Critic Calls Out Kotaku's AI Coverage

Techdirt contributor Timothy Geigner published a June 23, 2026 opinion piece arguing that Kotaku's coverage of AI in gaming has devolved into dogma. Geigner, who describes himself as a long-time Kotaku reader, does not dispute that readers and commentators are entitled to oppose AI in games -- he argues those voices are necessary for healthy debate. His target is Kotaku's journalists, whom he says apply blanket negative judgment to any AI use before gathering evidence on the specific game or application.

The first is a Steam Next Fest article by Zack Zwiezen, who used an AI-disclosure browser extension to flag games with generative AI content and described the experience as 'depressing' after finding AI disclaimers on 10 of 16 games he checked. Geigner notes that Zwiezen acknowledged some studios cited resource constraints or minimal, human-reviewed AI use -- yet the mere presence of a disclosure was enough to sour the coverage. The second is a Fortnite piece by Rebekah Valentine, who questioned whether Epic's use of AI art tools matters given that the company laid off 1,000 people three months prior. Geigner calls this framing 'lazy,' arguing Epic's layoffs were driven by revenue shortfalls and post-pandemic overexpansion, not AI adoption.

Geigner cites Wikipedia data on 2022-2026 video game industry layoffs, arguing that layoffs peaked in 2024 and have been declining since. He contends that attributing current cuts to AI -- while high-profile layoffs at Epic and Microsoft remain fresh -- represents selection bias. The macro trend, he writes, does not support the narrative that AI is driving an accelerating wave of job losses across the industry.

The central claim is one of journalistic standards. Geigner is not asking critics to endorse AI in games; he writes that those voices are valuable. But he argues that condemning any and all AI use before evaluating a game's actual qualities is 'not journalism' -- it is dogma dressed as criticism. 'Bad use of AI will produce bad games and the market will respond,' he writes. 'Judging any and all uses as bad before you know anything else about a game is not the job of a journalist.'