Konami Rejects AI Hype Despite 17% Profit Growth [2026]

Konami Digital Entertainment president Hideki Hayakawa has told investors that generative AI is unlikely to bring a “significant change” to the video game market, a position that stands apart from the breathless AI-will-transform-everything rhetoric coming out of much of the tech industry this year. The comments appeared in Konami Group’s Integrated Report for the fiscal year ended March 2026, published this month and confirmed by multiple outlets including TechPowerUp and Automaton West on October 18, 2026.

The statement lands at a strange moment for the games business. Studios across the industry have cut thousands of jobs in the past two years, often while executives talk up AI-driven efficiency gains, as seen in recent rounds at Supermassive Games and Ubisoft’s RedLynx studio. Konami, by contrast, is reporting record financial results and using that strength to argue that AI hype is overblown, not that AI is irrelevant. The distinction matters, and it is worth unpacking what Konami’s president actually said, what the company’s numbers show, and how this fits into the wider argument over whether generative AI is remaking game development or just another tool bolted onto a process that has already been reshaped by game engines and user-generated content.

Google · Preferred Sources

Don't miss new tech stories on Google

Add TrendinTech once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.

Add Now

What Konami’s President Actually Said About Generative AI

Hayakawa’s comments were not an offhand remark in an interview. They appeared in a formal corporate document, Konami Group’s Integrated Report for the fiscal year ended March 2026, the kind of filing that is reviewed by investor relations teams and legal counsel before it reaches shareholders. That context gives the statement more weight than a casual quote would carry. According to Automaton West, Hayakawa said that “entry barriers have already been lowered by the advancements of generic game engines and the spread of UGC (user generated content)”, framing generative AI as one more incremental step in a process that started well before large language models existed.

He went further on the question of who actually makes games worth playing. As reported by TechPowerUp, Hayakawa said: “Even if AI use does lead to improvements in production efficiency, I believe that the most important factors in producing entertaining and innovative video games are people and creators.” That is not a company rejecting AI outright. It is a company arguing that AI is a productivity tool sitting alongside engines, middleware, and outsourcing pipelines rather than a force that rewrites the competitive map.

Konami’s report also addressed how the company plans to handle the technology internally. The firm said it provides systematic support so that creators can learn new technologies, assess the risks involved, and apply them safely to development, a framing that treats AI adoption as a managed, gradual process rather than a wholesale restructuring of how games get made.

Inside Konami’s Fiscal 2026 Numbers

Hayakawa’s skepticism about AI’s disruptive potential carries more weight because it comes from a company that is not struggling. Konami’s fiscal 2026 results, covering the year ended March 2026, show revenue of 493.677 billion yen, up 17.1 percent year over year, with business profit reaching 143.583 billion yen. For the first nine months of the same fiscal year, Konami reported revenue of 353.02 billion yen, a 13.6 percent increase, alongside operating income of 101.7888 billion yen, up 17.4 percent, and net income attributable to owners of the parent of 74.347 billion yen, up 17.8 percent.

Those nine-month figures were described in Konami’s own disclosures as record highs. The company’s revised full-year forecast, issued earlier in the fiscal year, had projected revenue of 468 billion yen, operating profit of 131 billion yen, ordinary income of 123 billion yen, and net income attributable to owners of the parent of 86 billion yen. The fact that actual revenue came in well above that earlier guidance underlines why Konami’s leadership feels comfortable making a contrarian call on AI: the company is not under the kind of margin pressure that tends to push executives toward aggressive AI-driven cost cutting.

Metric	Period	Figure	Year-over-Year Change
Revenue	Full fiscal year 2026 (ended March 2026)	493.677 billion yen	+17.1%
Business profit	Full fiscal year 2026	143.583 billion yen	Not separately disclosed
Revenue	First nine months of fiscal 2026	353.02 billion yen	+13.6%
Operating income	First nine months of fiscal 2026	101.7888 billion yen	+17.4%
Net income (owners of parent)	First nine months of fiscal 2026	74.347 billion yen	+17.8%
Revenue (revised guidance, issued mid-year)	Full fiscal year 2026	468 billion yen (forecast)	N/A, forecast figure

The gap between Konami’s revised guidance and its actual full-year revenue suggests the company beat its own mid-year projections, a detail that reinforces the picture of a publisher operating from a position of financial strength rather than desperation when it weighs in on AI.

