-
Why Clair Obscur Lost Its Indie Game Award and Did They Deserve It?
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 just became the latest flashpoint in the games industry’s messy debate over generative AI. After winning Game of the Year and Best Debut Game at the Indie Game Awards, the honors were rescinded when the awards body said the game had included AI-generated background assets at launch, even though those assets were later removed in a patch. The issue is not whether studios should be transparent about their tools. They should. The question is whether it is fair, or even useful, to erase a game’s recognition after the fact when the reported AI use was limited, quickly corrected, and not representative of the final work that players and judges actually praised.
What happened: a short timeline
At the Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 launch, players and dataminers noticed a small number of background textures that appeared to be AI-generated. These assets were not central character art, environments, or story content, but minor background elements such as posters and set dressing. Within days of release, Sandfall Interactive patched the game to replace those assets with custom, human-made artwork.
Despite the quick fix, the issue resurfaced months later after Expedition 33 won Game of the Year and Best Debut Game at the Indie Game Awards. The awards body pointed to its eligibility rules and the studio’s submission disclosures, stating that any use of generative AI during production disqualified the game from consideration, even if the assets were removed before most players encountered them.
As a result, both awards were retroactively rescinded and reassigned to the next highest-ranked nominees. The decision reignited scrutiny of earlier comments from Sandfall Interactive acknowledging limited AI use during development, and it quickly became a lightning rod in a broader industry argument about where, how, and whether AI tools should be permitted in game creation at all.
What the Indie Game Awards policy is trying to do
The Indie Game Awards position on generative AI is rooted in a set of concerns that many developers and artists broadly share. At its core, the policy is meant to protect creative labor, discourage the use of tools trained on unlicensed material, and ensure that awards for art, narrative, and direction reflect human authorship rather than automated generation. In principle, those goals are reasonable, especially in an indie space where budgets are smaller and individual creative contributions are more visible.
A strict rule also offers clarity. By drawing a hard line against generative AI use, the awards body avoids subjective debates about how much AI is “too much” and eliminates the need to audit pipelines or evaluate intent. From an administrative standpoint, a zero-tolerance policy is easier to enforce than a nuanced one, and it signals alignment with creators who fear being displaced or devalued by automation.
Where this approach begins to strain, however, is in how broadly the rule is framed. Treating all generative AI use as equivalent, regardless of purpose, scope, or whether the output ships in the final product, collapses very different practices into a single disqualifying category. Placeholder assets, internal prototyping, and final, player-facing content are all swept together, even though they carry very different creative and ethical implications. This tension between ethical intent and practical application sits at the heart of the Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 controversy and sets the stage for why many view the outcome as fundamentally unfair.
Why stripping the awards is not fair in this case
The problem with the Indie Game Awards’ decision is not the existence of a rule against generative AI, but how that rule was applied. In the case of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, the penalty was total and retroactive, despite the reported AI use being limited in scope, removed shortly after launch, and unrelated to the elements for which the game was actually celebrated. Awards for narrative, direction, performance, and overall excellence were effectively nullified because of background assets that did not define the finished experience.
Fair enforcement requires proportionality. A distinction matters between AI used to generate core creative content and AI used as a temporary development aid. Placeholder textures and background references, later replaced with original artwork, are not equivalent to outsourcing a game’s art direction, writing, or music to a model. Collapsing those practices into the same category assumes that all AI involvement contributes equally to a game’s creative outcome, which is simply not how development works in practice.
There is also a timing issue that the ruling fails to meaningfully address. The version of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 that won awards, and the version most players experienced, did not contain the AI-generated assets in question. Judging the final product based on a briefly shipped, already-corrected element shifts the awards away from evaluating the work as presented and toward policing the entire production process after the fact. That approach may satisfy a rigid policy, but it undermines the stated purpose of awards, which is to recognize the quality and impact of completed games.
