According to Eurogamer.net, former Unknown Worlds leaders Charlie Cleveland and others have filed a pre-trial brief alleging Krafton CEO Changhan Kim used ChatGPT to “brainstorm ways to avoid paying” an earnout bonus to Subnautica 2 developers. The legal document claims Kim feared paying the bonus would make him look like a “pushover” and endanger his CEO position after Krafton’s 2021 acquisition of Unknown Worlds. Internal Slack messages show discussions about taking over the studio to avoid payments, with newly-appointed CFO Richard Yoon suggesting “It might be easier to just take over…” The brief alleges Krafton’s solution was pushing Subnautica 2’s early access release from 2025 to 2026 – outside the earnout window – despite the game reportedly being ready. Krafton confirmed the ChatGPT conversations no longer exist when pressed for them.
AI ethics meet corporate greed
Here’s the thing about this whole mess – it’s not just another corporate dispute. We’re watching AI ethics collide with business practices in real time. Krafton literally declared itself an “AI-first company” just weeks before these allegations surfaced, promising to place AI “at the centre of problem solving.” But using ChatGPT to find legal loopholes to avoid paying developers? That’s not the kind of AI innovation anyone wanted.
The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Krafton’s own PUBG creator Brendan Greene has distanced himself from their AI mandate, saying he’s “heartened” to see people rally against generative AI in game development. Now we discover the company’s CEO might have been using that same technology to screw over developers. You can’t make this stuff up.
The disappearing evidence
Let’s talk about that footnote stating Krafton didn’t provide the ChatGPT conversations and confirmed “they no longer exist.” That’s convenient, isn’t it? In a legal proceeding where AI usage is central to the allegations, the key evidence has mysteriously vanished. It raises serious questions about corporate transparency and accountability when AI tools enter the equation.
Basically, we’re looking at a scenario where a CEO turns to AI for advice on avoiding contractual obligations, then the digital paper trail disappears. This creates a dangerous precedent – if companies can use AI for questionable purposes and then claim the evidence is gone, where does that leave accountability? The legal filing paints a picture of corporate leadership more concerned with avoiding payments than honoring agreements with the people actually making their valuable IP.
Broader implications for gaming
This case goes way beyond Subnautica 2. We’re watching the gaming industry’s acquisition frenzy collide with AI ethics and developer rights. When Charlie Cleveland said the game was ready for early access despite Krafton’s claims it needed “further refinement,” it suggested the delay was purely financial engineering rather than quality concerns.
And that’s what should worry every developer working under a publisher. If companies can acquire studios, then use technicalities and AI-assisted loophole hunting to avoid paying earned bonuses, what does that mean for the entire industry? We’re already seeing massive consolidation – if the acquired teams can’t trust they’ll get what they’re owed, why would any talented studio agree to be purchased?
The timing couldn’t be worse for Krafton’s AI ambitions either. Just as they’re trying to position themselves as AI innovators, we get allegations of their CEO using the technology in the most cynical way possible. It’s a stark reminder that technology itself is neutral – it’s how people choose to use it that matters. And right now, it looks like Krafton chose poorly.
Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me.