GDC survey shows game developers are normalizing generative AI even as layoffs bite

Forty percent of game developers surveyed by GDC say they now use generative AI for work, up from 36% a year earlier, according to new survey reporting from The Verge and GamesIndustry.biz. The latest figures suggest AI tools are moving from trial phase to routine use inside game studios even as the industry continues to grapple with layoffs, long hours and souring sentiment about the technology.

The broader picture is more complicated than a simple adoption story. The survey data points to a sector that is increasingly familiar with generative AI, but still divided over whether the tools are helping or hurting game development. It also shows that AI usage is not uniform: it is highest in free-to-play and mobile-only studios, and lowest in some creative output categories such as production art.

What the latest GDC survey shows

The annual Game Developers Conference survey, which tracks developer practices, platform choices, layoffs and attitudes toward tools such as AI, found that 40% of respondents say they use generative AI as part of their job. The Verge reported that figure was 36% in the prior year’s survey, while GamesIndustry.biz described the increase as a four-point rise from the previous report.

That may look like a modest increase, but the directional change matters. For an industry that has spent the past two years arguing about AI’s promise and its risks, the latest numbers suggest the technology is no longer hypothetical in many workplaces. According to survey project lead Beth Elderkin, the conversation has changed as familiarity has grown.

“People just know the technology now, and it’s an actuality instead of a theoretical issue”

Her comment, reported by GamesIndustry.biz, captures the shift in tone. The question is no longer whether developers have heard of generative AI. It is how, where and whether they are expected to use it.

How are developers using generative AI?

According to The Verge’s breakdown of the survey, developers are using generative AI most often for research and brainstorming, followed by data analysis and summarization, then code generation and debugging. That pattern suggests the tools are most embedded in support work rather than final creative output.

By the numbers

The survey results point to a clear hierarchy in how AI is being used across game development tasks.

GamesIndustry.biz reported a slightly different framing of the same general pattern, saying 57% of developers use generative AI for text generation, research, prototyping, coding and presentations. The two outlets are clearly drawing on the same survey but presenting the data through different lenses. The overlap is telling: in both cases, the tools are strongest in early-stage thinking and administrative or technical assistance, not in polished game content.

That matters because it suggests studios are more comfortable using AI to accelerate ideation, documentation and coding support than to replace artists or ship final creative assets. The survey backs that up. Just 22% of respondents said they use generative AI for concept art or visual ideation, and only 8% said they use it for production art or final game assets.

Where is AI use highest?

AI adoption is not evenly spread across the industry. The Verge reported that the highest usage appears at free-to-play studios, where 58% of respondents said they use generative AI, and at mobile-only studios, where the figure rises to 70%.

GamesIndustry.biz reached a similar conclusion, saying the technology was most popular in business operations and services, mobile-only studios and free-to-play studios. Those categories make sense together. Mobile and free-to-play development often relies on rapid iteration, high-volume content needs and constant live-ops pressure, all of which can create a stronger incentive to automate or speed up routine work.

But the survey also hints at a more uneasy dynamic. GamesIndustry.biz reported that 27% of AAA workers feel encouraged or pressured to use generative AI, while only 9% of indie developers say the same. That gap suggests bigger, better-resourced studios may be pushing the technology more aggressively, while smaller teams either resist it, avoid it or simply lack the same internal pressure to adopt it.

Why it matters

This is not just a story about another software tool entering the workplace. It is a sign that generative AI is becoming normalized inside a creative industry that is already under strain from layoffs, long hours and uncertainty about funding.

The survey shows two trends moving at once. First, more developers are using AI in real work. Second, a large share of the industry remains wary of what that means for quality, ownership, creativity and jobs. GamesIndustry.biz reported that 55% of respondents believe AI is having a negative impact on games. That is a majority view, even as 40% say they use the tools themselves.

That tension is important for readers because game development is often a bellwether for how other creative and technical industries test new tools. If studios can normalize generative AI in brainstorming, coding and research while keeping adoption limited in final creative output, that may shape how other sectors proceed. If not, the pushback could become stronger as AI shifts from optional aid to expected workflow.

It also matters because the survey indicates a workplace still under pressure. The adoption debate is happening in an environment where employees are not negotiating from strength. Depending on the outlet, 33% or 34% of respondents said they had been laid off in the past 24 months or two years. GamesIndustry.biz further said about half of respondents reported their company had carried out layoffs.

In that context, AI can feel less like a productivity upgrade and more like another force reshaping job security. Developers may see the benefits in research or coding support, but they are also operating in a market where headcount reductions are already widespread.

What the layoffs and workload data reveal

The GDC survey does not treat AI in isolation, and that is part of what gives the findings weight. The industry’s AI adoption is being measured alongside layoff rates, work hours and union interest, all of which help explain why the response to generative tools is so conflicted.