Finally, the outcome risks setting an unworkable precedent. If any use of AI at any point in development is grounds for disqualification, regardless of intent, scale, or final inclusion, then a growing share of modern games will become ineligible by default. The result is not cleaner standards, but a chilling effect that discourages transparency, incentivizes silence, and replaces nuanced judgment with blanket exclusion. In that context, stripping Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 of its awards looks less like an ethical stand and more like an overcorrection that punishes a strong final work for a narrow and already-remedied decision made earlier in development.
The transparency question, and why it still does not justify the outcome
Supporters of the Indie Game Awards’ decision often point to one specific issue: disclosure. The awards body has stated that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 was submitted under the understanding that no generative AI was used in development, and that later confirmation of limited AI use invalidated that submission. On a procedural level, that argument carries weight. Awards programs are entitled to set eligibility criteria, and accurate disclosure is a reasonable expectation.
However, even if one accepts that a disclosure failure occurred, the punishment still does not fit the offense. Transparency violations and creative merit are not the same thing. Treating them as interchangeable allows a compliance issue to retroactively erase recognition for narrative quality, direction, performances, and overall execution, areas that were not meaningfully affected by the disputed assets. In most competitive or professional contexts, a disclosure error leads to corrective measures, clarifications, or penalties proportionate to the impact, not a wholesale invalidation of outcomes unrelated to the infraction.
There is also an important practical consideration. The current framing leaves no room for good-faith nuance. A studio can be transparent, patch out questionable content quickly, and still be punished more severely than one that never discloses anything at all. That creates a perverse incentive structure where silence becomes safer than honesty. If awards bodies want disclosure, they must pair it with policies that differentiate between minor, corrected issues and substantive violations that materially shape a finished product.
More broadly, this approach risks collapsing a complex discussion about AI into a binary moral test. Development tools, prototyping methods, and final shipped assets are all treated as morally equivalent, even though they clearly are not. The result is not clearer standards, but a rule so narrow and absolute that it becomes detached from how games are actually made. In that light, the stripping of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33’s awards reads less like principled enforcement and more like a rigid response to a topic the industry is still struggling to define.
What a better AI policy would look like
If awards bodies want to take a firm ethical stance on generative AI, the solution is not blanket disqualification, but clearer definitions and proportionate enforcement. The current controversy exists largely because “AI use” is treated as a single, undifferentiated act, when in reality it spans everything from internal prototyping to fully generated, player-facing content. A workable policy has to acknowledge those differences.
A more credible framework would start with mandatory disclosure, paired with precise language. Studios should be required to state whether generative AI was used, where it was used, and whether any AI-generated material appears in the final, shipped product. That information alone would allow juries and audiences to make informed judgments without collapsing every case into the same outcome.
From there, eligibility should be tiered rather than absolute. For example, games that use AI only for internal references or placeholder assets that are fully removed before judging should not be treated the same as games that ship with AI-generated art, writing, or audio. Likewise, limited use in non-creative areas should not automatically disqualify a title from awards that recognize narrative, performance, or direction. Ethics policies should target material impact, not simply the presence of a tool somewhere in the pipeline.
Finally, enforcement should follow a graduated response. Minor or corrected issues could require public clarification or amended disclosures. More serious or deceptive cases could result in category-specific disqualification. Full rescission should be reserved for situations where AI use clearly undermines the creative achievements being recognized or where there is evidence of deliberate misrepresentation. This approach preserves ethical standards while avoiding outcomes that feel arbitrary or punitive.
Handled this way, awards would still send a message about responsible development practices without discouraging transparency or punishing teams for limited, non-material decisions made during production. More importantly, they would keep the focus where it belongs: on evaluating the quality and impact of the finished work, rather than reducing complex creative processes to a single, inflexible rule.
Conclusion: standards matter, but so does fairness
The backlash surrounding Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is not really about whether generative AI should have limits in game development. That debate is necessary, and it is not going away. What this case exposes is how easily well-intentioned rules can drift into overreach when they are applied without proportionality or context. Stripping a game of its awards after the fact, based on limited and already-corrected use of AI that did not define the final experience, does little to advance ethical clarity.
