The latest research into the European games sector paints a nuanced picture of how developers view the rise of generative artificial intelligence. According to the study, a clear majority—61 percent—of game creators across the continent express concern that AI tools will push them to increase their output speed and volume. In other words, the primary anxiety is not that a machine will replace them outright, but that the technology will create an environment where the expectation to deliver more, faster, becomes the new norm. Only a minority—35 percent—believe that AI could actually eliminate their positions or diminish the demand for their particular skill sets.
These insights stem from the report titled “Talent Signals Reshaping the Games Industry,” authored by Tanja Loktionova, who co‑founded Values Value and InGame Job. The analysis draws heavily on data gathered in the tenth edition of the Big Games Industry Employment Survey, a comprehensive questionnaire that captures trends, attitudes, and expectations among professionals working in game development. A brief version of the findings is already accessible online, while the full, detailed report is slated for release in November 2026.
One of the most striking observations is that just over half of the respondents—slightly more than 50 percent—are worried that the advent of generative AI could erode the overall quality of their work. This concern is closely linked to the perception that AI makes it more difficult to gauge a person’s true capabilities. In fact, 46 percent of those surveyed indicated that AI blurs the line between authentic skill and machine‑assisted output, complicating performance reviews, hiring decisions, and promotions. When it comes to ethical considerations, the picture is more mixed.
While 29 percent of developers voiced ethical reservations—ranging from issues of copyright and data ownership to the broader societal impact of automating creative processes—a larger segment, 12 percent, reported having no concerns at all. The remaining respondents either did not comment on ethics or fell somewhere in between these two extremes. The survey also explored how AI has already altered day‑to‑day workflows. A substantial 78 percent of participants said that AI has changed the way they work in some capacity.
Within this group, 33 percent described the transformation as “significant,” indicating that AI tools have become central to their creative pipeline, perhaps handling tasks such as procedural content generation, level design assistance, or automated testing. Another 45 percent noted a “moderate” shift, suggesting that AI is being used as a supplementary aid rather than a core component. Conversely, 22 percent claimed that AI has not affected their work routines at all, either because their studios have not adopted the technology or because their roles do not lend themselves easily to automation. Hiring practices are already feeling the ripple effects.
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 tasks more efficiently or cost‑effectively. This decision reflects a growing confidence among leadership that certain functions—especially those involving repetitive asset creation, basic scripting, or data analysis—can be outsourced to algorithms. Financial pressures compound these strategic choices. Nearly half of the surveyed founders—48 percent—reported that their studios are currently operating at a loss.
In response, 60 percent indicated that they are deliberately keeping their development teams lean, a move that aligns with the broader industry trend toward smaller, more agile squads that can pivot quickly in a competitive market. The broader industry sentiment about AI’s impact on team dynamics was echoed in a recent speaker survey conducted by Gamescom Dev. An overwhelming 83 percent of respondents anticipated that generative AI would influence either the structure of their teams or overall productivity levels. When asked to predict the specific nature of that influence, 36 percent believed AI would reshape job roles—introducing new responsibilities and hybrid positions—rather than simply shrinking headcounts.
Meanwhile, 33 percent expected that teams would become smaller as a direct result of automation, and 14 percent were optimistic that AI would boost individual output, allowing each developer to accomplish more within the same time frame. A smaller slice, 17 percent, did not foresee any workforce reductions at all.
Taken together, these findings suggest that the European games industry is standing at a crossroads. Developers are wary of the pressure to accelerate production, fearing that speed may come at the expense of craftsmanship and depth. At the same time, many recognize that AI can be a powerful ally, offering new possibilities for creativity, efficiency, and innovation. The challenge for studios will be to strike a balance—leveraging AI to augment human talent without allowing it to dictate an unsustainable pace or dilute the artistic integrity that defines great games.
As the full report will later detail, the path forward will likely involve thoughtful policy, transparent skill assessment methods, and a continued emphasis on ethical AI deployment to ensure that technology serves as a catalyst for, rather than a replacement of, human imagination.