House House, the Australian studio behind Big Walk, has confirmed that it used generative AI during the final stages of development, although the developers insist its involvement was extremely limited. The disclosure comes amid a growing dispute among Independent Games Festival (IGF) judges and jurors, with 19 members publicly pledging not to vote for any game that used generative AI in any capacity.
House House estimates that well under 0.1% of Big Walk’s code was connected to its use of large language models (LLMs), which were primarily employed to investigate technical problems and bugs. However, the revelation has already contributed to disagreements among IGF jury members, particularly given the distinction between using AI to generate creative content and using it to help write code.
House House Explains How AI Was Used in Big Walk
The controversy arrives as the industry becomes increasingly divided over generative AI. House House has since updated the FAQ section of the game’s official website to explain exactly how the technology was used. According to the studio, LLMs were used sparingly during the final stretch of Big Walk’s development to help resolve difficult technical problems. In some cases, the developers copied snippets from chatbot responses as starting points before modifying them into working game code.
House House provided a specific example involving a performance problem with Unity’s Universal Render Pipeline (URP). The developers needed to cull shadow casters based on their distance from the camera, but Unity’s system only allowed distance-based culling in the direction the camera was facing. Consequently, shadows behind the player continued rendering at effectively infinite distances.
The team says it researched the problem extensively, examined the underlying URP code and even consulted a Unity engineer, who ultimately concluded that the desired result wasn’t possible. After several unsuccessful attempts, an LLM chatbot suggested a possible workaround.
The developers also clarified why the information wasn’t previously available through the game’s Steam listing. The studio says it originally prepared a version of the disclosure as a suggested part of its IGF submission, but Steam doesn’t request disclosures for code or chatbot usage. House House has now published the information because it has become a matter of public interest.
Importantly, the developers aren’t presenting this as an endorsement of generative AI. House House said it supports efforts to limit the technology’s potential harm to the games industry, adding that it worries voluntary disclosures could contribute to normalizing AI or treating its adoption as inevitable.
The studio also admitted that Big Walk was developed without an internal AI usage policy, describing that absence as a failure. It intends to introduce a more comprehensive policy for future projects.
IGF Jurors Refuse to Vote for Games Using Generative AI
The disclosure comes just after 19 members of the 2027 Independent Games Festival jury published a statement opposing the use of generative AI in game development. The group says it will decline to vote for any submitted game that uses the technology, regardless of whether it’s employed for artwork, music, writing, voice acting or programming.
The jurors argue that AI-generated code shouldn’t be treated differently from other generated material, stating that “Programming is a creative discipline” deserving the same respect as other parts of game development. Their concerns also include the environmental impact of generative AI, its economic effects on artists and developers, potential damage to creative workers’ bargaining power and the use of copyrighted work in training datasets without creators’ consent.
Importantly, the statement doesn’t represent every IGF judge or juror, nor does it establish an official festival-wide prohibition. The signatories explicitly acknowledge that other jury members hold different perspectives, with some expressing reservations about signing publicly because of potential professional repercussions.
The studio’s disclosure has also raised questions about where the industry should draw the line. Is there a meaningful distinction between using an LLM to research a technical problem and using it to generate finished creative assets? Should AI-assisted programming carry the same implications as replacing an artist or writer with generated material? No one has easy answers.
There’s also a question of how storefronts should handle disclosures, as shown by Valve’s AI stance and the growing dispute over AI games on Steam. House House’s initial lack of disclosure is an interesting test case because the developers had already exhausted conventional research and sought advice from a human Unity engineer before turning to a chatbot. They also substantially modified the eventual suggestion rather than simply inserting generated code into the game.
House House’s Other Recent Controversy Involved Xbox
This isn’t the first time House House has attracted attention for taking an unusually firm public position. Last month, the studio confirmed that Big Walk wouldn’t be coming to Xbox, citing its support for the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
In its official statement regarding Xbox, House House explained that Microsoft and Xbox had been designated priority boycott targets by the BDS movement. The developers said they would not release the game on Microsoft’s console platforms until the company and/or Xbox were removed from that list.
The AI disclosure isn’t directly related to that platform decision, but both announcements demonstrate House House’s willingness to publicly address its principles, even when doing so risks upsetting part of its audience.
The Last Word on Big Walk’s AI Controversy
House House’s disclosure highlights just how complicated discussions surrounding generative AI have become. The studio isn’t claiming that its use was entirely absent, but the limited technical application it describes is considerably different from using AI to produce a game’s artwork, soundtrack or narrative.
That distinction won’t necessarily satisfy the 19 IGF jurors who have pledged to reject any game involving generative AI, and House House’s lack of an internal policy leaves legitimate questions about its development practices. Still, whether a roughly 10-line technical fix should carry the same weight as replacing creative contributors with AI is a debate the industry will need to address sooner rather than later.
Featured Image Credit
Image via Steam