Awards exist to recognize finished work. In this case, the finished version of Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 was widely praised for its narrative, direction, performances, and artistic cohesion, achievements that were not meaningfully tied to the disputed assets. Conflating a narrow compliance issue with creative merit undermines the credibility of the recognition process and shifts the focus away from what players and judges are actually meant to be evaluating.
If the industry wants transparency, it must also create policies that reward good-faith disclosure rather than punish it. Zero-tolerance rules that treat every use of AI as equally disqualifying will not stop unethical practices; they will simply encourage silence and selective enforcement. Clear definitions, tiered eligibility, and proportionate remedies offer a path forward that protects creative labor without turning awards into blunt instruments.
Ultimately, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 should not be remembered as a cautionary tale about AI, but as a warning about how easily standards lose legitimacy when fairness is sacrificed for rigidity. The conversation around AI in games deserves nuance. Without it, even the strongest ethical positions risk collapsing under their own weight.
Recommended Products
Predator Triton 14 AI (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
Acer Nitro V 16S (RTX 5070) Buy Now
Predator Helios Neo 18 AI (RTX 5070 Ti)
Buy Now
-
Acer x Intel SFI Starter Packs Are Now Available on Google Classroom
Intel Skills for Innovation (Intel SFI) Starter Packs are now accessible directly through Google Classroom, giving teachers an easier way to deliver hands-on, technology-enabled learning. Educators can create and distribute assignments, organize class materials, and monitor student progress and submissions - all within the familiar Google Classroom ecosystem.
Developed through the Acer x Intel SFI partnership, these Starter Packs are free, ready-to-use teaching modules designed to support practical, skills-based learning. The three currently available Acer x Intel SFI Starter Packs (which you can read more about here) include Screen Sense, which focuses on digital wellbeing and responsible technology use; Optimize, Design, & Minimize, a mathematics-based module that introduces optimization and data-driven thinking; and Durability by Design, an engineering-focused lesson that explores product design, testing, and real-world problem solving.
By making these modules accessible through Google Classroom, teachers can integrate these free-to-use learning tools more seamlessly into their lesson plans - without adding any more complexity to classroom management.
What is Google Classroom?
For those unaware, Google Classroom itself is an online learning platform that helps teachers and students manage classes, assignments, and learning materials in one central location. Designed for in-person, remote, and hybrid classrooms, it simplifies how lessons are shared and completed.
Teachers can create assignments, distribute resources, collect student work, and provide feedback digitally, while students can easily access materials, track deadlines, and submit their work in a familiar, structured environment. Through integration with Google Workspace, files such as Docs, Slides, Sheets, and Drive resources can be attached and managed seamlessly within each class.
Getting Started with Intel SFI Starter Packs on Google Classroom
With Intel SFI Starter Packs now available directly in Google Classroom, hands-on learning can now be introduced the same as any classroom resource - all without changing how teachers already manage lessons, assignments, or materials. The Starter Packs sit alongside existing coursework, making them easy to assign, review, and track within a platform educators and students use every day.
For educators, this means guided, curriculum-ready activities can be integrated without additional software or complex preparation. For students, the Starter Packs are easier to access and complete within their regular class environment, supporting engagement while reducing technical friction.
To see how this works in practice, the step-by-step video below walks through how to access and use Acer x Intel SFI Starter Packs in Google Classroom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmtiZEonJf8
Beyond ease of access, the Intel SFI Starter Packs are designed to spark hands-on, project-based learning across subjects. Teachers could use Screen Sense to have students analyze their own screen time data and develop strategies for healthier technology habits, apply Optimize, Design, & Minimize to a project where students design more efficient packaging using math and sustainability concepts, or introduce Durability by Design by challenging students to prototype and test a classroom object for strength and usability. And because these starter packs are now available on Google Classroom, they can be assigned like any other assignment - making it easy to experiment, adapt, and build interactive lessons within an existing syllabus.
