Generative AI has been a highly controversial topic within the games industry ever since the emergence of prominent Large Language Models (LLMs). Many (myself included) feel that these tools should not be used in creative industries. The very concept of media, such as films or video games, is driven by human creativity, and using an LLM that has been trained on someone else’s creations to create goes directly against that.

As companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google continue to release new and improved LLMs, the use case for them becomes all the more appealing for companies in practically any industry. The idea of saving time and money is a no-brainer for any organization seeking to increase its profit. 2025 has been an incredibly interesting year for the games industry in particular, as we have seen multiple high-profile, award-winning releases use AI without much pushback at all from players. 

Despite numerous online voices who continuously preach against the use of Generative AI in these creative spaces, we’ve rewarded games that chose to use it. Whether we like it or not, Generative AI isn’t going anywhere, and considering how releases containing it are being treated, it’s likely only going to snowball from here. 

This past week, articles from earlier this year resurfaced that confirmed Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 used generative AI assets. Many communities online are extremely upset by the news, especially after the game won nine awards at The Game Awards 2025, including Game of the Year. It’s gotten to the point that shows like the Indie Game Awards have revoked the game’s awards due to its use of GenAI.

If you missed the initial AI discovery in Expedition 33, poster assets were clearly made with AI, and Sandfall patched it within a matter of days. Back when this issue surfaced around launch, the quick update shut down almost any comments about the peculiar use of GenAI, since no trace seemingly remained in the game. The game was good, and that took priority – players didn’t care about the use of AI as much as they did about the combat, narrative, and characters. 

At the same time, though, the studio never responded to questions about the found use of Generative AI in the game when asked. This, alongside recent messaging, almost swept everything here under the rug. Guillaume Broche, director of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, said earlier this month that Sandfall Interactive is against using AI elements in games, going as far as saying that “Nothing in the game will come from AI.” That may please the public to hear, but it doesn’t align with the fact that GenAI assets were found in the game. I find this quote from just a few weeks ago incredibly strange. Additionally, the game’s producer, François Meurisse, told EL PAÍS in July, “We use some AI, but not much.” 

I’ve seen many online dismiss the use of Generative AI in Expedition 33 due to it being a placeholder or an accident. At the end of the day, Sandfall Interactive still chose to use GenAI, right? The studio took the time to generate assets (or placed already generated assets) instead of creating them, and decided to use this technology in development. A placeholder image could have been anything. Why did Sandfall Interactive need to generate these assets only to recreate them later? We only know of the one texture example that the team addressed, but it’s important to realize that it’s possible the team used more AI-generated content during development. I won’t delve into hypotheticals, though. At the end of the day, GenAI was used in the creation of Expedition 33. 

If Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 can use Generative AI, tell its players it’s against the use of said technology, and win Game of the Year almost unanimously, I think that speaks volumes about the future of AI in our industry. As long as the game is good, most players don’t care if a game uses AI.  Over 5 million copies have been sold, and players continue to purchase the game. It was known from launch day that Expedition 33 had Generative AI elements, yet no one seemed to care until now. Sure, the studio can hold some of the blame for the silent messaging on the use of AI in the game, but the team shared in interviews that it used those technologies. Players chose to ignore it.

At the end of the day, fans must decide whether or not Generative AI is something they are willing to support and stick by that decision. If a game like Expedition 33 uses AI elements, supporting it and promoting it as an exception goes directly against the idea of fighting against Generative AI. We cannot cherry-pick and choose what games to support using AI, depending on whether or not you like the game. 

Even beyond Expedition 33, we saw ARC Raiders release with Generative AI used for voice work, but that didn’t stop it from winning Best Multiplayer Game at The Game Awards. Black Ops 7, the latest entry of Activision’s multiplayer behemoth, released with hundreds of AI-generated Calling Cards without a care in the world. These games are still selling millions of copies. Generative AI is everywhere right now, and I guarantee we will see even more widespread examples in 2026. While Steam does have a notice on some games for use of GenAI content, many less obvious uses escape without a label, like Expedition 33. 

Regardless of whether fans support or disagree with the use of Gen AI, the industry is going to use it. The financial pushback on major releases that have utilized it has been clearly minimal outside of one or two examples. If Expedition 33 can win Game of the Year despite getting caught with AI textures (and some smart messaging), no studio of any size has any fear of using the technology in its next project. In fact, I think it is likely most studios are already using it or exploring use cases in some fashion, with most choosing not to openly share that with the public. We all saw the reaction to Larian’s comment on using GenAI this past week; this is what awaits teams who openly discuss this technology.

If we continue to make an excuse for uses of GenAI in games we enjoy, the debate is already over, and there is no question on whether or not GenAI is ‘acceptable’ in the eyes of developers. Whether it’s a game’s entire voice cast, concept art, or even a ‘placeholder’ mishap, GenAI is still GenAI. If GenAI truly goes against the principles of the medium, we should be fighting against any use of Generative AI in any game. The standard must apply to everyone, especially the games we love. Otherwise, do not be surprised to see even bigger uses of Generative AI going forward.