According to Kotaku, Arrowhead Game Studios CEO Shams Jorjani defended the use of AI in game development during an interview on The Game Business Show, specifically referencing the controversy around Embark Studios’ Arc Raiders. The extraction shooter recently sparked debate when it was revealed the developer hired voice actors but used AI to generate additional in-game voice lines rather than bringing actors back for every new line. Jorjani called the polarized reactions “extreme takes” and argued that AI “actually makes gaming better” when used appropriately. Meanwhile, Square Enix revealed plans to have AI handle 70% of its quality assurance work, raising concerns about industry layoffs. The debate intensified as PUBG creator Brendan Green praised community pushback against AI, while Krafton announced an “AI-first” mandate with voluntary resignation options for employees.
The great AI gaming divide
Here’s the thing about AI in games – everyone’s picking sides, and there’s not much middle ground. On one hand, you’ve got developers like Embark Studios using AI to generate voice lines after initial actor recordings. They argue it’s more efficient than bringing voice actors back for every minor update. But then you’ve got Square Enix wanting AI to handle 70% of QA testing, which honestly feels like a direct threat to entry-level game dev jobs.
And that’s where this gets messy. Jorjani makes a reasonable point about using AI for backend stuff like processing receipts – who wouldn’t want developers spending more time making games? But when companies start talking about replacing human roles entirely, you can see why people get nervous. The gaming industry has been bleeding jobs all year, and now we’re supposed to trust that AI will make things better?
The voice acting battlefield
Arc Raiders became the flashpoint for this debate when Eurogamer gave it two out of five stars partly because of its AI usage. That’s pretty brutal – a game’s review score getting hammered over development methods rather than just the final product quality. But it shows how passionate people are about this.
Basically, Embark’s approach was to record professional voice actors first, then use AI to expand on those performances. They argued it was impractical to bring actors back every time they needed new lines. But voice actors understandably worry this could lead to their work being used to train systems that eventually replace them entirely. It’s the classic tech dilemma – where do you draw the line between efficiency and ethics?
Where is this all heading?
Look, the cat’s out of the bag. As Nexton’s CEO said, we should assume every game company is using AI in some capacity now. The question isn’t whether AI will be used, but how. Will it be tools that help developers work faster, or systems that replace human creativity entirely?
Krafton’s “AI-first” mandate with voluntary resignation options feels particularly ominous. It’s like they’re saying “get on board with AI or get out.” Meanwhile, Activision is using AI for artwork while insisting humans still lead the creative process. But how long until that balance shifts?
I think Jorjani is right that reality is probably somewhere in the middle. AI isn’t inherently evil, but it’s not a magic solution either. The gaming industry needs to figure out how to use these tools responsibly without treating human talent as disposable. Because at the end of the day, what makes games special isn’t the technology – it’s the people behind them.
