Because so many people are blowing up without reading the article I felt it was worth posting this. Based on the wording it sounds like they were not disqualified for having AI in the game, they were disqualified for not disclosing AI had been used in development.
“The Indie Game Awards have a hard stance on the use of gen AI throughout the nomination process and during the ceremony itself,” the statement reads. “When it was submitted for consideration, representatives of Sandfall Interactive agreed that no gen AI was used in the development of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33.
“In light of Sandfall Interactive confirming the use of gen AI on the day of the Indie Game Awards 2025 premiere, this does disqualify Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from its nomination.”
Additionally, here is another article where they are clarifying HOW it was used.
Following the publication of this article, Sandfall Interactive wishes to provide the following clarifications.
The studio states that it was in contact with El País on April 25 - three months prior to this publication. During these exchanges, Sandfall Interactive indicated that it had used a limited number of pre-existing assets, notably 3D assets sourced from the Unreal Engine Marketplace. None of these assets were created using artificial intelligence.
Sandfall Interactive further clarifies that there are no generative Al-created assets in the game. When the first Al tools became available in 2022, some members of the team briefly experimented with them to generate temporary placeholder textures. Upon release, instances of a placeholder texture were removed within 5 days to be replaced with the correct textures that had always been intended for release, but were missed during the Quality Assurance process.
TL;DR: They experimented with Generative AI when it first came out, used some of the results as temporary assets that were always intended to be temporary. They still got in to the final product because QA missed them, which was promptly fixed in a patch. Indie Game Awards disqualified them for failing to disclose this in the first place.
Key takeaways:
AI didn’t steal anyone’s job in this instance. It was simply used as a tool to help make an artists job easier.
It was never meant to be a part of the final product, and currently isn’t.
They used generative AI around when it when it first came out, probably before most people started realizing it was being trained off stolen artwork as well as a lot of the other problems with AI. u/Crazazy brings up a good point and this part is somewhat questionable
Make of that what you will. I personally think this is being blown out of proportion. They made a mistake and have openly corrected themselves. Good for them.
I don’t have much if an opinion on the rest of your argument but:
probably before most people started realizing it was being trained off stolen artwork as well as a lot of the other problems with AI.
This is the equivalent to those Tesla owners pasting “I bought this before Elon went crazy” stickers. Especially the creative industries were very quick to point out the problematic part of stuff like Dall-E and stable diffusion. Generative Graphical AI has never been approved of by the gamedevs I know.
Hadn’t thought of it that way. Good point. That being said it’s not 100% that since it’s more akin to someone buying a tesla then getting rid of it soon after in this scenario. That or getting it, leaving it in the garage for 2 years having forgotten it exists, then finally getting rid of it once someone points it out. Still somewhat valid though.
Because so many people are blowing up without reading the article I felt it was worth posting this. Based on the wording it sounds like they were not disqualified for having AI in the game, they were disqualified for not disclosing AI had been used in development.
Additionally, here is another article where they are clarifying HOW it was used.
https://english.elpais.com/culture/2025-07-19/the-low-cost-creative-revolution-how-technology-is-making-art-accessible-to-everyone.html
TL;DR: They experimented with Generative AI when it first came out, used some of the results as temporary assets that were always intended to be temporary. They still got in to the final product because QA missed them, which was promptly fixed in a patch. Indie Game Awards disqualified them for failing to disclose this in the first place.
Key takeaways:
They used generative AI around when it when it first came out, probably before most people started realizing it was being trained off stolen artwork as well as a lot of the other problems with AI.u/Crazazy brings up a good point and this part is somewhat questionableMake of that what you will. I personally think this is being blown out of proportion. They made a mistake and have openly corrected themselves. Good for them.
I don’t have much if an opinion on the rest of your argument but:
This is the equivalent to those Tesla owners pasting “I bought this before Elon went crazy” stickers. Especially the creative industries were very quick to point out the problematic part of stuff like Dall-E and stable diffusion. Generative Graphical AI has never been approved of by the gamedevs I know.
Hadn’t thought of it that way. Good point. That being said it’s not 100% that since it’s more akin to someone buying a tesla then getting rid of it soon after in this scenario. That or getting it, leaving it in the garage for 2 years having forgotten it exists, then finally getting rid of it once someone points it out. Still somewhat valid though.
Stable diffusion and midjourney were supposedly trained fairly. That is the only reason art teams would even use Ai for rapid prototyping.
Was not aware those two were trained fairly. Sadly I didn’t see anything on what AI tool they used so not sure how that would affect things.