To explore the Starter Packs in more detail and see how they can fit into your own lesson plans, visit the Acer x Intel SFI landing page and try out a module today.
Recommended Products
Acer Chromebook Plus 516
Buy Now
Acer Chromebook Spin 511
Buy Now
Acer Chromebook Spin 512
Buy Now
-
Acer Gaming Laptops That'll Carry You Through 2026
With 2026 on the horizon and GPU and RAM prices threatening to go through the roof, now’s the time to start sizing up new gaming laptops. Ah yes, there’s no time like the present, and thankfully we’ve taken most of the hard work out of finding a gaming laptop that will help you sail through 2026 and beyond. We’ve got five of the best gaming laptop deals for you, so read on, and hopefully you can find a device to take your gaming to new heights. First though, what’s the forecast for computer prices in 2026?
GPU and RAM inflation?
GPUs, or graphics processing units are the parts in a computer responsible for rendering visuals in games and accelerating demanding tasks such as video editing and AI workloads. GPUs do the heavy lifting in games, and right now they are in great demand for gaming and content creation, as well as ever-evolving AI workloads.
RAM, or memory pricing is cyclical, and there’s currently an upswing, reflecting tighter supply and stronger demand. High demand for memory in AI development and data centers, is also causing a scarcity of RAM worldwide.
Put simply, both GPUs and RAM are in great demand, while manufacturers (obviously) prioritize higher margin (AI) products, meaning higher prices all round. This in turn has reduced the supply of regular consumer components. On top of all that, global currencies, supply chains, and of course logistics are increasingly unstable, all leading to higher prices. Still curious? Here’s an in-depth article covering the GPU price inflation forecast in 2026.
Computers: forecast to get a lot more expensive in 2026
Before we hook you up with the best gaming laptop for next year and beyond, let’s decipher the true cause of these soon to soar prices. New generations of CPUs and GPUs will arrive in 2026 at higher starting price points, particularly at the performance end of the market. At the same time, AI-focused features are pushing baseline specifications upward, meaning today’s mid-range hardware increasingly becomes tomorrow’s entry level.
Rising manufacturing, energy, and compliance costs are also feeding into higher retail prices, while vendors continue to focus on higher-margin configurations. So while laptops have never been cheaper than in recent years, in 2026, there will be fewer genuinely affordable systems, coupled with a steady upward drift in what consumers can expect to pay for a decent gaming laptop.
Five of the best gaming laptops from Acer
1. Predator Triton 14 AI - PT14-52T-972D
First up, here’s a Triton for gamers seeking premium power in a carry-on friendly size. A Copilot+ PC, the Predator Triton 14 AI - PT14-52T-972D is available now for $2,499.99. This is a device built for gamers and creators who demand serious performance in a compact, premium design, with OLED clarity. Hardware wise, the Triton 14 features an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 processor and an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070 GPU. The Triton 14 AI delivers stellar gaming performance while remaining perfectly portable. The 14.5-inch WQXGA+ OLED touchscreen offers a sharp 16:10 aspect ratio, smooth 120 Hz refresh rate, and beyond vibrant visuals for gaming and creative work. 32 GB of LPDDR5X memory and a 1 TB SSD, is basically equivalent to gold dust in 2026.
2. Nitro V 16S - ANV16S-71-72KE
Slimline and looking fine, the Acer Nitro V 16S ANV16S-71-72KE is a 16-inch gaming fortress ready to conquer and create. Recently reduced from $1,469.99 to the festive price of $1,399.99, you’d better get the Nitro V 16S while you can. Powered by an Intel® Core™ 7 240H processor with a deca-core design and a base frequency of 2.50 GHz, the CPU is paired with an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070 GPU for modern gaming performance. 16 GB of DDR5 SDRAM and a 1 TB SSD, deliver a solid combo of memory and fast storage. All of this on a 16-inch WQXGA (2560 x 1600) 16:10 ComfyView (Matte) IPS display with a smooth 180 Hz refresh rate for sharp, responsive visuals, what’s not to like?
