Palworld's studio won't use generative AI because "gamers don't want it"

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Crystal ball: The company accused of making Pokémon copycats "with guns" says it is not interested in using generative AI in its games. It argues that gamers are largely opposed to this kind of content, while noting that generative AI is likely to remain a controversial topic in the industry for a range of reasons.

The debate around AI-generated assets in games is heating up, and Pocketpair has already taken a clear stance. The Japanese studio, best known for Palworld, says it is not using generative AI in its games, arguing that potential customers are rejecting "fake" assets and other AI-generated content.

In a recent interview, Pocketpair's Head of Publishing & Communications John Buckley said that "gamers don't want it." And "if the gamers don't want it, I guess that's it, right? Not much of a conversation to be had."

The Palworld developer has previously faced accusations of both plagiarism and the use of generative AI in creating some of the game's assets and creature designs. Nintendo is pursuing legal action against the studio, though the dispute has not unfolded entirely in the company's favor so far.

During the interview, Buckley also said that some developers are already using generative AI in their games. However, he believes the trend is not yet widespread, and added that Pocketpair has no interest in extensively adopting the technology in any case.

Some companies are exploring chatbots and large language models to save time and reduce reliance on human creators, but growing public pushback suggests the generative AI "bubble" could eventually burst. Pocketpair already has all the in-house artists it needs, Buckley said, arguing there is no "pointless" reason to replace staff with AI systems doing the same work.

The controversy around generative AI in gaming continues to intensify. Established studios such as Crystal Dynamics have found themselves explaining the use of AI-generated assets as placeholders in the latest Tomb Raider remake. Meanwhile, Sega faced significant backlash after introducing the new Crazy Taxi game as an AI-assisted production.

Steam now requires developers to disclose whether and how they have used AI in their games. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, however, has argued that Valve's disclosure requirement is unnecessary, claiming that nearly all future games will incorporate generative AI in some form.

Pocketpair's John Buckley is less convinced by Sweeney's stance. He suggests the industry could eventually split, with some studios leaning into a heavily marketed "human-made" identity as a response to growing concerns over "AI slop" in digital storefronts. He also believes AI adoption could become a regional divide.

Developers in parts of Asia, including China and South Korea, may adopt AI more rapidly than competitors, while Western studios – and players – remain more resistant. Stellar Blade developer Shift Up has also said that generative AI could help South Korean studios compete with much larger companies in China and the US.

Permalink to story:

Palworld's studio won't use generative AI because "gamers don't want it"

 

[Axeia]

Could we soon see a marketing ploy highlighting games that are "100% made by humans"?

Yes, already happened with a lot YouTube creators I follow that previously remained 'faceless' suddenly posting a face to go along with the voice and in some cases emphasizing they're not using AI.

You'll see it everywhere like at the moment we already have 'crafted by artisans' products.

Games are one of those things were AI could actually be massively useful though. Populating worlds with random clutter - sometimes you need artistic intent there, sometimes you just need 'good enough' clutter. Gameworlds were already in a lot of cases generated even before AI (it's why so many games have weird clipping cliffs etc). AI can probably do a better job with less effort from the artist/programmer there.
With how good some AI voices models have gotten I'd also prefer that over reading massive walls of text if the game doesn't have the budget for voice actors (probably best to keep actual voice actors when budget allows / for main characters for now).

AI is overrated for a lot of things, for entertainment products like games however, very useful.

 

[m4a4]

A loud minority of outspoken "gamers" might not want it because they don't understand nuance (or they just love to jump on bandwagons), but most gamers don't actually care... as long as it's used right.

 

[The Talking Tech]

At least we have a studio that appreciates human creativity.

 

[Squid Surprise]

At least we have a studio that appreciates human creativity.

lol, they already faced backlash for using AI as well for plagiarism… this isn’t creativity, it’s just trying to put a positive spin on their company.

 

[Carlos GarPov]

If users do not like it, users will not buy it.

 

[OortCloud]

I think we will start to see companies themselves proudly announcing 'No AI Organisation' as it has become such a poison pill for most people.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Of course they will. AI slop games will have a place, int he bargain bin, because consumers are not willing to pay a premium for AI slop.

Just like mass produced clothing or processed food, the more you automate the production of something the less it is worth to the end user.

 

[texasrattler]

Who cares. Gamers will play anything as long as its good. No one really cares if AI, fake frames or what tech is out there is being used. In gaming there has always been some new tech that people will talk about, nothing new.
If the game is good, gamers will play it. Its really that simple.

 

[1Phase1]

Sadly rare to see a game studio these days take a firm stance against AI. This along with pretty much everything else I hear from and about this studio always makes me love them even more. So glad to support Pocketpair and Palworld.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Of course they will. AI slop games will have a place, int he bargain bin, because consumers are not willing to pay a premium for AI slop.

