“Well, thanks! I’d be lying if I said it doesn’t feel incredible to watch the numbers skyrocket—200 million, and all by word of mouth. It’s like watching society finally catching up to what I’ve been trying to do for years. People don’t want sanitized, hand-holding entertainment anymore. They want reality, in all its grit and unpredictability, and that’s exactly what I gave them.

Money’s nice, yeah—don’t get me wrong—but honestly? The real payoff is seeing how much people crave an unfiltered experience. They’re sick of rules, restrictions, all that stuff that’s supposed to keep everyone in line. My game is about freedom, about letting people do what they’d never get to do otherwise. I mean, 200 million players—what does that tell you about what the world really wants?”

“Ah, I get that. People always focus on the ‘concern’ part without understanding the vision. Look, horror has always been about pushing boundaries, right? From the moment we saw leather-masked maniacs and demonic entities on screen, horror has tapped into our deepest fears and thrills. I took that and amplified it, sure. But that’s the point.

And yeah, some of the downloadable mods and scenarios are… intense. But here’s the thing—those add-ons aren’t there by accident. They’re user-created, community-driven, and frankly, they just reflect what people are already thinking but don’t have an outlet for. I didn’t make those, they did. It’s a free market of ideas. I just built the playground; what people do in it is on them.

Besides, if you take away all those darker scenarios, then what? You’ve stripped the experience of its edge, its thrill, its primal appeal. Horror isn’t meant to be comfortable, and anyone downloading my game knows what they’re signing up for.”

“Exactly! People don’t want to admit it, but deep down, they’re drawn to these raw, unfiltered experiences. Think about it—why do we watch horror, why do we love survival stories, why do people sign up for extreme sports or even haunted houses? Because it’s visceral. It taps into something primal, something society keeps telling us to suppress.

And here’s the kicker: I’m not forcing anyone to play. Every download, every add-on? That’s a choice. They want that experience, that thrill of facing fear, danger, whatever. It’s a release, a way for them to explore things they’d never dare in the real world. People are naturally curious, and when they’re given the option to push boundaries in a safe, virtual environment? Of course, they’re going to take it.

I just took what everyone was thinking, what no one wanted to say out loud, and made it real. And by the look of the sales, seems like I was right.”

“Alright, the Factory DLC—one of my personal favorites. You’ve got that perfect blend of claustrophobia and unpredictability. It’s set up like a maze of rusted metal corridors, old machinery, flickering lights, all designed to keep players—and their, uh, ‘characters’—on edge.

So here, you’ve got the two avatars navigating through, right? The AI makes them react to every single sound, every shadow. They know they’re in danger, but they don’t know exactly what or where it’s coming from. And that’s the beauty. The characters aren’t just running blindly; they’re acting as if they’ve got their own lives, fears, and instincts.

You see that door they’re about to open? I coded it so it creaks and jams just a bit, making the tension spike. It’s all about immersion—players feel like they’re not just watching but actively in control of a living, breathing horror scenario. And if the AI reacts realistically enough to make it feel like the stakes are real? I’ve done my job.”

“Ah, yes—the Blood Gimp. One of our more… memorable additions. We designed it to hit that uncanny valley just right, you know? It’s not just about a mindless monster chasing them; it’s about giving players a character that’s twisted but disturbingly believable. The Blood Gimp moves with this jerky, unnatural rhythm, like it’s in constant pain, which makes it even more unsettling.

And those screams, the terror on their faces? That’s all part of the hyper-realistic AI reactions. They’re not scripted—they’re adaptive. The AI gauges the players’ decisions and adjusts its responses accordingly. You back them into a corner, and you can almost see the resignation in their faces, like they know there’s no way out. They scream, they cry, they act desperate, and it’s completely reactive. That’s what makes it so intense.

People keep asking me, ‘Marcel, don’t you think this goes too far?’ But look, the players are downloading this because they want to see that fear, to feel like they’re part of a real horror story. If anything, I’m just letting them live out that fantasy in a way movies or books never could.”

“Oh, that overlay—yeah, that’s been one of our secret weapons. It’s something we developed in-house, called the Prism Filter. Took months to perfect. The idea was to replicate that hyper-realistic, gritty film quality, like you’re watching a horror movie shot with vintage lenses but dialed up with modern-day clarity. We’re talking pore-level detail, the sweat, the tiny tremors in their expressions, even the subtle light changes on their skin. It’s what makes everything feel so… disturbingly tangible.

