Gaming industry backlash intensifies over use of AI in development

Yesterday 16:00

By: Dakir Madiha

Gaming industry backlash intensifies over use of AI in development

The global video game industry is facing mounting resistance to the use of generative artificial intelligence, as both players and developers warn the technology is eroding creative work and threatening jobs in a sector worth roughly 200 billion dollars annually. A large-scale survey by analytics firm Quantic Foundry, which polled about 1.75 million players, found that more than 60 percent of respondents view the use of generative AI in games very negatively, especially when it is deployed to produce art, music, voice lines, dialogue or narrative content. Many players argue that machine‑generated assets are easy to spot and cheapen the experience, and some have called on consumers to withhold their spending when they believe AI has replaced human creators. Studios experimenting with AI now risk reputational damage and boycotts if they fail to clearly explain how these tools are used, or if players suspect they have been deployed to cut corners.

Developers are increasingly vocal in their opposition as well. The latest State of the Game Industry survey, published ahead of the 2026 Game Developers Conference and based on responses from more than 2,300 professionals, reported that 52 percent believe generative AI is harming the industry, up from 30 percent a year earlier and 18 percent in 2024. Only around 7 percent now describe its impact as positive, with the strongest opposition coming from visual and technical artists, game designers, narrative teams and programmers, who fear their skills are being automated away or devalued. Several respondents quoted in coverage of the survey said they would rather leave the profession than be compelled to rely on generative AI tools, while others described the technology as a form of theft when it is trained on uncompensated creative work. Even so, more than a third of professionals said their companies already use generative AI, often via tools such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot for tasks like brainstorming, drafting emails and assisting with code, with adoption especially high among business and management staff.

A series of high‑profile disputes has crystallized the backlash. Embark Studios’ extraction shooter Arc Raiders became a flashpoint after the Swedish developer acknowledged using AI‑driven text‑to‑speech based on recordings from voice actors, prompting criticism from performers and players despite the game’s commercial success. Chief executive Patrick Söderlund defended the approach in interviews, arguing that AI can streamline production and ultimately benefit players, but admitted that the reaction had grown “sensational” and highlighted deep anxieties about the technology’s role in creative industries. In another case, Larian Studios, acclaimed for Baldur’s Gate 3, attracted intense scrutiny when chief executive Swen Vincke said the company was testing generative AI for concept art on its next Divinity project, before later pledging to avoid such tools in that phase of development following public outcry. Activision Blizzard also faced anger when fans of Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 identified what appeared to be AI‑generated calling card art, a controversy that drew the attention of U.S. Representative Ro Khanna, who renewed calls for rules to stop companies from using AI to replace workers and proposed taxing mass job displacement linked to automation.

These disputes underscore a widening gap between corporate leadership and the creative workforce. Survey data indicate that executives and business operations staff are far more likely than artists, writers and engineers to view generative AI as a net positive for the industry, even as layoffs continue to sweep major publishers. Over the past two years, more than a quarter of game developers reported losing their jobs, with large AAA studios particularly affected and game designers among the hardest hit. Major publishers including Electronic Arts and Square Enix have announced plans to integrate AI more deeply into their pipelines, with Square Enix outlining ambitions to automate a large portion of its quality assurance and debugging work using generative systems by the end of the decade. Critics say this strategy risks hollowing out the talent base that underpins blockbuster releases, while supporters insist automation will free creative teams to focus on higher‑value work.

The fight over AI’s place in game development now extends beyond studios and forums into regulatory debates. Khanna and other lawmakers in the United States have urged stronger oversight of generative AI, including requirements that artists have a say in how their work is used and share in the gains when their labor helps train commercial systems. Unions and advocacy groups representing voice actors, game writers and other creative workers are also pushing for contract language that limits or governs AI use, citing the risk that companies will replace human performers with synthetic voices or algorithmically generated art. Industry analysts say the outcome of these conflicts could shape not only working conditions but also the kind of games that reach the market, as players increasingly question whether they should pay full price for titles that rely heavily on machine‑generated content. For now, studios are under pressure to prove that AI can support, rather than supplant, human creativity in an industry built on distinctive worlds, stories and characters.