‘It’s time to face reality, AI is here to stay’: Kingdom Come Deliverance studio head responds to Larian backlash

The co-founder of Kingdom Come: Deliverance developer Warhorse Studios has shared his views on generative AI following online backlash to the news that Larian has been using it.

Following Larian‘s reveal of a new Divinity game at The Game Awards, CEO Swen Vincke confirmed to Bloomberg that the studio was using generative AI to explore early game ideas.

Vincke stated that Larian was using AI “to explore ideas, flesh out PowerPoint presentations, develop concept art and write placeholder text”, but said no AI-generated content would make it into the final game and that “everyone at the company is more or less OK with the way we’re using it”.

This wasn’t enough to satiate some players on social media, who argued that even using generative AI for the concept phase meant replacing human ideas.

This led to Vincke defending his comments, posting “holy fuck guys we’re not ‘pushing hard’ for or replacing concept artists with AI online”, claiming: “We use AI tools to explore references, just like we use Google and art books. At the very early ideation stages we use it as a rough outline for composition which we replace with original concept art. There is no comparison.”

Now Daniel Vávra, the co-founder of Warhorse Studios and director of both Kingdom Come: Deliverance games, has defended Larian, claiming on X that every studio is now using generative AI for similar work, and that while the technology has many negative aspects people should accept that it’s not going anywhere and make use of it.

“This AI hysteria is the same as when people were smashing steam engines in the 19th century,” Vávra wrote. “Larian said they were doing something that absolutely everyone else is doing and got an insanely crazy shitstorm.

“I’ve even seen someone accuse us of using AI in Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2. I don’t know anything about it, except that I used Topaz Labs to upscale some of the AI elements from Kingdom Come: Deliverance 1 and some of the old low-res textures.

“I’m no fan of AI generated art, but anyway, it’s time to face reality. AI is here to stay with us. As frightening as it may be, that’s the way it is. Personally, it scares me the most in the music because you can’t even recognise AI there anymore.”

Vávra wrote that while he doesn’t like the idea of using AI for creative purposes, he can still see its benefit in the creation of assets that are time-consuming to create but could be considered less important.

“You know what I hate most about making games?” he explained. “The fact that it takes 7 years and 300 people and tens of millions of dollars to make. And the fact that Tom had to spend 500 hours in the studio recording completely generic heckling and generic bars.

“If AI can help me make an epic game in a year with a smaller team like in the old days, I’m all for it. That game will still have an art director, writers, programmers, graphic designers, but they won’t have to do the tiresome and boring tasks, they’ll have to focus on the essentials.

“I have ideas for lots of games, but I’m fifty years old and so far it’s taken me seven years on average to make one game. If AI helps me realize those ideas faster, I’m all for it.”

“I have ideas for lots of games, but I’m fifty years old and so far it’s taken me seven years on average to make one game. If AI helps me realize those ideas faster, I’m all for it.”

Addressing the issue of AI being used to replace voice actors – something that has been the source of recent debate due to its use in ARC Raiders – Vávra again argued that it could be useful for less meaningful dialogue, while the most important dialogue should still be handled with real voice acting and motion-captured cutscenes.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if you could ask anyone anything in an RPG?” he asked. “Like, maybe [ask] someone for the road directions? Or what they think of their neighbours? We already have tools (11labs can do it) where you script a NPC, their character, their knowledge and opinions and then they talk to you about anything.

“For non-story stuff, this is an absolutely revolutionary development from a player’s point of view. And you can’t record it with an actor because it has infinite variations. But what you can record are cutscenes and story dialogue. You don’t need an Oscar-level performance when ordering a sausage in a pub or when asking how to get to the castle.”

Vávra concluded that the growth of generative AI use in the industry is inevitable, and that people need to get on board with it.

“Programmers have a problem. The work of most of them will probably not be needed very soon,” he wrote. “We will have software architects, and AI will do the programming. Very soon. Resisting this is probably as meaningful as resisting the use of sewing machines in the textile industry. Or going back to riding on horses while we could use planes and cars. How many horse breeders lost their jobs thanks to Henry Ford?

“Who and how will recognize if the game was programmed by a human or AI? And who would want to spend months of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars when the same thing could be achieved in minutes for free?

“The whole AI revolution may mean the demise of humanity, nobody knows now, but it may also mean that anyone, at a fraction of the current cost, will be able to implement virtually any grand idea. Making a game will be as easy as writing a book.

“There will be more games. We’ll see the return of niche genres. Some games will be better. Maybe just a few. There will be also lot of trash. But who cares? There is lots of average trash in books or music for years.

“It will also be an end of most big publishers. And Hollywood as we know it. Nobody will need their money and resources anymore. What we saw with boom of indie scene thanks to Steam, we will see with AAA games thanks to AI.

“Or Skynet will destroy us before all that. Either way, there’s no stopping it.”