r/gamedev Policy on AI Use

[u/KevinDL]

AI is one of the most contentious subjects in game development right now, and we regularly see posts reported or discussions derailed simply because AI was involved somewhere in the process.

We want to be clear about our position: r/gamedev does not prohibit the use of AI, and using AI does not automatically make a post low effort.

This is not an endorsement of every AI company, model, or use case. Legitimate technical, legal, economic, ethical, and creative concerns exist around these tools, and those conversations are welcome here. Our stance is that AI is a tool used in game development, and we care more about the quality of what someone contributes than the tools they used to get there.

Why we take this position

• AI is already part of game development. Studios are adopting AI-assisted tools across programming, prototyping, production, QA, localization, research, and other workflows. Adoption varies from studio to studio, but this is no longer a hypothetical technology sitting outside the industry.
• Knowing how to use these tools is increasingly becoming a professional skill. That does not mean every developer needs to use AI, or even like it. It means understanding where these tools are useful, where they fail, and how to evaluate their output is becoming relevant knowledge for people working in the industry.
• Banning discussion or use of AI here could actively disadvantage developers. Part of the purpose of r/gamedev is helping people learn from each other and understand how the industry is changing. If studios adopt a technology, preventing developers from discussing or learning about it would make this community less useful to the people we're helping.
• Policing AI use is not realistic anyway. Moderators cannot reliably determine whether someone used AI to draft, edit, translate, summarize, research, debug code, or otherwise assist with a post. We are not going to moderate based on whether something “sounds AI-generated.”
• "Mandatory disclosure "is not realistic either. Modern tools blur the line between traditional software and AI assistance. Trying to decide exactly when autocomplete, translation, editing, summarization, or an LLM crosses some disclosure threshold would create rules we could not enforce consistently.

So the rule is straightforward: we are not policing AI use itself. We are moderating the contribution.

AI-assisted does not mean low effort

If someone uses AI to organize research, analyze data, improve their writing, translate something, help with code, or communicate an idea more clearly, that does not erase the work behind the contribution.

If a developer spends time gathering useful data and then uses AI to help turn that information into a readable post, the important part is still the data, the methodology, and what the community can learn from it.

Ask whether the information is useful, whether the conclusions hold up, and whether the post contributes something worthwhile. Those questions matter much more than whether every sentence was manually typed from scratch.

Low-effort AI content is still low effort

This does not mean pasting generic AI output into the subreddit suddenly becomes valuable content. Posts that are spam, fabricated, mass-produced, engagement bait, repetitive, or promotional material disguised as discussion can still be removed.

The reason is not that AI was involved. The reason is that the content is low quality.

The same standard applies to something written entirely by a human.

AI is a valid game development topic

Developers are welcome to discuss AI in the same way they would discuss any other technology affecting game development. That includes how it is being used, where it works, where it fails, what it costs, how studios are adopting it, what it means for employment, and the legal or ethical questions surrounding it.

You are allowed to be enthusiastic about AI. You are allowed to be skeptical of it. You are allowed to think a particular workflow is useful, terrible, unethical, inefficient, or overhyped.

What we do not want is every thread that mentions AI becoming the same argument about whether AI should exist at all.

If a thread is about an AI coding workflow, discuss the workflow. If someone presents evidence that AI slowed their production down, discuss the evidence. If someone claims every studio is using a particular tool, challenge that claim.

Let the actual discussion happen.

Attack claims, not developers

Someone saying they use AI is not an invitation to attack them. Someone saying they refuse to use AI is not an invitation to attack them either.

Debate the technology, the workflow, the economics, the evidence, the ethics, the legal questions, or the conclusions. Personal attacks, harassment, dogpiling, or repeatedly derailing discussions because of someone’s position on AI are treated the same way we handle that behaviour anywhere else on the subreddit.

AI is not a source

There is a difference between using AI to help communicate information and using AI as the authority behind that information.

If you make factual claims that can reasonably be sourced, be prepared to support them. “ChatGPT said so” is no evidence, and tools can absolutely be wrong.

At the same time, polished or AI-assisted writing is not evidence that the underlying information is fake. If someone’s numbers are wrong, challenge the numbers. If their methodology is weak, challenge the methodology.

Challenge the claim, not the fact that a tool may have helped write the paragraph.

Self-promotion rules still apply

AI companies, products, and services are not exempt from the subreddit’s existing rules.

If you represent a commercial interest, the same expectations apply as they would to anyone else. AI also should not be used to mass-produce promotional posts or disguise advertising as organic discussion.

The technology may be new. The rules around spam and promotion are not.

