"Perhaps no group of fans, industry workers, and consumers is more intense about AI use than gamers...." writes New York magazine's "Intelligencer" column:
Just this month, the latest Postal game was axed by its publisher, which was "overwhelmed with negative responses"
from the "concerned Postal community" after fans spotted
AI-generated material in the game's trailer. The developers of Arc
Raiders were accused
of using AI instead of voice actors, leading to calls for boycotts,
while the developers of the Call of Duty franchise were
called out for AI-generated assets that players found strewn across
Black Ops 7.Games that weren't developed with
generative AI are getting caught
up in accusations anyway, while workers at Electronic Arts are
going
to the press to describe pressure from bosses to adopt AI tools.
Nintendo has sworn off using generative AI, as has the company behind
the Cyberpunk series. Valve, the company that operates
Steam, now requires AI disclosures on listed games and surveys
all submitters. Perhaps sensing the emergence of a new
constituency, California congressman Ro Khanna responded in November
to the Call of Duty backlash:"We need
regulations that prevent companies from using AI to eliminate jobs to
extract greater profits," he posted
on X....
AI is often seen as a tool for managers to extract more productivity and justify
layoffs. Among players, it can foster a sense that gamers are being
tricked or ripped off, while also dovetailing with more general
objections to generative AI. It can sometimes be hard to tell whether
gamer backlash is a bellwether or an outlier, an early signal from our youngest major creative industry or a localized and unique fit of rage. The sheer number of
incidents here suggests the former, which foretells bitter, messy,
and confusing fights to come in entertainment beyond gaming — where,
notably, technologies referred to as "AI" have previously been ...
[>>>]