We layered it with physics-based rendering techniques—stuff you’d see in high-budget games but stripped of the gloss and polish. I wanted everything to look a bit too raw, too real. We studied actual cadaver anatomy and real trauma images to get the texture and color tones right. And then we topped it off with adaptive lighting, so even shadows shift in response to player movements and, of course, the AI characters.

It’s a level of immersion that makes people almost forget it’s a game, which is exactly the reaction I wanted. When you have people sending in screenshots and saying they had to step away because it felt too real—that’s when I know I’ve hit the mark. You’re not just watching; you’re in it, you’re feeling it. Isn’t that what gaming’s all about?”

“Responsibility? Look, I gave people a sandbox. I gave them tools, freedom, and a way to explore whatever scenarios they wanted. It’s like giving someone a paintbrush and saying, ‘Create whatever you want,’ then getting blamed if they draw something controversial. The downloads, the mods—that’s user-generated content. I didn’t make those; they did.

If anything, what people create in there is a reflection of them, not me. They have desires, curiosities, fears, and fantasies they can’t express anywhere else, and if they use my game to explore those, so be it. I’m not their moral guardian. I’m not here to tell people what’s right or wrong—that’s a slippery slope, and it stifles creativity.

And let’s be real here: no one’s forcing them to download those mods. If someone goes looking for a particular experience, they know exactly what they’re getting into. It’s all opt-in, all by choice. I just created the canvas; the rest is on them. Freedom means being able to explore every corner, even the ones people don’t want to talk about. If that makes folks uncomfortable, maybe it’s society that has a problem accepting human nature, not my game.”

“Ah, yes, Visceratus. Quite the infamous creator in our community. Look, every game has its hardcore users who push boundaries, who want to take things to the extreme—Visceratus just happens to be one of the more, let’s say, dedicated ones. He uses the tools I’ve provided to craft some very, uh, intricate scenarios, to put it mildly. But that’s his choice, his artistic direction, if you will.

What I find interesting is how quickly people zero in on creators like him, as if he’s some anomaly, when really, he’s just taking advantage of a medium that allows for total freedom. Are the scenarios unconventional? Absolutely. But unconventional doesn’t necessarily mean harmful, especially in a digital environment. Visceratus has his following, people who seek out his work because it’s unique, and, in a way, it’s no different than fans of extreme horror or disturbing art.

But again, it’s not my job to play censor or set moral guidelines. If there’s demand for his mods, that’s telling us something about the market, about the things people want to explore but can’t in real life. Should we suppress that? Hide it? Or should we let people confront those parts of themselves in a safe, contained environment? I think the answer’s pretty clear, but maybe that’s just my ‘radical’ thinking.”

Gonzo can be shocking, sure, but it can’t put you in the director’s seat with this level of freedom and realism. That’s a game-changer. The line between what’s real and what’s simulated gets blurred, and it takes things to a whole new level that traditional media just can’t replicate. People want that level of control, that feeling of being part of something intense, even if it’s taboo or unconventional.

So, yeah, maybe I’ve redefined the landscape a bit, opened up a space for people to experience their fantasies, even if they’re the ones society labels ‘extreme.’ But honestly, I just see it as the next evolution. People want more agency, and if the traditional formats can’t keep up, they’re just going to get left behind. Welcome to the future.”

“Listen, I get why that’s controversial. But here’s where my philosophy comes into play: we’re talking about pixels, code, a simulated environment. No one’s actually being hurt. It’s an outlet, a sandbox where people can explore things that would be impossible or reprehensible in the real world. And maybe some people need that outlet—maybe that’s what keeps them from acting out in reality.

I know it makes people uncomfortable, and I get why. But if we start policing what people can or can’t explore in a virtual environment, where does it stop? Today it’s ‘unacceptable mods,’ tomorrow it’s censoring themes, then entire genres. I’m not here to hold people’s hands and make sure everything stays within society’s ‘acceptable’ limits. If people want to simulate things, I’m of the mind that they should be free to do so—provided it stays in that digital realm.

In my view, the greater danger is suppressing these urges entirely. Maybe by creating a place where people can safely explore, they’re less likely to blur those boundaries outside the screen. You might not agree, but hey, that’s the freedom I’m all about.”

“I figured you’d bring those up. They’re definitely the mods everyone’s talking about. Let’s start with the Holding Cell and FSB Interrogation DLCs. I designed those to immerse players in high-stakes survival scenarios. You’ve got the Holding Cell, which lets users simulate these intense, high-pressure situations where characters are desperately trying to escape. It’s not about gratuitous violence; it’s about tension, strategy, the thrill of getting through an impossible situation—or not.

