn't have the copyright issue and how do those same artists respond? With a loud "fuck you" to Adobe, because the root of their objection was never copyright but rather what the new technology would do to their established careers.
In this atmosphere, I think it's easy to perceive an implied rejection of and threat to AI generated code, even if the focus is on art assets, because people aren't being entirely direct and forthright about exactly what it is they're upset about, and that makes for a landmine field.
Wait, how exactly did Adobe create noninfringing models?
Edit: not a full explanation, but https://www.mikechambers.com/blog/post/2025-09-24-generative... ; this is subtly different. It's a claim that the model will not create infringing output, but that's not the same as "this model was trained only on content which was licensed for the purpose of AI training".
(there's also a discussion of the idea that the output of a model may not be copyrightable at all, which will cause a whole second set of problems for commercial users)
Yeah nah. The core reason they’re pissed is the blatant theft of their work to train these models without compensation or permission (the age old “if it’s on the web it’s free to use” bullshit argument), with “artistic merit” being a distant, but still critical, second.
If you can actually write stories or create art, you can see the “seams” in generative content and it gets to be quite nauseating. The fact it was trained on your own output by a trillion-dollar megacorp via theft while you scrape money for rent is the injury to the former’s insult.
Arc Raiders has 160k Steam reviews (which is a lot) and 90% of them are positive. It also has an estimated >4M owners despite a high price tag and is currently the #4 most played game on Steam globally. The AI nay-sayers are a vocal minority - and likely just terminally online Twitter people that do not even play the game, the rest of the players are too busy enjoying the game regardless of whether it's made with AI or not.
I think it's more that the use of AI is in an unimportant part of the game. They could have zero AI voice overs without impacting the game in a meaningful manner. They're pretty bad though and I've definitely seen them getting mocked.
The only controversy was from the dying games journalism complex trying to manufacture the controversy to save their sinking ship of exploiting gamers and developers for their political activism. The sales figures herald their impending demise.
I haven't seem a game voice every fucking item pickup or mini location callout like arc raiders, so it's a quality win for me. I didn't care about the voice performance of "lets head to the olive grove" ever
I don't know if that's what you were already referring to, but for me, the shout-outs for "Double Kill, Multi Kill, Ultra Kill, MONSTER KILL!!!" account at this stage for probably a majority of the nostalgia for the original Unreal Tournament. Of course it didn't hurt that the game was phenomenal and a great fit for its time, but still, I think that the quality of voice lines can make or break a game.
I kinda see your point. The warm feeling of knowing a real human told me "die, bitch!" isn't a feeling I've ever taken away from playing UT.
On the other hand, lots of AI-generated VO is very easy to spot, and sounds awful. It stands to reason it could meaningfully take away from even a completely plot-free game. If I were a voice actor, I'd feel insulted that anyone would find it comparable to my work.
Most of the focus on this isn't the code. It's the art and music that make up the experience.
This is discussed right in the article.
> 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.
I personally think using AI assistance for the code is much less intrusive than using AI for the art and music -- the code isn't as directly experienced by the player as the art.
Much of it comes from people feeling challenged and threatened by the new tech so they construct elaborate philosophies to justify how they feel, but this rapidly crumbles when you look closer. For instance, artists felt threatened by generative AI and came up with a narrative about copyright stuff. But then Adobe comes along with generative AI which doesn't have the copyright issue and how do those same artists respond? With a loud "fuck you" to Adobe, because the root of their objection was never copyright but rather what the new technology would do to their established careers.
In this atmosphere, I think it's easy to perceive an implied rejection of and threat to AI generated code, even if the focus is on art assets, because people aren't being entirely direct and forthright about exactly what it is they're upset about, and that makes for a landmine field.
Thank God the benevolent Adobe shareholders have swooped in to protect us from people who have learned a skill.
3 replies →
Wait, how exactly did Adobe create noninfringing models?
Edit: not a full explanation, but https://www.mikechambers.com/blog/post/2025-09-24-generative... ; this is subtly different. It's a claim that the model will not create infringing output, but that's not the same as "this model was trained only on content which was licensed for the purpose of AI training".
(there's also a discussion of the idea that the output of a model may not be copyrightable at all, which will cause a whole second set of problems for commercial users)
1 reply →
Artists have been saying "fuck you" to Adobe long before llms and will continue to do so until the company dies.
1 reply →
Yeah nah. The core reason they’re pissed is the blatant theft of their work to train these models without compensation or permission (the age old “if it’s on the web it’s free to use” bullshit argument), with “artistic merit” being a distant, but still critical, second.
If you can actually write stories or create art, you can see the “seams” in generative content and it gets to be quite nauseating. The fact it was trained on your own output by a trillion-dollar megacorp via theft while you scrape money for rent is the injury to the former’s insult.
3 replies →
Arc Raiders and The Finals got some controversy lately for using AI voice acting. Those games don't have any "normal" vocal performances.
Arc Raiders has 160k Steam reviews (which is a lot) and 90% of them are positive. It also has an estimated >4M owners despite a high price tag and is currently the #4 most played game on Steam globally. The AI nay-sayers are a vocal minority - and likely just terminally online Twitter people that do not even play the game, the rest of the players are too busy enjoying the game regardless of whether it's made with AI or not.
What do you mean by "high price"?
"Normal" price for a AAA game is more like $60, and Arc is 40.
Sure, indie/2D can be had for less (like Factorio or Silksong), but I would not expect an <$40 price tag for a 3D game like that.
Helldivers 2 which services the same niche goes for the same price.
I think it's more that the use of AI is in an unimportant part of the game. They could have zero AI voice overs without impacting the game in a meaningful manner. They're pretty bad though and I've definitely seen them getting mocked.
Is that some multiplayer only thing?
I bet no one listens to the "AI" voices, they have the game muted and chat on Discord with non AI generated humans...
The only controversy was from the dying games journalism complex trying to manufacture the controversy to save their sinking ship of exploiting gamers and developers for their political activism. The sales figures herald their impending demise.
I haven't seem a game voice every fucking item pickup or mini location callout like arc raiders, so it's a quality win for me. I didn't care about the voice performance of "lets head to the olive grove" ever
Those games are shooter-slop anyway.
I can't remember the last time I cared about voice lines in Quake or Unreal Tournament or any other multiplayer shooter.
It's not an RPG or a rich-story genre game, so who cares.
I don't know if that's what you were already referring to, but for me, the shout-outs for "Double Kill, Multi Kill, Ultra Kill, MONSTER KILL!!!" account at this stage for probably a majority of the nostalgia for the original Unreal Tournament. Of course it didn't hurt that the game was phenomenal and a great fit for its time, but still, I think that the quality of voice lines can make or break a game.
I kinda see your point. The warm feeling of knowing a real human told me "die, bitch!" isn't a feeling I've ever taken away from playing UT.
On the other hand, lots of AI-generated VO is very easy to spot, and sounds awful. It stands to reason it could meaningfully take away from even a completely plot-free game. If I were a voice actor, I'd feel insulted that anyone would find it comparable to my work.
7 replies →
Arc Raiders has NPCs in the game hub which deliver quests and exposition, its not entirely within the context of a raid.