The use of generative AI in games is one of the hottest topics in the industry right now, and a couple of weeks ago, the biggest game of the year so far, Crimson Desert, found itself at the centre of it after some in-game paintings were discovered to have been created using the technology.
It led to a swift apology from developer Pearl Abyss, who claimed that AI-generated assets “were unintentionally included in the final release,” and admitted it should have disclosed the use of AI to players. “We sincerely apologize for these oversights,” the Korean company added.
It’s Steam’s policy for games to clearly declare on their store pages if generative AI has been used to make them, but it is by no means against the rules to use these tools in the development process. So, should studios feel the need to apologise for using such technology? It’s a question IGN recently asked fellow Korean developer and head of PUBG Studios, Taeseok Jang.
“It’s a bit of a tricky question,” says Jang. “But what I can tell you now is I’m currently studying and monitoring the situation and industry’s AI usage cases. Is this kind of situation happening only in the gaming industry, or is it relevant in the art industry or other industries as well? So, actually, as a fan, it doesn’t matter to me. Because if they make good gameplay, then it doesn’t matter to me if they use AI for artwork. Maybe it could be different from the perspective of developers or investors, but yeah, I cannot tell you the exact answer about it because I’m currently learning and studying the case.”
So, it would seem that PUBG Studios values the craft of designing compelling gameplay more than the human touch of in-game artwork, then. To some extent, it makes sense — Battlegrounds is an experience-based, almost purely on the timeless tension of its gunplay and loot and survive loop — but I can’t help but feel like other aspects of game design should be held in as high regard. I play games to get immersed in worlds that feel like they have been sculpted by a human hand, which Crimson Desert does magnificently for the most part, incidentally. The thought of art design becoming the whole of generative AI, as long as the gameplay is good, just doesn’t sit well with me.
So, what is PUBG’s position on using generative AI in its own games? Jang answers, “Our stance is that basically our goal for using AI is to bring new and fun gameplay experiences to our users. We are thinking that it is a tool, just like Maya, which we used in the past. There is no difference in terms of the purpose of that AI. So I think AI will give us freedom to focus on more fun gameplay experiences because it can give us freedom and more time by automating repetitive work. So when we make a new gameplay, it is not largely using AI yet for now, but currently we are at the stage of how to make it more helpful for making new experiences for our users.”
“Automating repetitive work” sure does sound appealing, but when it comes at the cost of workforce numbers being reduced, is that net gain really worth it? I’m sure CEOs and company leaders would perhaps say so, but to the thousands of game developers who have already lost their jobs over the past year, I’m not sure they’d agree.
AI technology is certainly something that seems more ingrained in the culture of PUBG Studio’s parent company, Krafton, though. The publisher currently finds itself in the middle of a long and expensive dispute with Subnautica 2 developers Unknown Worlds, in which the subsidiary studio has claimed that Krafton’s CEO used ChatGPT to “help him brainstorm ways to avoid paying the earnout”. That bill is said to have been the not insignificant sum of $250m.
Recently, Krafton stated in a press release that while it will remain “focused on its core identity as a game developer”, it will continue to “explore opportunities rooted in its game technology.” It further added that, “since 2021, the company has applied AI technologies primarily to enhance gameplay experiences and improve development efficiency, including concepts such as CPCs (Co-Playable Characters). In October, KRAFTON declared its transition to an AI-first company to implement workflow automation, with the goal of reinvesting time and resources back into creative game development.”
“Looking ahead, Krafton is evaluating how its game technology may eventually be applied to areas such as physical AI and robotics,” the statement continued. “These areas are viewed as long-term exploratory opportunities, not near-term business initiatives, and are informed by Krafton’s experience operating large-scale virtual worlds and physics-based simulations.” Krafton appears to be all-in on the AI revolution, then.
I’d love to hear what you think about the use of generative AI in game development, though. Do you agree with the head of PUBG studios that, as long as the gameplay has been handcrafted and made to feel great, then it doesn’t matter how the in-game art is made? Or, would you prefer to see a fully human touch across all aspects of game development? Let us know in the comments below!
Simon Cardy is a Senior Editor at IGN who can mainly be found skulking around open world games, indulging in Korean cinema, or despairing at the state of Tottenham Hotspur and the New York Jets. Follow him on Bluesky at @cardy.bsky.social.
