The head of Krafton, the publisher behind Subnautica 2 and PUBG, is facing a lawsuit that claims he turned to ChatGPT for advice on how to avoid paying a massive bonus to key developers. The allegation, laid out by ousted leads from the Subnautica 2 team, turns a familiar story about corporate cost cutting into a sharp example of how generative AI is already entangled in workplace power struggles. At stake is not only a reported 250,000,000 won payout, but also trust between executives and the people who build their games.
According to court filings described by multiple outlets, the dispute centers on whether Krafton leadership tried to sidestep a contractual commitment to the Subnautica 2 team, and whether an AI chatbot was used as a sounding board for that strategy. I see the case as a revealing snapshot of how quickly AI tools have moved from novelty to boardroom instrument, and how their use can inflame already fraught debates over labor, bonuses, and creative control.
What the lawsuit actually alleges
The lawsuit, brought by former Subnautica 2 leads who say they were wrongfully removed from the project, alleges that Krafton executives discussed how to avoid paying a promised bonus worth 250,000,000 won to the game’s leadership. According to their account, that payout was tied to performance and retention, and the plaintiffs argue they were pushed out before they could qualify. Reporting on the complaint describes internal conversations in which the executives allegedly framed the bonus as a problem to be solved rather than a commitment to honor, with the disputed payout figure of 250,000,000 won appearing repeatedly in summaries of the filing linked to the contested bonus.
Central to the case is the claim that the company’s chief executive, identified in coverage as Krafton’s boss, sought ways to restructure or terminate the developers’ roles so the bonus would not come due. The plaintiffs say this was not a routine contract review but a targeted effort to remove them before the payout window, which they frame as a breach of good faith. Their allegations are echoed in detailed breakdowns of the complaint that describe how the fired Subnautica 2 leads accuse the CEO of trying to “get out of paying” the 250,000,000 won bonus, a phrase that appears in coverage of the fired Subnautica 2 leads.
How ChatGPT entered the picture
What turns this dispute from a standard bonus fight into a headline-grabbing story is the allegation that Krafton’s CEO consulted ChatGPT on how to avoid paying the money. According to the lawsuit summaries, the executive is said to have asked the chatbot for advice on legal or managerial tactics that could prevent the Subnautica 2 team from receiving their 250,000,000 won payout. One account describes the CEO allegedly using the AI tool to explore options that would let him sidestep the obligation without appearing weak, a detail that surfaces in reporting on how the CEO allegedly asked ChatGPT to help him find a way out.
The complaint, as described in those reports, does not hinge on whether ChatGPT’s responses were followed to the letter, but on the fact that the CEO allegedly treated an AI chatbot as a confidential adviser on how to deny compensation to his own staff. That detail has resonated with players and developers alike, in part because it crystallizes broader anxieties about AI being used to rationalize or automate decisions that hurt workers. Coverage of the court case notes that the Subnautica 2 dispute is now being cited as an example of executives using generative AI to probe the boundaries of their obligations, a theme highlighted in analysis of the court case involving ChatGPT and the Subnautica 2 team.
The Slack messages and internal discussions
Beyond the chatbot prompt itself, the lawsuit points to internal Slack conversations as evidence that Krafton executives were actively workshopping ways to dodge the payout. According to reporting on the filing, senior figures at the company allegedly used Slack channels to discuss strategies for restructuring the Subnautica 2 leadership or altering their contracts so the 250,000,000 won bonus would not be triggered. Those accounts describe a pattern in which the bonus was treated as a liability to be minimized, with executives allegedly trading messages about how to “dodge” the payout, language that appears in coverage of how Krafton execs allegedly used Slack and ChatGPT to discuss the issue.
The plaintiffs argue that these Slack logs, combined with the reported ChatGPT query, show a coordinated effort rather than a one-off remark. In their telling, the conversations reveal a mindset where contractual bonuses are negotiable if leadership can find a clever workaround, even if that means sidelining the people responsible for the game’s success. Summaries of the lawsuit emphasize that the ousted Subnautica 2 leads see their removal as the culmination of those internal discussions, a claim that is echoed in reporting on how the ousted Subnautica 2 devs allege the company asked AI how to avoid paying their bonus.
Developers’ claims of retaliation and wrongful removal
The former Subnautica 2 leads are not only seeking the unpaid bonus, they also frame their firing as retaliation for pushing back against Krafton’s shifting plans for the game and its business model. According to the lawsuit summaries, the plaintiffs say they raised concerns about the direction of Subnautica 2 and the impact of certain monetization decisions, and that their resistance put them at odds with executives who already viewed the 250,000,000 won bonus as a problem. They argue that their eventual removal from the project was not performance based but a calculated move to clear the way for a different vision and to avoid the payout, a narrative that appears in detailed accounts of the fired Subnautica 2 leads’ allegations.
From the developers’ perspective, the alleged ChatGPT query and Slack discussions are part of a broader pattern in which their contributions were devalued once they became inconvenient to the company’s financial goals. They claim that promises made when they joined the project, including the 250,000,000 won bonus structure, were quietly reinterpreted or undermined as soon as leadership decided the cost was too high. Reporting on the lawsuit notes that the plaintiffs are seeking not only financial compensation but also a legal acknowledgment that their removal was unjust, a point that surfaces in coverage of the ousted devs’ legal claims about how and why they were pushed out.
