What’s this? Why, it’s the latest edition of AI Gamechangers! Welcome to the newsletter where we share conversations with leaders from the games industry who are genuinely putting AI to use.
This week, we sit down with Charlotte Cook, a seasoned commercial strategist who’s spent her career helping games businesses grow. From Sega and Team17 to running her own consultancy, Charlotte has seen plenty of industry cycles come and go. Now, through CALM Consultancy and her work at Infinite Realms, she’s helping companies figure out where AI adds value.
As ever, you can also scroll all the way down for our curated round-up of AI news and links from around the web.
Charlotte Cook, CALM Consultancy
Meet Charlotte Cook, founder of CALM Consultancy and a veteran of the games industry’s commercial side, with senior roles at Sega, Team17, and Skybound under her belt. A BAFTA member, WIGJ ambassador, and angel investor through PlayCap, Charlotte now advises studios and publishers on commercial strategy, partnerships, and AI adoption. She’s also fractional CCO at Infinite Realms, a platform that uses AI to translate rich IP into interactive formats.
In our interview, she shares her take on practical AI adoption, the investment landscape, the importance of younger talent, and why the industry should resist the urge to go all-in. It’s a refreshingly grounded perspective on adoption, investment, the talent pipeline, and why the next generation of players should be shaping the conversation.
Top takeaways from this conversation:
The “human-made” signal will grow in value. There’ll be a wave of AI-generated content followed by a correction, as players gravitate towards crafted, authentic experiences.
The most successful companies avoid AI for AI’s sake. Instead, they take an incremental approach, focusing on practical use cases and team buy-in rather than succumbing to external pressure to go all-in.
AI is already disrupting service pricing, particularly in areas like QA. Providers who fail to augment their workflows with AI risk being priced out of the market by competitors operating at a fraction of the traditional cost.
AI’s most immediate value lies in validation and decision-making. By using tools like Infinite Realms to ingest complex IP and source material, teams can reduce pre-production timelines and eliminate approval friction.
AI Gamechangers: Please give us a sense of your journey and how you got involved in AI and games.
Charlotte Cook: It’s quite a recent shift. I was working at Team17 until February last year, and like everyone, I became increasingly aware of the presence of AI not only in my own life, but across the industry.
When I left Team17, I knew I wanted to work on something genuinely disruptive. I was approached by somebody I knew who had been building a game. She’d created this AI engine, which she showed me at GDC last year, and it completely changed my perspective. She was approaching it from one angle, but I immediately saw the potential for much broader applications, particularly in pre-production and faster decision-making. It enables teams to test and validate concepts internally in a way that simply wasn’t possible before.
Since then, AI has accelerated rapidly. It’s an umbrella term for something incredibly vast, but the work I focus on is grounded in very specific, practical use cases. Every week, new tools emerge, but the real value comes from understanding where they genuinely improve workflows.
“I often describe AI as being like Excel. It’s universally accessible, but the difference lies in how effectively people use it. Some can extract enormous value, others only scratch the surface”
Charlotte Cook
I’ve focused on establishing complementary workflows. My approach is to identify where AI can remove friction, speed up teams, and improve decision-making. I’m not interested in the narrative around replacement. The real opportunity is in enhancement.
I run CALM Consultancy, where I support businesses with commercial growth. That can range from building strategic partnerships to structuring licensing deals, negotiation, sourcing, onboarding, and long-term management. I also work closely with indie developers and publishers on positioning, pricing, and revenue optimisation.
Where I add the most value is in bridging perspectives. Having worked across both publishers and service providers, I understand how each side thinks and what they need to see to move forward. Someone recently described it as “emotional engineering”, which resonated. It’s about aligning incentives, framing opportunities correctly, and ultimately unlocking growth. Everything I do is commercially focused, but delivered through highly specialised strategy and business development.
You were on a panel at PGC London in January, discussing the state of AI and whether it’s a bubble waiting to burst. Where did you land on that debate?
I often describe AI as being like Excel. It’s universally accessible, but the difference lies in how effectively people use it. Some can extract enormous value, others only scratch the surface.
AI is not going anywhere. Even those who were previously resistant have shifted their position in the last six months. You’ll see companies publicly distancing themselves from AI, while internally they’re actively deploying it. It’s already embedded.
