According to GameSpot, The Indie Game Awards have stripped Sandfall Interactive’s Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 of its two 2025 wins—Game of the Year and Debut Game—just two days after the ceremony. This drastic move came after the developer confirmed using generative AI assets, which directly violated the awards’ strict “hard stance” policy against such use during the nomination process and ceremony. Organizers stated that Sandfall had previously agreed no gen AI was used when submitting the game for consideration back in April 2025. Following the disqualification on the day of the awards premiere, Blue Prince was named the new Game of the Year and Sorry We’re Closed won Debut Game. Despite the controversy, the game’s popularity surged after winning at The Game Awards the week prior, even earning congratulations from French President Emmanuel Macron.
The messy timeline of excuses
Here’s where it gets messy. Sandfall’s story seems to shift depending on the day. In a July 2025 feature with El Pais, producer François Meurisse openly said, “We use some AI, but not much.” That’s a pretty clear admission, right? But after that article published, the studio scrambled, releasing a statement claiming they’d told El Pais months earlier that they only used pre-existing marketplace assets and that any AI textures were “temporary placeholders” missed in QA and removed within five days. So which is it? Were they being transparent about a tiny, accidental use, or were they trying to walk back a bigger revelation? The awards organizers, who got their info via Insider Gaming, clearly didn’t buy the later explanation. Their FAQ and rules are unambiguous, and they acted on it.
Why this ruling matters
This isn’t just about one game losing some trophies. It’s a landmark enforcement of a hardline policy in an industry that’s still wildly conflicted about AI. The Indie Game Awards drew a line in the sand and, when faced with a violation, followed through—even if it meant publicly embarrassing a high-profile winner days after the fact. That takes guts. It sends a message to other developers that “AI-washing” or hiding AI use won’t fly here. But it also highlights a huge practical problem. How do you even police this? If a few placeholder textures can get a game disqualified, the due diligence required from both developers and awards bodies just got a lot more intense. Every asset now needs a verifiable provenance.
Popularity vs. principle
The weirdest part? This scandal doesn’t seem to be hurting Expedition 33’s success at all. If anything, the week-long drama of winning at The Game Awards, then the Indie Game Awards, then getting disqualified probably generated more headlines. The President of France isn’t tweeting about your game’s ethical compliance; he’s tweeting about its win. The Steam boost is real. So what’s the actual consequence? For the awards, it’s about integrity. For the developer, it’s a PR hiccup that got drowned out by celebratory noise. That imbalance is telling. It shows that, for now, mainstream success and critical ethical scrutiny can exist on completely different planets. But how long can that last? If more festivals and awards follow this zero-tolerance lead, the stakes for getting caught will eventually get higher.
The unenforceable future?
Looking ahead, this feels like the first shot in a long, messy war. The Indie Game Awards have set a precedent, but I have to wonder if it’s sustainable. As AI tools become more embedded in standard software (think Photoshop’s generative fill or Unity’s AI features), the definition of “using AI” will get fuzzier. Is using an AI-powered tool to speed up a manual process a violation? What about using it for concept art that a human then paints over? The all-or-nothing rule is clean in theory but incredibly messy in practice. I think we’ll see more awards and festivals adopt similar policies for the PR win, but actual enforcement will rely on an honor system and public shaming. The real test will be when a true indie darling, not a well-funded studio like Sandfall, gets caught in the same trap. Will the rules be applied equally? That’s when we’ll see if this is real principle or just performative ethics.
