AI Will Save Game Publishers Millions, You’ll Still Pay A Premium ($70-$100)

Game publishers have spent years pitching the jump from $60 to $70, and now to $100, for standard and deluxe editions by pointing to skyrocketing development costs.

At the same time, though, they are racing to plug artificial intelligence into almost every part of the process in hopes of making everything faster, cheaper, and more automated.

So my question is if video games will now be easier and cheaper to make, why are they more expensive than ever to buy? How does that make sense? For you and me, it doesn’t. For a corporation, it is the only thing that makes sense right now.

Where is the discount? Where is the added value? If publishers are pocketing millions because of new tools, why are consumers still asked to pay full price and then some?

AI in game development isn’t a thing of the future; it is already here. Major studios are no longer just experimenting; they use AI in their daily workflows. From writing character lines and syncing subtitles to generating 3D assets, these tools steadily take on tasks that once required human developers.

Take Ubisoft, for example. The company built a tool called Ghostwriter to generate ambient NPC dialogue. The idea is to spare writers from writing endless “mindless barks” so they can tackle the fun, big-picture stuff. Critics point out that those “minor” lines were often the first gig for many newbie writers, and replacing them shuts a career door. Meanwhile, Ubisoft trims hours and costs.

Over at Activision, the team behind Call of Duty is also leaning on generative AI. The publisher even told fans on Steam, “Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in-game assets.” They’re not hiding it, and honestly, why would they? The tech is fast, always on, and unlike salaried workers, it never clocks overtime.

In its 2024 corporate report, PlayStation acknowledged that it leaned on machine learning to sync voice and subtitles for Spider-Man 2. The team said the system “significantly shortened” the time usually spent on localization. Sony is also setting up a Volumetric Capture Studio that aims to produce reusable, top-quality 3D assets; yet another cost-cutting step dressed up in fancy tech talk.

Microsoft has pushed the idea even further. Its in-house AI, called Muse, now sketches out visual and gameplay concepts beside designers. That means more than rough doodles; it sits at the table like a junior artist. The demo appeared just a day after the company laid off 9,000 people, and Gamescom became the stage where Microsoft showed the world how AI could reshape game development. Many would call this tone-deaf but I consider it to be deliberately cruel.

Across the board, companies sell AI as a way to boost speed and stretch every intellectual property, industry shorthand for doing more while cutting headcount. Shareholders cheer the savings. Developers and gamers, however, are left wondering what it means for jobs and the soul of the medium.

If AI is really speeding up and cheapening game development, why aren’t players seeing lower prices or faster releases?

When standard editions jumped to $70, publishers said rising costs made the move unavoidable. They pointed to longer production cycles, bigger teams, and ever-larger budgets spiraling out of control. That story felt credible in 2020 but in 2025 the math doesn’t add up.

AIs now help with writing, art, localization, testing, and even parts of design work. Jobs that once filled entire rooms are shrinking as tools take over. Publishers quietly trim millions from budgets, but prices haven’t stalled; they keep climbing. $70 or higher for the standard edition is the consensus among big publishers.

• Today a lot of AAA titles start at $70 USD.
• Deluxe versions-branded as early access or loaded with cosmetics-zoom to $90 or $100.
• Collector bundles sometimes scrape past $250 and may skip the actual game disc.
• Live-service titles still gouge fans through battle passes, skins, and tons of microtransactions after the upfront fee.

While studios use A.I. to speed up production and trim head counts, many players feel they’re paying more for a product that offers less originality, clear communication, and sometimes even fewer features on day one.

The promise of AI was that it would reduce grunt work and free up creativity. But what it’s doing instead is padding margins and justifying layoffs, all while publishers quietly normalize triple-digit pricing models.

If developers are being replaced, pipelines are faster, and costs are lower… where is all that money going?

Sure, AI trims hours and costs, yet prices stay stubbornly high and that WILL NOT CHANGE. AI isn’t creating more developer slots or powering a new artsy boom. Instead, it doubles down on the recent trend: sell fewer titles for maximum dollars, with less risk and smaller teams.

So, where do those extra savings end up?

Big publications like Sony, Microsoft, and Activision Blizzard are legally bound to boost shareholder value, and AI is a handy tool to achieve that goal.

Fewer workers and tighter pipelines push profit margins up, lifting the bonuses that line top executives pockets. Ship a game with a lean crew, and Wall Street cheers.

Often, the cash saved on development won’t go back into polishing the game; it funds giant marketing stunts instead. Think Super Bowl ads, subway wraps, and social-media campaigns that burn millions well before reviews land. The game itself? The same $70 starter copy dressed with a $30 battle pass.

You’d think that cheaper tools would allow publishers to dream bigger and boost creativity, yet we see the exact opposite. Fresh ideas are being green light less frequently, while cash pours into safe bets like sequels, remasters, and remakes. Why take a chance when the system now allows you to squeeze legacy franchises harder, faster, and cheaper?

Dev costs may fall, but microtransactions keep growing. That $70 game is just the start; you also pay for skins, early unlocks, seasonal packs, battle passes, boosters, and pricey deluxe editions. Instead of dialling this back, AI lets publishers pump out extras at lightning speed through AI generated assets.

The result? Games will be cheaper to make, faster to produce, and more expensive to play.

And the deeper AI embeds itself in pipelines, the more this equation tilts in favor of publishers; not players, not devs, and certainly not creativity.

Sources Used: