There was a bit of a blowup in January when GOG forum users noticed a sale banner that appeared to be AI generated. In response to the initial allegations, forum member KosmicznaPluskwa, whose avatar indicates they’re a senior graphics designer and member of the GOG team, confirmed that the banner “is fully AI,” although they declined to go into further detail because they’re not a company spokesperson and “like being employed.”
Here’s the banner in question, courtesy of GamingOnLinux:
GOG itself declined to comment officially in the immediate wake of the controversy, although a rep did say the company was “aware of the conversations happening around this topic and the assumptions that can go with it.” Now it has made a statement on the matter, though, as part of an AMA on Reddit—but the company’s response isn’t satisfying everyone.
“We’re not planning on making absolute statements in either direction,” GOG managing director Maciej Gołębiewski wrote. “AI tools are one of many technologies we test and try out, and in some contexts it genuinely helps us push the company (and the mission) forward.
“What we will change, though, is how and where those tools are used; we understand that using new technology doesn’t mean skipping human judgment.”
That’s not too far off the position adopted by other game companies, maybe most notably Larian, which found itself caught up in an AI-generated uproar in December. And from a long-term perspective, I suppose, it seems reasonable: Drawing hard lines on fluid situations might seem good in the moment, but as often as not it’ll come around to bite you in the ass. Still, some GOG users were clearly hoping for something more definitive.
“Absolutely terrible response. You need an absolute statement at this point,” dragon-mom wrote in reply. “We do not want AI slop being used for GOG period. Going against the enshittification and corporate corner cutting garbage while celebrating and preserving real human art is exactly why we liked GOG in the first place. If you [aren’t] willing to be that anymore then you are pointless.”
“GOG has built its business and reputation on certain core beliefs about DRM and ownership,” hinckley added. “It’s built them on the implicit belief that there are gamers out there who share those values. Yes, AI represents a distinct concept from DRM and ownership, but I’d bet a hell of a lot of money that people who have strong beliefs on one have similarly strong beliefs on the other. It is crazy to me that GOG would choose to sacrifice that reputation for a quick buck when it should be trusting in its users and doubling down on shared values about ethical business practices and the innate value of human expression.”
Another redditor, Gyrcas, made a salient point: “If you are not going to make a clear statement about AI and instead make some average PR speech, it will be clear that I will stay far away from your store. AI and the preservation of art are opposites, they cannot work together.”
TripleAgent0 was somewhat more to the point: “Maybe you should listen to your employees like KosmicznaPluskwa instead of whatever moron is directing you guys to do more AI stuff, it’s not going to go well if you keep doing this shit.”
It goes on like that for a while. Further down the thread, Gołębiewski reposted the response so other people asking the same question could more easily see the answer, and received similar replies.
I think GOG might find it hard to hunker down and wait for all of this to blow over. As numerous redditors point out, I feel like there’s a perceived purity to GOG: While other storefronts are doing their utmost to squeeze every dime possible out of gamers, GOG just wants folks to play some cool games and be happy.
Which is nonsense, of course (and I say that as a GOG fan), it’s a business just like any other, and the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. But it does face kind of a unique challenge on that front: The role that AI might play in game preservation is already contentious—in 2025, Xbox boss Phil Spencer imagined a world where an AI model could use gameplay data and video to recreate old games on “any platform where these models could run,” which isn’t game preservation at all—and the idea that GOG, which has a monthly subscription program enabling its most ardent supporters to help cover the cost of keeping these games running, might be leaning into that tech clearly does not sit well with many gamers who think what it does is important.
One redditor also expressed concern about KosmicznaPluskwa, the GOG artist, who left the GOG Cafe Discord without warning a few days after speaking out on the initial AI art controversy. “Leaving the Discord server was a personal decision and we understand it. As mentioned, spotlight and social pressure can be overwhelming, this is a difficult situation for us internally as well,” Gołębiewski wrote in response. Beyond that, however, “we won’t be sharing any further personal details and we’d like the community to respect that boundary.”
