A recent survey of European game developers has highlighted a growing unease about the impact of generative artificial intelligence on their daily workflow. While only about a third of those polled—35 percent—think that AI could eventually replace them or shrink the demand for their particular roles, a much larger share, 61 percent, are apprehensive that the technology will create pressure to accelerate production and increase output. In other words, developers are more concerned about being forced to work faster and deliver more content under tighter deadlines than they are about outright job loss.
These insights come from the study titled "Talent Signals Reshaping the Games Industry," which was compiled by Tanja Loktionova, the founder of Values Value and co‑founder of InGame Job. The research draws heavily on data collected in the tenth edition of the Big Games Industry Employment Survey, a comprehensive questionnaire that gathers information from a broad cross‑section of professionals working across the European gaming sector.
A short, preliminary version of the report is already available online, with the full, detailed analysis slated for publication in November 2026. One of the key take‑aways from the data is that more than half of the respondents—just over 50 percent—express concern that the rise of generative AI could erode the overall quality of their work. This worry is not limited to a single aspect of production; it spans everything from concept art and narrative design to programming and quality assurance.
In addition, 46 percent of participants indicated that AI tools make it more difficult to evaluate genuine skill levels, because the line between human‑generated and machine‑generated output is becoming increasingly blurred. When a piece of code or a visual asset can be produced instantly by an algorithm, it becomes harder for managers and peers to discern whether the underlying talent truly exists or whether the result is simply the product of a sophisticated tool. Despite these concerns, ethical reservations about AI appear to be less prevalent.
Only 29 percent of respondents reported having ethical doubts about the use of AI in game development, while a modest 12 percent said they had no concerns at all. This suggests that, for many developers, practical considerations—such as workload, quality control, and career progression—are taking precedence over broader philosophical debates about the role of machines in creative industries. The survey also revealed that AI has already begun to reshape work practices for a substantial majority of developers. Seventy‑eight percent of those surveyed said that AI has altered the way they approach their tasks.
Within this group, 33 percent reported experiencing a significant transformation in their daily routines, while another 45 percent noted more modest, incremental changes. Conversely, 22 percent of respondents said that AI has not affected the way they work at all, indicating that the technology’s reach is not yet uniform across the continent.
When it comes to hiring decisions, the influence of AI is becoming increasingly evident. The data shows that 35 percent of company founders have chosen not to bring a candidate on board because they believe AI tools could accomplish the same work more efficiently or at a lower cost.
This trend underscores a shifting mindset among leadership: rather than expanding teams to accommodate new creative ambitions, many studios are looking to leverage automation to maintain or even reduce headcount. Financial pressures further compound this dynamic.
Almost half of the founders surveyed—48 percent—reported that their companies are currently operating at a loss. In response, 60 percent said they are deliberately keeping their development teams small, a strategy that aligns with the broader industry move toward leaner, more agile production models.
These financial constraints, combined with the perceived productivity gains offered by AI, create a potent mix that could reshape the employment landscape in European game development for years to come. The findings of this survey echo earlier observations from Gamescom Dev’s annual speaker survey, released just last month.
That study found that a striking 83 percent of respondents anticipated that generative AI would have a noticeable impact on team structures or overall productivity. When participants were asked to predict the specific ways AI might affect jobs, 36 percent believed that AI would primarily change the nature of existing roles rather than lead to outright reductions in team size. In contrast, 33 percent expected that AI would result in smaller teams, while 14 percent were optimistic that AI would boost individual output without necessarily cutting staff.
A smaller segment—17 percent—did not foresee any workforce reductions at all. Taken together, these data points paint a nuanced picture of the European gaming industry's current relationship with AI.
On one hand, developers are wary of the pressure to accelerate production cycles and worry that the quality of their craft could suffer. On the other hand, many are not overly fearful of losing their jobs, perhaps because they see AI as a tool that can augment their abilities rather than replace them entirely. The ethical dimension, while present, does not dominate the conversation, suggesting that practical concerns about workload, skill verification, and financial viability are more immediate. Looking ahead, the industry is likely to continue grappling with these issues as AI technologies become more sophisticated and more deeply integrated into the development pipeline.
Studios will need to balance the promise of increased efficiency with the need to preserve creative integrity and ensure that human talent remains at the core of game making. As the full report is released later this year, it will provide further insight into how these trends evolve and what strategies developers and publishers might adopt to navigate the rapidly changing technological landscape.