Why Hayakawa Thinks Entry Barriers Are Already Low

The core of Hayakawa’s argument is historical rather than technological. He is not saying generative AI lacks capability. He is saying the games industry already went through its barrier-lowering moment, and it happened with general-purpose engines like Unreal and Unity, plus the rise of user-generated content platforms that let non-professional creators publish playable games to huge audiences. By the time generative AI tools arrived, Konami’s view holds, the hardest parts of “who gets to make a game” had already been solved.

This is a defensible reading of the last fifteen years of game development. Engines absorbed the complexity of rendering, physics, and platform certification. Marketplaces for asset packs, scripts, and plugins absorbed much of the grunt work that once required dedicated engineering teams. UGC ecosystems proved that millions of people could design playable experiences without ever writing a line of production code. Against that backdrop, Konami’s position is that generative AI slots into an already-flattened field rather than flattening a field that was still steep.

That framing cuts against a popular narrative in tech commentary this year, one that treats AI coding and AI asset generation as the single biggest democratizing force the games industry has ever seen. Konami’s version is more modest: AI is additive, not revolutionary, because the revolutionary work of opening game development to more people already happened.

The Case for Human Creators Over Generative AI

Hayakawa’s second argument is less about market structure and more about what actually makes a game good. According to the Video Games Chronicle, he described the value created when developers from different backgrounds collaborate, saying “that kind of chemical reaction is not something that can be easily replaced.” The phrase captures a specific worry in game development circles: that AI tools, trained on existing patterns, are structurally better at reproducing known genres and mechanics than at producing the odd, idiosyncratic choices that turn a competent game into a beloved one.

Konami has firsthand experience with both sides of that coin. The company’s catalog includes Metal Gear Solid and Silent Hill, two franchises built substantially on auteur-driven creative decisions rather than iterative optimization. Metal Gear’s tonal whiplash between stealth mechanics and absurdist cutscenes, or Silent Hill’s reliance on atmosphere and psychological unease, are not the kind of design choices that emerge from averaging a training dataset. They came from specific creative teams making specific, sometimes risky calls. Hayakawa’s comments can be read as a defense of that model at a moment when a lot of publishers are talking about AI as a replacement for exactly that kind of creative judgment.

Konami’s Industry Position Gives the Statement Weight

It matters who is making this argument. Konami is not a small independent studio with nothing to lose by taking a contrarian stance. It is a publicly traded, decades-old Japanese publisher with a portfolio that spans console and PC franchises, mobile games, and non-gaming businesses including health clubs and pachinko equipment. A statement like this from Konami carries more institutional weight than it would from a 20-person indie team, precisely because Konami has the scale and the balance sheet to actually implement an aggressive AI strategy if its leadership believed one was warranted.

That is also why the statement is getting attention beyond gaming trade press. As Ground News noted in its coverage, Konami’s position was notable specifically because it came from the publisher behind Silent Hill and Metal Gear rather than from a company with a smaller public profile.

How This Fits the Broader AI-in-Gaming Debate

The timing of Konami’s comments is not an accident. Generative AI has become one of the most contested topics in game development over the past two years, with studios announcing AI-assisted art pipelines, AI-generated dialogue systems, and AI-driven QA testing, often alongside layoff announcements that make the AI framing look like cover for cost-cutting. Nintendo Wire covered Hayakawa’s remarks as part of that wider conversation, framing Konami’s stance as a counterweight to executives elsewhere who talk about AI as an inevitability rather than a choice.

That skepticism is not confined to gaming. A broader debate about whether AI tools genuinely speed up technical work has been playing out across software development generally, including a widely discussed study on AI coding agents that found measurable slowdowns rather than speedups in certain real-world conditions. There is also growing evidence that AI adoption inside companies is sometimes more performative than substantive, with one survey finding that a significant share of employees exaggerate their AI usage to managers rather than relying on it for core output. Konami’s position fits neatly into that more skeptical strand of the conversation: useful tool, not a transformation.

Entry-Barrier Disruption: A Historical Comparison

Hayakawa’s argument rests on treating generative AI as the latest entry in a longer sequence of technologies that lowered the cost of making games. Looking at that sequence side by side helps explain why Konami’s leadership is not treating this moment as unprecedented.

