In a recent survey, we explored gamers’ attitudes towards the use of Gen AI in video games and whether those attitudes varied by demographics and gaming motivations. The overwhelmingly negative attitude stood out compared to other surveys we’ve run over the past decade.
In an optional survey (N=1,799) we ran from October through December 2025 alongside the Gamer Motivation Profile, we invited gamers to answer additional questions after they had looked at their profile results. Some of these questions were specifically about attitudes towards Gen AI in video games.
Overall, the attitude towards the use of Gen AI in video games is very negative. 85% of respondents have a below-neutral attitude towards the use of Gen AI in video games, with a highly-skewed 63% who selected the most negative response option.
Such a highly-skewed negative response is rare in the many years we’ve conducted survey research among gamers. As a point of comparison, in 2024 Q2-Q4, we collected survey data on attitudes towards a variety of game features. The chart below shows the % negative (i.e., below neutral) responses for each mentioned feature. In that survey, 79% had a negative attitude towards blockchain-based games. This helps anchor where the attitude towards Gen AI currently sits. We’ll come back to the “AI-generated quests/dialogue” feature later in this blog post since we break down the specific AI use in another survey question.
It’s not. You misunderstand both copyright law and how LLMs work.
Models are GBs of weights, typically in the 4GB to 24GB range. LLMs do not look at a picture and then copy that picture into the model. There’s not enough disk space to do something like that. It’s used for training, adjusting weights here and there, based on how the image links to the description. You can’t just say “recreate the Mona Lisa” and have it give you a pixel perfect copy of the original.
It’s not copyright infringement to copy a style. People do it all the time. You wouldn’t believe the amount of times I’ve seen something that I thought was some unique style, and thought that one artist did it, but it turns out it’s just another copycat artist “inspired by” the more popular artist.
Because that’s what people do to something unique, or even remotely rare: Copy it a thousands times and drive it into the ground until you’re fucking sick of it.
Taking the work of artists without compensating them for your own commercial gain is ethically bankrupt and theft. The fact that you keep likening an AI model to actual person demonstrates that this isn’t a conversation worth continuing.