3. Predator Helios Neo 18 AI - PHN18-72-902R
Jumping up a bracket to the Predator family, let’s see what the Neo 18 can throw into the mix. The Predator Helios Neo 18 AI Gaming Laptop - PHN18-72-902R is an 18-inch gaming galleon ready to sail the seas of gaming, currently priced at $2,849.99. Designed for gamers who demand maximum performance and screen real estate without stepping into full desktop mode, this laptop is powered by an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 275HX processor and an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070 Ti GPU. There’ll be no messing about with the Helios Neo 18 AI. This laptop is ready to handle demanding AAA titles and intensive workloads by the bucketload. The gargantuan 18-inch WQXGA display pairs a 16:10 aspect ratio with a lightning fast 250 Hz refresh rate for ultra-smooth, insanely immersive gameplay. Stacked with 64 GB of DDR5 memory and a 2 TB SSD, the Helios Neo 18 AI delivers desktop level gaming in laptop form.
4. Predator Helios Neo 16 AI Gaming Laptop - PHN16-73-979X
Staying strictly in the Predator family, our next super-powered gaming laptop is none but the Predator Helios Neo 16 AI Gaming Laptop - PHN16-73-979X. This laptop has recently undergone a hefty reduction from $2,649.99 to a mere $2,299.99. Under the hood, you’ll find an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 275HX processor with a 24 core design and a base frequency of 2.70 GHz, paired with an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5070Ti GPU with 12 GB of dedicated memory. Fear not the spike in RAM prices, for this system is configured with a hefty 64 GB of DDR5 SDRAM and 2 TB SSD, providing ample memory and storage for all workloads. Let’s not omit the display! The Helios Neo 16 has a 16-inch WQXGA (2560 x 1600) 16:10 CineCrystal (Glare) display running at a respectable 240 Hz refresh rate. For speed, power and portability, you simply can’t go wrong with the Helios Neo 16.
5. Predator Helios 18 AI Gaming Laptop - PH18-73-99A8
Last, and certainly not least in our odyssey of Acer gaming laptops that’ll carry you through 2026, meet the Predator Helios 18 AI Gaming Laptop - PH18-73-99A8. This is Acer’s second most powerful laptop, reserved for the elite forces of the gaming world. First, the price: $6,999.99. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s take a closer look. As you’d expect, this laptop has some serious specs for the pinnacle of gaming on-the-go. Powered by an Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 275HX processor and an NVIDIA® GeForce RTX™ 5090 GPU with 24 GB of dedicated memory, it’s designed to crush all games and tasks in its path. The expansive 18-inch WQUXGA display delivers sharp visuals with a 16:10 aspect ratio, while Windows 11 Pro adds productivity-grade features as expected. Stacked with 192 GB of DDR5 memory and 6 TB SSD, buy the Helios 18 AI you’ll be able to rent space out to your friends and neighbors.
Future-proof in 2026 and beyond
We hope you’ve enjoyed today’s article, and now have a clearer picture of the best gaming laptops to carry you through 2026. With GPU and RAM prices climbing and 2026 forecast to be a more expensive year for PC hardware, locking in a capable gaming laptop now is the best choice. From slim, portable machines built for gaming and creative tasks to desktop-class powerhouses, Acer’s laptop lineup covers every rung of the performance ladder. If you plan to play seriously in 2026 and beyond, acting sooner rather than later could save you money and hassle down the line. Head to the Acer store to discover the freshest deals as we head into 2026, and don’t forget that students get a 15% discount.
Recommended Products
Acer Nitro V 16S (RTX 5070)
Buy Now
Predator Helios Neo 16 AI (RTX 5070 Ti)
Buy Now
Predator Helios 18 AI (RTX 5090)
Buy Now
