Leadership from KAI, Hanwha Systems, Funzin and KAIST at the center’s opening ceremony.
Credit: Korea Aerospace Industries
SINGAPORE—Alongside Hanwha Systems and local artificial intelligence (AI) company Funzin, Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has set up an AI-Electronic Warfare Research Center. The center is located at KAI’s facility within the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST). The center…
Chen Chuanren is the Southeast Asia and China Editor for the Aviation Week Network’s (AWN) Air Transport World (ATW) and the Asia-Pacific Defense Correspondent for AWN, joining the team in 2017.
Subscription Required
KAI Sets Up Artificial Intelligence-Electronic Warfare Research Center is published in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, an Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) Market Briefing and is included with your AWIN membership.
Already a member of AWIN or subscribe to Aerospace Daily & Defense Report through your company? Login with your existing email and password.
Not a member? Learn how you can access the market intelligence and data you need to stay abreast of what’s happening in the aerospace and defense community.
EVA, one of the main characters in the remade game (image brightened from source)
Metal Gear is one of the best-selling video game series in history, shifting more than 60 million copies.
The series pioneered cinematics in gaming by blending cutting-edge cutscenes, voice acting and dynamic camera angles to create something that would have looked more at home on the big screen at the time.
Metal Gear tackled themes not commonly seen in games, such as nuclear disarmament and child soldiers, and posed philosophical questions while also leveraging offbeat humour.
The games would often break the fourth wall and ask players to find solutions to puzzles in unusual ways – such as looking on the back cover of the game’s physical box.
The series’ significant place in gaming history meant fans were stunned when its creator Hideo Kojima quit game publisher Konami in an acrimonious split in 2015.
One of gaming’s biggest titles was left directionless – and there’s been no game in the best-selling series since.
But now, a decade later, Konami has released a remake of the third game in the series: Metal Gear Solid Delta.
So what happened between Konami and Kojima, and how does the new game hold up without its original creator?
Why did Kojima leave Konami?
“The impact Metal Gear has had on game-making makes it one of the most heralded entertainment franchises in the world, and made Hideo Kojima one of the industry’s most famous creators,” industry expert Christopher Dring told the BBC.
With such success, you might think it was a match made in heaven, but there were issues bubbling under the surface.
While nothing has been said publicly, one generally accepted theory behind the split relates to the spiralling cost of 2015’s Metal Gear Solid V, estimated by some at more than $80m (£59m) – a very significant development cost at the time.
It is not known exactly what happened between Konami and Kojima, but the studio was clearly fed up with the amount of money he was spending to make a single game – withKojima’s internal studio actually removed from promotional materials for Metal Gear Solid V at the time.
Konami got the game out the door, but it seemed to be scaled back from its original vision despite the high cost, with repeated levels and a third chapter that never emerged.
Even so, the game still received excellent reviews and won several awards, but the rift between company and creator seemed unfixable.
Hideo Kojima has become one of the most famous names in gaming over the past three decades
A few months later, Kojima was gone, and in the years that followed, his former studio pivoted.
“Konami shifted its strategy for a while, away from console games, and focused its efforts on the amusements markets, things like pachinko machines,” Mr Dring said.
“They also focused increasingly on mobile.”
It meant Konami’s other classic franchises like Castlevania and Silent Hill also went without new games for a decade.
Meanwhile, Kojima’s new studio signed a blockbuster deal with Sony to develop the monster hit Death Stranding for PlayStation, followed by a sequel this year.
Why a remake now?
Gaming has pivoted towards remakes in recent years.
High-profile games like Resident Evil 4, Final Fantasy VII and Demon’s Souls, all classics in their day, have been remade with the benefits of modern graphics and game design to big fanfare – and strong sales figures.
“It’s a hugely lucrative and growing sector,” said Mr Dring.
“The industry is getting older, gamers are entering middle age and are nostalgic for classic titles.
Mr Drings points out that one of the best-selling games of the year so far is Elder Scrolls V: Oblivion Remastered, a remake of a classic Role-Playing Game (RPG) from 2007, selling millions of copies since its release in April.
Konami has begun a return to publishing games by focusing in this area, with a Silent Hill remake coming last year and a new Survival Kids game released earlier in 2025.
So it is a potentially lucrative move – but is Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater the right game to remake?
Konami
A jungle scene from Metal Gear Solid 3’s original release in 2004. Believe it or not, these were considered ground-breaking graphics at the time
Fans of the series told the BBC Metal Gear Solid 3 was chosen for good reason.
YouTuber Zak Ras said there was “immense significance” behind the game.
“Most people will say their favourite entry to the series is either Metal Gear Solid 1 or 3,” he said.
“Story-wise, given that it’s the first prequel set at the very beginning of the series timeline, it’s one of the few entries you can go into completely blind with absolutely no required knowledge of the series, other than very first Metal Gear from 1987.”
