A solo dev with no coding or art background spent months building a game with heavy AI assistance — and found the reality is nothing like “a few prompts and you have a game.” Halfway to a playable demo, they’re wrestling with a harder question: whether the “AI was used” label dooms the project, especially if they charge money for it.
The arc of their experience:
- AI removed the technical barriers — then the real work began: “Add a mechanic. Break three things. Fix them. Change your mind. Refactor. Repeat.”
- They couldn’t recreate the code from scratch — but they designed mechanics, chose how systems interact, rejected bad outputs, and hand-fixed pixel art in Aseprite.
- The authorship question resolves in practice: “Did I actually make this game? I think I did.”
- The remaining fear is reputational: free feels safe, €5 feels like crossing a line.
The comment section converges on a consistent answer:
- “Most people aren’t against AI. They are against slop.” (Perfson)
- “It’s like VFX. If people can tell they will judge you.” (spikyness27)
- Just publish it: if it’s designed, playtested, and polished, it isn’t slop. (BadassMinh)
The OP’s conclusion: the real distinction is making something with AI versus letting AI make something for you — and the only question that matters is whether the game is good. If the label raises the bar on consistency and polish, accept the bar and surpass it.