Player Perceptions of Generative AI in Games: A Steam Review Analysis

The rapid adoption of generative AI in game development has created large discussions among players, yet little empirical work has examined how players actually perceive AI-generated content. Employing quantitative methods, we study the adoption of generative AI in games in the Steam marketplace, using procedural content generation (PCG) as a baseline of a generative technology that was successfully integrated into games over several decades. Furthermore, using qualitative methods, we study player reception of generative AI by analyzing 508,192 English-language reviews. We found that games disclosing generative AI use receive lower recommendation rates and more negative overall sentiment than PCG games. Thematic analysis of 600 reviews shows that players perceive the use of generative AI in games as low developer investment in the game. Drawing on human-centered AI frameworks, we argue that successful generative AI adoption requires deploying generative AI for what players need, not for what makes development cheaper.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3831347
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Games
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Player Perceptions of Generative AI in Games: A Steam Review Analysis

Mahsa Bazzaz, Seth Cooper
1 links
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Artificial Intelligence in Games
article

Player Perceptions of Generative AI in Games: A Steam Review Analysis

Mahsa Bazzaz, Seth Cooper
article en

Abstract

The rapid adoption of generative AI in game development has created large discussions among players, yet little empirical work has examined how players actually perceive AI-generated content. Employing quantitative methods, we study the adoption of generative AI in games in the Steam marketplace, using procedural content generation (PCG) as a baseline of a generative technology that was successfully integrated into games over several decades. Furthermore, using qualitative methods, we study player reception of generative AI by analyzing 508,192 English-language reviews. We found that games disclosing generative AI use receive lower recommendation rates and more negative overall sentiment than PCG games. Thematic analysis of 600 reviews shows that players perceive the use of generative AI in games as low developer investment in the game. Drawing on human-centered AI frameworks, we argue that successful generative AI adoption requires deploying generative AI for what players need, not for what makes development cheaper.

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionVol. 10(7)
Northeastern University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 45%
Artificial Intelligence in Games
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon