Epic is replacing devs with AI – and I’m deeply concerned
First, they laid off 1,000 people, now AI’s set to write all their code. Epic Games is showing where we’re headed and why we should be very worried.
«No more hand-written code.»
This was ordered by a game director at Epic Games according to Bloomberg. The game affected by this decision is a shooter developed in collaboration with Disney. It features characters from Star Wars and Marvel. The game was due to be released in March 2027, but was postponed because it’s behind schedule. To make up for lost time, artificial intelligence is set to do a large part of the development work.
And not just the coding. All of the game’s visual content will also be created using AI according to the internal directive. And the people? They still get to give instructions, monitor and make corrections. Epic calls this «AI-accelerated development,» where their own devs continue to have the creative lead.
Sounds reassuring. That’s until I remember Epic laying off about 1,000 employees only last March. Officially, the job cuts were due to declining Fortnite revenue, not AI. Nevertheless, this raises an uncomfortable question: How much will companies be willing to pay for human labour in the future if machines can take over part of it?
When is AI «good enough»?
In my opinion, we usually ask the wrong question in the AI debate. Can artificial intelligence make better movies than Christopher Nolan? Play a more believable character than Meryl Streep? Develop a better video game than the people who gave us The Witcher 3, Baldur’s Gate 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2? Probably not. Probably never.
But what if that doesn’t even matter?
Source: Larian Studios
Companies aren’t obliged to make the best product they can. All they need is enough people buying the end result. Let’s assume, one day, an AI were to deliver 80 per cent of the quality at 20 per cent of the cost. I’d like to see the executive board justify to shareholders why they still plan on spending five times as much.
Of course, quality matters. After all, it fuels enthusiasm, word-of-mouth promotion and long-term success. But it’s not the sole factor in a financial calculation. And that’s what worries me. Why? Because somewhere between AI slop and human masterpieces lies a vast realm that could be very interesting from a financial point of view.
This realm is called «good enough.»
From assistant to substitute
I’m not fundamentally opposed to artificial intelligence. Quite the opposite. It was only last week that we spoke about how AI is already changing the modding scene on our Swiss-German podcast. In other words, how the community of fans who modify, expand or even completely rebuild existing video games are getting help from artificial intelligence.
No doubt, AI offers some fascinating possibilities. If you have a great idea but don’t know how to code, you’ve suddenly gained access to tools that were previously unavailable to you. Small development teams can suddenly tackle larger projects. Time-consuming troubleshooting can be sped up. So why not use it?
The problem begins when a tool becomes a substitute. Especially for young people. Let’s assume you’re a young programmer who’s landed their first job at a game studio. Back in the day, you would’ve been given simple tasks at first: reviewing code, fixing bugs and tweaking functions. Not exactly glamorous stuff. But it allowed you to learn from experienced colleagues, make mistakes and grow with every new task.
When AI’s assigned these tasks instead, the company will save money and time right away. Wonderful. But who will train up the next generation of experienced developers? This problem is by no means limited to the gaming industry. Graphic designers, voice actors, screenwriters, editors and special effects artists are also affected.
«Stop exaggerating, Luca. Jobs have always been subject to change. But then new ones are created that require other skills,» I can hear sceptics say. And perhaps they have a point. However, if companies stop hiring humans to carry out skilled jobs, I wonder where new experts are supposed to come from.
Hollywood’s tasted blood
This trend can already be seen in the film industry. Only recently, the thriller Deadly Patient was ridiculed for its abysmal German AI dubbing. So much so that Amazon took it down from Prime Video.
However, Amazon didn’t react by saying it would stop using AI dubs in the future. The company merely dealt with the quality issue of the dubbing of this one film and not the problem of the method behind it. This important distinction was quickly lost amid the general schadenfreude.
The case of Nicolas Cage also illustrates just how far Amazon is willing to go in this regard. According to Variety, the actor refused to sign an AI waiver for Spider-Noir. What’s juicy is that Amazon dropped the series after just one season, despite rave reviews and eleven Emmy nominations. It’s unclear whether Cage’s refusal played a role in this, but it’s likely. In any case, he doesn’t plan on working with Amazon again. It’s an impressive message to everyone with less negotiating power than a Hollywood star.
At the same time, computer-generated actor Tilly Norwood has landed her first leading role. Her creator, Eline van der Velden, states lower production costs as one of the reasons for Tilly’s existence. Sure, AI could help studios create elaborate film sequences they wouldn’t normally have the budget for. That could be a genuine plus. Especially for smaller productions that simply didn’t have the means to dream big until now.
But let’s not kid ourselves. What might enable small studios to finally realise their dream film can just as well be used by large companies to cut jobs. After all, the technology doesn’t distinguish between artistic ambition and profit optimisation. It’s people who make the decisions. And their interests aren’t always the same.
«Who even wants to watch this AI slop?»
That’s probably the argument I hear most. And I get it. I also roll my eyes at all those AI-generated movie trailers, soulless songs or half-finished video games on social media, whose only distinctive feature is that someone created them using a prompt.
But how long will this be the case for? An AI-generated Warcraft fan film recently generated a lot of buzz – despite its obvious flaws. Have we already reached the point where AI-generated entertainment is «good enough» for most people?
We’re part of a generation that grew up in a world without generative AI. We watched movies that came alive thanks to actors, directors and entire film crews. We listened to music made by people who spent years learning to play their instruments, composing and practising. We know how many years of hard graft go into making a good video game.
This shapes our expectations. And our pushback. But what about the generation that’s currently growing up with AI-generated videos, voices and games? Might they, at some point, no longer take flesh-and-blood singers or actors for granted?
I’m not saying this generation is less demanding. Or less creative. In fact, they might even develop a particularly keen sense of what constitutes good art. Perhaps entertainment created by humans will one day become a sought-after seal of quality. I certainly hope so. But can I be certain of it? Would I put my money on today’s pushback having the same gravity ten years down the line? Or twenty? I feel that’s a bit too optimistic.
And that’s precisely what companies have likely been speculating on for quite some time. When a heavyweight like Epic Games tells its shocked employees they’re no longer expected to write code by hand, we’re looking at more than just an experiment. Instead, it might well serve as a model for an entire industry. Should it turn out that AI makes production faster and cheaper, other companies are unlikely to sit on their hands for long. And why should they? What’s still considered a radical step today could very well be the new normal tomorrow.
A normality where the result doesn’t have to be spectacular. Nor unforgettable.
But merely good enough.
Update, 14 October, 10:28 a.m.:
Microsoft is also tightening operations. Xbox head Asha Sharma has announced a new division called Xbox Labs, which will explore how AI agents can bring older games to new platforms and simplify game development. As recently as February, Sharma had promised not to flood Xbox with soulless AI junk.
So is this a contradiction? Not necessarily. But here, too, the question arises: What happens when AI takes over tasks that previously required entire teams of developers? Microsoft says there’ll be new creative possibilities. I wonder how long it will be before these alleged possibilities turn into an austerity programme.
Update, 15 October, 10:07 a.m.:
Epic Games has proudly announced that they’ve vibe-coded their launcher from scratch because «programming is hard». In other words, AI is revising the code based on prompts. Epic says the new launcher is so good it’s now even faster than Steam. Say no more.
I write about technology as if it were cinema, and about films as if they were real life. Between bits and blockbusters, I’m after stories that move people, not just generate clicks. And yes – sometimes I listen to film scores louder than I probably should.
This is a subjective opinion of the editorial team. It doesn't necessarily reflect the position of the company.
Show all
