“Use of generative AI among game developers has declined after rising sharply in 2025, according to new data from the Game Developer Collective and Omdia. The survey shows 29% of developers reported using generative AI tools in early 2026, compared with 36% during the same period in 2025.”

  • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Not saying you’re wrong about there being a bias but also I suspect use is actually dropping off

    I’m currently in game dev school. Many people here absolutely hate AI and refuse to even learn about using it. Of the few that are using AI they’re embarrassed about it. It’s also mostly used to generate code when a designer or artist needs some code and was never taught anything about programming. The code tends to be a disaster and because they don’t know how to fix it they get mad at the AI for giving them nonsense and mad at themselves for not just learning to code basic stuff. I haven’t seen anyone use AI for anything art related yet

    People don’t become game devs for money. We’re artists looking to express ourselves in a human way to other humans. Regurgitron 9000 does not help us produce human relatable stuff and it certainly doesn’t help us express ourselves

    • fonix232@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Well, we’re talking about game DEVELOPERS here, so of course the generative AI use will be mainly, if not always code generation. So I don’t even know why you’re bringing up any other kind of genAI.

      LLMs are great at writing code because they’re designed for languages - and writing code is essentially a language, expressing instructions.

      If you get nonsense code from the AI… Then you didn’t use it right. You can’t just tell it to write your game and expect the model to extrapolate your specific needs and wants on a whim. You need to be precise, and know what result you want.

      People don’t become game devs for the money.

      Oh, who are you kidding? A majority of game developers - as in, engineers, not designers - are in it because it was an available job in a language/framework they’re familiar with. Given a majority of game dev work IS Regurgitron 12K, even without AI (please don’t tell me your artistic goal is to create the 98374516th gatcha game with mostly naked women with impossible body ratios). Very, very few engineers get to work on the big, actually artistic titles.

      • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        This is incredibly incorrect on basically every front my goodness please be a troll…

        I’m just going to focus on one aspect: Not even a “software developer” is limited to just programmers

        Wait hold on you seem to like AI:

        Your insistence that only people who code are developers is factually incorrect, ignores how much design work can include coding, and the way you keep reasserting it is insulting.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Designers and asset artists are still developing a game without coding it. Even the music in something like Rift of the NecroDancer constitutes level design, and in most cases music still can be used for conveying critical information if not just tone. It’s all still developing a game.

        Getting into game dev for the money is genuinely a bad idea, as your odds are terrible. There was a famous talk in the indie boom that showed you were mathematically better off opening a Subway franchise than getting into game dev. Technical roles definitely come with a pay cut compared to what you can find elsewhere (and I know that from experience), not to mention less job stability, so you’re taking that job because you like the work and the end product more.