PC Gaming

That's a good business model. "If our customers don't like it, our employees don't like it, and we can do business without it, why should we use it?"

Who could have possibly guessed that artists like doing art!

I remember there was a rumor going around Twitter when Palworld first launched that Pocketpair had used AI for some of their character designs, and there was some backlash, but it turned out to be false. Feeling some of that heat, even if it was unwarranted, probably also helped set their opinions on using AI for that kind of stuff.

If gamers don't want it and your own staff doesn't want to use it, no point in wasting money trying to force it.

Where is the line of "no AI" exactly?

While the game certainly isn't vibecoded, I would bet some Pocketpair devs used an LLM for a Python script, to figure out something in documentation, to point them somewhere over an error, maybe some Windows issue; you know, utilitarian things.

Artists likely use oldschool ML models in their graphics software, without even knowing it. Or maybe when processing textures to finish them. Or to search through assets, or documentation.

I'm just saying, if you're strict with the definition, it would be really hard to block an entire dev studio from all "AI." It would almost certainly seep in from casual use, legacy integration, or "oldschool" things like image recognition and processing.

It doesn't mean they have to vibecode or ship slop assets, of course. When they say "no AI," that's what I hear, and exactly what I want.

But I think studios, especially larger ones, need to be careful about labels like "100% human," lest something come to light that seems to contradict the guarantee.

AI is the worst kind of bullshit fantasy because it convinces people to dehumanize themselves and others with a condescending sense of inevitability for a future that the technology does not provide any hard evidence for being inevitable.

Human artists are supremely valuable, fuck this "rational" economic system that pretends otherwise.

I bought Palworld just to spite Nintendo and thus far i haven't regretted buying it.

Good.

Great. Cause if they aren't paying people to make the game, I'm not paying to play the damn game.

I really hope they're being sincere about these statements.

This exclusionary, contemporary AI definition really grinds my gears.

That's pretty rich coming from pocket pair. "We don't use the art and design stealing machine, we steal the art and designs ourselves!"

See, I don't mind AI if it's used for stuff like NPC interactions and what not, but not for the creation of assets or mechanics.

At least in it's current iteration, AI can stand out like a sore thumb and once you see it, something is taken away from the experience.

I don't think I've played a game where I've seen AI but this definitely applies to other faucets.

This is the same studio that gave us AI: Art Impostor. Guess that is how they learned it's hated.

Ironic coming from a studio that used to use a lot of AI. But I guess some people can change their mind.

Now that is some good marketing.