Technology Wave	Approximate Era	What It Lowered	Who It Empowered
General-purpose game engines (Unreal, Unity)	2000s to 2010s	Technical cost of rendering, physics, and platform certification	Small studios and solo developers
Asset marketplaces and middleware	2010s	Cost of producing art, audio, and code from scratch	Teams without dedicated art or audio staff
User-generated content platforms	Mid-2010s to present	Need for traditional development pipelines entirely	Non-developers and hobbyist creators
Generative AI tools (current wave)	2023 to present	Time spent on iteration, prototyping, and some production tasks	Existing studios and creators, per Konami’s framing

Konami’s bet is that the fourth row in that table is an incremental efficiency gain layered on top of three waves of disruption that already happened, rather than a fifth, bigger wave in its own right. Whether that holds up will depend largely on how far generative tools move beyond assisting existing creators and toward letting non-creators generate playable, polished games end to end, something UGC platforms have only partially achieved even after a decade of development.

Market Impact for Konami and Its Peers

For Konami specifically, the market impact of this statement is likely to be modest in the short term. The company’s record nine-month results give it room to make a measured, non-urgent case about AI without spooking investors who might otherwise want to see an aggressive automation roadmap. Konami is not signaling that it will avoid AI tools internally. It is signaling that it will not restructure its creative organization around the assumption that AI changes who can compete in the market.

For the broader industry, the statement adds a data point to an increasingly two-sided conversation. On one side are executives treating generative AI as a near-term structural shift significant enough to justify restructuring, a framing that has coincided with job cuts at studios including RedLynx and Supermassive Games. On the other side is Konami, arguing from a position of financial strength that the fundamentals of competitive advantage in game development, namely creative judgment and the ability to assemble strong teams, have not changed. Investors and studio leadership elsewhere will likely watch how Konami’s stance plays out over the next several quarters as a test case for whether AI skepticism is compatible with strong financial performance.

What This Means for Developers and Creators

For individual developers, Hayakawa’s comments offer a reassurance that is becoming rarer in public statements from games-industry executives: a direct claim that people, not AI tools, remain the deciding factor in whether a game succeeds. That matters at a time when console and hardware sales themselves are under pressure, with console sales cratering across major platforms and broader hardware figures showing a multi-year low point for PlayStation and Xbox hardware sales. In an environment where studios are already cutting headcount for reasons tied to softening demand, a publisher explicitly stating that AI will not be used as the rationale for further workforce reduction is a meaningfully different message than silence on the topic.

It also sets an internal expectation for how Konami intends to introduce AI tools: as something creators learn and apply with risk assessment built in, rather than something imposed from the top down to replace specific roles. That approach mirrors how the company says it wants employees to treat any major technological shift, framing AI adoption as a managed skill-building process rather than a sudden operational change.

Competitive Field: Konami’s Stance Versus the Industry Mood

It is worth being precise about what is and is not confirmed here. Konami’s statement is well documented across multiple outlets, including TechPowerUp, Automaton West, Video Games Chronicle, Ground News, and Nintendo Wire. Specific, verified AI policy statements from other major publishers covering the same period are harder to pin down with the same level of confidence, and this piece will not attribute particular AI strategies to companies whose exact current positions were not independently verifiable at the time of writing. What can be said with confidence is that the general mood across much of the industry, reflected in trade coverage, investor calls, and the steady drumbeat of layoff announcements tied to efficiency narratives, has leaned toward treating generative AI as a significant structural force. Konami’s statement stands out precisely because it pushes back on that mood rather than reinforcing it.

Historical Context: Konami’s Long Relationship With Technological Change

Konami is one of the oldest continuously operating game publishers in the world, with a history stretching back to arcade cabinets in the 1970s. The company has already lived through multiple waves of technological disruption that were, at the time, framed as existential: the shift from arcades to home consoles, the move from 2D sprites to full 3D environments, the rise of online multiplayer, and the transition to mobile and free-to-play models. In each case, the games industry absorbed the technology and changed its production methods without fundamentally altering the core insight that distinctive, well-crafted games win audiences over generic ones.

That institutional memory likely informs Hayakawa’s framing. A company that has survived five decades of claimed industry-ending technologies has reason to be skeptical of the newest one, not because the technology lacks power, but because the pattern of “this changes everything” claims has a long and mixed track record inside this specific industry.

