Published on January 22, 2024, 12:25 pm
Generative AI has become a common practice in the game development industry, as revealed by a recent survey conducted by the Game Developers Conference (GDC). The survey, which included responses from over 3,000 professionals in the field, found that almost half of developers work at studios that already utilize generative AI tools. Among the respondents, 31% reported using generative AI tools in their work processes.
The GDC’s 2024 State of the Industry report, for the first time in its 12-year history, focused on exploring developers’ experiences with generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, GitHub Copilot, and Adobe Generative Fill. The survey discovered that not only are these tools being used in nearly half of the surveyed developers’ workplaces but also that indie studios have shown greater interest in leveraging generative AI. In fact, 37% of respondents from indie studios confirmed using these tools personally. On the other hand, only 23% of respondents stated that their workplaces did not express any interest in working with generative AI.
Despite the growing adoption of generative AI among game developers, there are concerns regarding its ethical implications. Approximately 42% of developers surveyed expressed strong concerns about the ethics surrounding generative AI use in their industry. Another 42% reported being somewhat concerned while only a mere 12% displayed no concern at all.
One area of concern relates to intellectual property regulations and plagiarism. Many creators worry about how generative AI tools like ChatGPT and DALL-E rely on text and images obtained without explicit consent from their original creators. Layoffs within game studios due to automation is another significant worry raised by developers using generative AI. In fact, this issue was also addressed in the GDC’s survey findings.
The impact of generative AI on the game industry remains open to interpretation amongst respondents. While 57% expected a “mixed impact,” 18% anticipated a “negative impact.” Interestingly, developers in business, marketing, and programming were more inclined to believe that generative AI would have a positive influence. On the other hand, those working in narrative, visual arts, and quality assurance expressed higher levels of concern about the possible negative effects. These departments are more likely to face AI-related layoffs since generative AI already impacts tasks traditionally performed by writers, graphic designers, storyboard artists, and more.
Some participating developers indicated that their workplaces currently lack policies that regulate the use of generative AI. An astonishing 32% stated that their studios had no generative AI policy at all. Another 30% revealed that their workplace’s policy was “optional.” Surprisingly, 2% of respondents reported being required to use generative AI tools as part of their job.
These findings highlight the need for industry-wide discussions and framework implementations about the responsible use of generative AI in game development. By addressing concerns related to ethics, intellectual property rights, and potential job displacement among artists and other creative professionals, studios can ensure a more balanced and positive adoption of this technology.
As this survey reveals the prevalence of generative AI across game studios, it is evident that both its benefits and drawbacks must be considered carefully. By fostering open dialogues surrounding its ethical implications and establishing clear policies regarding its usage, developers can effectively navigate this evolving landscape while minimizing any potential negative impact on their industry.