Palworld Studio’s Publishing Label Draws a Line on GenAI and NFTs

The developer behind the breakout survival hit Palworld, Pocketpair, has launched its own publishing label with a surprisingly hard line for a tech-driven industry: it refuses to publish games that rely on generative AI, Web3, or NFTs. While much of the games business is experimenting with machine-generated assets and blockchain features, Pocketpair is branding its label around a different value: human creativity first.

This stance, detailed in interviews around the launch of Pocketpair Publishing, raises big questions about how studios, players, and platforms should treat AI-assisted production. It’s also a signal that even studios usually associated with controversy are capable of drawing their own ethical and creative red lines.

From Surprise Hit to Game Publisher

Palworld started as a quirky survival game that mixed creature collecting, crafting, and third-person shooting. Its explosive early-access success gave the studio breathing room and capital. Instead of simply expanding its internal projects, Pocketpair decided to spin that success into a publishing arm meant to support smaller teams.

According to interviews with Pocketpair’s publishing manager, the goal of the new label is straightforward: give developers money, logistical support, and production help so they can focus on making fun games. But unlike many publishing pitches that revolve around marketing budgets or live service tooling, Pocketpair’s value proposition is deliberately coupled with its restrictions on technology use.

• Funding and mentorship: Pocketpair offers capital plus production guidance to teams at various experience levels.
• Indie-friendly positioning: The label emphasizes creative freedom as long as certain tech boundaries are respected.
• Brand differentiation: Its stance on generative AI and NFTs is framed as a key part of its identity.

Why Pocketpair Is Rejecting Generative AI Games

Generative AI tools can automate or assist in writing, art, sound design, and even level generation. Many studios see them as a way to reduce costs or accelerate production. Pocketpair’s publishing division, however, has made clear that projects fundamentally built on this technology are unwelcome.

The label’s publishing boss has said the company simply doesn’t “believe in” generative AI for game creation, describing it as incompatible with the kinds of projects they want to support. That doesn’t necessarily mean no developer at Pocketpair ever uses a modern tool, but as a guiding principle for publishing partnerships, AI-led game design is a nonstarter.

What “AI-Led” Means in Practice

Pocketpair’s stance targets projects where generative AI is central to the game’s content, identity, or production pipeline. Typical red flags for them include:

• Games that advertise themselves as fully AI-generated or “AI-written.”
• Projects using machine-generated art or character designs in place of human artists.
• Games hooking directly into public AI models to dynamically create dialogue, quests, or environments.
• Studios whose pitch focuses more on AI technology than game design.

What they are more open to is the traditional tooling side of AI—pathfinding, navigation meshes, basic NPC behavior, and optimization. Those systems have been part of game development for decades and are widely seen as tools rather than content authors.

The Wider Debate: Generative AI, Law, and Labor

Pocketpair’s position doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Over the last few years, governments, regulators, and labor groups have started scrutinizing modern AI models, particularly when they rely on vast training datasets scraped from the open web.

For example, the US Copyright Office has repeatedly clarified that purely AI-generated content is not protected by copyright because it lacks human authorship, though works that combine human creativity and AI tools may obtain limited protection for the human-authored portions.¹ The European Union, meanwhile, has adopted the AI Act, which establishes guardrails and transparency requirements for certain types of AI systems, particularly those that may present high risk to users or rely on opaque training data.²

In entertainment, labor unions have also raised alarms. The 2023 SAG-AFTRA actors’ strike in the US included negotiations about preventing studios from scanning performers once and reusing their likeness indefinitely with AI.³ For the games industry—which relies heavily on freelance artists, writers, and voice actors—the fear of being replaced by models trained on their own work is real.

By rejecting generative AI projects, Pocketpair is implicitly siding with creatives who argue that human labor and authorship should remain at the center of game-making. It’s both a moral statement and a practical risk calculation: games flooded with AI assets may run into copyright disputes, union conflicts, or community backlash.

No Web3, No NFTs: Drawing Another Red Line

Pocketpair’s publishing rules don’t stop at AI. The studio also refuses to work with games that build around Web3, blockchain tokens, or non-fungible tokens (NFTs). This places the label squarely in the camp of developers and players who see crypto integrations as a distraction—or, in some cases, a threat—to game design and consumer trust.

Regulators in multiple countries have issued warnings about crypto volatility and fraud risk. The US Securities and Exchange Commission has brought numerous enforcement actions against token issuers and platforms, arguing that unregistered securities offerings have left investors exposed.⁴ High-profile NFT projects and blockchain-based games have collapsed under market speculation, rug pulls, or regulatory pressure, leaving players with assets of little or no value.

By banning Web3 and NFTs from its slate, Pocketpair is avoiding several pitfalls:

• Regulatory uncertainty around what counts as a security or a financial product.
• Perceptions of pay-to-win or speculative design that overshadows gameplay.
• Environmental concerns tied historically to certain proof-of-work blockchains (even though newer systems use more efficient methods).
• Community fatigue with crypto schemes that burned early adopters.

What Pocketpair Wants to Publish Instead

If generative AI and NFTs are off the table, what kinds of projects does Pocketpair want? Their public comments point to a relatively traditional picture of indie publishing with a focus on gameplay and distinctive ideas.

