"PUBG" Lead Discusses AI—Will Players Really Buy In?

They made a very typical trade-off here: putting AI into the production pipeline first, rather than stuffing it directly into the layer of content players can perceive. Recently, in an interview with IGN, PUBG lead Taeseok Jang spoke about AI. His core stance was not aggressive and can basically be summed up in one sentence: as long as it does not harm the experience, he is not opposed to using it. From a development perspective, this is a very professional position, because it protects the product’s baseline first while leaving room for the technology to be tested and refined.

Taeseok Jang was also very frank, saying that he is still in the observation and research phase and has not yet formed a particularly clear final position. That may sound conservative, but in today’s industry environment, it is actually more credible than loudly calling for “full AI adoption” all at once. The reason is that AI in games is not a single-point feature; it is connected to art pipelines, review mechanisms, copyright risks, and player trust. If any one of those links fails, the consequences will ultimately show up at the experience level.

From a design perspective, PUBG Studios currently positions AI as a productivity tool, using it to automate repetitive labor rather than directly generate final development content. That boundary is drawn very clearly. Put simply, they are letting AI handle the heavy lifting, organization, and acceleration first, rather than having it directly decide what characters look like, how scenes are built, or how details are polished. This approach resembles a textbook middle-layer design: it can improve efficiency while also avoiding the kinds of direct clashes most likely to spark controversy.

The problem is that players are already extremely sensitive to AI now. As the article mentions, AI-generated content can produce flaws such as incorrect fingers or distorted building perspective, and those are exactly the kinds of issues core players are most likely to spot. For a game that emphasizes immersion and tactical judgment, once the art details start to feel “machine-made,” players will not just feel pulled out of the experience; they will also start to question whether the development team is cutting corners or rushing the work.

Comparable cases are already right in front of us. For example, Crimson Desert developer Pearl Abyss previously drew attention over its use of AI, and later stated that the related generated content was not part of the final project and began removing it. On the other side, Warframe developer Digital Extremes is seen as a representative opponent of AI. It is clear that there is no unified answer within the industry: players, developers, and publishers are already discussing the same issue from different frames of reference.

From a business logic standpoint, this trend is unlikely to reverse in the short term. The article mentions that Krafton is positioned as an “AI-first” company. Against the backdrop of economic pressure and ever-expanding project scope, publishers will naturally pursue cost reduction and efficiency gains. Added to that are pressures such as Krafton’s previous downsizing and disputes surrounding Subnautica 2, making it even less likely that management would give up any tool that can improve efficiency. But a tool is a tool, and trust is an entirely different system. Once players feel that developers are using AI to replace careful craftsmanship, the backlash will come quickly.

So my judgment on this statement is: the PUBG team is currently taking a cautious trial approach rather than going all in. This pace is actually reasonable. Let AI take on automated repetitive tasks first, then observe whether it can steadily support “novel and interesting experiences”—that is far safer than putting AI-generated content directly on the table. For players, what really deserves attention is not the slogans, but whether the perceptible content in future versions shows any obvious decline in quality. As long as the final experience remains solid, most people will accept upgrades to behind-the-scenes workflows; but if the details start to give it away, the community’s backlash will not be gentle.