Saber Interactive has recently updated the Steam storefront for its title Rideshare Simulator to include a clear disclaimer about the use of artificial intelligence in the game's development. The move comes after a heated dispute surfaced online, in which former staff member Stella Sacco claimed she was removed from the project midway and that her responsibilities were taken over by ChatGPT, alongside other undisclosed AI tools.
The company’s leadership, spearheaded by CEO Matt Karch, felt compelled to address the allegations publicly and to clarify the studio’s stance on AI. The full text of the new 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." By placing this notice on the Steam page, Saber hopes to be transparent with consumers about which parts of the experience may have been generated or assisted by machine‑learning models. When confronted with Sacco’s accusations, Karch initially responded that the writer had been "replaced by someone more talented and terminated for a variety of reasons a few months later," adding that, in hindsight, he would have been "happy to replace her with AI." He later elaborated in an interview with the podcast This Week In Videogames, saying, "Stella who? I had to ask Claude because I have never spoken to her or seen her." The comment referenced Claude, an AI chatbot, underscoring the irony of the situation.
Karch continued, "We have already said we are using AI for certain parts of the game and will update the Steam page once we have finalised the feature set." According to Karch, the decision to incorporate AI into Rideshare Simulator is driven by a desire to keep the title affordable for players. "We look at our use of AI in this particular game, which will be a lower‑priced title, as a plus for consumers," he explained, suggesting that AI can help reduce production costs and potentially pass savings on to the end‑user. This rationale mirrors a broader industry trend where studios experiment with generative tools to accelerate writing, asset creation, and even level design.
The controversy took another turn over the weekend when Sacco posted on the social platform BlueSky, stating 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 issued a separate public statement on LinkedIn, where he admitted that his reaction to the unfolding drama was impulsive. "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 exchange highlights several key issues that are currently shaping the conversation around AI in game development.
First, there is the question of transparency: players and industry observers are demanding clear disclosures about when and how AI tools are used, especially when those tools replace human labor. By adding the disclaimer, Saber is attempting to meet that demand, but the timing—after a public dispute—raises doubts about whether the move is proactive or reactive. Second, the incident underscores the human cost of rapid technological adoption.
Sacco’s claim that she was dismissed in favor of a language model touches on a broader fear among writers, artists, and programmers that AI could render certain roles redundant. While Karch’s comment about replacing her with AI "for the right reasons" may be intended as a pragmatic business argument, it also signals a potential shift in how studios value creative contributions versus algorithmic efficiency. Third, the episode reveals the importance of communication style in crisis management. Karch’s admission that he "shot first and thought second" suggests a lapse in judgment that many executives have faced when dealing with sensitive personnel matters online.
His subsequent apology, both on BlueSky and LinkedIn, attempts to repair the relationship, but the effectiveness of such apologies often depends on concrete actions—such as reinstating the writer, offering compensation, or establishing clearer AI‑usage policies. From a consumer perspective, the impact of AI on a lower‑priced game like Rideshare Simulator could be twofold.
On the positive side, AI can accelerate content generation, allowing developers to ship more features, updates, and bug fixes without inflating the price tag. On the negative side, players may worry that AI‑generated dialogue or narratives lack the nuance and emotional depth that human writers provide, potentially diminishing the overall experience. Industry analysts are watching the Saber case closely because it may set a precedent for how other studios handle AI disclosures. Some companies have already begun labeling AI‑generated assets in their credits, while others remain vague, citing competitive concerns.
The balance between protecting intellectual property, maintaining consumer trust, and leveraging cutting‑edge technology is delicate, and each misstep can attract scrutiny from both the gaming community and regulators. In summary, Saber Interactive’s addition of an AI disclaimer to Rideshare Simulator’s Steam page is a direct response to a controversy involving former writer Stella Sacco’s allegations of being replaced by ChatGPT.
CEO Matt Karch has publicly apologized for his earlier, hasty remarks and acknowledged that his reaction was driven by emotion rather than measured deliberation. The incident shines a spotlight on the evolving role of AI in game development, the necessity for transparent communication, and the ethical considerations surrounding the replacement of human talent with machine‑generated content. As the industry continues to experiment with generative tools, the lessons from this dispute will likely inform future policies and public relations strategies across the gaming landscape.