They need to make AI generated code also part of what needs to be disclosed. I’ve seen way too many people putting up games with no disclosure that has AI generated code and when confronted they say “well all the player facing stuff like dialogue and art assets are human made which are the only things Steam requires be disclosed if those were made with AI”. Just recently saw some MMO called Spirit Crossing do it.
If you think stealing code is wrong, I will have you know that that was a feature long before LLMs existed. Steal my code, take it.
And unlike art/music/writing where this is impossible, if you don’t want to share code, close-source your project.
" I’ve seen way too many people putting up games with no disclosure that has AI generated code " - They’re not required to disclose ai usage. Literally every new game uses ai to write code.
I didn’t want to spend money on games that exploit the labor of others, so at the very least I want the ability to make informed purchases.
So… You didn’t want to buy non-indie games? You can just say that directly.
I don’t want to buy slop so if they don’t REQUIRE a slop identifier, I’m just not going to buy games from them anymore. It’ll be GOG or the high seas!
Does GOG have required Ai disclosure?
If not, will you buy games knowingly it could contain or have been made with Ai, or will you research before? If you research, why not do this with Steam games?
Hadn’t looked into it yet but if there’s slop there then won’t be buying, same goes for Itch.io or any other platform.
I looked at pages on GOG games and couldn’t find such disclosure. As far as I know, itchio doesn’t have a policy to force Ai disclosure either. Right now, Steam is the only platform that forces this.
Steam has been the only platform I’ve really bought from since all this bullshit started, but if they drop the policy I’m dropping the platform as a customer. It shouldn’t be on me to research the shit out of stuff to make sure it’s a real product that someone actually made, that should absolutely be disclosed on every platform there is.
Whatever slopped out jackass is downvoting this can get bent: I’m not paying for poorly plagiarized garbage, full stop.
Where does this “dropping the Ai policy” come from?? There is no indication to.
From the article (though it doesn’t explicitly say that) and from people (read: idiots like Tim Sweeney) criticizing the policy. There is very real pressure from a certain group of shitbags for Steam to abandon the warning labels or at least not make them mandatory, which is fucked.
Those aren’t real source, these are just someone idea. There is absolutely no indication to Valve dropping the requirement for Ai disclosure, and I don’t see any reason to why they would to. It’s one of the quality features of Steam and something others don’t do. It’s just transparency, not forcing anything else.
If you can’t tell, then it literally doesn’t matter. If it’s information that is invisible to you, and if someone lied about it you would still never know, then it shouldn’t inform your decision-making. At all.
The hell it doesn’t! What an absurd response.
Yours is the absurd response.
You: “It’s so poorly plagiarized, and so slop quality that I need them to tell me so, otherwise I don’t actually know. So make them tell me!”
Asinine.
There is AI slop in both the Windows and Linux kernel now, so you’re complicit either way.
There is 100% AI slop in Windows.
In Linux, as far as I can tell, AI was used in certain ways, but I wouldn’t call it slop in this instance because it’s not janky garbage and there was still plenty of human oversight. I’m not a fan of calling LLMs “AI” at all, but it’s still an important distinction.
That said, AI use should still be always disclosed including how it was used and it should be 100% mandatory in everything from games to operating systems to drug synthesis.
Ah, yes, let’s just have everything go to shit because things can’t be absolutely perfect!
You don’t have to use modern windows or Linux. Is you so, that’s your choice.
I highly recommend NOT using modern windows. Not just because of LLM slop, that’s only the tip I if the iceberg.
using unsupported software in October, 2026 is certainly a choice
signed, someone on Windows 10 which will soon be out of LTS
They do make you disclose the usage.
What they won’t do is ban any games based on it
This lets the consumers decide, when you can just filter out all have that use it
As long as it is required to be labeled, which it currently is as I understand it, Steam will keep me as a customer.
This lets the consumers decide, when you can just filter out all have that use it
Except Steam doesn’t have filters for LLM content. That’s why so many people had problems with Next Fest
Good. Make disclosure required but otherwise let the consumer decide.
i feel like you could fix the worst of it by also upping the deposit required to submit a game. iirc, right now it’s only 100, and you make it back after 1000 in sales. if you upped that to say…1k/10k, the risk/reward of ever seeing that $ again is much lower.
That’s the same thinking that was used a few decades ago to make sure the poors and PoC couldn’t apply for housing in specific areas.
Only the haves are allowed to make games here, harrumph.
They need to add filters though. Then people who don’t want games made with LLMs don’t have to spend as much time sifting through games.
Honestly, that would have done a lot to fix this past Next Fest and the threats that devs have been getting about someone else using LLM’s to clone their games before release
I do not understand why this is even controversial.
Because AI usage is complicated. AI has been in Photoshop for a long time, as an example. Where does the line get drawn? Everyone has different opinions on this, including consumers. So either Valve would have to make a clear definition, or they would let publishers decide for themselves, which is basically irrelevant to most consumers.
It’s not complicated. If you used a generative AI tool to make the game, it should require a label, period.
In your example, there is a clear and obvious difference between using traditional drawing tools and using the AI features.
Should there be distinguishing labels for different types of use (art vs code vs music vs writing etc)? Probably, but if you don’t want the label, get good and don’t use those tools. It’s not hard. Game devs were making amazing stuff before these tools became available.
