In August of 2025, Kim Belair, CEO and cofounder of Sweet Baby Inc., confirmed what many gamers had long suspected. In the hour-long interview, Belair inadvertently revealed several of the company’s most revealing practices.
My husband, Master of the TDS, and I watched the full interview live and later produced a thirty-minute highlight reel for our viewers. In all, the discussion between Kim and the interviewer proved unusually candid, offering a rare glimpse into how Sweet Baby Inc. operates behind the scenes of AAA game development.
Contributions and Contradictions
Belair described Sweet Baby Inc.’s direct involvement in Spider-Man 2 over roughly three years, focusing on the storylines for Kraven and Harry Osborn, and said her team helped “shape the narrative beats and character work” for Alan Wake 2. Taken together, these remarks contradict the company’s long-standing public stance that it serves only as a consulting firm.
They also suggest that Sweet Baby’s influence extended well beyond advisory guidance into core narrative and creative decisions. Many observers interpreted this portion of the interview as a quiet admission that the studio played a far deeper role in shaping these games than it had previously acknowledged.
Furthermore, when asked about the backlash and criticism directed towards Sweet Baby Inc., Belair claimed that no one had ever reached out with questions about her company’s work:
“There are thousands of videos about us… but of those people, no one has written to us to say, ‘Hey, can I just ask a couple questions about how this works?’”
Later, she said people could reach out via email but that “no one has.” These remarks appeared contradictory and did not match the public record. Multiple creators, including Smash JT, have documented attempts to contact the company that went unanswered. During our Gothic Therapy livestream, we highlighted this discrepancy, noting that Belair’s statements ignored these outreach efforts.
Belair also compared game development to a “battlefield”, describing creative collaboration as a series of “wins and losses.” Another notable moment came when she encouraged developers to “fight for their baby”—i.e. their own ideas—even when those ideas did not fit the broader story or mechanics of a game. What she did was rationalize personal or ideological self-insertion in collaborative projects, potentially disrupting narrative cohesion.
The Ideological Core
As the discussion turned to broader “backlash,” Belair framed criticism as hostility toward progress itself:
“When people fight against wokeness, what they’re really doing is fighting against progressiveness—and in a way, fighting against themselves.”
She concluded,
“We did nothing wrong. We did our jobs the best we could.”
While Belair emphasized the public reaction, she did not address that the controversy originated from a former employee’s online action. In fact, Kim never mentioned or even acknowledged what Chris Kindred did, nor did she bring up his firing. In the entire interview, Kim Belair acted as though these events never happened. This omission allowed her to portray Sweet Baby Inc. as a passive target rather than acknowledging factors that contributed to public scrutiny.
Taken together with her earlier comments, this selective framing reinforced a defensive posture: the company presented itself as morally certain, while sidestepping accountability for the events that triggered much of the backlash.
Community Reaction and the Bigger Picture
For Gothic Therapy’s audience, the conversation marked what many might call a “mask-off moment”: the point where Sweet Baby Inc. could no longer present itself as a neutral narrative consultant.
Belair’s remarks may now reignite debate over the line between consultation and authorship in modern game development. Her own description of SBI’s creative work suggests that narrative consultants can, in practice, shape the stories millions of players experience. Combined with the contradictions and omissions highlighted during the livestream, the interview underscores ongoing questions about transparency, accountability, and ideological influence within AAA projects.
Whether the wider industry will acknowledge the extent of such influence—or take steps toward greater clarity—remains to be seen. For players, creators, and observers alike, the talk offered a moment of vindication and truth.