Ras said Metal Gear Solid 3 struck a good balance between gameplay and cinematic storytelling, making it a good choice for people who have never played a game in the series before.
For example, the game opens with an introduction heavily influenced by James Bond films, meaning new fans are eased into the series’ weirder elements.
And the brothers behind PythonSelkan Studios – known as Python & Selkan to their 122,000 YouTube subscribers – agreed.
“Completing the game was an incredible experience in itself,” they said. “Snake Eater’s gut-wrenching ending is what stood out most, leaving an impact on us that no other game had ever left before.”
“This game holds a special place in our hearts,” they added.
Metal Gear without Kojima
The brothers said, as lifelong fans of the series, they were “incredibly excited” by the announcement.
The pair are currently playing the remake, and have been “very impressed” by its improved graphics and audio.
They described the game as a “truly a faithful recreation”, adding that it improved “the essence of the original without changing its fundamental structure”.
Konami
The game’s lush jungle setting has benefitted from two decades of improvements in graphical fidelity
So far so good for Metal Gear Solid without Hideo Kojima – which Ras put down to the game being true to the original.
One example he highlights is that the voice performances have been kept the same, and players can choose whether to use the original control scheme or a more modern take.
“There’s no doubt it is Kojima’s directorial ‘genes’ that are being dominantly expressed here,” he said.
“Kojima expressed a desire to move on from Metal Gear since as early as MGS2 and leave the series in the hands of others to continue.
“It may have taken him another 14 years and five director credits for that to happen, but it is now reality.”
And however the remake fares with fans, one household won’t be picking up a new copy – Kojima himself has laughed off the suggestion that he would play the new game.
Anthropic’s settlement came after a mixed ruling on the “fair use” where it potentially faced massive piracy damages for downloading millions of books illegally. The settlement seems to clarify an important principle: how AI companies acquire data matters as much as what they do with it.
After warning both the district court and an appeals court that the potential pursuit of hundreds of billions of dollars in statutory damages created a “death knell” situation that would force an unfair settlement, Anthropic has settled its closely watched copyright lawsuit with authors whose books were allegedly pirated for use in Anthropic’s training data. Anthropic’s settlement this week in a landmark copyright case may signal how the industry will navigate the dozens of similar lawsuits pending nationwide. While settlement details remain confidential pending court approval, the timing reveals essential lessons for AI development and intellectual property law.
The settlement follows Judge William Alsup’s nuanced ruling that using copyrighted materials to train AI models constitutes transformative fair use (essentially, using copyrighted material in a new way that doesn’t compete with the original) — a victory for AI developers. The court held that AI models are “like any reader aspiring to be a writer” who trains upon works “not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different.”
(For readers unfamiliar with copyright law, “fair use” is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes like criticism, comment, or — as courts are now determining — AI training. A key test is whether the new use “transforms” the original work by adding something new or serving a different purpose, rather than simply copying it. Think of it as the difference between a critic quoting a novel to review it versus someone photocopying the entire book to avoid buying it.)
After ruling in Anthropic’s favor on this issue, Judge Alsup drew a bright line at acquisition methods. Anthropic’s downloading of over seven million books from pirate sites like LibGen constituted infringement, the judge ruled, rejecting Anthropic’s “research purpose” defense: “You can’t just bless yourself by saying I have a research purpose and, therefore, go and take any textbook you want.”
The settlement’s timing suggests a pragmatic approach to risk management. While Anthropic could claim vindication on training methodology, defending its acquisition methods before a jury posed substantial financial exposure. Statutory damages for willful infringement can reach $150,000 per work, creating potential liability for Anthropic totaling in the billions.
Anthropic is still facing copyright suits from music publishers, including Universal Music Corp. and Concord Music Group Inc., as well as Reddit. The settlement with authors removes one of Anthropic’s many legal challenges. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said, “[t]his historic settlement will benefit all class members,” promising to announce details in the coming weeks.
This settlement solidifies the principles established in Judge Alsup’s prior ruling: how AI companies acquire training data matters as much as what they do with it. The court’s framework permits AI systems to learn from human cultural output, but only through legitimate channels.
For practitioners advising AI projects and companies, the lesson is straightforward: document data sources meticulously and ensure the legitimate acquisition of data. AI companies that previously relied on scraped or pirated content face strong incentives to negotiate licensing agreements or develop alternative training approaches. Publishers and authors gain leverage to demand compensation, even as the fair use doctrine limits their ability to block AI training entirely.
The Anthropic settlement marks neither a total victory nor a defeat for either side, but rather a recognition of the complex realities governing AI and intellectual property. It also remains to be seen what impact it will have on similar pending cases, including whether this will create a pattern of AI companies settling when facing potential class actions. In this new landscape, the legitimacy of the process matters as much as the innovation of the outcome. That balance will define the next chapter of AI development. Under Anthropic, it is apparent that to maximize chances of AI models constituting fair use, developers should use a bookstore, not a pirate’s flag.
