The organisers of GDC Festival of Gaming 2026 released the second annual GDC Trends report, and its central finding is blunt: rising generative AI use has exposed an infrastructure problem for developers — limited access to funding, networks and visibility is shaping who can build and ship games.
That conclusion sits beside four other headline trends the report identified: growth in co-development, increased dual monetisation on mobile, shifting advocacy and accessibility policies, and persistent challenges in securing funding or publishing partnerships. The numbers underline the scale: the report catalogues five key trends, finds 6% of studio employees work at dedicated co‑dev companies, and flags worrying wellbeing figures — only 20% of developers reported good or very good mental health while 94% experienced at least one symptom of burnout.
Generative AI emerges as both promise and pressure. The report found consistent support for using AI in planning and routine tasks, with that support unusually strong among older professionals and neurodivergent individuals. Respondents said AI tools should augment the development process rather than replace it; at the same time some professionals raised explicit concerns that AI adoption could lead to layoffs. The report also noted that agentic AI — systems that can autonomously manage tasks — could reduce AAA costs by handling bugs, coding chores or player support.
How co-development fits into the picture supplies an immediate mechanism: co-dev lets teams scale up technical work without the full cost of hiring in-house, and developers prefer co-dev over simple outsourcing because it permits deeper creative input and larger contributions. But the report warns that increased competition has made it harder for new teams to secure long-term co-dev partnerships, concentrating opportunity with studios already visible to potential partners.
Funding and publishing are the choke points. Over the past year industry professionals reported difficulties finding funding or publishing partners, and the report urged studios to consider self-publishing as an alternative. Self-publishing preserves creative control and avoids publisher revenue shares, yet it does not supply publisher services such as marketing, testing or QA — services many teams still rely on to reach players. That gap is the operational definition of the infrastructure problem the report describes: individual and studio self-advocacy, plus access to networks that deliver marketing and publisher services, are lagging behind new tooling and business models.
On monetisation, the report points to a rise in dual monetisation strategies in mobile titles, combining in‑game ads with in‑app purchases, and notes expansion of direct‑to‑consumer models following the ruling against Apple’s ban on external payment links. Those shifts give studios more options to fund development without traditional publisher deals, but they also shift the burden of discovery and user acquisition onto developers who lack publisher support.
The human cost of these structural shortages shows up in several places. Older developers described pressure to move into managerial slots or being viewed as overqualified for contributor roles; critics of merit-based advocacy systems argued such approaches miss the initial disadvantages faced by marginalised developers, including LGBTQ+ creators. Mental health data in the report — 20% reporting good or very good mental health and 94% experiencing at least one burnout symptom — sharpens the stakes behind questions of job security and workload as AI and co-dev change studio economics.
Practically, the report leaves studios with a short menu: pursue scarce publishing or co-dev partnerships, seek outside funding, or shoulder the risks and costs of self-publishing. For investors and larger platform players watching the market — from indie backers to global publishers and platform holders like Netease — the report signals that tooling advances alone will not democratise who gets to ship games without parallel fixes in funding, visibility and advocacy infrastructure.
The most consequential unanswered question the report exposes is not technical: it is structural. Which companies, studios or developers will win access to the strengthened pipelines the report says are needed remains unclear — the report does not single out who is most affected. Unless industry players build clearer pathways for funding, long-term co-development relationships and visibility for underrepresented teams, generative AI risks amplifying productivity for those already connected while leaving newcomers and marginalised developers behind.
