Everyone else is doing it and got an insanely crazy shitstorm
When Larian Studios acknowledged using generative AI in the earliest stages of game conception, the admission ignited a swift and disproportionate backlash — one that reveals how deeply the question of machine creativity unsettles our sense of what art is and who makes it. Other developers, led by Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 director Daniel Vávra, stepped forward to note that such use is already widespread across the industry, practiced quietly by studios unwilling to risk the same scrutiny. The episode is less a scandal than a mirror: reflecting the gap between how AI is actually being used in creative pipelines and how the public imagines it is being used, and asking whether transparency itself has become a liability in an industry navigating an uncomfortable transition.
- Larian Studios' candid admission that it uses generative AI during early conception — not in finished art — was enough to trigger a fierce and fast-moving social media storm following its Divinity reveal at The Game Awards 2025.
- The backlash carries real weight: fears about job displacement and the erosion of artistic authenticity are not abstract anxieties but reasonable projections of where the technology is visibly heading.
- Daniel Vávra of Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 broke ranks publicly, arguing that Larian was simply the first to say out loud what nearly every studio is already doing behind closed doors.
- Vávra's defense was pragmatic rather than ideological — he called himself no fan of AI-generated art, yet insisted resistance was futile and framed the real question as one of responsible use, not avoidance.
- The controversy now sits unresolved at the intersection of industry practice and public expectation, with no clear signal yet as to whether transparency will be rewarded or whether studios will simply learn to stay quiet.
Larian Studios, the team behind Baldur's Gate 3, found itself at the center of a heated controversy this week after CEO Swen Vincke confirmed that the studio uses generative AI during the earliest conception phases of game development. The disclosure came alongside the reveal of a new Divinity project at The Game Awards 2025, and the backlash online was immediate. Vincke and publishing director Michael Douse were both clear: AI plays no role in final art or any asset that reaches the finished game. The studio does not use it to generate art at all. The nuance, however, did little to slow the outrage.
From within the industry, an unexpected voice of support emerged. Daniel Vávra, lead director of Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, argued that Larian had simply disclosed what virtually every other studio was already doing without saying so. He compared the public reaction to the Luddite resistance against steam engines in the nineteenth century — a moment of genuine fear that, in retrospect, could not hold back the tide. His position was not that of a true believer: Vávra acknowledged being no admirer of AI-generated art and recognized the legitimate concerns behind the backlash. But he drew a pragmatic line, suggesting that if AI could help a smaller team build an ambitious game in a compressed timeframe, the responsible path was to use it thoughtfully rather than pretend it doesn't exist.
The episode exposes a widening gap between the reality of AI's current role in game development — largely a tool for efficiency in early ideation — and the public's fear of what it represents. Job security and artistic integrity are genuine stakes, not manufactured anxieties. Yet the scale of the reaction to a limited, clearly disclosed use raises its own questions: whether the industry's quiet adoption of these tools will gradually normalize them in the public eye, or whether mounting pressure from players and creators will eventually force a more serious ethical reckoning with practices already deeply embedded in how games are made.
Larian Studios, the developer behind the award-winning Baldur's Gate 3, found itself at the center of a firestorm this week after CEO Swen Vincke acknowledged that the studio uses generative AI in the earliest stages of game development. The admission came as the company revealed a new Divinity project at The Game Awards 2025, and the backlash was swift and severe across social media. Vincke was careful to clarify that AI is deployed only during conception—not in any final art or asset that actually makes it into the finished game. Publishing director Michael Douse reinforced the point, stating plainly that the studio does not use AI to generate art at all.
But as the controversy metastasized online, an unexpected chorus of support emerged from within the industry itself. Daniel Vávra, the lead director of Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2, stepped forward to defend Larian's position. His argument was blunt: the studio had simply disclosed what everyone else in the business was already doing quietly. "Larian said they were doing something that absolutely everyone else is doing and got an insanely crazy shitstorm," Vávra wrote in response to Vincke's explanation. He drew a historical parallel, comparing the current AI panic to the Luddite resistance to steam engines in the nineteenth century—a moment when technological change felt threatening but ultimately proved inevitable.
Vávra's intervention reflected a broader sentiment circulating in developer responses: that AI adoption across the gaming industry is far more widespread than the public outcry might suggest. The technology, according to this view, is being used as a tool for efficiency and streamlining workflow, not as a replacement for human creativity in the final product. No one, the argument goes, is shipping AI-generated art into retail games. The tool is there to accelerate early-stage ideation and reduce friction in the development pipeline.
Yet Vávra did not present himself as an AI evangelist. He acknowledged being "no fan of AI-generated art" and understood the legitimate concerns driving the backlash. But he also insisted that resistance was futile. "It's time to face reality," he wrote. "AI is here to stay with us." He then articulated a pragmatic calculus: if the technology could help him build an ambitious game in a single year with a smaller team—the way studios operated in earlier eras—he would embrace it. The implication was clear: the choice was not whether to use AI, but how to use it responsibly.
The controversy reflects genuine anxieties rippling through both the development community and the gaming audience. Job security is a real concern; the fear that AI might eventually replace human artists and designers is not paranoid speculation but a reasonable extrapolation of where the technology is heading. Questions about authenticity and artistic integrity are equally legitimate. Yet the gap between what Larian actually disclosed—limited, early-stage use—and the scale of the backlash suggests that public perception of AI in games may be outpacing the reality of current practice. What remains unclear is whether the industry's quiet adoption of these tools will eventually shift public tolerance, or whether the pressure from players and creators will force studios to reckon more seriously with the ethical dimensions of the technology they are already using.
Citações Notáveis
Larian said they were doing something that absolutely everyone else is doing and got an insanely crazy shitstorm.— Daniel Vávra, Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2 lead director
AI is here to stay with us. If AI can help me make an epic game in a year with a smaller team like in the old days, I'm all for it.— Daniel Vávra
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Larian's disclosure cause such a reaction when, according to Vávra, everyone is already doing this?
Because they said it out loud. There's a difference between knowing something happens behind closed doors and hearing a major studio confirm it publicly. Silence lets people imagine the industry is still purely human-driven.
Is Vávra right that this is just like the steam engine panic?
The parallel works in one direction—technological change is hard to stop. But steam engines didn't threaten to replace the people operating them in the same way AI might. The anxiety here is more specific and more personal.
If AI is only used in early conception, why is anyone upset?
Because "early conception" is vague, and because people don't trust that the boundary will hold. They're worried about the slope—that today's limited use becomes tomorrow's full pipeline automation.
Does Vávra actually believe AI is inevitable, or is he just accepting it?
He seems to have moved past belief into resignation. He's saying: this is coming whether we like it or not, so let's at least use it in ways that preserve what makes games worth making.
What does he mean by making an epic game in a year with a smaller team?
He's describing a return to the scrappy, resource-constrained era of game development—when ambition had to be matched with ingenuity. If AI can give modern studios that kind of efficiency, it becomes a tool for creative freedom, not just labor reduction.
Is the industry actually united on this, or is Vávra speaking for a minority?
That's the real question. He claims it's universal practice, but we're only hearing from the developers willing to say so publicly. The ones staying silent might disagree, or they might just be waiting to see which way the wind blows.