The Indie Game Awards disqualifies Expedition 33 for AI usage and puts itself in a weird position — was it a fair move or an ambiguous definition of what is acceptable?

The Indie Game Awards have recently wrapped up on YouTube, and initially awarded the excellent Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 with Game of the Year. That win did not last long, as the award was later rescinded after the organization cited the game’s use of generative AI during development.

It was later revealed that the studio behind Expedition 33, Sandfall Interactive, had used “AI, but not much,” according to the game’s producer.

Further clarification showed that AI-generated placeholder assets had been used early on, before being removed once the issue was flagged. That detail first surfaced publicly on X more than seven months ago.

Sandfall Interactive has also been clear about its stance on creative AI, drawing a firm line between limited tooling and authorship. The studio previously stated:

Despite that position, the Indie Game Awards still chose to strip Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 of its awards (via Insider Gaming), reallocating its Debut Indie Game of the Year award to "Sorry We're Closed" and instead giving Blue Prince Indie Game of the Year.

Clair Obscur’s disqualification highlights an impossible line to draw

In a statement released by the Indie Game Awards, they say:

Despite the developers only using generative AI for placeholder assets, it will likely become increasingly difficult to define what actually counts as AI usage in games. As tools evolve, the line between assistance, automation, and authorship becomes harder to draw in any meaningful way.

There is also a risk that strict rules like this encourage silence rather than transparency. If studios fear outright disqualification and online discourse, some may choose not to disclose limited or non-creative AI use at all.

The Indie Game Awards’ straightforward rule could leave very few games eligible in the coming years, particularly as more studios adapt to AI-assisted tools as part of everyday development workflows.

Generative AI or AI in general did not suddenly arrive

The issue with AI as a tool, regardless of the ethics behind it (which is equally as important), is where the line is actually drawn. AI is not a new concept, and it has been used in game development for years, only gaining its current negative reputation due to illegal training practices on copyrighted content, which most people rightly see as unacceptable, and I do agree here.

As game development has advanced, so have the tools used in the process. Features like Photoshop’s content-aware fill, smart selection, and upscaling all rely on AI-driven systems in some form, yet they have been widely accepted for years.

That raises an uncomfortable question about consistency. If those tools are acceptable, where does that leave procedural generation, automated texture work, or AI-driven NPC logic? The point is not to equate them directly, but to highlight how quickly the line between acceptable automation and unacceptable AI becomes blurred.

As these tools continue to converge, drawing a clear and enforceable boundary is likely to become increasingly impractical.

Legitimate concerns do exist

There is a real concern that widespread adoption of AI will lead to job losses, particularly for artists. Generative tools are becoming increasingly capable of mimicking the work of concept artists, writers, designers, and other creative roles.

We are already seeing an industry-wide shift, with studios becoming more open about how they are using AI. Most recently, Larian Studios came under heavy criticism after admitting to limited AI use during development.

Backing Larian publicly were the developers behind Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, who stated, “Larian said they were doing something that absolutely everyone else is doing and got an insanely crazy shitstorm.”

Even Todd Howard has weighed in on the topic, suggesting that AI can be useful for speeding up iteration and certain processes, but not for generating creative work outright.

Concerns around AI go beyond job replacement. Rising component costs, particularly RAM and storage, are already being felt as demand increases to support AI datacenters, and that alone is enough to leave a sour taste for consumers, regardless of whether these tools are genuinely useful in the development process.

Whether we like it or not, though, it does appear that most studios are using AI in some form, which makes a zero-tolerance policy risky. Rather than encouraging openness, it may discourage transparency and push developers to quietly use these tools instead of being clear about where and how they are applied.

Economic pressure is shaping how studios build games

Game development has evolved significantly over the past decade, and it has become more demanding as a result. Modern games require far more assets than before, often at much higher resolutions, alongside more complex animations and larger, more detailed worlds.

This is not a cheap process. Games built during the early Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 era were developed under very different constraints, and that model is no longer realistic for most studios today.

Development cycles have also stretched considerably in some cases, sometimes tripling in length, with no guarantee that a finished game will find commercial success.

While indie games often punch above their weight and can make some AAA releases look unfocused by comparison, studios like Sandfall Interactive have still acknowledged using AI in limited, practical ways. That mirrors the restrained approach discussed publicly by Larian, rather than any shift toward replacing creative work outright.

That does not mean all uses should go unchallenged. Calling out egregious or exploitative applications of AI still matters, as that scrutiny is essential to finding a sensible balance that protects creative work.

For many studios, limited AI use is less about replacing staff and more about saving time. It can help speed up iteration, improve prototyping, or handle repetitive, non-creative tasks that would otherwise slow development down.

This is also where rigid award criteria begin to feel out of step with reality. If eligibility rules fail to account for the economic pressures studios are operating under, they risk excluding a growing number of games built using tools that are fast becoming standard across the industry.

What do you make of the Indie Game Awards’ decision, and do you actually care if limited AI tools are used during game development at all? Let me know your thoughts in the comments, and take part in the poll below.

Follow Windows Central on Google News to keep our latest news, insights, and features at the top of your feeds!