adminAI in the games industry is creating new possibilities, but new technology alone does not guarantee games that players value. Joost van Dreunen argues that audiences still care about human creativity, social connection and enjoyable design. His perspective also connects AI to wider changes in esports, game business models and employment.
Van Dreunen co-founded SuperData Research in 2010 and has taught at NYU Stern School of Business for around a decade. He has also worked as an advisor, analyst, author and CEO of data insights firm Aldora, and serves as a strategic advisor to community development agency ELO.
Image credit: THIS 2023/Alexander Håkansson
AI in the games industry: useful tool or disposable content?
Van Dreunen says students from different academic backgrounds tend to draw a line between using AI as a tool and presenting AI-generated material as a finished creative product. In his classroom, roughly 60% of students are from business programmes, around 20% have technical or computer science backgrounds, and the rest study areas such as media and culture. Engineering students are generally more open to AI as a way to expand what they can create, while business students are more cautious.
Across these groups, he sees little enthusiasm for low-quality, quickly consumed AI output. Students may find it amusing, but do not necessarily assign it the same lasting value as work made through human creative effort. They are more receptive to AI assisting with administrative tasks or supporting a creative process than to it being treated as the main attraction.
Practical takeaway: For game makers considering AI, the key question is what the tool improves for players or developers. If it adds little to the experience, using it simply because it is new may not create meaningful value.
Why social connection matters to esports
Van Dreunen traces esports’ growth as a live entertainment format to both better industry support and the appeal of gathering in person. Major competitions, including the League of Legends championship, can offer large-scale ceremonies and spectacle. Elsewhere, events may remain small or amateur, particularly when a game has a more limited audience.
Esports can also be difficult for newcomers to follow. A viewer unfamiliar with a game may need time to learn its rules and understand the community around it. Van Dreunen compares this to entering a sport or music scene with its own conventions: the experience can feel exclusive at first, while becoming more rewarding as viewers learn what to watch for.
He sees live gaming events as part of a broader balance between digital entertainment and face-to-face experiences. For audiences, the event itself and the chance to share it with others can matter as much as the result. Organisers can make broadcasts more accessible by explaining rules and key moments without assuming every viewer already knows the game.
Games are becoming long-term entertainment properties
As gaming has moved from the cultural margins toward the mainstream, its business models have matured. Some games are designed to sustain relationships with audiences over many years rather than depend only on a one-time launch. Van Dreunen compares this kind of lasting cultural presence to familiar properties such as Pokémon and Dungeons & Dragons, which can be introduced across generations.
That shift does not mean every title can follow the same formula. Free-to-play games and mobile hits such as Candy Crush operate differently from large productions such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty. The range of formats changes how games compete for attention and earn revenue, putting pressure on established publishers to adapt.
At the same time, games such as Balatro and Silksong show that projects do not always need the scale or economics of a blockbuster to find an audience. Their success illustrates why studios should consider the specific appeal and audience of a game rather than assume that bigger productions are the only viable path.
Game industry careers need clearer routes into work
Van Dreunen identifies a gap between education and professional opportunities. Students may want to combine an interest in games with fields such as finance, marketing or fashion, but struggle to find a clear route into the industry. He says universities could help by building stronger links between creative departments, business programmes and game companies.
Possible steps include inviting publishers to meet students, supporting incubators and creating practical connections between courses and employers. Van Dreunen places responsibility on the industry as well as universities: companies benefit when they engage with the institutions preparing future creatives, strategists and business leaders.
He also points to labour protections as an area where games differ from parts of the US film and music industries, where creative workers may have union representation. Alongside widespread layoffs, that difference raises questions about security and working conditions for game workers.
Layoffs do not mean players will stop playing
Van Dreunen argues that employment cuts do not signal the end of demand for games. He expects people to keep playing, even when individual companies face difficult periods. In his view, an industry that reduces its workforce too aggressively could later find itself competing for talent and hiring people back at higher cost.
The wider market is also changing as audiences choose among more types of entertainment. Van Dreunen compares this transition to changes in film and television, where large-scale productions coexist with lower-cost formats. For game companies, the challenge is to adjust business plans without losing sight of what makes a title worth playing.
Practical takeaway: Players’ continued interest in games does not guarantee success for every studio or business model. Companies still need to match development costs, monetisation and audience expectations.
Good design does not always require more technology
Van Dreunen is sceptical of claims that any single technology will become a universal solution. He points to earlier waves of enthusiasm around virtual reality, the metaverse and crypto as reminders that new tools can create opportunities without making every project successful.
He also warns that studios can use new technology to increase complexity rather than improve efficiency. More characters, dialogue or features may absorb productivity gains if teams do not also make their production process faster or more focused. His example of Web3 gaming highlights a similar risk: digital ownership may be an interesting idea, but it cannot compensate for a game that is not enjoyable.
Smaller, simpler games can still offer strong social experiences, especially when friends can play together. A technically modest design may be a better choice than adding features that do not improve the core experience.
What the future of AI in the games industry depends on
Van Dreunen’s central point is that technology should support the experience rather than replace its purpose. AI may help developers explore ideas or handle routine work, but audiences are unlikely to value a game solely because it uses AI. The same applies to esports and business models: long-term appeal depends on whether people find meaning, enjoyment and connection in what is being offered.
For studios weighing AI in the games industry, the useful test is straightforward: does it help create a more engaging game, a better working process or a stronger connection with players? If the answer is no, the technology itself is not a substitute for thoughtful design.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
