Baldur’s Gate 3 and Divinity developer Larian Studios is in a bit of a pickle after comments from CEO Swen Vincke in an interview with Bloomberg lit up social media.
In the interview, Vincke explained the studio is using generative AI (a controversial technology) on the freshly-announced Divinity sequel but that it isn’t using it to replace workers or create content appearing in the final game.
When I first read his comments, I didn’t feel curiosity or relief, but rather just plain exhaustion. I assumed my frustration would be somewhat isolated. Then two hours after venting that exhaustion on Bluesky my friends who don’t work in video games began messaging me to say they’d seen my post go viral.
Oh.
Suddenly Larian faced not just my one-word snarky post but a bona fide social media backlash. Vincke seemed particularly frustrated over the outrage given he’d similarly described the studio’s AI use in an April interview with GameSpot. He has a point. Why did his comments attract little furor then but rise to a firestorm now?
It’s not just Larian asking that question. I’ve heard developers who aren’t AI enthusiasts express frustration over the backlash. They argue his comments about how generative AI can be used seem reasonable.
I see their point. But watching the reaction from developers I see something more powerful: a backlash not only over the multi-faceted issues with generative AI, but to how leaders like Vincke are instituting the tech.
Developers are tired of being told they need to use generative AI
Across several interviews, Vincke has presented some interesting use-cases for generative AI, positioning some of its implementation as a new tech tool and not a time-saver. In an interview with The Gamer, he explained the studio can automate some QA processes and improve motion capture data processing using tools trained on its own data.
In speaking with Bloomberg and on social media, Vincke has alluded to the company using it for reference images in concept art, placeholder in-game text, and producing internal PowerPoints. Vincke said workers at the studio are “more or less OK” with the way it’s being used—but Bloomberg reports that there are developers inside Larian who’ve pushed back against the use of generative AI. Former employees have validated this account in posts on Bluesky.
This disconnect is what’s driving anger among professionals. For the last two years developers have watched their employers herald the arrival of generative AI as a game-changer for the industry and mandated their adoption. Resisting these mandates for ethical or quality concerns is sometimes ill-received by management.
Workers are then placed between a rock and a hard place. They could quit, but then they’d be looking for work in a terrible hiring environment, competing with their peers for a scant number of positions, many at companies also pushing for the use of generative AI. So they bite their tongue, grind their teeth, and muddle through, trying to make the most of a frustrating position.
Many developers are put in this position by leaders who either haven’t worked on a game for years or who come from strictly from an executive background. They are forced to watch as people who don’t have to use these tools for complex tasks decide their fate. Vincke is the rare CEO who directs his company’s games, but even with that perspective, his position as CEO fundamentally means he faces different day-to-day complexities than his employees.
And with the power to hire—and fire—workers, saying “no” to his demands is rather difficult. That became more clear as the game writing community finally spoke out about Larian’s hiring practices.
Larian’s hiring practices put pressure on some new hires
Larian, to its credit, is an international company that considers employees from all over the world, but many of its job descriptions requiring workers be on-site.
On social media, developers raised the idea that if you land a job with Larian—a celebrated studio behind one of the game industry’s most beloved single-player titles—you may be putting a lot on the line to land your dream job. If it doesn’t work out, you’re not just out looking for a new gig, you can be miles away from home, in a foreign country, staring down the barrel of a relocation process that could cost thousands of dollars.
Its influence was made clear to a number of game writers and narrative designers who came forward on social media about their alleged experience interviewing with the company. They described a 6-month long hiring process requiring 12 interviews and an unpaid writing test where they needed to not just prove their writing skills but also show they could implement an in-game quest (some writers I’ve spoken with at game industry events have said discontent over these tests has spread privately for months).
Image via Larian Studios
Imagine being a writer who jumps through all those hoops, only to arrive at the company and see that leadership wants you to use generative AI to create placeholder text, something usually marked by phrases like “TKTK,””[INSERTPLACEHOLDERHERE],” or “FFFFFFFFFF” to ensure it’s fixed before the game ships. How comfortable would you be pushing back against that?
Even if you aren’t an international hire, Larian’s ability to implement such a strenuous test shows the strength it can exert over workers. And even if the game industry hadn’t spent 3 years laying off thousands of developers, its reputation would make it a highly desirable place to work. And when you land a dream job like that, and management dictates you have to use a tool you have deep concerns over—of course that’s going to breed frustration and resentment.
Those power dynamics create kindling for this kind of conflict to spark and they’re not unique to any particular company. This story is playing out everywhere in the video game industry. If people have reason to fear speaking their minds, how can you be sure they’re as enthusiastic about generative AI as you are?
AI backlash is about leadership and power as well as ethics
Swen, if you’re reading this—I truly sympathize with your position.
Making games is challenging on a good day, and every developer I know wants to find tools that make their work easier. Some of the backlash has taken your words out of context, and I’ve no doubt some of your subordinates are finding AI tools helpful in their workflows.
But if Bloomberg’s reporting is correct, and Larian employees are pushing back about using generative AI, that’s not just stubbornness. That’s a real sign these tools aren’t working.
I was being sincere when I dashed off my one-word post on Bluesky. I feel the exhaustion of everyone in game development told by their leaders that AI will be game-changing technology that we have to adopt to stay ahead of the curve. It’s not enough to promise you’re not using it to replace jobs or that AI-generated content won’t appear in the final game.
Promises can be broken.
I’ve spent 2025 thinking about how the game industry needs leaders worthy of their titles, who can strike the balance between setting a vision and getting out of their team’s way. Who can take accountability for poor choices and do everything in their power to prevent unpaid overtime. What we are witnessing with this backlash is a test of leadership—a high-profile version of a test playing out at studios across the globe.
This is one major reason why workers are unionizing. They are tired of being ignored and having their jobs and their salaries hung over their head.
A leader who can recognize the real fear, pain, and stress behind this backlash will be able to find the right solution and help their team execute an ambitious, creative vision. During the Baldur’s Gate 3 award sweep, Vincke seemed to recognize those emotions when he called out “greed” at other companies.
Can he do so again now that he’s the CEO in the spotlight?
