And the AI disclosure isn't the thing that is killing them. It's more lack of resources, lack of audience, lack of polish that's already doing that job. So, there is this kind of confounding factor, a game that sucks. It sucks with or without AI. Now, with all due respect, of course, to the solo developers, sucks is a bad word. It's just it lacks polish. Let me put it like that. Now, the developers getting destroyed by the AI stigma are, in fact, the established studios, the ones with experience, with an existing player base, with previous titles or with a reputation, with production budgets, of course, and with amazing teams. For those developers, AI disclosure correlates with a 40% to 60% drop in sales.

On the other hand, if you're using AI the way a good writer uses, I don't know, the spell check to handle the mechanical parts faster so you can spend more time on the parts that require, I don't know, judgment and taste and care, well then, you're probably fine. The finals used AI for certain audio assets and did well because the game itself is good. The human decisions are still there. The tool isn't the problem. Replacing human decision making with the tool, that's the problem and those are very different things. So, where does this leave us? Well, the numbers are pretty clear at least from this one study. AI disclosure hurts sales. The hit lands hardest on developers with the most to lose, you know, the established studios, the recognizable brands, the games with genuine expectations attached.