According to KitGuru.net, the Indie Game Awards committee has retroactively disqualified Sandfall Interactive’s Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 from both the Debut Game and Game of the Year awards it won on December 18th. The disqualification came just days after the ceremony when the developer confirmed the use of generative AI assets in the game’s production. This disclosure reportedly contradicted earlier statements made during the submission process that no such tools were used. The awards organizer, Six One Indie, maintains a firm public stance against generative AI in indie projects, and their rules state any use renders a title ineligible. As a result, the Game of the Year 2025 award has been passed to Blue Prince, and the Debut Game trophy now goes to Sorry We’re Closed. Sandfall Interactive has not yet issued a detailed public response to the discrepancy.
Awards Integrity or Rigidity?
Here’s the thing: this is a fascinating test case for how the games industry, especially the indie segment, is going to handle the AI question. The Indie Game Awards committee is sticking to its guns, and you have to respect the consistency. Their FAQ and public stance are clear, and the developer apparently wasn’t. But it also raises a bunch of questions. The reports say the AI was used for placeholder textures that were later removed after the game’s April launch. So, we’re talking about temporary assets, not core art. Does a zero-tolerance policy, where any use at any stage disqualifies you, make sense? Or is it a necessary bright line to prevent slippery slopes and protect human artists? The committee says it’s about preserving the awards’ integrity, and they’re probably worried about a backlash from parts of their community. It’s a messy situation with no easy answers.
The Bigger Picture for Developers
So what does this mean for other studios? Basically, transparency is now non-negotiable. If you’re submitting to any contest or award, you need to read the fine print like a hawk and be brutally honest about your tools. The fallout from getting it wrong is instant and very public. This also highlights the tension between the practical reality of game development—where teams use all sorts of tools to iterate and prototype—and the philosophical/political stance of certain institutions. I think we’re going to see more of these clashes. Awards bodies, storefronts, and funding platforms like Patreon are all setting their own rules. For developers, it’s becoming a minefield. Do you risk using a time-saving tool if it might later invalidate your eligibility for recognition or funding? That’s a tough calculation.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Look, this incident probably won’t be the last. The genAI debate is far from settled. We might see awards categories specifically for AI-assisted work, or much more granular disclosure requirements. “What percentage of your assets used AI?” is a nightmare question to answer, but it might be coming. For now, the Indie Game Awards have made their position crystal clear: their lane is for human-led creation, as they define it. And by enforcing their rules so publicly and harshly, they’ve sent a message to every other developer thinking about entering next time. The line in the sand is drawn. The question is, how many other awards will draw it in the exact same place?