I guarantee if you ask artists and programmers across studios, even indie studios, they would also have very different definitions from you.
No one has cared in the past if artists used Photoshop’s content aware fill, which is a form of generative AI, and that has been out for a long time now, like 6 years or so.
Content Aware Fill only started incorporating genai about a year ago. With that option on, it’s much more effective at large-scale removal than before, but the use is pretty similar.
Exactly my point. It’s nuanced, because it doesn’t really make sense to draw the line based on what the underlying tech is.
I don’t think it should be surprising that people started caring about it more after it got shoved in their faces for a few years and a ludicrous portion of the world’s economy got tied up in it
I don’t disagree. My original point still stands though, this is pretty nuanced. There are tons of hard-working skilled artists that use AI, even gen AI, to increase productivity.
Or use the tools and simply ignore the labels. Nothing will stop you, and no one can prove you used the tools.
Using the labels, at all, is literally self-volunteering to be targeted by a hate-mob. With no benefit whatsoever. It’s hilarious anyone interacts with the labels at all right now, but it’s only a matter of time before almost no one at all does.
Because people that can’t do the job for real think AI doing it for them is the same thing, and they don’t want to feel bad about their lack of skill.
Slop is trained on the work of the people it is now able to drown out with cheap imitations. That is why it is controversial.
Imagine AIs start winning the gaming tournaments and humans no longer are even in the running for prize money or placement on leaderboards. Would that be fucked up?
I mean requiring AI labels should not be controversial. That seems like a no-brainer.
Anyone arguing against transparency in advertising and consumer choice is always doing something sketchy.
No. It’s because it’s completely ineffective. There is no way to absolutely identify AI use, so all anyone has is accusations. Self labeling only serves to harm developers. They have zero incentive to comply, and every reason not to. Therefore it’s a pointless system and should be abandoned.
The labels aren’t harming their sales. It’s their use of AI. Bad developers blame the customer when they “make” shit no one wants to buy.
Sure they could lie, and they might even get away with it sometimes, but an imperfect system is better than nothing at all. The fact that devs would even want to lie about it proves that they know it’s unpopular and they should be embarrassed.
If that were true then the labels wouldn’t even be necessary. People could just tell. But they can’t, hence the labels.
Who said anything about lying? Just don’t fill it out, and ignore any accusations. They don’t do it because they’re embarrassed, they do it because irrational people have prejudices.
Anti-AI prejudices are completely rational. These models were trained on stolen art, code, and writing. They use an incredible amount of energy and are the sole driver for the construction of dozens of new datacenters of unprecedented size and resources.
The AI industry has completely taken over allocation for chip manufacturing, making prices for most consumer electronics soar out of reach for most of the people (including the ones trying to play these games in the first place).
All the while the circular investing scheme of the industry has created a $3 trillion dollar bubble, which at best, will cause the stock market to fall hard and take a huge chunk out of a lot of retirement accounts overnight. At worst, combined with wars and other strains on the economy, will cause a full-blown recession.
It’s also being heavily used by law enforcement to track people illegally without due process. And by the military for who knows what yet.
This shit is just the basics. The AI industry has been toxic to our society, and on top of that, for all the harm it’s causing, the stuff it outputs is middling at best. Most of it is derivative garbage.
So yeah, people should be ashamed for using it. If you can’t make it without AI, don’t bother. No one wants to see it.
Lastly, lying by omission is still lying. Come on, now.
They were already doing that anyway. What I want to see is a stop to the flood of AI-generated games, and for all the AI-generated clones to get pulled.
Removing Greenlight was the beginning of the end. Now the floodgates are open, I don’t think they can ever be closed. Curation was important for not just consumer protection but also partner protection. I’m meant to believe I’m a Steam Partner as a developer but I feel more like the subordinate in an abusive relationship. I can’t leave Steam but I have no voice in the partnership whatsoever. I’ve attended Steam round tables at game expos to voice my opinion but 7 years later, only a baby step happened just this year. I suppose I should be grateful for anything but I’m mostly just bitter about the death of Greenlight destroying the discoverability and overall sustainability of my chosen career path of indie development.
Why cant you leave steam? For our game we were sure to keep subsystems swappable, some players use direct download and direct ip as we enabled both. We still have steam because the vast majority of our player base is found there but we are not beholden.
Greenlight had its problems but I see what you mean.
What about all the artists who were gatekept from being given recognition for their work that the AIs stole from?
Or the teachers who done teached to giving run on clauses in sentences which are used to form the basis of our point in writing the sentence for.
Clearly not one of your teachers.
You take the marketing of “intelligence” and “learning” far too literally if you think those two concepts are in any way the same.
Their sentence made perfect sense and wasn’t a run-on. I’m sorry you read at a third grade level but I just wanted you to know you are wrong.
Are you sure? What work did AI steal from? How is an artist being “gatekept”? What does the amalgamation of disparate terms even mean? Who is handing out recognition? Why can’t the artists who kept a gate have any?
The sentence answered no questions, but raised many.
Copyright and intellectual property will eventually bring the whole thing down. We aren’t near there yet though.
What’s next, are they going to remove the DRM and EULA disclosure?