There are strong parallels with the dot-com era. There’s significant capital flowing into AI, and a wave of companies positioning themselves within that space. I’m currently involved in fundraising with one of the businesses I’m working with, and there’s a perception that being an AI company makes raising capital easier. In reality, that’s not the case.
A number of VCs deployed capital into early-stage AI companies two years ago and are still waiting to see returns. That’s introduced caution into the market. Investors are more selective, and that’s slowing down the next wave.
At the same time, the space is inherently volatile. Large platforms can release new functionality very quickly, and in doing so, can effectively eliminate entire categories of smaller businesses. That creates a much faster cycle of consolidation than we’ve seen in previous technology shifts.
So if there is a “bubble”, it’s not universal. It’s concentrated in certain areas of AI services that may not prove sustainable.
Within games, the dynamic is slightly different. Despite being a tech-forward industry, there’s still hesitation. Some companies are moving decisively, others are holding back, and many are observing.
“People remain the multiplier. You cannot simply replace human capability with systems and expect equivalent outcomes. Adoption needs to be aligned with how teams actually work”
Charlotte Cook
There’s also a clear creative tension. People want to protect the human element of game development, which is entirely valid.
We will see a wave of AI-generated content, followed by a correction. There will be a surge in lower-quality output, and then a renewed emphasis on human-crafted experiences. That “human-made” signal will become increasingly valuable.
So rather than a single bubble, we’re seeing pockets of volatility within a much broader structural shift.
You were in another panel at PGC London, too, which was about whether to go “all-in” on AI. When you’re advising a company, do you tell them to go all-in, pick the low-hanging fruit, or some other approach?
I would never advise a company to go all-in, particularly if there’s internal resistance. Adoption driven by pressure rarely succeeds. Adoption driven by value does.
The most effective approach is to demonstrate what’s possible, allow teams to experiment, and let adoption happen organically based on results.
Some businesses are already quite advanced and are rigorously testing tools. That’s essential. It’s very difficult to form a meaningful opinion without hands-on experience.
At the same time, the market is fragmented. There’s a high volume of solutions, and it can be difficult to separate signal from noise. It mirrors previous cycles like web3, where there was a lot of activity but limited clarity.
My advice is to take a measured, incremental approach, grounded in real use cases.
We’re already seeing examples of companies that moved too aggressively, reduced headcount, and may need to reverse those decisions. People remain the multiplier. You cannot simply replace human capability with systems and expect equivalent outcomes.
Adoption needs to be practical, phased, and aligned with how teams actually work.
Please tell us more about Infinite Realms. What do they do, and how do you work with them?
Infinite Realms is building a proprietary, patented platform that acts as an IP translation infrastructure layer. It’s designed for creative industries broadly, but games are the starting point.
The core problem it solves is the complexity of translating rich IP into interactive formats. For example, taking a book with deep lore and making it usable for game development.
The platform ingests content and creates a structured, explorable layer that developers can work from. It allows them to build inventories, understand relationships, and design experiences without needing to manually interpret the entire source material.
“The companies I work with are very clear: AI should be an enhancement tool, not a replacement tool. I wouldn’t align myself with a business that was explicitly using AI to remove jobs. I’m far more interested in how it can support teams and solve problems”
Charlotte Cook
It significantly reduces pre-production timelines and removes a lot of friction around approvals. It effectively solves the “blank page” problem when working with established IP.
We’re working with major literary estates and game companies, and there’s strong inbound interest from film, TV, and agencies.
My role is focused on commercial strategy, including licensing, partnerships, and onboarding both IP holders and developers. We’ve been running pilot programmes and validating adoption ahead of wider rollout.
What’s your take on the ethics of AI? People are worried about their jobs, about guardrails, about creativity in the future. How do you advise your clients to stay on the right side of the moral argument?
It’s one of the most important aspects of this entire shift.
While we can’t control how every business chooses to implement AI, the companies I work with are very clear: AI should be an enhancement tool, not a replacement tool.
Personally, I wouldn’t align myself with a business that was explicitly using AI to remove jobs. I’m far more interested in how it can support teams and solve problems that previously required significant time and resource.
That said, the concerns are valid. There will be structural changes, particularly in creative and technical roles. Team sizes may evolve, and certain functions may be reduced.
