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.
No, laziness is good. Laziness begets engineering.
The issue is that “generative AI” (which is neither generative nor intelligence) is built upon the stolen works of countless artists.
The issue is that it consumes massive amounts of resources and energy to produce mediocre results at best.
The issue is that it threatens the livelihood of whole segments of society, especially the ones who contribute the most to human culture.
The issue is that it’s not sustainable. Once it runs out of new content to plagiarize it will be unable to produce anything new. It can’t replace what it’s destroying.
The issue is that it’s so vastly inefficient that the data centres needed to sustain it are becoming a major contributor to global warming.
The issue is that its bubble is causing massive price increases in consumer computer parts.
The issue is that when it pops it’ll take the rest of the economy with it.
The issue is that it’s a gateway drug. It’s being sold at a loss to destroy the human competition, and will inevitably increase massively in price once it’s become a necessary part of everyone’s process.
The issue is that it’s being forced everywhere regardless of its uselessness for the task, replacing technologies that were actually useful and making everything less useable and more inefficient.
The issue is that it’s making everything less reliable, and will inevitably cause massive damage and loss of life.
The issue is that LLM use has been demonstrated to cause brain damage, yet they elude regulation and the companies selling them have yet to face consequences.
The issue is that all of this makes it an existential threat to humanity, and a significant contributor to the ones we were already facing.
The issue is that, once you’ve taken into account all the pros and cons, doing everything possible to ensure it ceases to exist as soon as possible in any way, shape, or form, together with the companies selling it and the CEOs responsible for them and any politicians and investors enabling them, becomes an evident moral and ethical imperative.