According to GameSpot, a report claimed Microsoft missed out on $300 million in revenue for 2024’s Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 by putting it on Game Pass. In 2025, Embark Studios’ $40 extraction shooter Arc Raiders became a massive hit, selling close to 8 million copies after its October launch. The game, like the studio’s earlier title The Finals, uses AI for text-to-speech voice lines, which has sparked controversy. Nexon CEO Junghun Lee stated that “every game company is now using AI,” a claim disputed by developers like Strange Scaffold’s Xavier Nelson Jr. and analyst Tommy Thompson. Meanwhile, Epic Games’ Tim Sweeney defended the tech, arguing it increases productivity, while other giants like EA, Krafton, and Square Enix are pushing forward with major AI investment plans.
The real debate isn’t about the tech
Here’s the thing: the AI voice tech in Arc Raiders isn’t some sci-fi novelty. It’s a text-to-speech system, basically a very advanced version of the robotic voices we’ve had for years. The controversy isn’t really about how it works. It’s about the precedent. Developers say the human actors were compensated and they’re not replacing people. But players and other devs see a slippery slope. If AI can do the voices “well enough” today, what parts of the process are safe tomorrow? It feels like the thin end of a very large, unsettling wedge. And when a hit game normalizes it, that wedge gets driven in a little deeper.
When the CEO and the coders disagree
The most fascinating split is between the executive suite and the development floor. Nexon’s CEO states as fact that “every game company is now using AI.” It’s a bold, blanket statement meant to frame resistance as naive. But then you have developers directly contradicting him. Xavier Nelson Jr. confirmed that “a lot of other studios” aren’t using generative AI. Tommy Thompson argued that “very few [studios] have gone all in.” So who’s right? Probably both, in a way. The CEO is talking about AI tools baked into engines for lighting or texture work—ubiquitous, behind-the-scenes stuff. The developers are talking about generative AI for content like art, writing, and voice. That’s the real fault line.
Tim Sweeney’s productivity pitch
Tim Sweeney’s defense is pure, pragmatic capitalism. AI increases productivity by “integer multiples,” so competition will force everyone to use it to build better games, not employ fewer people. It’s a tidy theory. And of course he’d say that—Unreal Engine is integrating these tools at a breakneck pace. But it assumes the market rewards “better” in a simple way. Does a game with AI-generated side-quests and voices make it *better*, or just *cheaper to produce*? The fear is that “increased productivity” is just corporate-speak for cost-cutting, and that the saved money won’t be reinvested into ambition, but just pocketed. Sweeney says disclosures on platforms like Steam “make no sense.” But if the goal is building consumer trust, maybe transparency is the whole point.
The genie is out of the bottle
Look, the trend is undeniable. EA calls AI a “thought partner.” Krafton is investing $70 million to go “AI-first.” Square Enix wants to automate 70% of QA. This isn’t a niche debate anymore; it’s a strategic directive from the top of the biggest publishers. The pressure to adopt will be immense, especially on teams working with tight budgets and tighter deadlines. The promise is irresistible: do more with less. But the human cost is still an unknown. Will it elevate creativity by handling the grunt work, or will it commoditize the craft? The industry is betting billions on the former. I think we’re about to find out if that’s a wise bet, or if we’re trading soul for scale. And there might not be a way back.
