According to Wccftech, Larian Studios faced a massive fan backlash after admitting they use generative AI for concept art, placeholder text, and internal presentations for their new Divinity game. The studio clarified that no AI content would be in the final game and no jobs would be lost. In response, Daniel Vávra, the founder and creative director of Warhorse Studios (developers of Kingdom Come: Deliverance), defended Larian in a lengthy post on X. Vávra stated Larian was just voicing what “absolutely everyone else is doing” and called the controversy an “insanely crazy sh*tstorm.” He compared the fear of AI to people smashing steam engines during the Industrial Revolution, arguing the technology is here to stay as a necessary tool to combat development times that average seven years per game for him.
The practical reality for developers
Here’s the thing: Vávra isn’t really talking about AI art replacing artists. He’s talking about pure, brutal economics. Game budgets are insane. Development cycles are stretching to a decade. Something has to give. His point is that using AI as a power tool for the “tiresome and boring tasks” is the only viable lever to pull if you want to maintain scope and quality. The other option is to make smaller, simpler, or uglier games. And let’s be honest, what AAA studio or their fans want that? So when he says he’d love to make an epic game in a year with a smaller team “like in the old days,” he’s voicing a fantasy every creative director has. AI, in this view, isn’t about replacing the art director or writer. It’s about giving them back the time to actually direct and write, instead of getting bogged down in procedural grunt work.
The coming AI-everywhere pipeline
Vávra’s vision goes beyond just upscaling textures or drafting dialogue. He mentions NPCs you can truly talk to about anything, and—more radically—AI doing the actual programming with software architects overseeing it. That’s a huge leap. But is he wrong? Look at the trajectory. We’ve automated lighting, physics, and vast amounts of asset creation. Code is arguably next. Resisting it, as he bluntly puts it, is probably as meaningful as resisting sewing machines. It’s a stark, unsentimental take. The promise, or maybe the threat, is his final point: that making a game could become as accessible as writing a book. That democratization sounds great until you think about the tsunami of AI-generated sludge it could also unleash.
Why this hits a nerve now
So why did Larian’s fairly mundane admission cause such a firestorm? They’re the beloved underdog that just hit the jackpot with Baldur’s Gate 3. They represent a certain ideal of “pure,” passion-driven development. For some fans, hearing “AI” from them felt like a betrayal of that artisan ethos, even if it’s just for internal PowerPoints! It tapped directly into the genuine, widespread anxiety about AI eroding creative jobs. Vávra’s outburst cuts through that anxiety with a dose of cynical, behind-the-curtain reality. Basically, he’s saying the artisan dream is already economically impossible at the scale players demand. The tools have changed. The factory floor, whether we like it or not, is getting an upgrade. The real debate isn’t *if* studios use AI, but how transparent they are about it and what ethical guardrails they build. And honestly, we’re just at the very start of figuring that out.
