In 2025, AI Sparks Controversy Among Gamers and Developers

In 2025, generative AI made significant waves in the gaming world, becoming a hot topic among developers and players alike. Major studios are touting its integration into their development processes, while indie developers are pushing back, striving to highlight their games as free from AI influence.

Generative AI has taken the spotlight from NFTs, with advocates claiming it could revolutionize game development by streamlining production and cutting costs—two persistent challenges in the industry. Many studios have formed partnerships with AI companies to explore these possibilities.

For instance, Ubisoft has developed technology that generates short dialogue snippets, known as barks, and has introduced AI-powered NPCs for player interaction. EA has teamed up with Stability AI, while Microsoft is leveraging AI for gameplay analysis and generation. Other big names like Nexon, Krafton, and Square Enix are also embracing generative AI.

As a result, AI is increasingly appearing in major game releases. Previously, its use was mostly limited to experimental projects or low-quality titles that often got lost in the vast library of games on platforms like Steam. Now, however, it’s making its mark in some of the year’s standout titles. For example, the multiplayer shooter ARC Raiders utilized generative AI for character dialogue, and Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 incorporated AI-generated images. Even the TGA Game of the Year, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, featured AI-generated visuals, although they were later removed.

Reactions to this trend have been mixed. Many players express discontent with the presence of generative AI in games. When AI assets were found in Anno 117: Pax Romana, Ubisoft stated they had “slipped through” quality checks and were subsequently replaced. In contrast, Activision acknowledged the AI images in Black Ops 7 but chose to keep them. Critical reception has also varied; ARC Raiders received low scores, with reviewers citing the use of generative AI as a drawback, while Clair Obscur was largely praised, with its AI elements barely mentioned.

Developers seem aware of the backlash against generative AI but are hesitant to abandon it entirely. After the AI assets were discovered in Black Ops 7, Activision claimed the technology was meant to “empower” developers rather than replace them. EA’s VP Rebecka Coutaz acknowledged the allure of AI but confirmed it wouldn’t be included in Battlefield 6. Larian’s CEO, Swen Vincke, mentioned that while generative AI is being used for concept generation in their next game, the final product will be crafted by human hands. He hinted at the pressure developers feel to experiment with new technologies, stating, “You can’t afford not to try things because if somebody finds the golden egg and you’re not using it, you’re dead.”

Other industry leaders echoed this sentiment. Junghun Lee, CEO of Nexon, remarked that it’s reasonable to assume every game company is now utilizing AI in some capacity.

However, generative AI has yet to deliver on its promises. A report from Keywords Studios highlighted that while AI tools can streamline certain aspects of development, they cannot replace human creativity and talent. The low quality of AI-generated images in titles like Call of Duty and Pax Romana made their presence obvious. Ubisoft’s interactive NPCs often produce dialogue that feels awkward and unnatural. Players in the Chinese MMORPG Where Winds Meet have even found ways to exploit AI chatbot NPCs, reminiscent of how Fortnite players manipulated AI to create humorous moments.

Despite the hype surrounding generative AI, its current applications fall short of expectations. So why is it so prevalent? One reason could be the potential competitive advantage it might offer, as Vincke suggested. Another factor is the economic landscape; despite challenges like inflation and declining consumer confidence, the stock market remains buoyant, largely due to heavy investments in AI technology. Game developers, eager to attract funding, may promote their AI initiatives, even if the impact on their games is minimal.

This trend is particularly evident among executives at large studios, while indie developers, who often oppose generative AI, face similar economic pressures but lack the resources to navigate them. Ironically, indie developers, who could benefit the most from AI, are among its staunchest critics, with some even branding their games with anti-AI logos to emphasize their human-made origins.

For many indie creators, the essence of game development lies in the challenge of problem-solving and idea generation—tasks that generative AI is designed to automate. They also express concerns about the ethical and environmental implications of AI, as its outputs often rely on existing works used without consent, and the energy consumption of AI data centers can have detrimental effects on local communities.

With its unfulfilled promises and subpar results, generative AI risks becoming another fleeting trend in gaming, much like NFTs. However, as major companies continue to report its use, generative AI will likely remain a contentious topic in game development—until the technology matures or, similar to NFTs, the bubble bursts.