A real issue: video game developers are being accused of using AI – even when they aren't

The Guardian

8 hours ago

In April, game developer Stamina Zero achieved what should have been a marketing slam-dunk: the launch trailer for the studio's game Little Droid was published on PlayStation's official YouTube channel. The response was a surprise for the developer. The game looks interesting, people wrote in the comments, but was 'ruined' by AI art. But the game's cover art, used as the thumbnail for the YouTube video, was in fact made by a real person, according to developer Lana Ro. 'We know the artist, we've seen her work, so such a negative reaction was unexpected for us, and at first we didn't know how to respond or how to feel,' Ro said. 'We were confused.'
It's not wrong for people to be worried about AI use in video games – in fact, it's good to be sceptical, and ensure that the media you support aligns with your values. Common arguments against generative AI relate to environmental impact, art theft and just general quality, and video game developers are grappling with how generative AI will impact their jobs. But the unexpected problem is that the backlash against generative AI is now hurting even those who don't use it. 'I would rather people be overly cautious than not,' veteran game developer and Chessplus digital director Josh Caratelli said. 'But being collateral damage does suck.'
Caratelli and his game Chessplus were caught up in a similar situation when he posted some art to Reddit – sharing explicitly that it was commissioned and not made with AI. Even then, Caratelli said he's received several comments and direct messages accusing him of lying about it, or suggesting he'd been duped. 'It's very clearly hand drawn,' he said. 'It was a fair whack of money to spend for an indie team on a piece of art. We thought it was worth it.'
It's becoming increasingly common for people to call out instances where a game seems to have used AI in a way that replaces human work. (Epic Games was singled out recently for its AI Darth Vader.) But sometimes, that anger is misdirected at people and companies that are simply believed to be using AI. This is what happened when a Magic: The Gathering artist was accused of using AI, forcing Wizards of the Coast to put out a statement on the false accusations. Even Nintendo was accused, in May, of using AI-generated images for in-game billboards in Mario Kart World. Nintendo put out a statement to deny the claims.
Bigger companies such as Wizards of the Coast and Nintendo may be able to weather false accusations, but indie studios with less influence may have a harder time. Little Droid, released in April, stars a little robot navigating a lush pixel-art world. Its cover, on the other hand, renders the droid in a totally different style – with the smooth, glossy finish that people have come to expect from AI art generation tools. People in the YouTube comments pointed to specific details to 'prove' the art is AI-generated: the robot itself is asymmetrical, because AI has issues with symmetry; the glow or lighting look off; some naysayers simply argued that real people don't draw like that. Stamina Zero, in the comments, continued to hold its ground – that no AI was used in development of the game or its art.
Then the studio posted a video it said proves it, showing several steps in the art's process. The video showed early art concepts, navigating different layers in Adobe Photoshop as a way to demonstrate how the art came together. 'We contacted the artist and asked her for all the available intermediate sketches and the source PSD with all the layers,' Ro said. 'Based on all the available files, we put together a video as quickly as possible and posted it … It was a damage control move – a way to calm things down and make the discussion more productive. We had nothing to hide and were ready to be transparent.'
Some people relented, accepting the video as proof that AI was not used. Others were unconvinced. There's no actual drawing in the video, which would be impossible to share unless the artist was recording their entire process. That is something some artists do already – but it creates additional work for them. And, as Stamina Zero found out, there will always be people who still don't believe.
'To be honest, I don't have a clear strategy for how we will proceed in the future,' Ro said. 'There was advice on Reddit not to make art similar to the results of AI work, as this triggers people. And this tip could work. But AI learns from the work of artists and, in the future, it is quite possible that it will be able to replicate any style.'
Caratelli shares the community's ethical concerns about AI plagiarism, environmental impact and human creativity. But he was dispirited by the accusations against Chessplus. 'It's really hard for AI to make things with meaning. It's a thousand little intricacies that make a game great … [That] work isn't being valued,' he said. Ro agreed: 'It's completely unfair that so many people who have honed their craft for years are facing this and being wrongfully accused.'
Both of these games are examples of how generative AI has poisoned the creative well, even for creators who aren't using it. We can never be totally sure, now, whether we're looking at something that a human made or not, as even proof can theoretically be fabricated. For creatives and players, it will have to come down to a relationship of trust.