There’s also the environmental impact, which hasn’t yet been fully quantified at scale.
“Bringing younger talent into the industry is so important. If I were building a publisher today, having digitally native Gen Z representation on the team would be a priority”
Charlotte Cook
One area I’m particularly focused on is entry-level roles. Historically, these roles have been critical for learning and knowledge transfer. If they diminish, it raises important questions about how the next generation develops.
We are in a period of structural change. The ethical, operational, and long-term implications are still unfolding.
Do you see this affecting every level of the games ecosystem?
Yes, and I think it’s already happening.
If you look at how the next generation of players consumes games, it’s fundamentally different from how previous generations engage. The shift is significant, and in many ways it can feel quite foreign.
I spent some time working on Roblox games, which gave me a strong understanding of that ecosystem. Platforms like Roblox and Fortnite aren’t just games, they’re communities. They represent the audiences we need to understand much more deeply. Those are the players businesses need inside their organisations, because they instinctively understand how to communicate with the people we’re trying to reach.
If we don’t bring those voices into the industry, it becomes very difficult to connect with that audience in a meaningful way. You can have a well-researched marketing plan, but without lived cultural understanding, it risks missing the mark. You need people who are intrinsically part of that world and understand how that audience thinks and behaves.
“Companies are rapidly integrating AI into their workflows to improve efficiency and deliver better outcomes. This is already having a material impact on pricing. Competition is being driven down towards a bottom-line price point, which is unsustainable for some providers”
Charlotte Cook
Player behaviour itself is evolving. It’s more snackable, more fluid. Players jump in and out, and engagement patterns are very different. That has implications not just for design, but also for how games are positioned and marketed.
This ties directly into the broader knowledge transfer issue. Many of the industry’s existing frameworks, particularly in PC and console, are built on very different assumptions about player behaviour. That gap is becoming more pronounced.
That’s why bringing younger talent into the industry is so important. If I were building a publisher today, having digitally native Gen Z representation in the team would be a priority. Those are the audiences we now need to reach at scale, and you need people who understand how to speak to them authentically.
I don’t think the industry always does this well. And I do think that’s one of the reasons we see games fail to reach their full commercial potential. They’re often targeted very precisely, but not necessarily at this emerging generation that consumes games and media in fundamentally different ways.
The investment landscape constantly shifts. Are AI projects still attracting all the money at the moment?
What I’m seeing isn’t a huge influx of entirely new AI-native startups raising capital.
Instead, it’s more of a structural pivot. Companies that already exist are rapidly integrating AI into their workflows to improve efficiency and deliver better outcomes.
In the services market, this is already having a material impact on pricing. QA is a good example. Competition is being driven down towards a bottom-line price point, which is unsustainable for some providers. AI is a key driver of that shift. Businesses can now offer the same output at a lower cost by integrating AI into their processes.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of GDC this year. Last year felt like an inflection point. And with San Francisco being such a central hub for AI investment, it will be telling to see whether more US-based companies are focusing specifically on AI applications in games.
What has been slightly surprising is the lack of visible saturation. I expected to see more AI startups aggressively competing in this space by now, but that hasn’t fully materialised.
Part of that may be perspective. I spend more time around PC and console developers and publishers, so my network naturally skews in that direction. But more broadly, I haven’t seen a significant wave of AI companies trying to raise capital yet.
That could still come. Or it may reflect the reality that fundraising is more challenging than expected right now. If that’s the case, some of these businesses may simply not be in a position to be highly visible.
That, in itself, may be one of the key differences from previous cycles. In earlier trends, companies could raise capital quickly and then scale visibility just as fast. We’re not seeing that same pattern here.
Unlike other disruptions in the games industry, it feels like AI might have a wider, deeper, and longer-running impact. Is that your sense too?
Yes, largely because of how AI can be adopted.
With something like NFTs, the application was relatively linear. There was a defined structure to what those projects looked like. With AI, it’s far more flexible. A company might adopt it in a very specific area, whether that’s QA, operations, HR, or internal tooling. That means adoption can look completely different from one organisation to another.
There’s also a shift towards building internally. Historically, there was always a question of whether to build or partner. More often than not, partnering made sense from a cost and maintenance perspective.
