From Washington: In a games industry where the pressure to cut costs through automation is reshaping creative workforces, one of the world's most-played online games is quietly making a different argument. World of Warcraft: Midnight, the latest expansion to Blizzard Entertainment's long-running MMO, was scored entirely by human composers. And the lead composer wants players to know it.
Leo Kaliski, lead composer on World of Warcraft: Midnight, told Game Informer ahead of the expansion's launch that the question of generative AI barely registers as a threat in the music space, at least for now. "I feel lucky that AI in music still feels quite a way off," he said, contrasting it with AI-generated images that can sometimes pass unnoticed: "Music is not there yet. Usually, you hear it, and you instantly know something is not right about it, or the fidelity isn't there."
"I think we here at Blizzard feel very lucky and happy that we're not using generative AI," Kaliski said. "We're just writing what we think is cool, and are happy to do that."
The expansion launched in early access ahead of a full release on 2 March 2026. Nine composers contributed to the expansion's soundtrack, each bringing their own voice to the project. The breadth of human involvement is itself a statement at a time when studio executives elsewhere are openly discussing AI as a means of reducing headcount in creative departments.
Kaliski's comments do not exist in a vacuum inside Blizzard. Blizzard developers have broadly come out against generative AI in their games. Overwatch game director Aaron Keller told GameSpot that his team was not "comfortable" putting AI-generated content in front of players, while former World of Warcraft franchise director John Hight explicitly stated that no generative AI was being used on the MMO.
The picture is complicated, however, by Blizzard president Johanna Faries, who has noted that the company maintains a centralised team dedicated to AI and its potential role in development, suggesting policies may vary from project to project. An additional factor is parent company Microsoft, which is heavily investing in generative technologies. For the people scoring game music, that corporate backdrop creates real uncertainty about how long the current position holds.
The broader industry debate is genuine and not easily dismissed. Proponents of AI tools in game development point to the economics: major titles now cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, and studios large and small have shed thousands of jobs in recent years. If AI can perform certain tasks at a fraction of the cost, the business case is obvious, and some argue that resistance from incumbent creative workers reflects understandable self-interest as much as artistic principle. Generative AI's role in game development has been a contentious topic, from AI-assisted voice dialogue to controversial AI-generated textures found in released titles.
The honest tension here is between two legitimate values: the economic imperative that keeps studios solvent and employing thousands of people, and the creative integrity that gives a product like World of Warcraft its identity across two decades. Kaliski's framing, that Blizzard is simply writing what it thinks is cool, sounds straightforward. But in an industry where that kind of creative freedom is increasingly subject to board-level decisions about cost efficiency, it is worth taking seriously as a commitment, not just a sentiment.
For Australian consumers and the local games sector, which employs thousands of developers and composers through studios and freelance networks, how the largest publishers resolve this question will set precedents. The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association has been tracking AI's creep into the industry's workflows. Meanwhile, the Australian Music Vault and broader advocacy groups for screen composers are watching closely as US studios signal their intentions.
Reasonable people can disagree about where the line should sit. A pragmatic position acknowledges that AI tools, used transparently and with proper licensing, may have a legitimate role in parts of the production process. What Kaliski's interview suggests, though, is that the best creative outcomes still come from giving skilled people the freedom to make something they believe in. That may not be a policy platform, but it is a result the market keeps rewarding.