Core Qualities Pocketpair Looks For

• Strong human-led art direction: Visual styles that clearly come from artists, not a blend of generic AI outputs.
• Fun-first design: Mechanics that feel good to play, regardless of whether the game is single-player, co-op, or multiplayer.
• Personality and risk-taking: Games that might be too weird, niche, or experimental for larger publishers.
• Developers with a clear creative voice: Pitches grounded in personal themes, inspirations, or stories.

In a sense, Pocketpair is betting that there’s still a large market for games whose main selling point is “people poured their hearts into this,” rather than “this game uses the latest hype technology.”

Implications for Indie Developers

For small studios, Pocketpair’s policy can be either a door or a wall. If a team is leaning heavily on generative AI to compensate for a lack of staff or budget, they probably won’t qualify. But if their strategy is to keep AI use limited to internal tooling while showcasing human-made assets and systems, they may find a receptive partner.

Pros of Working With a No-AI, No-NFT Publisher

• Clear ethical positioning: Teams can reassure artists, writers, and players that their game respects creative labor.
• Brand alignment: Sharing a label with other non-AI, non-Web3 games may attract an audience skeptical of generative content.
• Focus on design, not tech buzzwords: Pitches can revolve around mechanics, worldbuilding, and narrative instead of tokenomics or AI models.

Cons and Trade-Offs

• Higher staffing needs: Without AI as a crutch, teams may need to hire more human artists or writers.
• Less experimentation with cutting-edge tech: Developers interested in AI-driven storytelling or blockchain economies must look elsewhere.
• Potentially higher production costs: Human-made content takes time and money, which can strain small budgets.

How Players Might Benefit

Many players are already suspicious of AI-generated art and NFT monetization. They worry about generic visuals, shallow writing, or predatory microtransactions wrapped in crypto jargon. A publisher explicitly rejecting these elements offers a kind of shorthand: “you will not find AI slop or token speculation here.”

From a player-facing perspective, Pocketpair’s publishing philosophy could yield a catalog with:

• More distinctive art styles that reflect individual artists rather than a model’s blend of influences.
• Stories and characters shaped by writers with specific voices and experiences.
• More transparent monetization without opaque token economies or speculative marketplaces.

These factors could turn the label into a recognizable “trust mark” for certain segments of the audience, similar to how some players gravitate toward publishers known for single-player RPGs or narrative-driven games.

AI Isn’t Going Away—So What Does This Really Change?

Even as some publishers resist generative AI, the broader tech trend is unlikely to vanish. Major engine makers and tool providers—such as Adobe for creative software and Unity or Unreal for game development—are embedding AI features across their stacks. Developers will continue to experiment with these tools, and some will build entire games around them.

A label like Pocketpair’s doesn’t halt the march of technology, but it does carve out a specific ecosystem:

• A refuge for creators who feel overshadowed by AI buzz.
• A test case for whether “human-made” can be a meaningful market differentiator.
• A pressure point on industry debates about labor, authorship, and value.

In that sense, the label’s stance is less about banning technology outright and more about declaring what it wants its brand to mean—for partners and players alike.

Practical Tips for Studios Pitching Pocketpair

For developers interested in approaching Pocketpair’s publishing arm, aligning with its values is just as important as having a great demo. Consider the following steps before sending a pitch:

• Document your pipeline: Be ready to explain how your art, writing, and audio are created, emphasizing the human roles involved.
• Remove or minimize generative AI dependencies: If your project currently leans on generative models for visible content, think carefully about replacing that content before pitching.
• Clarify your monetization: Spell out how you will earn revenue (e.g., premium purchase, DLC, cosmetic-only microtransactions) and explicitly state that no Web3 or NFT systems are involved.
• Highlight your team’s voice: Share the story of why you’re making this game and what makes your approach uniquely human.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Pocketpair ban all uses of AI in games?

No. The publisher’s stance targets generative AI used as a replacement for human content creation, such as AI-written scripts or AI-generated art. Traditional game AI for NPC behavior, pathfinding, or procedural systems authored by designers is not the focus of this policy.

Can a game use AI tools internally and still be published by Pocketpair?

Based on the company’s public comments, the problem is AI-led content, not every single AI-assisted tool. However, a project whose core identity or marketing hinges on generative AI is unlikely to fit Pocketpair’s criteria. Developers should be prepared to show that humans remain the authors of the game’s visible content.

Why is Pocketpair so opposed to NFTs and Web3?

The label appears to be responding to widespread player scepticism, regulatory uncertainty, and the risk of speculative or exploitative monetization schemes. Governments and regulators have repeatedly warned consumers about risks tied to crypto assets,⁴ and many players associate NFTs with scams or low-effort projects rather than good game design.

Is Pocketpair’s stance common among game publishers?

Some publishers are cautiously experimenting with AI and Web3, while others are quietly avoiding both. Pocketpair stands out by making its position explicit and public, using it as part of its identity to attract like-minded developers and players.

What does this mean for the future of AI in games?

AI will continue to shape tools and workflows, but Pocketpair’s publishing label shows that there is room for alternative models that prioritize human artistry and clear boundaries. The industry is likely to remain diverse, with some companies embracing generative AI and others leaning into a human-first message.