Key Notes
- GDC’s survey found that 40% of respondents use generative AI at work, compared with 36% in the previous edition.
- Negative views remained broadly steady at 55%, versus a corrected 54% previously, despite the increase in reported use.
- Research and brainstorming led AI adopters’ use cases at 73%, while prototyping was 37% and company encouragement differed sharply between AAA and indie studios.
Generative AI is becoming a more common workplace tool in the game industry without winning broad approval. GDC’s latest survey found that 40% of respondents use it in their jobs, up from 36% in the previous edition, while 55% believe it is harming the industry.
GDC Festival of Gaming released the November 2026 State of the Game Industry report on November 12, drawing on responses from more than 2,600 industry professionals across 69 countries. The sample includes people working in programming, design, business operations and other parts of the games ecosystem.
The difference between using a tool and endorsing its wider effects is central to the findings. Respondents described practical uses for research, repetitive tasks and early experiments while raising concerns about employment, legal exposure, environmental costs and the erosion of skills.
More use, with a sharp divide between studios
Adoption was highest among respondents at mobile-only studios, where 70% said they use generative AI, and among those working on free-to-play games, at 58%. Among AI users, 57% said they use the technology daily.
The overall increase also masks a regional difference. Reported use among people based in the United States rose from 36% to 38%, which GDC says is within its margin of error. Outside the United States, the figure increased from 37% to 44%.
Company expectations varied too. Twenty-seven percent of AAA studio workers said they felt encouraged or pressured to use generative AI, compared with 9% of indie studio workers. A separate 3% of AAA respondents reported some requirement to use the tools.
AIstify previously reported on Epic Games’ push to reorganize development around AI-assisted production. GDC’s results show why such policies can land differently across teams: management’s enthusiasm and employees’ judgments about the industry are separate questions.
Research and coding lead the practical uses
The full report breaks down how AI adopters use the tools. Research and brainstorming led at 73%, followed by data analysis and summarization at 62%, and code generation or debugging at 56%. Proofreading and editing accounted for 42%.
Slide decks and presentations were cited by 39%, while prototyping was 37%. These percentages describe respondents who use AI, rather than the entire survey sample, and participants could select multiple uses.
Use for finished creative work was less common. Eight percent of AI adopters reported using it for production art or final game assets, and 7% for player-facing features or content. The survey therefore captures a broad range of office and development assistance, not just AI-generated material appearing in a shipped game.
Negative sentiment remains high
GDC describes the 55% negative-impact result as broadly unchanged from the previous survey’s 54%. A footnote in the report says that earlier figure has been corrected. Another 35% described the impact as mixed, while 8% considered it positive.
The longer-term change is larger: the report’s historical chart puts negative sentiment at 18% in 2024 and 30% in 2025. The latest result shows that the industry’s skepticism has persisted as more workers adopt the tools.
Quality assurance and community support respondents were the most negative, at 76%. GDC’s analysis of written responses also found that some people who judged AI harmful overall still saw value in selected uses, including repetitive work and prototyping.
A snapshot with a changing sample
GDC reports a margin of error of about three percentage points. The respondent mix also changed: 63% lived in the United States, compared with 54% in the previous edition. The organizers caution that findings about international studio patterns are limited by sample size.
Those details matter when comparing surveys or applying the results to the whole global workforce. The figures measure reported behavior and attitudes, rather than directly measuring productivity, game quality or the employment effects of AI.
For studios, the central tension remains practical: employees can find a tool useful for a specific job while objecting to how the industry deploys it. Rising use has yet to resolve that disagreement.
Disclaimer: AIstify is an independent media brand owned and operated by NuvexMedia LLC, publishing news, research, and insights on artificial intelligence, emerging technologies, automation, and related industries. NuvexMedia LLC invests in and collaborates with companies across the AI, technology, software, and digital innovation sectors. These relationships do not influence AIstify’s editorial coverage, and the publication maintains full editorial independence to provide accurate, timely, and objective information. © 2026 NuvexMedia LLC. All rights reserved. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, tax, investment, financial, or other professional advice.
