1666: Amsterdam’s developer says it ‘won’t be using AI anymore’, and the tech was only used ‘in conception and pre-production’—arguably the most creative phase of the entire process
The developer behind the video game 1666: Amsterdam has said it will no longer use artificial intelligence tools in its work, following earlier acknowledgement that AI had been used during the project. The disclosure is notable because it touches on a wider debate within the games industry over the use of generative AI in creative development, and whether such tools undermine the authenticity of a game's artistic process.
According to the studio, AI was only used during the "conception and pre-production" stages of 1666: Amsterdam, phases often regarded as among the most creative parts of game-making, since they shape a project's core ideas and direction. The developer's decision to stop using AI going forward suggests a response to criticism or concern about the technology's role in creative decision-making, though the article does not detail the specific backlash or reasoning that prompted the change.
- 1666: Amsterdam's developer says it will stop using AI tools
- AI was previously used only in early conception and pre-production stages
- Move reflects ongoing industry debate over AI's role in game creativity
New here? Start with this
Amsterdam-based studio Vlambeer's 1666: Amsterdam is a video game currently in development. The studio recently confirmed that artificial intelligence tools had been used at some stage of the project, and has now said it will stop using AI going forward.
The disclosure feeds into a broader, ongoing argument in the video games industry about the use of generative AI in creative work. Many developers, artists and players have raised concerns that AI tools can undermine the originality and craft behind a game, particularly when used in the stages where ideas and artistic direction are formed, rather than in more routine technical tasks.
This matters because how studios use AI, and how transparent they are about it, has become a sensitive issue that can affect a game's reception among fans and within the industry. The case of 1666: Amsterdam is one example of a developer responding to that pressure, though the exact criticism or events that led to its decision have not been fully detailed.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those sympathetic to the studio's original use of AI would argue that tools are tools, and that using generative AI to explore ideas or speed up early brainstorming in conception and pre-production is no different in principle from using mood boards, stock imagery or concept-art references drawn from other artists' work. They would note that the human team still made the final creative decisions, that AI can widen the range of ideas considered before committing resources, and that penalising experimentation with a nascent technology risks stifling smaller studios who lack the budgets of major publishers.
The case against
Critics who welcome the studio's reversal would argue that conception and pre-production are precisely where a game's soul is forged, and that outsourcing this stage to generative models risks diluting the authentic authorial vision that players and artists value most. They would point to concerns over AI systems being trained on other creators' work without consent or compensation, and argue that studios have a responsibility to be transparent about, and ultimately to limit, AI's role in creative labour, especially in an industry already anxious about job displacement and the erosion of craft.