Actually I think AI use should be focused on DLC’s. Then THESE can be bargains, 90% cheaper than they are today. It would help tremendously in users not feeling milked while enjoying their favorite game for extended periods. Artists can focus on true creative content for new games, and AI can specifically train on original content to pump out DLC’s. Currently many artists are spending all of their time on grunt work to make more of the same content for DLC’s.

 

[Gezzer]

I'm on the fence about AI in video games. Mostly because low effort games already exist anyway. So I'm fine with selective and limited use of AI generated images in a game. OTOH something like EA's Steam page makes me laugh because it takes low effort to a new lower low.

 

[MaestroIT]

Why all the hate for AI? Is used correctly it should be ok, slop NO.

Games are considered art, and gamers say don't put AI in art, but ai art is everywhere.
Also, game studios declare their don't use AI, but how can one be sure AI is not used for code development or debugging? Something nobody can assure except the developer.

I am a Software Engineer and untill AI and Claude I had like couple of self developed apps for personal use and work. Since 1 year and with the help of Claude I already developed like 12 php apps being used on a daily basis for my job. If it works and used wisely and correctly I do not see a problem.

 

[texasrattler]

Why all the hate for AI? Is used correctly it should be ok, slop NO.

Games are considered art, and gamers say don't put AI in art, but ai art is everywhere.
Also, game studios declare their don't use AI, but how can one be sure AI is not used for code development or debugging? Something nobody can assure except the developer.

I am a Software Engineer and untill AI and Claude I had like couple of self developed apps for personal use and work. Since 1 year and with the help of Claude I already developed like 12 php apps being used on a daily basis for my job. If it works and used wisely and correctly I do not see a problem.

I agree but I think people are saying its not being used correctly or wisely. Hence the AI slop that goes around. I like AI, dont have any issues over it, its not perfect by any means mistakes still happen but I see it as no different than a human making mistakes. I think people feel AI shouldnt make mistakes but thats simply not how it works.

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Why all the hate for AI? Is used correctly it should be ok, slop NO.

Games are considered art, and gamers say don't put AI in art, but ai art is everywhere.
Also, game studios declare their don't use AI, but how can one be sure AI is not used for code development or debugging? Something nobody can assure except the developer.

I am a Software Engineer and untill AI and Claude I had like couple of self developed apps for personal use and work. Since 1 year and with the help of Claude I already developed like 12 php apps being used on a daily basis for my job. If it works and used wisely and correctly I do not see a problem.

"AI art", does not exist. Period. And it never, ever will.

Anyone who thinks artistry without artwork can create art is incapable of honesty or artistic talent.

 

[Squid Surprise]

"AI art", does not exist. Period. And it never, ever will.

Anyone who thinks artistry without artwork can create art is incapable of honesty or artistic talent.

Depends on your definition of "art".... those who say the definition is "something human created" obviously have a point... but if it's just "media that entertains", then why not?

 

[JaredTheDragon]

Depends on your definition of "art".... those who say the definition is "something human created" obviously have a point... but if it's just "media that entertains", then why not?

Because neither of your definitions of art are correct. As I said, "Anyone who thinks artistry without artwork can create art is incapable of honesty or artistic talent."

Art is the mastery of a medium, the pathway to the mastery is "artwork", and with fake Artificial Stupid non-art there is no medium and no work. Pixels aren't a medium, they are a display method. Stealing pixels isn't work, nor is it a mastery of a craft or a medium.

And to top it all off, there is no "AI" yet, anywhere in the world in any form. LLMs and such aren't intelligent - they're simply algorithms regurgitating what they're told to regurgitate. No intelligence there.

Always Indians.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Because neither of your definitions of art are correct. As I said, "Anyone who thinks artistry without artwork can create art is incapable of honesty or artistic talent."

Art is the mastery of a medium, the pathway to the mastery is "artwork", and with fake Artificial Stupid non-art there is no medium and no work. Pixels aren't a medium, they are a display method. Stealing pixels isn't work, nor is it a mastery of a craft or a medium.

And to top it all off, there is no "AI" yet, anywhere in the world in any form. LLMs and such aren't intelligent - they're simply algorithms regurgitating what they're told to regurgitate. No intelligence there.

Always Indians.

So you've just arbitrarily assigned a meaning to "art", then disqualified what you don't like as not being art... fair enough... there's a reason why most of the great artists died penniless...

But regardless of how you define it, and regardless of how you define AI, video game "art" won't really be any worse... and I'd wager virtually all of it will incorporate "AI" within a few years.

 

[Endymio]

"AI art", does not exist. Period. And it never, ever will.

AI is already generating better art than many renowned human artists, such as this famous work by Kazimir Malevich, which currently is estimated to be worth as much as $200 million. But hey, at least that includes a nice wood frame.