Games Made With Gen AI Suffer Up To 53% Worse Sales on Steam
Games that disclose the use of generative AI receive roughly 53% fewer Steam reviews and lower median ratings than those that don’t, according to data analyst Ross Burton. Published via Game Oracle, the findings suggest a growing consumer stigma that disproportionately hits high-profile titles and large game studios.
Why is generative AI hurting game sales?
Consumer rejection of AI-generated content is manifesting as a measurable drop in engagement. Ross Burton analyzed Steam review counts as a proxy for sales figures since Steam doesn’t release exact unit data. After adjusting for developer experience and luck, Burton found that games disclosing AI use saw a 53% decrease in reviews.
This suggests a “stigma” effect. Players aren’t just reacting to the quality of the game, but to the method of production. While large studios lean into AI for productivity, the market is pushing back.
How does AI affect player ratings?
The gap isn’t just in how many people buy the games, but how they feel about them. According to the Game Oracle analysis, games utilizing generative AI had a median positive review rating of 84.6%.
In contrast, games without AI content maintained a higher median rating of 88.3%. This 3.7% difference indicates that players perceive a drop in quality or authenticity when AI is involved in the creative process.
Comparison: AI vs. Non-AI Performance
| Metric | AI-Disclosed Games | Non-AI Games |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated Sales (Reviews) | ~53% Lower | Baseline |
| Median Positive Rating | 84.6% | 88.3% |
Which developers face the most backlash?
The negative reaction isn’t uniform across the industry. Burton’s data shows a stronger negative correlation for games produced by large studios and publishers. High-profile titles seem more vulnerable to the AI stigma than low-budget or “low-quality” games.
Recent industry examples confirm this trend. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 faced scrutiny over AI use, and Pearl Abyss issued an apology for Crimson Desert after failing to disclose AI-generated artwork. Similarly, the studio behind The Alters confirmed AI usage only after community backlash intensified.
What happens next for AI in gaming?
A tension is growing between corporate goals and player expectations. While Unity is betting on AI to allow “no coding” game creation for casual markets, the hardcore Steam audience is signaling a preference for human-led artistry.
If the trend continues, large publishers may face a choice: prioritize the efficiency of generative AI or protect the brand equity associated with human craftsmanship. The “stigma” Burton identified suggests that for AAA titles, the cost of using AI might not be in the software license, but in lost revenue and lower player sentiment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does using AI always lead to lower sales?
Not necessarily, but according to Ross Burton’s analysis, games that disclose AI use saw roughly 53% fewer reviews on Steam compared to those that didn’t, suggesting a strong negative trend.
Why do players dislike AI in games?
The data points to a “stigma” where players associate generative AI with lower quality or a lack of effort, particularly in high-profile releases from large studios.
Which games have recently faced AI-related backlash?
Titles including Crimson Desert, The Alters, and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 have all dealt with community pushback regarding the use of generative AI.
What do you think? Does the use of AI in a game’s art or code change your decision to buy it? Let us know in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more industry deep dives.