Hold

>as it can seriously damage the public's perception.
nope. It will cause butthurt in people who are 0.1% of possible sales, though, and will cause a lot of misguided people to start talking about stuff they don't fully understand.

Instead of spreading FUD, read the market studies - plural. Not just the one study from Game Oracle reposted over and over again. People don't care for AI use as long as it's not slop. If they did, 90% AAA+ games wouldn't sell nowadays. There is literally one market study that could prove otherwise, if not for the fact it doesn't. It says that games that disclosed AI usage had 53% less reviews, but it doesn't establish an AI usage in a good game->lost sales implication in any way, if anything it says that big studios are more likely to receive AI backlash for their games if the quality is lacking (and it usually is, most AAA+ is pure crap nowadays, and has been that way for years, even before gen AI came to the scene).

Think about it. It just says that AI slop doesn't get much reviews, and potentially less sales, that's it. It doesn't say that games using AI gens/LLMs sell less. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Also, the difference in median score is negligible (~4% rating score), meaning there is no general strong negative attitude that could be measured.

Also, even the study's authors say, quote: "TLDR: AI Is Neutral For Beginners" (i.e. not big publishers) and "So what is our conclusion? AI is a tool, it should not be avoided. Would you avoid using a hammer to build a shed? No, of course not." - straight from the horse's mouth.

Also, the study itself is from about a year ago. That's ages in current era. The landscape changes quite quickly, it's just a couple of years since gen AI was made publicly available, same with legal landscape.