According to Polygon, the sequel to the 2016 hack-and-slash game Let It Die, titled Let It Die: Inferno, has a surprise launch date of December 3. Developer Supertrick Games disclosed on the game’s Steam page that it used AI-generated content, which was then edited by the team, for certain parts of the in-game voices, music, and graphics. Specifically, AI was used for “some parts” of background signboard textures, Records images, InfoCast videos, voice acting, and the musical score. The original Let It Die was a free-to-play title with a “mostly positive” Steam user score and did not use AI. The studio has not yet issued a formal statement addressing the AI use, but player backlash on platforms like Reddit has already begun, with some declaring they won’t play the game because of it.
The AI disclosure and immediate backlash
Here’s the thing: Steam now requires developers to disclose AI use, and Supertrick Games did just that. But that transparency might have backfired. By stating that “some parts” of the voice and music are AI-generated, they’ve created a huge question mark. How much is “some”? Is it ambient crowd noise, or is it major character dialogue? The lack of clarity is fueling suspicion. And players aren’t waiting for an explanation. On Reddit, the reaction has been swift and negative, with one fan quipping, “Let It Die then.” It’s a pretty brutal punchline that sums up the sentiment. This isn’t a theoretical debate about AI in art anymore—it’s a concrete reason for fans of a cult classic to skip the sequel on day one.
The broader context for game creators
This situation lands right in the middle of an ongoing, heated battle over AI in creative industries. Remember, SAG-AFTRA’s video game voice actors just spent nearly a year on strike, and a core part of that fight was securing protections against AI replication. They won those protections, but as this case shows, those rules don’t prevent a studio from simply generating original voice content with AI tools. So the fear for performers is real. For developers, especially smaller teams like Supertrick Games, the appeal is obvious: AI can be a cheap and fast way to generate assets for a game with a presumably tight budget. But is it worth the reputational cost? When your game’s announcement is dominated by controversy over its tools rather than excitement for its gameplay, that’s a serious problem. They’re banking on the game’s quality to overcome the stigma, but that’s a risky bet.
What this means for gamers and the market
For players, this is becoming a new factor in the purchasing decision. It’s not just about genre or graphics anymore; it’s about the ethics of production. Some gamers will boycott on principle, others might not care as long as the final product is good. But the ambiguity hurts. If a studio is proud of its AI implementation, why not be specific? The vague “some parts” disclosure feels like they’re hoping we won’t notice or mind. And look, AI is already everywhere in game development—from upscaling textures to bug testing. But generative AI for core creative elements like voice and music hits different. It feels like a replacement, not an assist. As more games like Gods Death Reapers or major titles use these tools, this debate will only get louder. The success or failure of *Let It Die: Inferno* could become a case study for other studios watching from the sidelines, wondering just how much AI their audience will tolerate.
