Generative AI has seeped into nearly every creative industry, but in gaming, its presence is particularly insidious. It doesn’t just replace art or music—it rewrites contracts, corrupts pipelines, and forces publishers to play an endless game of whack-a-mole. Hooded Horse, the studio behind Against the Storm and Manor Lords, has drawn a hard line: no AI-generated content, not even in early development. Yet the reality is far more complicated than a simple ban.
The publisher’s stance isn’t just about finished products. It extends to placeholders, concept art, and even outsourced assets. The reasoning is clear: once AI touches a project—even briefly—it becomes nearly impossible to purge entirely. A single miscommunication with a freelancer, a rushed texture swap, or an overlooked asset can mean generative AI lingering in a game long after developers intended.
Yet despite the risks, enforcement isn’t the real challenge. Developers aligned with Hooded Horse aren’t clamoring to use AI—they’re already resistant. The problem lies in the supply chain. Outsourcing art to third-party studios or freelancers introduces blind spots. A developer might explicitly forbid AI, but a contractor might ignore instructions, or an asset might slip through unnoticed. The publisher acknowledges this: mistakes will happen.
We will fuck up, the publisher’s leadership has stated bluntly. It’s inevitable. The admission isn’t defeatist—it’s pragmatic. The tools, the pressure from competitors, and the sheer ubiquity of AI make vigilance a full-time job. Every stage of development now requires scrutiny: contracts, asset reviews, and constant communication to ensure nothing contaminated by AI makes it into a final build.
But why does this matter? For players, the answer is simple: Hooded Horse’s games—Manor Lords, Against the Storm, and others—rely on handcrafted art, music, and storytelling. AI-generated assets don’t just lower quality; they erode the soul of indie games, where passion and craftsmanship define the experience. The publisher’s refusal to compromise isn’t about stubbornness—it’s about preserving what makes these games special.
Yet the battle is unwinnable. Even with ironclad contracts and relentless oversight, AI will find a way in. The question isn’t whether Hooded Horse will succeed in keeping it out—it’s how long they can delay the inevitable. And in an industry where every asset, every line of code, and every creative decision is under siege, that delay might be the only victory left.
- Contractual Ban: AI exclusion clauses are mandatory for all developers under Hooded Horse’s publishing deal.
- Zero-Tolerance for Placeholders: Even temporary AI-generated assets (e.g., concept art, textures) are prohibited to prevent accidental retention.
- Outsourcing Safeguards: Freelancers and third-party studios are explicitly instructed to avoid AI, with repeated warnings about the risks of non-compliance.
- Post-Launch Audits: Games undergo final checks for AI-generated content, with a commitment to remove any discovered traces.
- Transparency with Players: The publisher frames its stance as alignment with player values—most gamers oppose AI in creative works.
Who benefits? Players who value authenticity in their games. Who loses? Developers forced to navigate an increasingly hostile creative landscape, and the industry as a whole, which risks homogenization if AI becomes the default. The publisher’s fight is less about winning and more about buying time—time to prove that handcrafted games still matter in a world where algorithms are rewriting the rules.