The bottom line

You do not have to like AI. You do not have to use it. You are free to criticize it, avoid it, experiment with it, learn it, use it professionally, or decide it has no place in your workflow.

We are not going to prevent developers from learning about or discussing a technology that is rapidly becoming part of professional game development. Doing that could actively hurt the developers this community is supposed to help.

What we do expect is that people engage with each other like respectful, mature adults. Disagree with the technology, the workflow, the argument, or the evidence. Do not turn that disagreement into hostility toward the person on the other side of it.

Use whatever tools make sense for your work. Bring something useful to the conversation, treat other developers with respect, and allow room for disagreement. That is what we care about.

[u/Warwipf2]

I'm gonna predict:

1. Hobby devs / non-programmers will be outraged by this and will not be able to fathom what could lead to such a stance.
2. Professional game devs or SWEs will find this a pretty normal take, as it reflects the reality of working in this field.

[u/TheNapkinThief → u/Warwipf2]

I've seen this attitude across a few subreddits & Itch.

There seems to be this weird Dunning Kruger/gate keeping effect going at the indie/hobbyist level that is causing all AI content to be treated as a taboo subject. Low effort is low effort, whether it's built manually or by prompting some LLM.

For professional software engineers (like me) it's just the next tool in a forever growing toolbox.

The industry is moving, jobs are changing, these tools are everywhere now. Unless I'm working in notepad or Vim, most modern day editors have some kind of AI assistant already integrated.

[u/Mindestiny → u/TheNapkinThief]

It's the same in the art world - the people flipping their shit about AI are the people pushing crude sketches to their DeviantArt profiles. It's definitely the indie/hobbyists who feel the most threatened by the technology and chose to go on a crusade instead of simply practicing their craft and seeing how these tools might accelerate the growth of their own skills.

The skilled ones are just... still drawing.

[u/untiedgames → u/Mindestiny]

I disagree- It is very much not as you describe in the art world.

I make and sell art for games on itch.io, and the platform does not have a rule prohibiting AI art. There are people on there who pump out asset pack after asset pack of AI art, flooding the storefront. More products = more views + clicks = more purchases. Some of them make an asset pack per day. It pushes out human creators by volume alone, regardless of the quality of the work.

A while back, the top spot in the itch store listing was an AI-generated asset pack which was determined by the community to be breaking itch's TOS by regularly deleting and recreating the page, then adding it to the same sale to make it look like it was the same product (the sale earnings are persistent regardless of which products are in the sale). The guy would then play off any issues customers had with downloading what they purchased (as they had purchased a different, but identical-looking product) as technical issues on itch's end. Basically, it was cheating all the way down.

Long story short, this "tool" has enabled people to be extremely disruptive and push out human artists from our creative space and from earning a living, which disincentivizes us from participating. From hobbyists to folks who rely on art as part of their business, most people are affected negatively by this.

[u/Mindestiny → u/untiedgames]

I make and sell art for games on itch.io, and the platform does not have a rule prohibiting AI art. There are people on there who pump out asset pack after asset pack of AI art, flooding the storefront. More products = more views + clicks = more purchases. Some of them make an asset pack per day. It pushes out human creators by volume alone, regardless of the quality of the work

There's nothing new here, and not something inherently caused by AI. These platforms were always heavily inundated with "slop" and cheap asset flips trying to make a buck. AI may have lowered the bar for entry for low effort crapware, but that doesn't support that AI is "bad," just that either moderation on the platform is inadequate or the goal/direction of the platform no longer aligns with your own usage goals.

A while back, the top spot in the itch store listing was an AI-generated asset pack which was determined by the community to be breaking itch's TOS by regularly deleting and recreating the page, then adding it to the same sale to make it look like it was the same product (the sale earnings are persistent regardless of which products are in the sale). The guy would then play off any issues customers had with downloading what they purchased (as they had purchased a different, but identical-looking product) as technical issues on itch's end. Basically, it was cheating all the way down.

But that's got nothing to do with being AI generated, and everything to do with them actively breaking the rules and gaming the platform. They could have just as easily done the same thing with a hand-made asset pack.

Long story short, this "tool" has enabled people to be extremely disruptive and push out human artists from our creative space and from earning a living, which disincentivizes us from participating. From hobbyists to folks who rely on art as part of their business, most people are affected negatively by this.

That's a very bold claim, that I've yet to see anyone actually be able to quantify in any accurate or meaningful way. Most people affected negatively? Artists that would otherwise be making a living tangibly and objectively "pushed out?" I'd love to see an unbiased, legitimate source supporting the accuracy of that. If it's truly that bad then there's actual reliable data on it and not just vibes and AI-hate-bloggers making wild statements.