The results of a landmark 2026 survey of game industry professionals reveal an overwhelming consensus: transparency regarding the use of generative AI is non-negotiable. An emphatic 88.4% of respondents, largely composed of developers, artists, and designers, demand that the use of this technology be declared on digital storefronts like Steam. This push for clarity comes amid evolving corporate policies and intense ethical debate within the field, highlighting a significant rift between worker sentiment and current industry practices. The call is not just for acknowledgment of AI in final products, but for comprehensive disclosure that covers the entire development pipeline.
Disagreement with Valve’s Selective Disclosure Policy
Valve’s implementation of an AI disclosure policy on Steam in January 2024 was initially seen as a step toward transparency. By July 2025, approximately 7% of all games on the platform had declared using generative AI. However, a pivotal change to the policy in January 2026 relaxed requirements, stipulating that developers only need to disclose AI used for content generation “consumed by players,” exempting tools used for “efficiency gains” during development. The industry survey found this distinction to be contentious. When asked if they agreed with Valve’s narrowed approach, nearly half of the respondents (48.7%) said “no.” Only 32.1% agreed, with 19.2% selecting “maybe or don’t know.”
This disagreement is reflected in how workers say they would act. A significant majority of respondents (70.8%) stated they would declare the use of AI for administrative purposes, such as checking code, right on the game’s store page. Similarly, 76.8% said they would declare AI usage even if it was only employed during the concepting stage. This data strongly suggests that for many developers, the principle of transparency is paramount, extending far beyond the final product to encompass the entire creative and production process.
The Preferred Format for AI Disclosure
With the demand for transparency established, the survey delved into the practical question of how AI use should be disclosed. The industry is far from unanimous on the ideal format, indicating the complexity of the issue.
A simple binary yes/no declaration was deemed sufficient by 28.4% of respondents. An even smaller minority (3.1%) believed a percentage estimate of AI-generated content would be best. However, a clear majority of 51.9% favored a more detailed, categorical approach. This would involve storefronts providing a checklist of criteria that developers must select from, covering uses from “generative AI used to create concept art” to “used for QA and store description pages.” Among the 13.7% who provided a custom answer, many advocated for full, granular disclosure of every single instance of AI use. This preference for detailed checklists underscores a desire to inform consumers not just that AI was used, but specifically how and where it impacted the game’s creation.
Profile of Survey Respondents and Their AI Usage
The GamesIndustry.biz survey, which received 826 partial and complete responses from verified industry professionals, paints a detailed picture of the current workforce. The majority (71.2%) work in game development at companies that are predominantly small (64.8% have up to 49 employees) and privately owned (73.4%). A quarter of respondents are in senior or executive leadership, and 79.6% self-identify as mid-level or veteran professionals. Geographically, responses were concentrated in the United States (42.9%), the United Kingdom (15.5%), and Canada (10.1%).
Despite the hype surrounding generative AI, its practical adoption within these companies appears measured. Two-thirds (66.1%) of respondents stated that GenAI tools are not used within their company. On a personal level, 78.5% of developers reported they “never” use AI on their own projects, with only 12.1% using it on a “somewhat regular” basis or more. Among those who do utilize AI, the most common applications are for ideation and research (9.3%), generating code (9.1%), creating documents (7.9%), and code review (7.7%). Direct asset generation for art (3.5%), voices (2.3%), or audio (1.3%) ranked much lower.
Leadership Mandates Versus Grassroots Resistance
Contrary to the popular narrative of management aggressively pushing AI adoption, the survey data presents a more nuanced reality. A significant 45.5% of respondents reported being actively “banned or discouraged” from using GenAI by their leadership. Another 28.0% received no specific direction. Only 26.4% reported any level of encouragement or mandate to use the technology, with just 3.5% being actively required to use it. This, combined with the seniority of many respondents, challenges the assumption that skepticism toward AI is purely a grassroots phenomenon; it indicates that caution and restriction are also being implemented from the top down in many studios.
Strong Opposition to AI in Artistic Domains
The survey revealed particularly strong feelings regarding the use of AI in creative and artistic roles. When asked about the acceptability of AI-generated content in various domains, more than four-fifths of respondents consistently rejected its use in the final product.
Specifically, 86.3% argued AI should never be used for audio and music; 85.7% for in-game text and narrative; 84.2% for art and graphics; and 82.9% for voice acting. In each category, only around 10% found it acceptable for creating placeholder assets, with a minuscule percentage deeming a minority or majority of AI-generated final content as acceptable. This uniform resistance highlights deep-seated concerns about artistry, originality, and the ethical implications of replacing human creative roles with AI, even as some, like Wizards of the Coast’s John Hight, have pointed out potential benefits like using AI voices for placeholder dialogue to streamline recording sessions.
A Spectrum of Industry Attitudes in Their Own Words
The qualitative comments from survey respondents illuminated the emotional and ideological spectrum within the industry. On one end, vitriol was evident, with some labeling AI use “pathetic” and “lazy,” and others suggesting non-disclosing companies should be banned from storefronts. One pointed question captured a central tension: “It’s ‘the future’ right? Why hide it?” Other comments took a cynical, market-driven view, suggesting disclosure is only temporary until players stop caring. Some defended AI as merely a new tool in the lineage of Photoshop or Blender, with one respondent calling the debate “dumb” and stating, “Its providence doesn’t matter.” At the opposite end, pro-AI voices warned that “Those unwilling to use AI will be welcome to unemployment city,” emphasizing a perceived competitive necessity.
Despite this range of opinions, the quantitative data points to a dominant trend of skepticism, driven not only by creative concerns but also by cited issues like the theft of IP in training data and the environmental cost of running large AI models. The overwhelming support for comprehensive disclosure on storefronts, however, acts as a unifying principle. It signals a broad industry recognition that, regardless of internal debate on the ethics of AI’s use, the consumer’s right to know how their entertainment is made is fundamental. As the technology continues to evolve, this demand for transparency from the people who build games is likely to shape storefront policies, marketing, and ultimately, player trust for years to come.
