NetEase Games is pushing back against claims made by game developer Goichi Suda, known as Suda51, regarding the company’s approach to generative artificial intelligence. Suda51 publicly stated that NetEase had shuttered a dedicated AI research division and instructed its studios to cease all AI-related development. However, a NetEase spokesperson has firmly refuted these assertions, stating that the company continues to actively work with generative AI technologies.
The dispute surfaced during an interview with Suda51 concerning his upcoming game, Romeo is a Dead Man, scheduled for release on . Suda51 explained that NetEase “originally had a section researching and developing AI-related stuff, but at one point they decided not to do that any more. They folded that section and told their studios to not use AI in games, to not use it at all.” He acknowledged that his understanding of the reasoning was based on assumption, citing potential concerns about negative gamer reception to AI and the complexities of copyright infringement as possible factors.
NetEase responded swiftly, issuing a statement to Eurogamer and PCGamesN. A representative stated, “The assertion that NetEase Games has closed an AI department or that we’ve mandated teams or studios not to use AI is not true.” The company further clarified that “The situation described did not occur and we have not published any related policies.” To underscore its continued commitment to the technology, NetEase highlighted an upcoming presentation on generative AI at the Game Developers Conference (GDC).
The conflicting accounts highlight a broader industry debate surrounding the integration of AI into game development. While many major publishers, including Ubisoft, Krafton, and Take-Two, are openly exploring the potential benefits of generative AI, NetEase’s alleged internal deliberations, as described by Suda51, suggest a more cautious approach. Suda51’s own perspective on AI is notably skeptical. He expressed a feeling that AI-generated content often feels “off” or “kinda funky,” lacking the authentic touch that defines Grasshopper Manufacture’s games.
Grasshopper Manufacture, the studio behind Romeo is a Dead Man and acquired by NetEase in 2021, has not itself engaged in any AI research, according to Suda51. He believes that a certain human intuition allows players to detect the artificiality of AI-generated content, even as the technology becomes more sophisticated. “So while I don’t have a strict opinion either way on people using it in their own games, that’s not the way we do it,” he stated. “That’s one of the things that bring people to Grasshopper games – they can feel people’s efforts themselves. It’s something we’re proud of.”
The timing of this discussion is particularly relevant, as the tech sector recently experienced market instability following issues with Google’s Gemini AI, leading to stock declines. This event has prompted increased scrutiny of the rapid adoption of generative AI across various industries, including gaming. The potential for copyright issues, as Suda51 alluded to, remains a significant hurdle for developers seeking to utilize AI-generated assets. Ensuring originality and avoiding legal challenges requires careful consideration and robust safeguards.
NetEase’s denial of Suda51’s claims suggests the company is keen to distance itself from any perception of abandoning AI development. The planned GDC talk indicates a desire to showcase its ongoing work in the field and potentially address concerns about the responsible and ethical implementation of generative AI in game development. The company’s position is particularly noteworthy given its ownership of Grasshopper Manufacture, a studio known for its distinctive and artistically driven games, which Suda51 emphasizes are built on human creativity and effort.
The situation underscores the complex relationship between technological innovation and artistic integrity within the gaming industry. While generative AI offers potential efficiencies and new creative avenues, developers and publishers must navigate the challenges of maintaining quality, originality, and player trust. The debate is likely to continue as the technology evolves and its impact on game development becomes more fully realized.
