Saber Interactive has taken the step of adding a formal artificial‑intelligence disclaimer to the Steam listing for its title Rideshare Simulator after a wave of controversy erupted over claims that the company had dismissed a writer working on the project in favor of AI‑generated text. The notice, which now appears prominently on the game's store page, is intended to clarify the extent of AI usage and to address the concerns raised by the public and the media. The full disclaimer reads as follows: "This update follows remarks made by Saber CEO Matt Karch concerning former writer Stella Sacco, who was employed by Saber from July 2023 until July 2024.
Ms. Sacco alleges that she was removed from the Rideshare project midway through its development cycle and that her responsibilities were subsequently taken over by ChatGPT.
She also claims that other, still‑undisclosed AI tools were employed during the creation of the game." In a public statement, Karch countered the allegations, saying that Sacco "was replaced by someone we considered more talented and was terminated for a range of reasons a few months later." He added a reflective comment that, "in hindsight, I would have been comfortable substituting her work with AI if that had been an option." During an interview with the podcast This Week In Videogames, Karch admitted a surprising level of unfamiliarity with the former employee. "Stella who?
I had to ask Claude because I have never spoken to her or seen her," he said, referencing an AI chatbot named Claude. He went on to explain that the studio had already disclosed that AI would be used for specific components of the game and that a more detailed update would be posted to the Steam page once the feature set was finalized. Karch framed the deployment of AI in the lower‑priced title as a benefit for consumers, arguing that it could lower production costs and potentially result in a more affordable product for players. He stated, "We view our use of AI in this particular game as a positive for the end‑user, especially given the game's modest price point." The controversy reached a personal climax over the weekend when Sacco posted on the social media platform BlueSky, noting that Karch had "apologised unreservedly for the awful way he spoke about me in the press." She wrote, "From the start I've been firm that I was telling the truth; I think we can all now agree that it’s been borne out.
Matt expressed a desire to make it right with me; at this time I don't really know what that looks like for me, and I'll have to take some time to sit with it, but I do at least accept his apology." Karch also issued a separate public comment on LinkedIn, attempting to contextualise his earlier, more aggressive reaction. "I unfortunately got triggered by certain later comments (for reasons I won't get into) and shot first and thought second about how to respond," he wrote.
"It happens and I am a human being. I have done what I can to rectify." The broader industry reaction to the incident has been mixed. Some observers see the episode as a cautionary tale about the rapid integration of AI tools into creative pipelines, especially when human contributors feel sidelined or replaced.
Others argue that the use of AI for certain repetitive or data‑heavy tasks can free up writers and designers to focus on higher‑level storytelling and design challenges. From a legal standpoint, there are still unanswered questions about employment contracts, intellectual property rights, and the extent to which AI‑generated content can be considered a derivative work of a human writer's ideas. If a developer replaces a human writer with a large language model, it could potentially raise disputes over authorship and compensation, particularly if the AI output draws heavily on the departing writer's prior contributions. Ethically, the situation underscores the importance of transparency.
Players increasingly expect studios to be open about the tools and processes behind their games, especially when AI could influence narrative tone, dialogue, or even world‑building. By adding the disclaimer, Saber Interactive is taking a step toward meeting those expectations, though critics note that the timing—coming after public outcry—suggests the move may be more reactive than proactive.
The episode also highlights the emotional toll such disputes can take on individuals. Sacco's statements convey a sense of betrayal and a desire for acknowledgment, while Karch's admission of an impulsive reaction reflects the pressures executives face when navigating public relations crises. Both parties have expressed a willingness to move forward, but the path to reconciliation remains uncertain. Looking ahead, the gaming community will be watching how Saber Interactive implements its AI features in Rideshare Simulator.
Will the AI be used primarily for procedural content generation, such as dynamic traffic patterns or vehicle physics? Or will it extend to narrative elements like NPC dialogue and mission descriptions? The answer could set a precedent for future mid‑tier titles that aim to balance cost efficiency with creative integrity. In conclusion, the addition of the AI disclaimer on Steam marks a pivotal moment for Saber Interactive.
It reflects both a response to public concern and an acknowledgment of the evolving role of artificial intelligence in game development. As the industry continues to experiment with AI, the need for clear communication, fair coffin, and respectful treatment of human talent will remain paramount.
The dialogue between Sacco, Karch, and the wider community serves as a reminder that technology should augment—not replace—the unique contributions of creative professionals.