When a video game's credits include a "Thanks to generative AI tools" section, many players read it and move on without giving it more thought. For the artists working in the games industry, that line in the credits may mean that someone — or many — are not on that team precisely because an AI tool did their job. The debate over the use of artificial intelligence in game production has been simmering for two years, and in 2026 it has reached boiling point.
The scale of the phenomenon is hard to quantify precisely because studios rarely declare which parts of their games were created with AI. What is known, through leaks, statements from laid-off workers and job-listing analysis, is that the use of generative AI tools for concept art, textures, 3D models of secondary assets, sound effects, non-player-character dialogue and design documentation has become significantly widespread over the last 18 months. Not in every studio or every department, but enough that sector unions have made it one of their main negotiating fronts.
The studio side: efficiency and cost reduction
From the studios' perspective, the logic of using AI in production is understandable. Open-world games require enormous amounts of content: thousands of different textures, hundreds of models for secondary buildings and objects, millions of words of dialogue for characters the player will probably never meet. Generating that content by hand is enormously expensive. If an AI tool can produce a brick texture or a secondary building's design instantly, with sufficient quality for its purpose, the economic argument is hard to refute.
Some studios have tried to frame AI use not as replacement but as amplification: AI tools do the routine work and human artists focus on higher-value creative work. It is a narrative with elements of truth but one that ignores economic reality: if AI can do in minutes what previously took an artist hours, the inevitable consequence is that the studio needs fewer artists for the same project, or can complete bigger projects with the same headcount.
AI in game production · State of the debate
- Documented uses in studios: concept art, textures, secondary 3D models, sound effects, NPC dialogue.
- Union position: demand AI regulation in production and compensation for artists.
- Studio position: efficiency on secondary content, artists focus on creative work.
- AI-related strikes: SAG-AFTRA (voice actors) negotiated specific protections in 2024.
- Job-listing impact: reduced openings for concept artists and texture artists at big studios.
- Player position: mostly against AI use that displaces human artists.
Voice actors and the strike that changed the rules
The most intense confrontation between AI and sector workers happened with voice actors. SAG-AFTRA, the US union representing film, TV and video-game actors, called a specific games strike in 2023 that ran into 2024, partly motivated by the fear that AI voice synthesis would replace actors in future work. The agreement reached included specific protections on the use of AI to clone an actor's voice without consent and on the obligation to inform actors when their work is used to train AI models.
That agreement was an important precedent, but its protections are limited: they apply to SAG-AFTRA-represented actors on US productions. Most visual art, textures, 3D models and sound effects are not covered by any similar deal. Visual artists in the sector do not have a union as strong as the actors', leaving them in a considerably weaker negotiating position.
The players' position and the boycott that never came
The player community has broadly rejected AI use that displaces human workers. Several social-media campaigns have tried to organise boycotts of games that used AI-generated art on their covers or promotional materials. The most effective response was probably from Palworld fans, who fiercely criticised accusations of AI use in that game's creature models (accusations the studio denied). But beyond the social-media noise, it is hard to document a real sales impact of these boycotts on the affected games. Players say they will not buy AI-made games. Steam data suggests most end up buying them anyway.
The unanswered question: is it possible to make games of the size and scale today's market demands without using AI for part of production? Probably not, at current budgets. The real question is whether the distribution of those efficiency gains between studios and the workers AI is displacing is fair. To that question, the industry still has no convincing answer.
Share this article
