The video game industry's relationship with artificial intelligence has become a flashpoint between corporate giants and independent publishers, with some game makers exhausted by the volume of AI-generated pitches flooding their inboxes while others champion the technology as essential to future development.
Rebekah Saltsman, CEO of Finji, the publisher behind indie hit Tunic, expressed frustration at the relentless stream of AI proposals. According to PC Gamer, Saltsman said she would rather receive submissions featuring "programmer art"—the placeholder graphics created by developers themselves during early development—than another pitch centred on generative AI capabilities.
This sentiment reflects a broader scepticism among industry leaders about whether AI tools can genuinely accelerate game creation in meaningful ways. Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Take-Two Interactive, the parent company of Rockstar Games, has been particularly vocal in dismissing what he calls the "laughable" notion that artificial intelligence will democratise game development.
In interviews with gaming outlets including Rock Paper Shotgun and IGN, Zelnick argued that the difference between creating assets and creating hits remains vast. He pointed out that thousands of mobile games are launched annually, yet only a handful achieve commercial success. "These tools may help you create assets, but that won't help you create hits," Zelnick said. He acknowledged that generative AI might generate visuals resembling major titles like NBA 2K or Red Dead Redemption, but "creating a hit of that magnitude is a completely different animal and does require human engagement and creativity."
The distinction matters for how different segments of the industry view AI's future. Zelnick suggested generative AI could be useful for specific tasks like storyboarding or exploring plot possibilities, noting it might be more effective than traditional tools such as web searches. He was dismissive, however, of high-profile technologies like Google's Project Genie, which generates interactive worlds from text prompts but currently operates at reduced resolution and frame rates.
Not all industry voices share this caution. According to IGN, executives at other companies have embraced AI more enthusiastically. EA's CEO has described AI as "the very core of our business," while the CEO of Genvid has claimed "consumers generally do not care" about generative AI in games. Square Enix recently reorganised and laid off staff partly to pursue what it called an "aggressive" approach to AI implementation.
Take-Two's own position reflects this complexity. While Zelnick has stated that generative AI "has zero part in what Rockstar Games is building" for GTA 6, the company has disclosed hundreds of AI pilots and implementations underway elsewhere. Zelnick has cautioned that AI will benefit competitors as much as Take-Two itself, and he has rejected the idea that generative tools provide justification for reducing headcount, arguing that AI is fundamentally "backward-looking" while game development requires "forward-looking genius."
For publishers like Finji, the practical challenge is more immediate. Rather than debating AI's long-term potential, they are simply tired of reviewing submissions that rely primarily on generative tools and empty promises. Saltsman's preference for submissions grounded in traditional artistic effort suggests that for some decision-makers, a developer's willingness to invest actual time and skill remains more convincing than AI-assisted shortcuts.