The CEO publicly admitted to using generative AI in the upcoming title. This usage was not disclosed on Steam, violating platform policy.
Key Fact. Saber Interactive confirmed generative AI use in 'Rideshare Stimulator' while admitting the company failed to disclose this usage on Steam.
Former lead writer Stella Sacco claimed she was replaced by ChatGPT during development. Saber Interactive stated its writing staff has tripled since 2023 and the game's script was human-authored.
Matthew Karch disparaged the former employee and admitted to using AI for game features. He also suggested he would have preferred to replace the writer with AI from the start.
The company maintains its AI use is for powering a free-ride mode with infinite passengers. Saber insists none of its 3,000+ employees are at risk of replacement by the technology.
Games Workshop has a strict anti-AI policy for its content and designs.
Industry Concern. The incident has drawn attention to the potential for reputational risk and conflict with IP partners, such as Games Workshop.
The controversy surrounding Saber Interactive’s upcoming title, Rideshare Stimulator, serves as a case study in the growing friction between game industry leadership and creative labor regarding the integration of generative AI. The conflict emerged when a former lead writer publicly alleged that the studio replaced human writers with ChatGPT during development and utilized AI for passenger dialogue without proper disclosure on Steam. Saber Interactive initially denied replacing staff, asserting that its writing team had tripled since 2023 and that the game’s story was human-authored, though it acknowledged using AI to generate an infinite number of passenger interactions.
The situation escalated significantly following a public statement from Saber CEO Matthew Karch. In a highly inflammatory response, Karch dismissed the former writer’s claims, admitted to the use of undisclosed AI features, and suggested that he would have preferred to replace the writer with AI entirely. This public outburst effectively undermined the company’s initial PR efforts, drawing further scrutiny to the studio’s adherence to platform disclosure policies and its internal management culture.
This incident highlights a broader trend of executive-level volatility and a perceived disregard for industry norms and labor relations. By publicly confirming the use of generative tools while simultaneously attacking former employees, the studio’s leadership has intensified the debate over the ethical implementation of AI in game development. The episode raises questions about the potential for future regulatory or contractual consequences, particularly regarding how major intellectual property holders, such as Games Workshop, might evaluate their partnerships with studios that prioritize aggressive AI adoption over established creative practices.