Capcom said it will not implement materials generated by generative AI into game content, but plans to actively utilise the technology to improve efficiency and productivity in the game development process. The statement, made during an investor Q&A session, represents a deliberate positioning by the gaming publisher as it navigates rising pressure from both players and developers over AI use in modern games.
The timing matters. Capcom developers learned about the publisher adopting Nvidia's DLSS 5 at the same time as the public when it was announced at GTC 2026. That announcement proved controversial; Resident Evil Requiem became a focal point for Nvidia's AI upscaler, with main characters Grace Ashcroft and Leon Kennedy receiving significant alterations that proved very irksome among fans and professionals alike.
Capcom's clarification suggests the company wants to assert human creative control over the final product whilst leveraging AI for internal tasks like brainstorming and design iteration. Capcom is using a Gemini AI model that is fed game details to generate ideas, with a system relying on models like Gemini Pro and Imagen. By using AI to churn out simple solutions for thousands of individual design decisions, developers spend less time on incidental items.
The broader industry context has become turbulent. Crimson Desert developer Pearl Abyss released an apology after generative AI assets were discovered in the game, explaining that it used the technology to help explore tone and atmosphere but always intended to replace them with art created in-house. Yet several assets were found in the final game which were clearly created with generative AI. Pearl Abyss acknowledged that it should have clearly disclosed its use of AI.
This mirrors a pattern. Sandfall Interactive was stripped of its Game of the Year and Debut Game awards from the Indie Game Awards for the use of generative AI in Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 for placeholder textures that were mistakenly left in the game.
Developer sentiment has shifted markedly. A GDC 2026 survey found 52% of game developers now consider generative AI bad for the industry, nearly double last year's figure. Corporate AI adoption reached 52%, but only 36% of developers personally use the tools, revealing a significant trust deficit. The disparity suggests a workforce sceptical of tools being imposed from above.
Transparency rules remain inconsistent. By January 2024, Valve formalised its disclosure rules, requiring developers to declare two categories of AI use: pre-generated content made during development and live-generated content created while the game runs. Yet Valve has narrowed its disclosure rules, clarifying that developers only need to report AI if the output is directly experienced by players, effectively giving a green light to AI coding and other behind-the-scenes processes. Almost nine out of ten workers in the games industry believe Valve should force developers to declare any generative AI usage.
There is currently no clear AI disclosure on mobile app stores or console storefronts (Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox), and Epic Games Store and GOG.com also lack clear AI disclosures. This transparency gap leaves players guessing about what went into the games they purchase.
The challenge is real for studios balancing creative control with production efficiency. Capcom's stated position respects both; using AI for internal brainstorming while preserving human artistic judgment in the final product acknowledges the tool's practical utility without surrendering authorship. Yet the repeated failures of other developers to catch AI-generated content before release suggests that systems and discipline matter as much as declarations of intent. Without rigorous internal audits, a promise not to ship AI assets provides little reassurance when commercial pressure and tight timelines create opportunities for shortcuts.
The industry's real problem is not whether AI exists as a tool, but whether studios will be transparent about how they use it, and whether players and developers will have a genuine voice in that choice. Right now, neither condition is reliably met across the market. Capcom's stance is clearer than most; whether the company can sustain it against future pressures, and whether competitors will follow, remains to be seen.