Imagine building a game, referencing your own older work inside it, and then getting blocked from releasing it because a platform says you stole from yourself. That is exactly what happened to Japanese indie developer Daikichi_EMP, and it is as frustrating as it sounds.
Daikichi_EMP, who develops under the Digital Ramen Studio banner, was preparing to release a playable demo for his upcoming game Wired Tokyo 2007 when Steam flagged the submission. According to Valve, screenshots of the game contained board game assets that appeared to infringe on a "third-party intellectual property." The specific games flagged were Second Best and Dinostone, two board games that appear as in-world objects inside Wired Tokyo 2007. The catch: Daikichi made those too.
What Steam flagged and why it does not hold up
Valve's automated and manual review systems identified the board game visuals and raised a copyright concern, which is a reasonable thing to do in isolation. The problem is that the IP in question belongs to the same developer submitting the game. Daikichi confirmed this publicly on X/Twitter, explaining that the board game motifs were his own past creations placed inside Wired Tokyo 2007 as environmental detail.
He wrote, as translated via machine translation and reported by Automaton: "It's not a third party , it's just me wanting to use my own intellectual property rights myself , so I have no idea what the meaning of this is at all."
Despite explaining the situation directly to Steam support, Valve remained unconvinced. The platform is now requesting formal evidence of licence agreements, IP ownership documentation, or confirmation through legal representation.
As an indie developer working solo, