Windows Central Insider
AI and gaming are becoming an inseparable match. Whether it's AI used in modern graphics rendering or AI used in actual game development, I've stated several times that I don't think they'll be separated anytime soon.
The rise of AI has been causing hiccups for global PC game markets like Steam from the very start. In January 2024, Steam owner Valve announced that its storefront would now contain AI disclosures from developers. If AI were used in development, you'd be able to clearly see it on the game's page.
Since then, you've probably noticed a whole lot of Steam pages sporting that little AI blurb describing how exactly AI was used during development. The phenomenon, of course, begs the question: Is the use of AI in game development hurting sales?
According to research performed by Ross Burton, PhD, Head of Product and Data at Game Oracle (via PCGamer), the use of AI does harm sales and, beyond cold hard cash, it also hurts a game's reputation.
Burton discovered that approximately 21% of games released on Steam in 2025 (pre-November) contained a disclosure for some sort of AI use. I can't help but assume that number has only gone up since then.
Steam's recent Next Fest event, showcasing countless new games set to arrive in the near future, was rife with games clearly created using AI, some less innocuous than others.
Deciphering Steam's numbers tell an important story
Steam doesn't disclose how many copies specific games sell; that's up to the developer to know, and to share only if they like. However, Steam sales can be approximated by the number of reviews a title receives, and as Game Oracle points out, it's a proxy method that's used across the industry.
Game Oracle's initial research, even at a surface level, is eye-opening. It studied almost 10,000 Steam releases between January and October 2025, discovering that games disclosing AI use averaged just 4 reviews in the first post-launch month compared to 7 reviews for games without AI.
Almost 20% of games with AI disclosure received no reviews, compared to 15% for non-AI games. Scores were also biased in titles with at least 100 reviews, with AI games hitting an average score of 84.6% compared to 88.3% for non-AI games.
AI games don't receive as much attention as non-AI games
Game Oracle built a causal statistical model to control for elements like a specific developer's prior experience, publisher backing (if any), genre, and release date. Games that fell into similar groupings were then compared to each other to prevent outside factors from interfering.
In this scenario, games that disclosed the use of AI received about 53% fewer reviews than non-AI games. So, if two games were released around the same time, from developers with similar levels of experience, with similar backing, and of a similar genre, non-AI games would theoretically receive 100 reviews while an AI game would receive 47.
That's a huge gap, and one that isn't easy to discredit.
Established studios are being punished harder for using AI in game development
There is, of course, some nuance to the study's findings. Game Oracle performed a sensitivity analysis to account for unmeasured factors like marketing costs, raw talent, and pure luck.
It was discovered that inexperienced developers with no marketing budget, who likely turned to AI simply because of a lack of other resources, saw hardly any negative impact on sales despite the AI disclosure. These games were almost certainly going to struggle even without the use of AI.
They have talent, budget, and know-how (factors that usually boost sales by 20% - 65%). They decide to experiment with AI to optimise their workflow. If this narrative is true — if "good" studios are using AI — then AI use is catastrophic (-40% to -60% drop in sales). This is evidenced by the dark blue cells at the top of our heatmap.
Ross Burton, PhD, Head of Product and Data at Game Oracle
It's a different story for the more established studios with an existing following and previous titles. Game Oracle found that the use of AI by these studios resulted in a significant 40% to 60% drop in sales.
👉 Crimson Desert developers apologize for the use of generative AI
That's a huge difference. AI stigma seems to hit competent developers with a lot to lose the hardest, and I'm not sure that game studios are ready to accept it.
What the AI stigma means for gamers
I don't think that gamers are actively boycotting AI games. If I had to guess, I'd say that the majority of Steam users don't ever check for AI disclosures and instead direct their disposable income towards positive reviews.
Games like The Finals and Suck Up! are mentioned in the study as examples of successes that used AI. Those successes are counterbalanced by Black Ops 7 and Jurassic World Evolution 3 as examples of brands that were harmed by the use of AI.
The research comes to a point with Burton stating that he doesn't know exactly what is causing the negative impact on AI games.
Some might be inclined to quickly jump to conclusions and claim it's consumer backlash, with players actively rejecting games that disclose using AI. But there are plenty of other factors at play.
Ross Burton, PhD, Head of Product and Data at Game Oracle
One interesting line that stands out to me is that AI is often "correlated with other decisions that lead to a poorly crafted game." Burton suggests that the penalty for using AI might be as much about how it's used as how much it's used.
Burton wraps up the research with a reminder that AI isn't something to be avoided: "Approach AI with caution. Use it gracefully. It is not a replacement for hard work, it's just there to lighten the load."
Do you agree? Let me know in the comments section below!
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.
