Why Generative AI Art Is Stirring Up Drama In PC Gaming
Generative AI has exploded across the tech and creative worlds, and the games industry is no exception. Some big studios are racing to adopt it as a productivity tool, while others are pulling the emergency brake and saying absolutely not.
One of the strongest pushbacks so far comes from Hooded Horse, the PC game publisher behind titles like Endless Legend 2, Cataclismo, and the hit city builder Manor Lords. Its CEO Tim Bender has made it very clear that generative AI art is not welcome anywhere near their games.
In an interview, Bender did not sugarcoat his opinion. He said generative AI art has made his job harder and that it now appears in places it should not. As a result, Hooded Horse has started building explicit bans on AI generated assets directly into its publishing contracts.
If a game is published under Hooded Horse, the rule is simple. No AI art. At all.
Why Even Placeholder AI Art Is A Problem
Some studios take a more relaxed approach. They might say they would never ship a game with AI assets, but they are willing to use generative AI during pre production to create quick concept pieces or temporary placeholders to speed things up.
Larian Studios for example has talked about using AI tools carefully and in limited ways while still trying to protect the quality and identity of their games. Other teams like Sandfall Interactive have also experimented with AI as a way to rough out ideas earlier in development.
Bender argues that this is exactly where the danger starts. The moment AI art is allowed in even as a placeholder, there is a risk it will slip into the final game build by accident.
He describes generative AI as something that spreads through the pipeline if you let it in at all. In his view, it is not enough to say no to AI art in the launch version. You have to block it from pre production, prototyping, internal tests, and every other stage of development. Otherwise, all it takes is one missed asset in one build to cause a major problem later.
To avoid that, Hooded Horse does not just discourage AI during development. Bender says he actively urges developers not to use generative AI anywhere, not even when they think it is obviously temporary. The company then has to continually check builds and artwork to ensure that nothing AI generated has slipped in.
From his perspective this constant vigilance is necessary because once AI assets are in the pipeline, they become hard to track, easy to overlook, and risky for the final product and the studio’s reputation.
Real Examples Where AI Placeholders Reached Players
This is not just a theoretical fear. There have already been clear public cases where AI generated art that was meant to be temporary made it into live releases and caused backlash.
Ubisoft’s Anno 117: In this city builder entry, some AI generated art that was described as placeholder content ended up visible in the live version of the game. Ubisoft had to react quickly and touch up or replace the affected assets, but many players were frustrated that it shipped that way at all. Anno is a long running strategy series with a dedicated PC fanbase, so this stirred a lot of debate about where and how AI should be used.
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33: This upcoming RPG was one of the more hyped games heading into 2025. It initially won two awards at the Indie Game Awards, but those wins were later pulled back. The reason was that generative AI art was found in the shipped game even though it had been described as placeholder art. The organizers stated that they have a strict stance against generative AI in videogames, and the discovery led directly to the awards being revoked.
These situations show exactly what Hooded Horse wants to avoid. Even if a studio intends to replace AI assets later, things get busy, builds move fast, and something can be missed. Once players or award committees notice, it turns into a much bigger problem than if the team had simply avoided AI art in the first place.
What This Means For PC Gamers And Developers
For players who care about how their games are made, this growing divide over generative AI is worth paying attention to. On one side, you have studios and publishers that see AI as a powerful new tool that can speed up concept art, writing, and other tasks. On the other, you have companies like Hooded Horse that see it as a threat to artistic integrity, working conditions, and even legal safety.
For developers, especially smaller PC studios, the stakes are high. Using AI art might save time and money in the short term, but it can also risk community backlash, legal uncertainty around training data, and problems with partners who do not want any AI assets in their catalogs.
Publishers who enforce a no AI rule are drawing a clear line for their brand. If you buy a strategy or city builder from Hooded Horse, you know the artwork is human created by design, not just by accident. That clarity can be attractive to players who are skeptical of AI or who want to support traditional artists.
At the same time, the rest of the industry is not standing still. More tools are appearing that can generate textures, concepts, voice lines, and even animations with a few prompts. How PC game makers choose to use or reject these tools is likely to shape the look and feel of future games just as much as improvements in GPUs, engines, or physics systems.
For now, Hooded Horse represents one of the strongest anti AI positions in the PC gaming space. Their stance highlights a key question the industry will keep facing. Are generative AI tools helpful assistants in development, or are they something that should be kept out of games altogether? The answer will affect not only how games are built, but also how players judge and support them.
Original article and image: https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/i-f-king-hate-gen-ai-art-hooded-horse-chief-says-if-were-publishing-the-game-no-f-king-ai-assets/
