According to GameSpot, Patrick Söderlund, head of Arc Raiders studio Embark, has again defended the game’s use of AI-based text-to-speech systems. The $40 game was a major success in 2025, launching between Battlefield 6 and Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 and achieving an all-time peak of 481,966 concurrent players on Steam. It remains popular, with a recent 24-hour peak of 466,372 players. Söderlund stated the studio’s goal is to make better games more efficiently and pushed back on claims it reduces employment, saying, “We don’t use AI to not have to hire people or replace people or job groups or voice actors.” The system uses recordings from hired actors to generate new lines without them returning to the studio, a method also used in Embark’s previous game, The Finals.
The Efficiency Playbook
Here’s the thing: Embark isn’t just tinkering with AI for the novelty. They’re building a production pipeline around it. They hire actors for an initial recording session, capture their vocal signature, and then use a generative TTS system to create a massive library of dynamic, context-aware dialogue. Think about it from a developer’s perspective. In a live-service game like Arc Raiders, where you might need new voice lines for seasonal events, patches, or unexpected player behavior, the traditional process is a logistical chain. You need to book actors, get them into a studio, record, edit, and implement. That takes time and money. This AI-assisted method basically compresses that chain into a software workflow.
And Söderlund’s point about not replacing jobs? It’s a nuanced argument. He’s likely talking about core development roles—designers, engineers, artists. The AI isn’t designing levels or writing core narrative. But for voice actors, the calculus is different. It absolutely changes the nature of their work from a per-session, per-line model to a licensing model for their vocal likeness. Actor Neil Newbon’s criticism hits right at that tension. Is it ethical to take someone’s voice and “manipulate it however the hell you want” for content they didn’t directly perform? Embark’s stance seems to be that as long as they’re hired and paid for that initial session, it’s fair game. But the industry clearly hasn’t settled this.
Success Mutes The Critics (For Now)
You can’t ignore the context: Arc Raiders is a smash hit. It went toe-to-toe with gaming‘s biggest FPS franchises and held its ground, maintaining staggering player counts months after launch. That success gives Embark a huge amount of leverage in this debate. When Shams Jorjani from Arrowhead (makers of Helldivers) says it’s “a very interesting use case that actually makes gaming better,” he’s looking at the player experience. The benefit is more reactive, immersive worlds where NPCs can have seemingly unique responses. For the player who doesn’t read the credits or industry news, the result is what matters. If the game feels alive and the voice work is good, does the average player care how it was made?
Probably not. And that’s the commercial reality Embark is banking on. The controversy hasn’t dented the game’s popularity one bit, judging by those Steam charts. It sets a precedent. Other studios looking at Arc Raiders’ numbers and its development efficiency will be tempted to follow suit. Why wouldn’t they? The promise is faster content cycles and a more dynamic product, all while sidestepping some traditional production bottlenecks. It’s a powerful pitch in a brutally competitive industry.
The Inevitable Shift
So where does this leave us? Look, this isn’t a black-and-white issue of “AI bad” or “AI good.” It’s a tool, and Embark is showing one very specific, commercially successful way to deploy it. The genie isn’t going back in the bottle. The real discussion now is about the rules of engagement. What are fair contracts for voice actors in this new paradigm? How do we ensure ethical use and prevent outright voice cloning without consent? Embark has drawn its line, but the industry needs to draw some broader ones.
Arc Raiders proves the tech works from a product standpoint. The next battle is over the principles. Söderlund can defend the practice all he wants, but without clear standards, the fear of replacement he tries to dismiss will only grow. The success of the game might just accelerate that entire conversation, for better or worse.