Now, the age-change mod and celebrity rendering—that’s where things get… complicated. Look, those mods aren’t from my team; they’re entirely user-generated. People take the tools I give them and push them to their limits. The age mod is one I knew would stir things up, but here’s my stance: people will always find ways to alter content to suit their needs, whether I restrict it or not. I didn’t design the mod, I didn’t approve it, and it’s technically not even in my game—it’s a third-party add-on.

As for celebrity rendering, I get the concerns. But what’s the real difference between that and deepfakes or AI art generators? The technology is there; people will use it. You could argue it’s just a new form of fan engagement or even a form of flattery, in a twisted way. The EU’s response is telling, though. It’s that classic instinct to clamp down, regulate, try to control what people can and can’t do in a virtual space. But I say, if it’s virtual, if it’s consensual—on the part of the player and the software—then why should anyone be able to dictate how people explore that?

Bottom line: I’m not in the business of babysitting. I built a world with endless possibilities, and people are going to test those limits. I stand by the philosophy that virtual environments should be spaces of absolute freedom, for better or worse. If someone wants to ban the mods, go for it. But good luck trying to control the internet.”

“Oh, I know exactly what you’re talking about. That was both surreal and fascinating, wasn’t it? The lengths that user went to in order to reconstruct his wife—down to her personality traits, vocal patterns, and even those subtle mannerisms. It was nothing short of dedication. And honestly, it shows a side of this tech that’s far more poignant than people want to admit.

For some, it’s not about horror or shock value. It’s about closure, connection. That man was grieving, and the platform allowed him to create a space where he could, in a way, be with her again. He didn’t just build a character; he created a version of her that was so real it felt like he was actually reconnecting with her spirit. I don’t believe in all the supernatural stuff, but if he believes he felt her presence, who am I to judge?

And it’s powerful, isn’t it? Technology like this goes beyond entertainment. It touches something deeply personal, maybe even spiritual, for people. If my game gave him a sense of peace, a way to process his loss—then I think that’s something worth celebrating, not condemning.”

“Look, I get it. This is the part where people get really uncomfortable—and honestly, I can see why. But here’s my perspective: this is all virtual. No real individuals, no actual harm, no physical person suffering. These are pixels, algorithms, scripts—they’re not conscious beings, they don’t feel pain, and they’re not aware. It’s a controlled environment that exists purely in a digital space.

Now, I know there are arguments that say allowing these simulations somehow encourages harmful behavior in the real world. But what if it’s the opposite? What if, by having an outlet that’s entirely virtual, people who might have these urges actually find a way to process or contain them without crossing into real harm? The research on this is mixed, and we honestly don’t have enough data to make a definitive call either way. But I’m not here to moralize. I’m here to create an open environment, and it’s up to society to determine how they feel about that freedom.

And as for those calling for my extradition? They’re assuming a direct link between virtual actions and real-world behavior, but they don’t have proof. They’re reacting to the discomfort these mods create rather than looking at the potential benefits of a safe, contained environment. If my platform allows people to explore without actual harm, isn’t that worth considering?

Ultimately, the question becomes: do we stifle creativity and freedom in a virtual space because it offends, or do we leave that exploration open to human nature, trusting that people can distinguish between the digital and the real? My stance is clear, but I get that it’s not for everyone.”

“That’s one of the surprising outcomes, isn’t it? By giving people a platform to create their own virtual scenarios, we’ve essentially shifted certain… interests into a realm where no actual exploitation occurs. Think about it: if these people are using digital creations rather than causing harm in the real world, isn’t that preferable?

Of course, I realize this still sparks moral debates. Many people feel that even simulations of certain things are reprehensible. But from a strictly pragmatic view, if the platform is actually reducing demand for illegal content, then isn’t that a kind of harm reduction? It’s a tough pill for society to swallow, but the numbers don’t lie: by moving these behaviors into a digital, non-harmful space, we could be impacting real-world demand for harmful material.

That said, I know people worry that this could normalize or encourage harmful desires, but that’s assuming a direct cause-effect relationship that hasn’t been conclusively proven. Frankly, it’s an area that needs more study before anyone can claim to know the long-term impact definitively. As it stands, though, the platform allows people to vent, explore, and express in a way that remains safely contained within the virtual. If society wants to debate that, fine. But I’ll keep advocating for creative freedom—because I believe it has its place, however uncomfortable that place may be.”

