New research: What do gamers really think about generative AI in games?

New year, new research! We capped off 2024 by asking a representative sample of gamers [n=6,300] how they feel about developers using generative AI to make games (and how it affects purchasing decisions). We complemented this data with eight qualitative interviews representing different demographics.

In this article, we share high-level insights from the full report. But first, let’s set the scene.

The jury is still out on generative AI in games

Game development costs are skyrocketing. Some have heralded generative AI (gen AI), the tech world’s latest buzzword, as a solution. Other solutions include making games shorter. 

Yet, gen AI tools are already helping developers speed up creative processes such as ideation, procedurally generated environments, quests, and character dialogue.

But opinions on its impact on game development are far from unanimous:

• Even big publishers are divided –  EA is enthusiastic, with over 100 active AI projects in development, while Take-Two is more cautious
• Gen AI also has all the telltale signs of a bubble, with its billions in investment far outweighing the current use cases and ROI
• There are “what if” use cases that have yet to materialise, but they are speculative, with a desperate, growth-challenged big tech ecosystem rallying around the tech hopes of future growth

Gen AI also comes with ethical dilemmas. In addition to valid concerns around plagiarism, many in the industry are concerned about how this technology might affect creativity, jobs, innovation, and the devaluation of art.

Given the above, it's enticing to assume players are universally against gen AI in games and might avoid buying games that use the tech. But is this the case?

MIDiA data shows that most gamers are neutral about generative AI in games

For most players, gen AI’s role in development does not influence purchasing decisions:

• 60% of gamers say they are neutral as long as the game is good
• The share of players who see it positively (20%) and negatively (19%) are roughly the same overall
• But older gamers aged 55+ – who are more likely to see AI as negative than positive – are skewing up the average
• The full report shows that women and a few other gamer groups tend to be more negative about AI use

While it seems logical that the most engaged gamers (daily players) would have stronger opinions about gen AI in games, daily gamers are also neutral – if the game is good.

That said, the survey data suggests that a subset of players does care. And even those who would tick “neutral” in the survey have more nuanced opinions about the ethics, as shown by our qualitative interviews:

– US-based, male, 35, plays 3 hours a week (self-reported)

Get more data – including platform splits and sentiment from in-game item buyers and – in the full report.

Neutrality can easily shift into negativity as public gen AI awareness grows

As generative AI becomes more integrated into game development and news cycles, perceptions could shift.

After all, the negativity surrounding AI in games online often spans from tastemakers, such as developers, influencers, and journalists, rather than from consumers:

• Developers express concerns about job security, as gen AI could automate major aspects of their roles, and would dilute creative authenticity
• The media often frames gen AI through an ethical lens, emphasising misuse and loss of artistry, which might have a downstream impact on gamer sentiment
• Positive reviews in the media influenced new-game purchases for just 14% of gamers (16% for console and 15% for PC). This share increases to 20% for high spenders

What does all this mean for fandom and PR?

Thoughts on ethics aside, replacing creatives with predictive modelling (based on historical inputs) would by definition be derivative – and not innovative.

Communications and PR teams need to take sentiment about gen AI into their brand and comms strategies / planning:

• This is a volatile topic with all eyes on it
• Any gen AI-related controversies or bugs are likely to be picked up by the media / influencers and negatively impact a brand’s reputation
• We will almost certainly see some fallout this year 

Ethically, studios should prioritise retraining and upskilling current employees to work alongside AI tools, positioning the technology as a collaborative partner rather than a threat to jobs.

This will be easier said than done. Some publishers have shown a willingness to place profit maximising over talent even without gen AI  – a key consequence of gaming and tech's short-term emphasis on quarter-to-quarter growth over long-term goals (like nurturing talent).

It's worth remembering that the games industry is passion- and talent-driven

The gen AI bubble will probably burst, but it is unlikely to fade into obscurity like the metaverse and blockchain gaming, given gen AI’s actual use cases.

The full report shows that gamers focus on the quality of the game experience rather than the tools used to create it.

If gen AI contributes to better content, enhanced immersion, or more frequent updates, players see it as a benefit. But generative AI could also lead to worse, less inspired games.

Either way, publishers should keep their messaging authentic and clear as tensions rise, remembering that fans and people power the industry. 

Gen AI should NOT replace human talent, the beating heart of the industry that creates so much joy for fans.

As put in one of the qualitative interviews:

– US-based, male, 39, plays 30 hours a week (self-reported), works in the industry

Reach out to us here to learn more about the full report and its full range of quantitativeand qualitative insights. 

Want to learn more about games trends to watch in 2025? Read this blog.