Cygames Promises No Generative AI in Games Without Notice After Fan Backlash Over New Cygames AI Studio
Cygames, the Japanese developer behind Granblue Fantasy, Shadowverse, and Umamusume Pretty Derby, has issued a public apology and a clear policy statement after receiving heavy backlash from fans over the creation of a new subsidiary called Cygames AI Studio.
The controversy began after Cygames announced the new division in a Japanese language post, positioning Cygames AI Studio as a team meant to pursue AI technology that creators can use safely and securely, based on the studio’s experience in game development. In the announcement, the company described its ambition to build a unique creative cycle that goes beyond efficiency, with the stated goal of expanding creators’ creativity and creating new user experiences aligned with Cygames’ vision of creating the best content.
That messaging, however, hit a volatile moment in the broader games industry, where generative AI remains one of the most polarizing topics across art communities, development teams, and players. Many fans interpreted the new subsidiary as a signal that Cygames might begin integrating generative AI into its production pipeline, especially in areas like art assets, writing, or content generation. The response was swift and intense, particularly from supporters who view Cygames as a studio that has historically leaned on strong art direction and high quality handcrafted presentation.
In response, Cygames published a public letter of apology in English, acknowledging that its initial communication failed to address the real world concerns and ongoing social debates around generative AI. More importantly, the company made a direct promise designed to remove ambiguity. Cygames stated that art produced from generative AI is not used in its products and that it will not implement generative AI into its products without prior notice. The letter also emphasized respect for creators and artists, and reaffirmed that the art for current Cygames games and products is created through the technical know how and manual work of its staff.
— Cygames (@Cygames_EN) January 14, 2026
This is not happening in a vacuum. Cygames is only the latest studio to be pulled into a public conflict over generative AI usage, disclosure, and trust. Recent debates across the industry have shown that even experimentation with AI for early stage work can trigger major backlash if players believe it threatens the role of artists, undermines creative integrity, or introduces ethical and legal risk into the production pipeline. For fans, the concern is rarely just about technology. It is about whether the studio’s identity and creative standards will shift behind the scenes, then quietly surface in game content without transparency.
Cygames’ vow, especially the line that it will not implement generative AI into its games without prior notice, is effectively a trust and governance commitment. It sets an expectation of disclosure before implementation, not after controversy. In a market where community perception can materially affect live service retention, franchise goodwill, and long tail monetization, that kind of forward facing promise is also a strategic move to stabilize sentiment before speculation hardens into permanent brand damage.
The bigger takeaway is that the industry is entering a phase where AI announcements cannot be vague. Players want specifics. What is being used, what is not, where it is applied, what data policies exist, and whether humans remain accountable for final creative output. Cygames has now put a stake in the ground on that front, and its future communications around Cygames AI Studio will likely be judged by whether they stay aligned with the clarity and respect that the apology letter tried to reinforce.
Where do you personally draw the line for generative AI in games, is it acceptable for internal tooling and productivity only, or should studios avoid it entirely to protect creative integrity and artist trust?
