Saber Interactive has recently updated the Steam store page for its title Rideshare Simulator to include a formal disclaimer about the use of artificial intelligence in the game's development. The move comes after a heated public dispute in which former staff member Stella Sacco claimed she was removed from the project and supplanted by AI‑generated content, specifically ChatGPT, during a critical phase of production. The controversy sparked a wave of commentary across gaming news outlets, social media, and industry forums, prompting the company’s leadership to clarify its stance and address the allegations head‑on.
The newly added notice reads in full: "This update follows remarks made by Saber Interactive CEO Matt Karch concerning former writer Stella Sacco, who was employed by the studio from July 2023 until July 2024. Sacco alleges that she was taken off the Rideshare Simulator team midway through development and that her responsibilities were subsequently filled by an AI language model. She also claims that other, as‑yet‑undisclosed AI tools were employed throughout the creation of the game." In his public response, Karch attempted to refute the specifics of Sacco’s accusations while simultaneously acknowledging a broader willingness to experiment with AI.
He said, "Stella was replaced by a colleague who we believed brought a higher level of expertise to the project, and she was let go a few months later for a variety of reasons. In hindsight, I would have been comfortable substituting her role with an AI system if it had aligned with our goals." He further added, "I had to ask Claude—our internal AI assistant—because I have never actually spoken to or met Stella in person.
We have already disclosed that we are using AI for certain components of the game and will update the Steam page once the feature set is finalized." Karch framed the use of AI as a consumer benefit, stating, "We view our integration of artificial intelligence in this lower‑priced title as an added value for players, offering enhanced experiences without inflating the price point." This framing aligns with a growing trend in the industry where developers leverage machine‑learning tools for tasks ranging from procedural content generation to dialogue writing, often touting the technology as a cost‑saving measure that can also improve quality. The dispute escalated when Sacco posted on the social networking platform BlueSky over the weekend, noting that Karch had "apologised unreservedly for the terrible way he spoke about me in the press." She wrote, "From the start I have stood firm that my account was truthful; it now appears that the facts have been corroborated. Matt expressed a desire to make amends, but I am still processing what that might look like for me.
I do, however, accept his apology." Sacco’s statement underscored the emotional toll that public professional conflicts can take, especially when they involve claims of being replaced by non‑human technology. In a separate LinkedIn post, Karch offered a more personal reflection on his conduct. "I unfortunately got triggered by certain later comments—reasons I won’t disclose—and reacted impulsively before thinking through my response," he admitted.
"It happens, and I am only human. I have taken steps to rectify the situation to the best of my ability." This candid admission of a lapse in judgment resonated with many observers who noted that rapid, emotionally charged reactions are common in high‑stakes corporate communications, particularly when reputational risk is perceived. The broader context of this controversy touches on several hot topics within the gaming community. First, the ethical implications of replacing human writers with AI remain a point of contention.
Critics argue that AI‑generated prose can lack the nuance, cultural awareness, and emotional depth that a seasoned writer brings to a narrative, potentially diminishing the artistic integrity of a game. Proponents, on the other hand, highlight the efficiency gains, cost reductions, and ability to iterate quickly that AI tools provide, especially for smaller studios working under tight budgets. Second, the incident raises questions about transparency. Players increasingly demand clear communication about how AI is used in the products they purchase.
By adding the disclaimer, Saber Interactive appears to be taking a step toward greater openness, though some skeptics wonder whether the notice is sufficient or merely a reactive measure aimed at damage control. Finally, the personal dynamics between Karch and Sacco illustrate how corporate decisions can become deeply personal.
Sacco’s claim that she was removed without prior discussion and replaced by an algorithmic system paints a picture of a workplace where technological adoption may outpace human resource considerations. Karch’s later apology, while acknowledging a misstep in tone, does not fully address the underlying concern of whether AI should ever supplant a human writer in a creative role. As the gaming industry continues to experiment with AI, incidents like this will likely serve as case studies for how studios navigate the balance between innovation and respect for their creative staff. For now, Saber Interactive’s updated Steam page serves as a public record of the company’s stance, and the ongoing dialogue between Karch and Sacco provides a human element to a debate that is otherwise dominated by technical specifications and business strategy.
Whether this episode will lead to more robust policies on AI usage, clearer contractual language for employees, or simply become a footnote in the evolving narrative of game development remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the conversation around AI, authorship, and accountability is far from settled, and both developers and players will continue to watch closely as new precedents are set.