Key takeaways
- Sean Murray said Hello Games is not adopting generative AI soon, preferring to observe how the industry integrates the technology before making internal decisions.
- Murray drew a parallel to Hello Games' post-COVID strategy of remote work, noting the studio avoids rushing into trends and lets others navigate potential pitfalls first.
- Murray believes the core difficulty of game development—making games feel responsive and rewarding to play—remains unchanged by AI and cannot be solved by new tools alone.
Ten years after No Man’s Sky launched with procedural generation as a cornerstone feature—creating more worlds than any single player could explore across a lifetime—the gaming industry is now facing a different technological shift. Generative AI and large language models are being positioned as the next frontier for amplifying developer output. Sean Murray, managing director at Hello Games, has made clear that his studio intends to sit this race out, at least for now.
In an interview marking the franchise’s 10th anniversary, Murray articulated a philosophy of restraint that echoes an earlier pivot point in his career: the post-COVID return to work.
A Pattern of Selective Adoption
Murray explained his reasoning by drawing a parallel to decisions Hello Games made during the pandemic. “I remember when we were coming back from COVID, and we were all trying to figure out, like, how do we run a studio and a games development company?” he told Kotaku. “How do we get people to work together again? Are they going to be in offices? Are they going to be hybrid? All that kind of thing. And we had a lot of discussions about it. And I remember saying, ‘Let’s just hold back, stay working from home, and let everyone else f*ck it up.’”
That willingness to forgo industry-wide pressure in favor of internal conviction extends to the current AI conversation. Rather than scrambling to integrate new tools, Murray is choosing observation over adoption—a stance that positions Hello Games as a counterpoint to studios and publishers racing to leverage these emerging technologies.
The EA Precedent
Murray’s skepticism carries particular weight given his industry history. Before founding Hello Games, he worked at Criterion Games as lead programmer on Black, the 2006 cult-hit FPS, during a period when the studio was owned by Electronic Arts. That connection proves relevant today, as EA finds itself under new ownership with ambitious—and controversial—plans around AI integration.
EA was acquired by Saudi Arabia in a $55 billion leveraged buyout deal, and the publisher has publicly stated plans to deploy generative AI systems as a cost-saving measure to offset the substantial debt service those financials entail. “Like I’m like reading about, you know, EA’s just been bought by the Saudis,” Murray said in the Kotaku interview. “And they’re like, ‘don’t worry, we’re going to save billions because we’re going to all use AI.’ Right? And I sort of sit there and think, cool, good luck. You know, let’s see how that works out. I will watch from afar.”
Industry Pressures vs. Studio Vision
The disparity between EA’s AI-forward strategy and Hello Games’ cautious approach reflects a broader tension within the industry. Major publishers and developers are making AI adoption central to their near-term roadmaps, while independent and mid-sized studios face a choice: follow the trend or maintain their established workflows.
The Immediate Backlash Against AI in Games
Murray’s caution aligns with growing player sentiment. Over recent months, several high-profile releases drew significant backlash specifically for their use of generative AI. The Tomb Raider remake and the newly released Crazy Taxi both disclosed some degree of AI involvement in their development pipelines, and both faced criticism from players who remain skeptical about the technology’s place in finished products.
Quality Concerns and Player Perception
A recurring concern among gamers centers on what has colloquially been termed “slop”—content generated by AI that lacks the refinement, consistency, or intentionality of human-created work. Developers have struggled to articulate concrete benefits from incorporating generative AI into their workflows, and the visibility of these controversial adoptions has heightened player anxiety about the technology appearing in future games without disclosure or with diminished quality as a result.
Developer Hesitation
Despite publisher enthusiasm, many developers remain uncertain about how AI genuinely improves their creative process. The technology presents a paradox: promises of accelerated production sit alongside questions about whether efficiency gains actually translate to better games, or whether they mask corners cut and resources redirected elsewhere.
Murray’s Fundamental Thesis
Underneath Murray’s wait-and-see posture lies a specific belief about game development itself. He contends that the core challenge of making compelling games—the part that requires genuine skill, iteration, and judgment—remains immutable regardless of technological shifts.
“I think making video games is really hard and I think people are going to learn that it’s still really hard and the hard things are still hard, of making a game feel really nice to play,” Murray explained. He continued, “My day-to-day role is let’s just enjoy making games the way we’ve always made games. And like, that’s still working for us and we still enjoy it.”
The Persistence of Design Difficulty
This reasoning suggests that generative AI, however powerful, does not solve the fundamental problem of game design: ensuring that moment-to-moment play feels responsive, intuitive, and rewarding. These qualities emerge from intentional design, testing, iteration, and creative vision—elements that AI can assist with but cannot replace. Murray’s argument, in effect, is that no technology leap eliminates the discipline required to craft that experience.
The Waiting Game
Murray’s strategy mirrors his approach to the post-pandemic work environment: let the industry experiment, observe the results, and adopt practices only when they demonstrably serve the studio’s goals. Over the next few years, as more studios integrate AI and more players experience the outcomes, patterns will likely emerge about which applications enhance development and which do not.
For Hello Games, that information-gathering period appears preferable to rushing into adoption driven by fear of being left behind. No Man’s Sky’s decade-long success demonstrates that sustained, iterative improvement to a complex game can generate lasting engagement without chasing every technological trend. Murray’s comments suggest he intends to apply that same principle to AI: wait, observe, decide based on evidence rather than pressure.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Sean Murray's position on AI in game development?
Sean Murray, managing director of Hello Games, said he is in no rush to adopt generative AI. He plans to observe how the industry integrates the technology and wait to see what becomes the norm before making decisions for his studio.
What example did Murray use to explain his approach?
Murray referenced Hello Games' decision after COVID to keep the team working from home and avoid the industry-wide pressure to return to offices. He said the studio chose to wait and let others navigate the transition first.
Does Murray think AI will fundamentally change game development?
No. Murray argued that making video games is inherently difficult and that AI will not change the underlying challenge of making a game feel good to play. He stated his focus is to continue making games the way Hello Games always has.
