In 2025, a new label is emerging in gaming: 'Made by Humans” It's a tag that shouldn't need to exist, yet here we are.

Disclaimer: These opinions are my own and may not represent the broader views of the Splash or THU teams."

The video game industry is experiencing its most significant transformation since the shift to digital distribution. Mass layoffs have eliminated an estimated 30,000 jobs since 2023, while AI tools are simultaneously reshaping how games are created. This convergence forces a fundamental question: What role should human creativity play in an increasingly automated production pipeline?

AI technology has advanced dramatically and promises even greater changes as the decade progresses. While companies pursue faster production cycles and lower costs, the technology's impact on quality remains debated. For every concern about AI generated slop, there's a counter-example of small studios using AI to achieve what was once impossible without massive teams. AI functions as what I call a “mediocracy filter” it pulls creative output toward the statistical centre of its training data. For developers weak in certain areas, AI offers a boost toward competency. But for those with exceptional skills, the same tools risk dulling their unique edge. This creates a flattening effect where the distance between good and great narrows.

This raises a crucial question: what makes a game world feel authentic? While traditional craftsmanship has its merits, player engagement depends more on the final experience than the creation process. The challenge isn't avoiding AI, but ensuring that any tools used both serve the vision rather than replace it and are sourced ethically. 

 

Meanwhile, against a backdrop of economic uncertainty and cultural turmoil. Rising game prices strain the relationship between creators and consumers. Higher development costs don't guarantee higher quality, creating a disconnect between price and value. This tension reveals a fundamental triangle: Quality, Price, and Production Method. Most projects can only optimise for two of these three elements.

 

Quality and Human-made, but Expensive: 

Indie masterpieces and AAA promises delivered, passionately handcrafted but priced higher due to intensive human labour and long development cycles, often in years.

 

Quality and Affordable, but AI-driven: 

Although heavily promoted by [insert AAA studio CEO]  that say this is coming, examples remain scarce. There is a risk that such games, may flood the market, making discoverability a nightmare. Although I'm betting these experiences will lack depth or have terrible performance. Also, this reduction in production cost does not mean lower cost to the consumer. 

 

Affordable and Human-made, but Compromised Quality or long Dev times: 

Accessible games produced by human effort under significant constraints, often suffering from limited polish, scope, or depth frequently created under intense pressure and crunch.

Exceptional games like Claire Obscure: Expedition 33, Vampire Survivors, and Balatro prove these constraints aren't absolute. Each found creative ways to deliver quality experiences without conforming to traditional production models, whether through innovative mechanics, focused scope, or years of patient iteration.

 

Quality, Affordable, and Human-AI Hybrid:

Games that leverage AI for efficiency while maintaining human creative vision, still largely theoretical but they represent the industry's most promising direction. (retopo assist and UV packers are already massive helping hands, can only wait for what AI will bring.)

 

Made by Humans, Fairly Priced:

For our project, Splash & Dash, we're committed to transparent development practices. While we'll experiment with AI tools for efficiency, our priority remains human creativity driving the core experience, rather than making absolute claims about human creation in a digital game. When we do integrate AI technologies, we'll prioritise ethical sourcing, avoiding tools that generate assets from databases containing other people's work without their consent. (While this is still not available, we opt out by not using generative AI)

Splash & Dash launches this year into an overcrowded, shifting market. With a budget of €0.000 and three team members unemployed due to industry layoffs, we represent the reality behind the “human creativity” debate, passionate developers trying to survive in an increasingly difficult landscape. 

We're implementing regional pricing, bundles, and demos, without microtransactions. Whether this model proves sustainable remains to be seen, but we're willing to test it. If you want to play our game but can't afford it, there will always be a free demo or an available build on Discord. No one should be excluded from the fun.

In conclusion, the question isn't whether AI will change game development; it already has. The question is whether we can harness these tools while preserving what makes games worth making and playing. The developers who thrive won't be those who reject change or embrace it blindly, but those who thoughtfully choose when human creativity is irreplaceable and when productivity tools can serve that creativity. As we launch Splash & Dash, we're betting that transparency about our methods and commitment to accessibility will resonate with players who value both innovation and integrity.

 

PS: While I tried to show a balanced and neutral point of view in this article, that is because this is the best way to approach and start a conversation.

But let me be clear: the "impossible to build copyright-free AI" narrative is corporate gaslighting. Remember when Napster got destroyed by Metallica + Dr.Dre? Same theft, bigger scale. Only now it's Tech companies doing the stealing. The system protects capital, not creators, and we are witnessing the largest art heist in history, only everyone is calling it innovation. So if you'll allow me to leave you with a plea: Learn about how the tech gets made and keep having conversations about it (especially with those who use it without knowing how the "sausage" gets made, and when a ethical model comes around, follow the old saying, "trust but verify"),  because complacency is oppression's favourite tool, and we've already lost enough.