San Francisco Tech Bro Pulls Plug on AI Game Letting Players Shoot ‘Homeless Zombies’ After Backlash

A San Francisco tech developer reportedly made $300 (£225) in advertising revenue from a video game he built in a single weekend using AI coding tools — before public outrage over its portrayal of the city's homeless population forced him to shut it down just days after launch.

Pierre-Louis Biojout, founder of AI business platform NanoCorp, launched the free multiplayer browser game on Tuesday, promoting it as a 'Call of Duty style zombie shooter on the real SF streets'.

The backlash was fast. Critics accused the game of letting players shoot zombie-like characters resembling homeless people and drug users on San Francisco's streets, turning the city's homelessness and addiction problems into a video game.

From Weekend Experiment to Public Controversy

Biojout had reportedly never built a video game before creating the shooter in just one weekend with the help of AI coding tools.

The game transformed San Francisco's notorious Tenderloin neighbourhood into a zombie-killing zone, drawing on the area's recognisable streets and atmosphere for its setting.

For Biojout, the idea was inspired by his own daily routine. He walks through the Tenderloin twice a day on his way to his office and believed the neighbourhood had a 'distinctive atmosphere' that would work well for a zombie-shooter game.

To its creator, it was just a cheeky bit of gaming fun.

To everyone else, it looked far more sinister.

The game was a fictional shooter set in a real neighbourhood, one known for homelessness, open drug use and a deepening public health crisis. And for many, that was a step too far.

The backlash grew as critics accused the developer of making vulnerable people part of a violent spectacle, even if the targets in the game were presented as zombies.

One social media user wrote: 'You think you're being edgy but you're just a huge piece of sh*t.'

Another criticised the publicity surrounding the project, saying: 'Bring back shame. This is atrocious PR.'

Gamers Defend the Project as Critics Demand Accountability

While many critics welcomed the game's removal, others argued that the backlash was excessive and that the project should be understood as satire rather than an endorsement of violence against homeless people.

The debate continued online, with some users questioning why a game had attracted such intense criticism when the problems affecting the Tenderloin itself remained unresolved.

Among the reactions from people defending Biojout were these comments:

'Where can I play this game? open source it, Pierre!'

'Seriously the people taking shots at you were more concerned about what happens in a video game than in real life'

'Should have double down'd instead of giving into the mob.'

Another supporter argued that the response revealed more about the critics than the game itself, writing:

'You made a great game! the fact some people are more bothered by the game than the actual epidemic on the streets speaks volumes on their screwed up agenda. Never give in to temper tantrums from grown ass babies!'

The reaction was sharply divided.

Some saw a deliberately provocative project as fair game, a piece of satire that was meant to shock.

Others saw something very different. In their view, turning real-world hardship into entertainment crosses a line, whatever the creator had in mind.

Local Politician Condemns the Game's Portrayal of Homelessness

The controversy also drew criticism from elected officials, bringing the dispute beyond gaming communities and social media.

San Francisco Supervisor Bilal Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin, condemned the concept.

'Turning violence against real people, including unhoused people, into entertainment is dehumanizing and should never be normalized,' Mahmood said.

That, he argued, was the whole problem.

The Tenderloin isn't a fictional setting. It's a real neighbourhood, home to people dealing with homelessness, addiction and other social woes every single day.

Zombie shooter. Real neighbourhood. Real people.

Critics said that was the problem. Placing a violent game in that setting reduced complex human suffering to a novelty for players.

But this wasn't just about whether the game was offensive. It was about who gets to use real communities as inspiration for digital products, and whether the people living there are seen as human beings or as props.

AI Makes Game Development Easier — But Not Controversy-Proof

AI coding assistants now let people with little or no programming experience turn an idea into a working product in a fraction of the time it once took. Biojout says he built his game in a single weekend and made $300 (£225) in ad revenue before pulling it.

That doesn't mean AI made the creative decisions, or that every AI-built project will take off. It does mean an idea can go live before its creator has fully considered the reaction.

The money was easy to fix. Advertisers were refunded, and an equal sum went to a drug treatment and recovery service. The damage to a reputation is harder to measure.

And Biojout is one. He runs NanoCorp, a platform that uses AI agents to build and operate online businesses.

The bigger question: when AI makes launching almost anything easy, who is responsible for the fallout?

The Game Is Gone, but the Argument Is Far From Over

The game is gone. The argument isn't.

For critics, the backlash was a much-needed reminder. Real communities shouldn't have to become the backdrop for entertainment built on their struggles.

Supporters say it proves how willing the internet has become to punish creators for controversial ideas, even fictional ones.

Now the question hangs over every AI-powered creator. Building is easy. But can developers keep pace when it comes to understanding the consequences?

As one defender put it: 'Your game was fantastic satire.'