With AI, the barrier to building internal tools is significantly lower. It’s often more cost-effective, and many companies now have the internal capability to do it. That means a lot of innovation is happening behind closed doors, in ways that aren’t always visible externally.
“What I’m most optimistic about is the potential for democratisation. AI could enable smaller teams to access tools and IP that were previously out of reach. That has the potential to level the playing field in a meaningful way”
Charlotte Cook
If you look at previous industry cycles, there were very clear trends. One year it was the metaverse, the next it was NFTs. AI doesn’t feel quite the same. It’s not a singular trend, it’s an underlying capability that can be applied across multiple areas.
The conversation is also more balanced. There’s optimism, but also caution, and a general recognition that this is something the industry needs to understand properly. It doesn’t feel like a short-term hype cycle.
If we have this conversation again in a year’s time, where do you think the relationship between AI and games will have progressed to? Do you think there’s more disruption to come?
There’s definitely more disruption to come, but we’re moving towards more mature adoption.
We will see failures, including some very visible ones. But those will be important. They will help shape how AI is used more effectively across the industry.
What I’m most optimistic about is the potential for democratisation. AI could enable smaller teams to access tools and IP that were previously out of reach. That has the potential to level the playing field in a meaningful way. A very small team could achieve what previously required a much larger studio.
At the same time, there is a risk that larger organisations move faster and scale these tools more effectively, which could widen the gap. So the outcome isn’t guaranteed, but the opportunity is there.
We will go through a phase where a significant amount of AI-generated content simply isn’t good enough, and players will reject it. There will be a surge of quickly produced content, followed by a correction where quality and craftsmanship become more important again.
You can already see this in other media. Audiences can recognise AI-generated content, and it often feels less compelling because it lacks authenticity. That human element still matters. Games will follow a similar pattern. There will be a period of volume, followed by a return to more considered, crafted experiences.
“AI has accelerated rapidly. It’s an umbrella term for something incredibly vast, but the work I focus on is grounded in very specific, practical use cases. Every week, new tools emerge, but the real value comes from understanding where they genuinely improve workflows”
Charlotte Cook
At the same time, AI will unlock creativity. It will allow people to realise ideas that would previously have been difficult to articulate or produce.
Even something like greenlighting changes. Instead of spending years trying to communicate an idea, you can now build something tangible much more quickly. That ability to show rather than tell is incredibly powerful.
There will be a period of turbulence. We’ll see examples of AI being used poorly or applied in the wrong way. But over time, the industry will develop a clearer understanding of where it adds value.
What will remain constant is the importance of players and communities. No matter what tools we use, we are still creating experiences for people. AI can support that, but it cannot replace it. And ultimately, that human connection is what makes games meaningful.
Further down the rabbit hole
Some useful news, views and links to keep you going until next time:
Verse8 secured $5 million in seed funding to scale its AI-driven game creation platform. The round was backed by Story Foundation, Nexon, Neowiz, Netmarble and other investors. You can read our Q&A with their CEO in the archive.
Meta has cut about 700 jobs as it shifts spending from the metaverse to AI.
OpenAI has stepped away from its Disney licensing deal and shut down AI video platform Sora (less than two years after launch).
Long-running games firm Capcom has told shareholders that while it won't use AI-generated assets in its games, it plans to use the technology to "improve efficiency and productivity in game development."
The New York Times ran a poll to see if readers could tell AI writing apart from human prose from virtuosos like Cormac McCarthy, Ursula K Le Guin and Carl Sagan. Over 86,000 people took the poll, and readers could not tell the difference, with a slight majority preferring the AI-generated passages.
Simon Davis and the team formerly known as Mighty Bear/GOAT Gaming have pivoted from making games themselves to shipping an AI tool for generating game creatives: SecretSauce.
South Korean developer Pearl Abyss has pledged to conduct a "comprehensive audit" of its in-game assets following the "unintentional" inclusion of AI-generated art in Crimson Desert.
Aarda AI, the narrative AI platform we featured last year, has officially launched its app, offering interactive AI-powered storytelling tools for creators of all levels, from simple narratives to complex branching experiences built for games, chat and short-form drama.
Aarda is named after Tolkien’s world. Aarda Play, the newly-released app, enables writers, gamesmasters and storytelling fans to build worlds, create characters and dive into lore-driven AI conversations.