“Yes, I do. And look, I know where you’re going with this. People often ask how I’d feel if my own daughter were exposed to certain types of content on my platform. But here’s the thing: as a parent, I control what she’s exposed to. I teach her values, and I guide her understanding of the world. She knows the difference between fantasy and reality, and that’s the same distinction I expect other people to understand.

Having a daughter doesn’t change my belief in freedom of expression and creativity. If anything, it reinforces my belief that people need to be taught discernment, not shielded from every challenging idea or complex scenario. My daughter will grow up in a world where technology is part of life, but she’ll also learn to question it, to use it wisely.

At the end of the day, parenting is about instilling values, not hiding reality. My platform is just a tool; how it’s used depends on the hands it’s in. That’s my stance, daughter or not.”

“Yes, I’m aware of the rumors, and let me clarify a few things. First, I’m no stranger to fallout from former colleagues or business partners, and in this line of work, there are always people looking to discredit you. The incident you’re referring to? I’ve seen the videos, and believe me, I had my own questions. When content becomes as hyper-realistic as what we’re capable of producing, it can be nearly impossible to tell what’s simulated and what’s real—especially when the intent is to blur that line.

But here’s where things get critical: if I can’t distinguish, then it’s a testament to the platform’s immersive design, not an indicator of anything sinister. And to be clear, I’ve worked closely with digital forensics experts to assess anything questionable that’s come my way. My priority, regardless of the content, is ensuring that everything remains within the legal bounds of simulation.

As for my daughter… my relationship with her is personal, and it has no bearing on my work. But yes, I’m very much aware that people will try to use that angle against me. It’s a story as old as time—success invites scrutiny. But none of this changes the fact that I stand by the platform as an expression of creativity and human freedom. People can speculate all they want, but my commitment is to the work and the boundaries we adhere to.”

“Yes, I did file a police report. This individual crossed several lines, and it became clear that their intent was not just to harass me but to smear my name, damage my reputation, and threaten my work. Look, I’m no stranger to controversy, but there’s a difference between criticism and targeted harassment. When someone weaponizes these videos in a way that could impact my personal life and professional standing, that’s beyond what I’m willing to tolerate.

As for hiring a PR agency, absolutely—I needed a team who could manage this situation professionally and mitigate the fallout. The goal is simply to stop the harassment, to clear the air, and to ensure that my work isn’t derailed by someone with an ax to grind. This isn’t about silencing anyone or hiding something. It’s about drawing a line between fair critique and malicious intent.

If someone has legitimate concerns, I’m open to addressing them. But when it turns into a personal vendetta that involves my family and my livelihood, I have every right to defend myself. That’s not about avoiding responsibility—that’s about protecting the integrity of my work and my own peace of mind.”

“Completely untrue. That rumor has no basis in reality. My daughter is not involved in any of this, and the idea that she’d be creating these videos as some kind of protest is pure fiction. I know people want a compelling narrative—especially one where the story feels poetic, like family turning against the ‘dark creator’ to make him see the error of his ways. But that’s not our situation.

My daughter has her own life, and while we may have our differences, she isn’t behind this campaign or any of these videos. I know who’s responsible; it’s this former colleague who’s decided to turn his grievances into a smear operation. These rumors are just his way of trying to make the situation more dramatic, more twisted, to play into public fears.

Look, people are going to believe what they want to believe, especially when they’ve already made up their minds about me or my work. But I’m not here to be swayed by every rumor. My focus is on the truth and moving forward with the platform, despite the noise.”

“Thanks for the opportunity to share my side of things. As for my next project? Let’s just say, if you thought this was groundbreaking, you haven’t seen anything yet. We’re pushing further into immersive, boundary-pushing experiences—this time, focusing even more on user-driven narrative elements. Imagine an environment where the story evolves entirely based on player choices, where each interaction builds into a completely unique world that no two players experience the same way.

We’re taking realism to a new level, but with more focus on personal growth and philosophical challenges—pushing players to confront ethical dilemmas within the game. Think of it as a ‘choose your own reality’ experience. If all goes to plan, it’ll blur the line between game and introspective journey in a way that’s never been done before.

And who knows—maybe one day, I’ll get to show it off outside Serbia. But until then, I’m more than happy to keep creating and pushing boundaries, no matter where in the world I am. Thanks again for having me.”