The creator of the video game is an incredible storyteller. I spent countless hours fleeing to the world they built. Wild Breath To dozens of other people. But now those same creators are telling a new kind of story. This means that AI has no place in game art. And the more they said it, the more certain they became.
As someone who builds in 3d-ai, I see this resistance firsthand. I recently submitted an article on AI in game development to a major industry publication. It was rejected not because of content but because of fear of backlash. They were trying to protect themselves. And generously, me.
Earlier this summer, I asked Game-Dev Discord if someone was using AI for their ideas just to generate early visual references. One developer raised his hand. He was soon hit by two waves of criticism. First, using AI was unethical and was violated by IP. Secondly, it was just a bad practice that limited his creativity. He quickly retreated and almost apologized for even trying.
Irony? His use cases make perfect sense. He is a solo developer who hires artists for his gaming assets. He used AI to create visual references. The mockup helped convey his vision. It's not an IP breach. It's just a good art direction.
It reminded me of that classic Cartman line South Park: “It didn't happen. If so, they deserved it!” The industry version looks like this: “You shouldn't use AI. Plus, it's not helpful anyway.”
However, the direction of change has already been set. Resistance could slow AI adoption in games, but that won't stop. Some studios even learn to thrive using these tools. others? They may wake up one day and find that the pack has moved.
There's no need to do this. Look at the software industry.
At the same time, AI was good at creating images and 3D, it was also very good at writing code. First, as an assistant to the co-pilot developer, and later as an alternative to the developer of several tasks of vibe coding. Despite some uncertainty, developers were able to see an opportunity for this to be open and, most importantly, the trajectory was set.
Developers and managers are beginning to think about ways that can do more with the same amount of resources, and AI in code is widely adopted. A 2024 Stackoverflow survey found that 76% of developers planned to use or use AI for coding, testing and code documentation that year. That was before the 2025 surge in video coding. 81% view its main advantage as increased productivity, while only 6.5% have an unfavourable view of AI.
Meanwhile, 30% of game developers believe that game development will have a negative impact on the industry, but only 13% believe that it will have a positive impact, according to the 2025 annual Game Development Survey. The survey found that only 36% of game developers use AI.
Criticizing AI is absolutely ok and healthy.
Of course, part of the reason for adoption in Game Art is because it is slower than code, so the tools are still not sufficient. That's partly true. AI-generated 3D often fails to fill the bar due to real-time gaming use, and video generation still suffers from consistency. But that's not the whole story.
Critical perspectives are important, but they need to be combined with the spirit of exploration. You should ask: Can you actually use AI to increase your productivity? It is not wise to completely dismiss the technology.
The fear of unemployment and paradoxical productivity
AI arrives in the gaming industry shortly after a rough patch of studio closures, layoffs and budget cuts. When job security shaking, it's not surprising that many developers are skeptical of AI.
But we've seen this before. Previous waves of automation did not kill work completely. Instead, they changed the nature of their work. It is called Productivity Paradox: Companies don't always reduce their staff when they become more efficient. They increase the output. More automation actually increased consumer demand. The industry has created more and led to new kinds of experiences, products and industries.
AI may follow that path. However, some experts believe this wave could be different. AI will ultimately break the paradox and replace large-scale jobs. In that case, the impact will not be limited to game development. It will be a global change across the industry. And if society finds a way to meet most needs with a smaller workforce, we need to start thinking about new economic frameworks like universal basic income.
What's clear is this. Once a transformative technology reaches a certain threshold, resistance can slow it down, but it does not stop it. Laws cannot contain a borderless service economy. And when one country limits AI development, others fill the gap.
IP breach is a real concern.
I will not deny that. Training image models for work by artists without consent is problematic. The same can be said for LLMS trained with copyrighted texts. The New York Times are suing Openai for exactly that. I hope they win.
But the landscape is evolving. In 2025 there are clearer rules than in 2022, when most basic AI datasets were scrapped. In the new 3D space, the models I saw are trained in open source or licensed data. Even Image Marketplaces offers special licenses for AI use.
So, where does it leave game developers? If the art generated in AI is clearly mimicking work that is either derived or protected by a particular copyright, then that's a problem. But if it is common or used in workflows and not as a final asset, it is legal.
In summary
The video game industry has AI in the Peter Pan phase. He clings to a familiar person, resists the discomfort of change, and tells him staying still in the story. Meanwhile, the rest of the world of creative technology is growing rapidly.
Growing means accepting complexity. AI is powerful with problems, and it's not conflicting between creativity and automation. Studios and creators who embrace that way of thinking will shape: The rest may get stuck in Neverland.