Community reaction and the Reddit flashpoint
News of the lawsuit and the alleged ChatGPT prompt quickly spilled into player communities, where it has become a flashpoint for frustration with corporate behavior in the games industry. On Reddit, threads dissecting the court filings and summarizing the allegations have drawn intense discussion, with users debating what the case says about executive attitudes toward bonuses and AI. One widely shared post in a PC gaming forum lays out the claim that Krafton’s CEO asked an AI chatbot for help avoiding the Subnautica 2 bonus, and the comment section is filled with players expressing anger, disbelief, or weary resignation at the idea that leadership would treat staff compensation as a puzzle to solve with a bot, a reaction captured in the PC gaming community thread on the allegations.
For many players, the detail that an AI tool was allegedly used to brainstorm ways around a contractual promise has become a symbol of a deeper disconnect between executives and the people who make and play games. The conversation on social platforms often links this case to broader concerns about layoffs, live service pivots, and aggressive monetization, with some commenters arguing that the Subnautica 2 dispute is part of a pattern in which creative teams are treated as disposable. Coverage of the lawsuit notes that this backlash is not just about one bonus, but about a growing perception that AI is being deployed in ways that prioritize corporate convenience over human relationships, a theme that surfaces in analysis of the reported attempt to avoid paying bonuses to the Subnautica 2 developers.
Why the alleged AI query matters beyond this case
Even if a court ultimately focuses on contract language and employment law, the allegation that a CEO consulted ChatGPT about how to deny a bonus carries symbolic weight. It illustrates how generative AI has already slipped into the toolkit of corporate decision making, not just for drafting emails or summarizing reports, but for probing the edges of what companies can get away with. In this case, the reported prompt is framed as an attempt to find a way to avoid paying 250,000,000 won without appearing like a “pushover,” a characterization that appears in coverage of how the Krafton boss allegedly asked ChatGPT how to dodge the payout.
From a labor perspective, the story feeds into a broader fear that AI will be used to rationalize cost cutting at the expense of workers, whether by automating tasks, justifying layoffs, or, as alleged here, brainstorming ways to avoid contractual obligations. The Subnautica 2 case is already being cited in commentary about the ethics of using AI in management, with critics arguing that even asking a chatbot how to sidestep a bonus reflects a willingness to treat employees as obstacles rather than partners. That concern is echoed in reporting that describes how the CEO reportedly turned to an AI assistant for help avoiding the Subnautica 2 developers’ bonuses, a detail highlighted in analysis of the alleged attempt to avoid paying the Subnautica devs’ bonus.
What comes next for Krafton and Subnautica 2
For Krafton, the lawsuit arrives at a delicate moment, as the company tries to position Subnautica 2 as a major follow up to a beloved survival game while also managing investor expectations. The legal dispute raises questions about how stable the project’s leadership has been and whether the creative vision has shifted alongside the internal power struggle. Reports on the case note that the ousted leads were central to the game’s direction before their removal, and that their departure, combined with the bonus controversy, has left some fans wondering how much of the original plan will survive, a concern that surfaces in coverage of the publisher’s alleged efforts to avoid paying the 250,000,000 won bonus.
Legally, the case will likely turn on documentation: contracts, Slack logs, internal emails, and any records of the alleged ChatGPT query. The plaintiffs will try to show a clear line from the executives’ discussions about dodging the payout to their removal from the project, while Krafton will presumably argue that leadership changes were justified and unrelated to the bonus. As the proceedings unfold, more details about how the company handled Subnautica 2’s leadership and compensation structure are likely to emerge, and those revelations will shape not only the outcome of this dispute but also the wider conversation about how AI is used in corporate decision making. Coverage of the lawsuit already frames it as a test case for that debate, a framing that appears in analysis of the Subnautica 2 court case and its implications for AI in the workplace.
How the story fits into a wider industry pattern
Viewed in isolation, a CEO allegedly asking ChatGPT how to avoid paying a bonus might look like an outlier, but in context it fits into a broader pattern of tension between game publishers and development teams. Over the past few years, the industry has seen high profile disputes over royalties, revenue sharing, and post-launch support, with developers often feeling that the financial upside of their work is captured by executives and shareholders. The Subnautica 2 lawsuit adds a new twist by suggesting that generative AI is now part of the toolkit used in those disputes, a point underscored in reporting that describes how the Krafton CEO allegedly sought AI help to avoid the “embarrassment” of being seen as a pushover.
For players and developers watching from the outside, the case serves as a reminder that the tools shaping the future of work are not neutral. How executives choose to use AI, whether to support teams or to find ways around commitments, will influence not only legal outcomes but also morale, retention, and the quality of the games that reach players. The Subnautica 2 dispute may ultimately be resolved through a settlement or a court ruling, but the image of a CEO typing a bonus-avoidance prompt into ChatGPT is likely to linger as a shorthand for the uneasy intersection of AI, power, and pay in the modern games business, a theme that runs through detailed breakdowns of the lawsuit’s central claims about how the Krafton boss allegedly tried to dodge the payout.
More from MorningOverview