Saber Interactive has taken the step of adding a formal AI usage disclaimer to the Steam store page for its title Rideshare Simulator after a wave of controversy erupted surrounding claims that the company had dismissed a writer working on the project in favor of content generated by artificial intelligence. The notice, posted directly on the game's storefront, serves both as an acknowledgment of the ongoing debate about AI in game development and as a response to specific allegations made by a former employee.
The full text of the disclaimer reads as follows: "This update follows comments from Saber CEO Matt Karch regarding writer Stella Sacco, who worked at Saber from July 2023 to July 2024, and stated she was removed from Rideshare midway through development and replaced with ChatGPT, while alleging other then-unannounced use of AI in the game's development." The background to the statement involves a series of public comments made by Stella Sacco, a writer who joined Saber Interactive in mid‑2023 and left a year later. Sacco asserted that midway through the development of Rideshare Simulator she was taken off the project and her responsibilities were handed over to an AI language model, specifically ChatGPT.
In addition to this claim, she suggested that other, undisclosed AI tools had been employed throughout the game's creation, raising questions about transparency, authorship, and the ethical use of machine‑generated text in a commercial product. In the wake of those accusations, Matt Karch, the chief executive officer of Saber Interactive, issued a rebuttal.
He said that Sacco was "replaced by someone more talented and terminated for a variety of reasons a few months later," and added a somewhat surprising remark that "in retrospect [he] would have been happy to replace her with AI." This comment was interpreted by many observers as an admission that AI could have been used as a substitute for a human writer, even if it was not actually done at the time. During an interview with the podcast This Week In Videogames, Karch further distanced himself from Sacco, stating, "Stella who? I had to ask Claude because I have never spoken to her or seen her." He explained that the company had already disclosed the use of AI for certain portions of the game and promised to update the Steam page once the feature set was finalized.
"We look at our use of AI in this particular game, which will be a lower priced title, as a plus for consumers," he added, framing the technology as a benefit rather than a controversy. The dispute continued on social media. Over the weekend, Sacco posted on the BlueSky platform that Karch had "apologised unreservedly for the awful way he spoke about me in the press." She wrote, "I've been firm from the beginning 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 took to LinkedIn to offer a more personal explanation for his earlier remarks.
In a public comment he admitted, "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. It happens and I am a human being. I have done what I can to rectify." This candid admission of an impulsive reaction was intended to soften the perception of his earlier defensive stance and to show a willingness to correct any missteps. The incident highlights a broader industry conversation about the role of AI in creative workflows.
Game developers have increasingly turned to language models for tasks ranging from writing dialogue and quest descriptions to generating marketing copy. Proponents argue that AI can accelerate production, reduce costs, and allow human creators to focus on higher‑level design.
Critics, however, warn that over‑reliance on machine‑generated text can diminish the quality of storytelling, undermine labor standards, and obscure accountability when errors or biases arise. In Saber Interactive's case, the company appears to be navigating a delicate balance. By adding the disclaimer, they are aiming for transparency, acknowledging that some AI tools were employed, while also defending the decision as a consumer benefit for a budget‑friendly title. The CEO's public apology and his admission of an emotional, rushed response suggest an effort to rebuild trust with both the former writer and the broader gaming community.
The situation also raises practical questions about how studios should document AI contributions. Clear attribution, internal policies, and external disclosures could become standard practice as the technology matures. For players, understanding whether a character's dialogue was crafted by a human or generated by an algorithm may influence their perception of authenticity and immersion. As the controversy unfolds, it remains to be seen how Saber Interactive will integrate AI moving forward and whether the company will adopt more robust guidelines for AI usage.
The added Steam disclaimer is a concrete step toward openness, but the long‑term impact will depend on how the studio addresses the concerns raised by Sacco, how it supports its creative staff, and how it communicates the benefits and limits of AI to its audience. In summary, Saber Interactive's recent actions—posting an AI disclaimer, issuing a public apology, and acknowledging an impulsive reaction—reflect a growing awareness within the gaming industry that transparency and responsible AI deployment are essential.
The episode serves as a case study for other developers grappling with similar decisions, illustrating both the potential advantages of AI assistance and the importance of handling human talent with respect and clear communication.