Saber CEO Under Fire After Defending AI Writer Replacement

Two weeks after a brief teaser unveiled Rideshare Simulator, a gig-economy driving-sim satire, the title became ground zero for a contentious debate about artificial intelligence in game development. Narrative designer Stella Sacco, who worked as a lead writer at publisher Saber Interactive on projects including Stuntman Hollywood until 2024, went public with allegations that Saber had replaced her with ChatGPT midway through development. Sacco asserted that the decision originated with Saber in its role as publisher, not developer Unigine, and that the shift to AI-generated content occurred despite her manager’s repeated objections within the studio.

The Initial Accusation and Denial

Sacco’s Allegation Takes Shape

Sacco claimed the replacement happened “midway through development” and that Saber failed to disclose the involvement of generative AI on Rideshare’s Steam storefront. She detailed how her supervisor had argued internally against the transition, repeatedly reminding executives that they “already have Stella and she’s funny and she’s good at this, she’s done live games before so live ops are no problem.” According to Sacco’s account, c-level executives overrode these objections with the reasoning that “gamers love new tech” and that using AI would be “great marketing.” She characterized her replacement as stemming from a belief that ChatGPT adoption would generate favorable publicity for the title.

Saber’s Qualified Response

In a statement to PC Gamer, a Saber Interactive representative flatly denied the core allegation: “Neither Saber nor Unigine have replaced any writers with AI for Rideshare or any other game.” However, the same statement acknowledged generative AI involvement in specific contexts. The company confirmed that an experimental “free-ride mode” would incorporate AI technology, explaining that “the number of passengers in the game is infinite,” making traditional hand-authored dialogue unfeasible. Saber pledged to update Rideshare’s Steam page with full disclosure once final feature specifications were determined.

The Escalation

Rather than accepting this explanation, Sacco intensified her position in subsequent comments to journalists and on social media. She insisted the facts of her original account remained unchanged and suggested Saber’s explanation was a partial truth designed to minimize perceived wrongdoing. Sacco’s escalation forced CEO Matthew Karch into a public position he could not avoid.

Matthew Karch’s Controversial Intervention

Read also: Xbox’s July Outage Worsened by Software Bug Now Fixed · Marvel and Star Wars Unite for Historic Five-Part Comic Crossover · Hello Games Director: AI Won’t Rush Game Development At His Studio · GameTrailers: How a TiVo and Two Film Grads Changed Gaming Coverage

Denying Personal Knowledge

In a statement to This Week In Video Games, Karch opened with a line seemingly designed to minimize Sacco’s credibility: “Stella who? I had to ask Claude because I have never spoken to her or seen her.” This framing—suggesting he needed to consult an AI assistant to even identify the person making accusations about his company’s practices—immediately shifted the conversation from Saber’s conduct to questions about Sacco’s significance within the organization. Karch did not categorically deny AI usage, instead confirming that generative AI is being used “for certain parts of the game” and will eventually appear on the Steam page once features are finalized.

Attacking the Accuser

Rather than addressing Sacco’s substantive claims about the decision-making process, Karch characterized her as having been replaced by “someone more talented” and subsequently terminated “for a variety of reasons a few months later.” He suggested she violated a confidentiality agreement by speaking publicly and questioned her motives, implying she “enjoys controversy even more than I do.” He referenced an award-acceptance statement, saying “the entire story script, were it to win an award, would go to someone who can walk up on stage and receive it,” a cryptic remark that appeared to defend the legitimacy of AI-generated narrative content.

The Most Provocative Statement

Karch then made a remark that became the focal point of industry criticism: “I would frankly in retrospect have been happy to replace her with AI. At least we would be dealing with someone programmed to be honest.” This statement appeared to confirm the substance of Sacco’s allegation—that Karch had wished to substitute human creative workers with generative AI—while simultaneously using the opportunity to cast Sacco as dishonest. Karch framed Saber’s AI adoption as pro-consumer, arguing that using generative technology in this “lower priced title” ultimately benefits players through reduced costs.

Sacco’s Rebuttal and Character Assessment

Sacco responded by describing Karch’s statement as evidence of “lashing out” motivated by reputational damage control. She reiterated that “everything I said was true” and escalated her critique of Karch’s conduct. Sacco characterized his public statement as “remarkably pathetic for the CEO of any company to be making” and predicted it would inflict greater harm to Saber’s brand than her allegations could ever accomplish. She argued that Karch’s willingness to articulate his preference for replacing human creators with AI—and his choice to do so in a public forum where his words would be preserved and disseminated—demonstrated a fundamental lack of judgment. Sacco concluded by warning that many people would encounter the Saber Interactive brand for the first time through this controversy.

The Steam Community Response

Karch’s intervention did not resolve the matter; instead, it redirected community attention toward the game’s Steam storefront. The previously quiet discussion section erupted into debate as players debated Saber’s AI usage, the timing and adequacy of disclosure, and what the CEO’s statement revealed about the publisher’s values. Critics highlighted that the initial promotional materials and reviews period had proceeded without clear notification that generative AI was used in portions of the game. Valve’s hands-off approach to publisher disclosures meant that responsibility fell entirely on Saber to volunteer information about AI involvement, with no independent verification mechanism or standardized disclosure requirements.

Broader Questions of AI Transparency and Labor

The Rideshare Simulator case crystallized ongoing concerns across the gaming industry about disclosure standards, corporate transparency, and the treatment of human creators during rapid AI adoption cycles. While some developers frame AI integration as efficiency enhancement, critics view the Saber incident as evidence that AI tools are primarily deployed as labor replacement strategies and marketed as beneficial through selective narrative framing. The absence of regulatory requirements meant that studios operated within a gray zone where minimal disclosure could be justified through technical explanations. For players, the practical consequence was that purchasing decisions were made without clear information about whether their money supported AI-dependent production pipelines or human-centered creative practices. Saber’s defense of lower pricing as an AI benefit remained contested, with community responses suggesting that transparency about production methods ranked equally with or above cost reduction in player decision-making.