What Industry Voices Are Saying

Hayakawa’s own words, drawn directly from Konami’s Integrated Report and corroborated by multiple outlets, form the clearest on-record statement in this story. As reported by Automaton West, he said: “Entry barriers have already been lowered by the advancements of generic game engines and the spread of UGC (user generated content).” On the question of what actually makes games good, TechPowerUp quoted him saying: “Even if AI use does lead to improvements in production efficiency, I believe that the most important factors in producing entertaining and innovative video games are people and creators.” And on the specific value of human collaboration, Video Games Chronicle quoted his view that “that kind of chemical reaction is not something that can be easily replaced.”

Taken together, those three statements sketch a coherent position rather than a one-off soundbite: AI is a tool, barriers were already low, and people remain the irreplaceable variable in whether a game resonates with players.

Predictions: Where This Debate Goes From Here

Expect more publishers to publish explicit AI positions in annual and integrated reports over the next two fiscal years, as investors increasingly ask how companies plan to use, or avoid, generative tools.
Konami is likely to continue framing AI adoption as a risk-managed, creator-led process rather than a cost-cutting initiative, especially while its financial results remain strong enough to avoid pressure for aggressive automation.
Studios currently citing AI efficiency as part of restructuring announcements will face more scrutiny from press and labor advocates comparing their framing to Konami’s more cautious stance.
The debate over whether generative AI meaningfully lowers entry barriers, versus simply extending a lowering trend that engines and UGC platforms already started, will likely intensify as more data on AI-assisted indie releases becomes available.
Expect continued divergence between companies under margin pressure, who have incentive to lean into AI-driven narratives, and financially strong companies like Konami, who have more freedom to take a measured public stance.

Why This Statement Stands Out in 2026

Most corporate statements about AI in 2026 follow a familiar pattern: acknowledge the technology’s power, announce internal adoption plans, and tie efficiency gains to competitive necessity. Konami’s statement breaks that pattern by explicitly downgrading the expected magnitude of AI’s impact on market structure while still leaving room for internal, tool-level use. That combination, record profits plus public AI skepticism, is relatively rare, since most companies making confident claims about AI’s limited impact tend to be the ones under less pressure to prove a transformation story to shareholders. Konami’s size and franchise portfolio give its statement more reach than it would get from a smaller publisher making the same argument, which is a large part of why it is generating coverage well beyond typical Japanese corporate-filing news.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did Konami’s president say about AI?
Hideki Hayakawa, president of Konami Digital Entertainment, said generative AI is unlikely to bring a significant change to the games market, arguing that entry barriers were already lowered by game engines and user-generated content, and that people and creators remain the most important factor in producing entertaining games.

Where did these comments appear?
The comments were published in Konami Group’s Integrated Report for the fiscal year ended March 2026, a formal investor-facing document, and were subsequently reported by outlets including TechPowerUp, Automaton West, Video Games Chronicle, Ground News, and Nintendo Wire.

Is Konami rejecting AI entirely?
No. The company’s own report describes support for creators learning new technologies and applying them safely to development. Hayakawa’s argument is that AI will not significantly disrupt the market structure of game development, not that the company will avoid using AI tools internally.

How is Konami performing financially?
Strongly. Full fiscal-2026 revenue reached 493.677 billion yen, up 17.1 percent year over year, with business profit of 143.583 billion yen. Nine-month net income attributable to owners of the parent rose 17.8 percent to 74.347 billion yen, figures Konami described as record highs.

Does this mean other major publishers disagree with Konami?
The broader industry mood, reflected in layoff announcements and efficiency narratives at various studios, has generally leaned toward treating AI as a bigger structural force. However, specific, verified current AI policy statements from other major publishers covering this same period were not confirmed at the time of this report, so no direct comparison of named rival stances can be made with confidence.

What franchises does Konami’s position apply to?
Konami’s Digital Entertainment business includes major global properties such as Metal Gear and Silent Hill, giving Hayakawa’s comments added weight given the auteur-driven creative history of those series.

Why does Konami think entry barriers are already low?
Hayakawa pointed to the advancement of general-purpose game engines and the spread of user-generated content platforms as having already reduced the technical and financial barriers to making games, framing generative AI as an incremental addition rather than a new disruptive force.

What should developers take away from this?
Konami’s framing suggests the company does not plan to use AI efficiency as a justification for reducing reliance on creative staff, positioning AI instead as a supplementary tool that creators learn and apply with risk management rather than a replacement for creative teams.

Konami President: AI Wont Change Game Industry, 17% Growth [2026]