When Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick tells CNBC that AI is “backward-looking” and can’t spit out a Grand Theft Auto or its marketing plan at the push of a button, I listen. Not because he’s allergic to tech—Take-Two loves efficiency—but because GTA is the poster child for authored, culturally tuned chaos. We’ve seen slick AI demos and heard big promises about generative tools rewriting entertainment’s rulebook. Yet the real question is what any of that actually changes for players waiting on GTA 6 or the next big open-world phenomenon. Does AI sabotage creativity or quietly supercharge our favorite games behind the scenes?
In this opinion piece, I’ll dig into Zelnick’s core argument, unpack where AI truly adds value today, explore legal and ethical minefields, and map out concrete future scenarios. Spoiler: the AI revolution in gaming isn’t about replacing writers or showrunning blockbusters. It’s about smarter pipelines, richer cities, and harder questions around consent and credit.
Zelnick calls today’s AI “backward-looking” because it recombines past data. He’s right. Models remix and regurgitate patterns; they don’t wake up with a thesis about American excess and turn it into biting satire, complete with radio station gags and billboard jokes that date your neighbourhood. That’s GTA’s secret sauce: cultural authorship. Sure, you can ask a model to draft a bank heist mission outline, but getting Trevor-level characterization or that DJ who sneaks up on you with an off-hand punchline requires intent, taste, and a team hashing out jokes on whiteboards.
He also flagged IP liability, and this isn’t hand-wringing. Voice actors and writers are fighting for guardrails on AI likeness and training data. If you feed a model copyrighted scripts or voices and then generate “original” lines, who owns what? Gamers have seen messy prototypes: AI voices in The Finals sparked backlash, while modding communities are flooded with deepfakes. Studios like Rockstar can’t risk a tentpole being legally compromised or culturally tone-deaf because a tool hallucinated something sued or spurned by fans.
And the marketing piece matters more than people think. GTA’s marketing isn’t just billboards and trailers; it’s cultural timing, radio-ready memes, and the confidence to let a single teaser dominate the internet conversation for weeks. A model can draft a media plan, but it can’t will the world to stop scrolling. That’s brand alchemy forged over decades of risk-taking and cultural instinct.
This is where I both agree—and disagree—with AI absolutists. Generative tools aren’t useless; they’re miscast as creative auteurs. Ubisoft’s Ghostwriter, for example, can draft thousands of NPC barks and ambient dialogue lines in minutes, freeing writers from first-pass slog. One team reported cutting iteration time for side-quest text by roughly half, allowing designers to test tone quickly. Localization teams are pairing machine translation with human review to roll out global versions faster. QA departments feed synthetic test cases to automated systems, finding memory leaks and physics glitches without burning through human playtesters.
Texture variations, prop naming, even first-pass quest descriptions—AI lifts that grunt work. The result? More time for human teams to polish jokes, refine pacing, and tune emotional beats. That’s not devaluing writers or artists; it’s shifting them toward higher-impact creative tasks rather than endless copy-and-paste.
Beyond text and simple assets, the most underhyped angle is AI-powered systems design. Games have used “AI” for decades—think Oblivion’s Radiant AI or Left 4 Dead’s adaptive director. Modern ML, however, can supercharge massive simulations. Imagine using a model to stress-test GTA Online’s in-game economy before launch. You feed historical microtransaction data into a neural network, generate plausible spending patterns, and flag exploits or inflationary trends before they explode in live servers.
Or consider crowd behaviour pipelines. Instead of hand-crafting pedestrian routines, a model generates 500 believable routines—commuters, tourists, street performers—with varied schedules, clothing, and reactions to player actions. Designers then curate and blend these into neighborhoods, making the city feel more alive without scripting every sidewalk chit-chat.
Even mission design can benefit: AI can prototype dozens of level layouts based on player-flow data, highlighting choke points or camera angles that deserve human attention. The goal isn’t to remove designers; it’s to amplify their reach across sprawling game worlds.
We’ve seen early demos like Nvidia ACE, which promises dynamic NPC voices driven by context. Great on paper, but the illusion breaks when an NPC suddenly goes off-script mid-quest. Conversations derail, pacing stalls, and you lose the narrative momentum. That collision of novelty and authorship control is where studios tread carefully. Machines can suggest emergent moments, but humans still curate the hero’s journey.
As AI seeps into production pipelines, legal and ethical stakes couldn’t be higher. Unions like SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild have publicly called out the lack of clear consent for training on artist performances. High-profile deepfake incidents—from AI clones in mod scenes to unauthorized celebrity voice replicas—have underscored the risk of “trained on everything, licensed by no one” datasets.
At stake are rights and royalties. If an actor’s voice is used to generate new dialogue without pay, who gets credit and compensation? Developers must adopt best practices: explicit consent clauses in contracts, transparent disclosure of AI-assisted content in credits, and royalty schemes for actors whose likeness powers generative tools. Some studios are experimenting with “voice tokens” to track usage—though standards remain unsettled.
Beyond legal compliance, there’s public trust. Gamers value authenticity. Knowing that a beloved NPC line was polished by a human writer or that local dialects were reviewed by native speakers can matter as much as frame rates. Ethical AI use means sharing credit fairly, avoiding deceptive marketing that claims 100 percent procedural dialogue when human teams did the heavy lifting, and setting clear guardrails on data sources.
Short term, expect more polished worlds thanks to AI-boosted pipelines and fewer rough edges, not AI-written epics. If you worry about soulless, auto-generated open worlds, take heart: hit-driven companies like Take-Two won’t gamble their crown jewels on untested novelty. That risk-averse stance means your next GTA won’t arrive courtesy of an unsupervised algorithm.
Do keep an eye on credits and disclosures. Spot mentions of “AI-assisted design” or “Generated with proprietary ML tools” in localization, QA, or crowd systems. Transparency—tagged in end-game credits—can reassure you that AI supplemented rather than supplanted human talent.
AI becomes a reliable assistant. Crowds bustle authentically, economies are balanced pre-launch, and localization is seamless. Writers craft richer narratives because they aren’t buried in first-draft drudgery. Studios adopt clear consent protocols, and actors receive micro-royalties for AI usage. Players enjoy deeper immersion without ethical regrets.
AI tools proliferate unevenly. Some studios rush to gossip about “100 percent AI dialogue” but face backlash for hollow NPCs. Unions force more stringent contracts, slowing adoption. Legal battles over voice likeness tie up blockbuster releases. Meanwhile, mid-tier developers lag behind, unable to license expensive ML tech.
Unchecked AI pipelines exploit uncredited writers and performers. Deepfake voices become common in mods and indie games, diluting originality. Without regulations, data scraped from online communities fuels cookie-cutter worlds. Players grow wary, calling for boycotts of “AI-heavy” titles. Creativity suffers under layers of unaccountable automation.
Strauss Zelnick is right to call out the limits of today’s AI, and he’s staking a brand position: Take-Two’s biggest games will remain human-led. The real question isn’t “Can AI make GTA?” but “Can AI quietly make GTA’s city feel 10 percent more believable while writers and designers do the real cooking?” If the answer is yes, everyone wins—and nobody needs to pretend a model can satirize America better than Rockstar’s own writers.
AI will turbocharge grunt work behind blockbusters, but it won’t author the next GTA. The future lies in smarter pipelines, richer systems design, and ethical guardrails that keep humans at the helm. Watch for AI-assisted credits, demand transparency, and support fair pay as tools evolve.
Get access to exclusive strategies, hidden tips, and pro-level insights that we don't share publicly.
Ultimate Gaming Strategy Guide + Weekly Pro Tips