In 2025, AI emerged as a focal point for gamers and developers

The year 2025 marked the rise of generative AI within the video game industry. Its implementation was discovered in some of the year’s most popular titles, with executives from leading game studios asserting that it is integrated throughout the industry, including their own development workflows. Meanwhile, grassroots developers, particularly in the indie sector, are resisting its infiltration, devising methods to indicate their games are free of generative AI.

Generative AI has effectively supplanted NFTs as the trendy pursuit among publishers. Advocates contend that this technology will serve as a potent democratizing force in game development, as gen AI’s capability to blend images, text, audio, and video could reduce development timelines and lower budgets — tackling two significant issues afflicting the industry at present. In line with this notion, several game studios have declared collaborations with generative AI firms.

Ubisoft possesses technology capable of producing short dialogue segments known as barks, and features gen-AI powered NPCs with whom players can communicate. EA has formed a partnership with Stability AI, while Microsoft employs AI for gaming analysis and generation. Beyond formal collaborations, major game companies like Nexon, Krafton, and Square Enix are openly welcoming generative AI.

Consequently, generative AI is beginning to make a substantial impact in gaming. Until now, the application of generative AI had been confined to niche cases — either prototypes or simple, low-quality games often overlooked among the vast number of titles launched on Steam annually. However, now, generative AI is appearing in the biggest releases of the year. ARC Raiders, one of the standout multiplayer shooters of the year, utilized generative AI for character dialogue. Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 employed generative AI images. Also, 2025’s Game of the Year, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, included generative AI images before they were discreetly removed.

Responses to this intrusion from players and developers have been varied. Generally, players appear to disapprove of generative AI in games. When generative AI assets were found in Anno 117: Pax Romana, the developer Ubisoft claimed these assets “slipped through” the review process and they were subsequently removed. Conversely, when generative AI assets were discovered in Black Ops 7, Activision acknowledged the finding but retained the images in the game. The critical reception has also been uneven. ARC Raiders received poor ratings, with reviewers specifically pointing to the use of generative AI as a factor. However, Clair Obscur was largely acclaimed, with its use of generative AI, albeit temporary, rarely mentioned.

It appears that developers are aware of the public’s aversion to generative AI yet are hesitant to abandon its use. After generative AI assets were identified in Black Ops 7, Activision stated it utilizes the technology to “empower” developers, not to replace them. When discussing the presence of generative AI in Battlefield 6, EA VP Rebecka Coutaz described the technology as alluring but assured that it wouldn’t be included in the final release. Swen Vincke, CEO of Baldur’s Gate 3 developer Larian, mentioned that generative AI is utilized in the studio’s upcoming game Divinity solely for concept generation. He asserted that everything in the final product would be crafted by humans, while hinting at the reasoning behind game developers’ insistence on incorporating the technology despite the backlash they often face when discovered.

“This is a tech-driven industry, so you explore options,” he told Bloomberg reporter Jason Schreier during an interview. “You can’t afford to ignore opportunities because if someone discovers a breakthrough and you’re not utilizing it, you’re done for.”

Comments from other CEOs support Vincke’s assertion. Junghun Lee, the CEO of ARC Raiders’ parent company Nexon, remarked in an interview that, “It’s crucial to assume that every game studio is now employing AI.”

The challenge lies in the fact that generative AI does not seem to fulfill the lofty expectations set by its advocates. Last year, Keywords Studios, a game development service provider, released a study on developing a 2D video game entirely using generative AI tools. The company noted that while generative AI can streamline certain development operations, it ultimately cannot substitute the contributions of human talent. The discovery of generative AI in Call of Duty and Pax Romana occurred precisely because of the subpar quality of the assets uncovered. In Ubisoft’s interactive generative AI NPCs, the dialogue produced often comes across as unnatural and awkward. Players in the 2025 Chinese martial arts MMORPG Where Winds Meet are manipulating its AI chatbot NPCs to exploit the game, similar to how Fortnite players managed to make AI-powered Darth Vader curse.

Despite the many promises associated with generative AI, its current outcomes do not meet expectations. So, why is it ubiquitous?

One explanation is the potential competitive advantage AI may offer, albeit one not yet realized, as Swen Vincke hinted in his discussion with Bloomberg. Another reason is more straightforward: it’s the economy, stupid. In spite of inflation, declining consumer confidence, and rising unemployment, the stock market continues to thrive, buoyed by the immense sums being invested in AI technology. Game developers in pursuit of funds to sustain their operations and profits wish to capitalize on that. Announcing AI initiatives and showcasing the application of AI tools — even if these tools exert a relatively minor influence on the final product — can serve as a means of signaling to AI-hungry investors that a game studio is deserving of their investment.

This may clarify why the majority of generative AI’s advocates in gaming are found among the C-suite of AAA studios rather than smaller indie firms that almost uniformly reject the technology. Indie developers face the same economic pressures as larger studios but lack the extensive resources to manage those pressures. Interestingly, indie developers are the ones who could benefit most from the technology but, up to this point, have emerged as its staunchest critics. They are countering claims that generative AI is pervasive and utilized by all, with some marking their games with anti-AI logos to declare that their products were developed solely by humans.

For some indie creators, the use of generative AI undermines the essence of game development altogether. The challenge of generating ideas and devising solutions to development challenges — the very elements that generative AI is purported to automate — constitute a significant part of the charm of game development for them. There are also ethical and environmental considerations that indie developers appear particularly attuned to. Outputs from generative AI are compiled from pre-existing works that were frequently used without consent or recompense. AI data centers are notorious for their excessive energy consumption and polluting adjacent regions, which are often concentrated in low-income and marginalized communities.
With its unfulfilled promises and currently lackluster outcomes, generative AI is easily likened to gaming’s latest passing trend similar to NFTs. However, with the industry’s major players increasingly acknowledging their utilization of it, generative AI is set to remain a contentious topic in game development — until the technology matures, or, as with NFTs, the bubble bursts.