Lately I’ve seen this happen more often in online spaces: someone shares a game, someone else says it looks like AI, followed a couple of minutes later by a “nevermind, I was thinking of another game” or just changing subject.
In the current gaming landscape, where games that use AI get a lot of heat online, arguably on the same level of plagiarism, it rubs me the wrong way when I witness these comments thoughtlessly thrown around. So I decided to write about it and ask (no one in particular): can we stop accusing indie games of using generative AI without doing due diligence?
This post is not about discussing whether using generative AI in game development is good or bad. It’s not about one’s personal stance, it’s a matter of the public perception around it.
I tried to get some data to understand the current landscape better and get a quantified feel about how gamers perceive generative AI in games, but I found conflicting information. Just to point out two: while this research report seems to suggest that most gamers feel neutral about generative AI in games, another one says that the general perception is negative and has worsened over time.
While I can’t tell for sure what the average gamer feels, based on my online circles, anecdotally I can say that gamers who are against genAI in games are more vocal than the ones who feel neutral or positive about it.
I get it, we’ve all been burned before. I’ve seen countless games that looked amazing, just to find out later in the fine print that they used generative AI. Or worse: it wasn’t disclosed, even though Steam requires games to do so, and more attentive gamers noticed it while playing said game. As consumers, we deserve to have this information available to us.
Even if some players lean on the neutral side of things, the research I linked previously seems to indicate that gamers’ perception changes based on how generative AI was used: “The more a gamer cares about elaborate narratives, interesting NPC backstories, and customization, the more negative they are towards Gen AI.” (source)
This just goes to show why disclosure matters. If players know how studios used Gen AI, we can form an opinion without having to speculate, and have meaningful conversations in our communities. When we don’t have that information, there’s more room for speculation and that can be harmful, more so when it comes to generative AI being used for artistic purposes. (source)
Indie studios rely a lot on word-of-mouth. I’m no marketing specialist so I am not capable of breaking this down, but I’ve seen studios having to fight for each wishlist in the indie space.
One comment thrown around online in a community or social media can be more harmful than one could think. Misinformation spreads fast and I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I say that it can deter many people from checking out a game that they would otherwise be interested in.
By all means, let’s keep the conversation going. Identifying AI-generated art has been increasingly difficult (I miss the times when genAI couldn’t draw hands) and the more eyes we get on certain suspicious assets, the better. Where I am trying to get is: due diligence and sanity checking can be done without dusting off the pitchforks. Open discussions help us all get better at spotting sneaky undisclosed AI use. Just think twice before looking at a key art for 5 seconds and calling it AI. You might be hurting more than helping.
Thank you for reading,
-Luna
Leave a Reply