According to The Verge, 34% of respondents said they had been laid off in the past two years. GamesIndustry.biz put the figure at 33% in the last 24 months. The difference is small, but both outlets point to the same conclusion: layoffs remain a major feature of the industry rather than an isolated event.

GamesIndustry.biz added another sign of strain: 86% of respondents said they had worked more than 40 hours in a week. That number underlines how demanding game development remains, even before new technology is layered on top. When teams are already stretched, tools that promise speed will attract attention — but they may also sharpen concerns about pressure and workload.

By the numbers: the working environment

Union interest is growing, if slowly. GamesIndustry.biz said 15% of US respondents are in a union, up three points year over year. That is still a minority, but in an industry known for fragmented labor structures, even incremental growth can matter. It suggests some developers are looking for collective leverage as studios adjust staffing levels and experiment with new workflows.

Background: how we got here

GDC’s State of the Game Industry survey is designed to capture the way developers actually work, not just the way executives talk about the business. It regularly surveys attitudes toward tools, platforms and employment conditions, which makes it one of the more useful snapshots of the sector’s mood.

Generative AI has become a central issue in that survey because it cuts across creative, technical and managerial work. In games, AI can support brainstorming, generate text, help with coding, analyze data, speed up prototyping or assist with presentations. It can also be used in ways that affect concept art and, in some cases, final assets. That broad range helps explain both its attraction and the resistance it provokes.

The wider industry backdrop is just as important. The past few years have brought sustained layoffs, concerns about funding and pressure on production schedules. GamesIndustry.biz noted that nearly half of respondents said their company had used some form of external development in the past 12 months, and the fact sheet says private equity investment is becoming more restrained, according to Beth Elderkin. Those conditions can push studios toward cheaper, faster or more flexible production methods.

“We’re also seeing private equity investments start to pull back and become more reserved”

That line matters because it connects the AI adoption story to the money story. If studios are facing tighter capital conditions, they may be more inclined to test tools that promise efficiency. But a more cautious investment climate can also slow hiring, make teams more risk-averse and raise the stakes of any technology that appears to reduce labor needs.

External development is another piece of the puzzle. If nearly half of respondents say their company used some form of external development in the past year, that points to an industry already accustomed to outsourcing and distributed production. AI may be entering that same logic: less a standalone revolution than another way to extend or compress a production pipeline.

How the outlets differ

The Verge and GamesIndustry.biz are aligned on the headline number — 40% of developers using generative AI — but they do not emphasize the same details. That difference is useful because it shows how the survey can support more than one narrative.

• The Verge focused on adoption by task, studio type and year-over-year growth from 36% to 40%.
• GamesIndustry.biz highlighted the labor context, including layoffs, long hours, unionization and negative sentiment toward AI.
• IGN India was part of the outlet mix behind the report set, but the facts provided here are primarily anchored in the figures and quotes above.

That split matters because the same survey can be read as either evidence of growing technical acceptance or evidence of a workforce under pressure and not convinced the change is good for the medium. Both readings are supported by the data.

What developers are really saying

The numbers suggest that developers are not rejecting generative AI outright. They are using it where it fits their day-to-day work, especially in brainstorming, summarization and coding assistance. But they are far less likely to hand over the most visible creative stages of game production.

That cautious pattern fits Beth Elderkin’s description of a technology that has moved from theory into practice, but is still early in its adoption cycle. She told GamesIndustry.biz, “What appeared to me based on the data is that the technology was not necessarily theoretical, but still early in those first two years,” a view that aligns with the relatively limited use in concept art and final assets.

The key question is whether the current balance holds. If generative AI remains mostly a support tool, the industry may settle into a pragmatic relationship with it. If studios start expecting it in more creative or production-facing roles, resistance could intensify, especially among workers who already feel the strain of layoffs and overwork.

What happens next

The next survey cycle will show whether adoption keeps rising, stalls or starts to split more sharply by studio type. Based on the fact sheet, there are several open questions to watch.

1. Whether generative AI adoption keeps rising next year.
2. Whether studios deepen their use of AI in coding, research and prototyping, or push further into creative output.
3. Whether layoffs continue at the same pace across AAA, indie and mobile studios.
4. Whether private equity pullback changes hiring, outsourcing and tooling decisions.
5. Whether the current rise in US union membership continues to build.

Studio strategy will matter as much as the technology itself. Free-to-play and mobile-only teams are already the most active users in the survey, while AAA workers appear more likely to feel pressure around adoption. That divide could shape how the industry talks about AI in the coming year — as a productivity aid in some sectors, and a source of friction in others.

For now, the clearest conclusion is that generative AI has moved into ordinary use in game development without resolving the disputes around it. Developers are using it more often, but they are doing so in an industry still marked by layoffs, long hours and a deep sense of uncertainty about where the work is headed next.