Kotaku’s Pre-Judging AI In Gaming Coverage Is Getting Very Dumb

from the dogma-isn’t-journalism dept

I recognize that when we talk about AI generally, and specifically AI in the gaming industry, there are some people out there who will simply dogmatically insist that this technology doesn’t have a place in the industry and never will. This typically comes along with two chief concerns: concerns about artistic expression if AI is used in the creation process and industry jobs being lost as a result of its use. As I’ve said in previous posts, people aren’t merely allowed these opinions, but we should be glad they’re there. If we’re going to move into the next phase of AI use in gaming, we need people to challenge its use, point out its potential negative outcomes, an spur the discussion about what it means for the art that is these games.

But journalists, including opinion journalists, are supposed to have a higher standard for topics like this. And it’s with that in mind that I say the following: Kotaku’s writing on AI in gaming is dogmatic and annoying in that it pre-judges all uses of AI in gaming in the same way I described above.

Now, I generally like Kotaku and have been a reader of the site for many years. But the pre-judgment in these articles is getting cringey. Take this recent post by Zack Zwiezen about how depressing Steam Next Fest was this year because gaming companies are using AI as a tool in their games. Zack uses a tool that informs him if a game he’s looking at comes with an AI disclosure. And this brought him great displeasure.

When I opened the main hub page for Steam Next Fest earlier today, right after my email inbox was flooded by PR messages reminding me that the event had started, I was excited to go exploring. But as I did, I started running into numerous games that feature disclaimers from the devs confirming the use of generative AI tools for various parts of the game or its marketing.

I clicked on 16 different games featured on the Steam Next Fest main hub page, and 10 of them triggered my extension and warned me of generative AI disclaimers. Of course, this will vary from user to user, as many of the hub’s slots are algorithmically driven. Still, my reaction is: Yikes. And scanning the most popular demos, I continued to run into AI warnings, so it’s not just my algo serving up slop.

Note that Zack knows almost nothing more about these games prior to his negative reaction about it all. He does note that some of the disclosures either come from small studios that explain that they don’t have the resources otherwise to produce these games without AI, which is the exact point I’ve been making about lowering the barrier of entry into the industry, or that the use of AI was very small and reviewed and edited by humans before anything went in the game. But seriously… that’s it. And the use of AI’s mere existence has resulted in Steam Next Fest being “depressing.”

That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Unless you believe that every use of AI in gaming is bad, that is. And if that’s your stance, you’re going to spend a lot of time being upset, because this isn’t going to stop. These are tools and tools will be used in the industry.

This isn’t a one-writer problem at Kotaku, either. Rebekah Valentine recently wrote a piece about how Epic produced a video showing how some of the art in Fortnite is made. And, yes, there is some use of generative AI tools involved. From there, Valentine discusses whether editing out undesirable contributions from AI, or mistakes, was actually saving time in the creation process. Then she notes that she’s not an artist and would believe artists if they said it did in fact save time. Then she says maybe that doesn’t matter at all because AI isn’t perfect and humans don’t always catch mistakes before something makes it into a game.

But then she questions whether any of the above matters because gaming companies have laid people off.

Or maybe none of that matters. Maybe we’re content with touches of generative AI here and there if it “helps” developers. We shouldn’t refuse the conveniences of new technology, right? Maybe this is good for the artists. Sure. But this is coming just three months after Epic games laid off 1,000 people because its leadership couldn’t keep an eye on their own balance sheet. What that tells me, in aggregate, is that Epic Games needs fewer artists to make new content for the game faster, which inevitably is going to mean tighter deadlines and more mistakes. I am not naive enough to think that Epic Games, having laid off this many folks, is going to use generative AI to give the artists that remain more generous deadlines that will allow them to reach their creative potential or fully realize their original ideas or whatever. Epic Games is concerned, first and foremost, with making money. If its leadership thinks they have a tool in hand that will allow fewer people to spit out art that’s good enough faster, they will use it.

This tendency to couple layoffs in gaming companies with the use of AI is lazy. I have no doubt that some layoffs, or slowing hiring trends, have been a result of the use of AI in some companies, some of the time. And I also understand that the gaming industry has suffered from some serious layoff numbers in recent years.

But the macro story is actually that layoffs have slowed in the industry, not sped up. They appear to have peaked in 2024, with a downward trend since then. We’ll have to see how 2026 ends up looking, but I very much believe that these claims are being made due to some very high profile layoffs at major gaming companies this year. The story of Epic’s layoffs is far more complicated than them deciding to use AI. The reasons behind Microsoft’s steady drip of layoffs and studio closures over the past few years is all the more so. And, industry wide, it needs to be remembered that there was a furious spate of acquisitions and consolidation in the market during the pandemic era of 2020 and 2021. That itself came with the dual problem of gaming companies overextending and lying about future plans when the regulators came calling about some of these acquisitions.

I’m not asking anyone to like bad uses of AI in gaming. I’m not even asking anyone to like AI in gaming generally. But dogma has no place in journalism, nor the market. Bad use of AI will produce bad games and the market will respond. Judging any and all uses as bad before you know anything else about a game is not the job of a journalist. Blaming every layoff in the industry on AI is no different than blaming piracy for every lost sale.

In short, writing about how game makers are using a tool and just shouting “It’s bad!” at it is not journalism. It’s not even really opinion journalism. It’s just lazy.

Filed Under: ai, ai in video games, journalism, video games

Companies: kotaku