A recent survey of European game developers has highlighted a growing unease about the influence of generative artificial intelligence on daily workflows. While only about a third of respondents—35 percent—express concern that AI might actually eliminate their positions or diminish the demand for their specific expertise, a striking 61 percent are worried that the technology will create pressure to accelerate production timelines and deliver more output in less time. In other words, developers are more anxious about being forced to work faster rather than being replaced outright.
These insights come from the report titled “Talent Signals Reshaping the Games Industry,” authored by Tanja Loktionova, the founder of Values Value and co‑founder of InGame Job. The analysis is based on data gathered in the tenth edition of the Big Games Industry Employment Survey, a comprehensive study that tracks trends, attitudes, and challenges across the European gaming sector.
A short, preliminary version of the report is already accessible online, and the full, detailed document is slated for release in November 2026. One of the key take‑aways from the survey is that more than half of the participants—just over 50 percent—are apprehensive that the rise of generative AI could lead to a decline in the overall quality of their work. Respondents cited fears that reliance on AI‑generated assets, code snippets, or design suggestions might dilute the creative rigor and craftsmanship that have traditionally defined game development. Additionally, 46 percent of those surveyed indicated that AI makes it more difficult to evaluate genuine skill levels.
In practical terms, managers and hiring teams may find it harder to separate a developer’s true abilities from the assistance they receive from AI tools, complicating performance reviews and recruitment decisions. Despite these concerns, ethical worries about AI appear to be less prevalent. Only 29 percent of developers reported having ethical reservations regarding the use of AI in their projects, while a modest 12 percent said they had no concerns at all.
This suggests that, for many professionals, the immediate practical implications—such as workload pressure and assessment challenges—are more pressing than broader moral debates about machine‑generated content. The survey also shed light on how AI is already reshaping work patterns. A substantial 78 percent of respondents confirmed that AI has altered the way they carry out their tasks.
Within this group, 33 percent described the change as significant, indicating a major shift in their daily routines, while 45 percent reported a more moderate, but still noticeable, transformation. Conversely, 22 percent said that AI has not affected their workflow in any meaningful way, indicating that adoption is uneven across the industry. From a hiring perspective, the data reveals a cautious stance among company leaders. Approximately 35 percent of founders disclosed that they have opted not to hire a candidate because they believe AI tools could perform the same work more efficiently or at a lower cost.
This trend points to a potential shift in recruitment criteria, where the availability of sophisticated AI solutions may reduce the perceived need for certain human roles. Financial pressures also feature prominently in the findings. Nearly half of the founders—48 percent—reported that their companies are currently operating at a loss. In response to these economic challenges, 60 percent of them are deliberately keeping their development teams small, likely as a cost‑containment measure.
This context helps explain why AI is seen both as a threat and a possible remedy: on one hand, it raises concerns about quality and skill assessment; on the other, it offers a way to maintain productivity with fewer staff. The broader industry sentiment aligns with these results. In a recent speaker survey conducted by Gamescom Dev, an overwhelming 83 percent of participants anticipated that generative AI would have a tangible impact on team structures or overall productivity. When asked specifically about the future of jobs, 36 percent believed AI would primarily transform existing roles rather than lead to outright reductions in headcount.
Meanwhile, 33 percent expected that teams would become smaller as AI takes over certain tasks. A smaller segment—14 percent—thought that AI would boost individual output, enabling each developer to accomplish more within the same timeframe. Conversely, 17 percent did not foresee any significant workforce reductions as a result of AI adoption.
Taken together, these findings paint a nuanced picture of the European gaming landscape. Developers are not uniformly terrified of losing their jobs to machines; instead, many are grappling with the pressure to increase speed and volume of output.
The industry appears to be at a crossroads where the promise of AI—greater efficiency, cost savings, and new creative possibilities—must be balanced against legitimate concerns about work quality, fair skill evaluation, and the ethical use of technology. As the full report becomes available later this year, stakeholders will likely look for concrete recommendations on how to integrate AI responsibly, protect creative standards, and ensure that the human talent behind games continues to be valued and appropriately assessed.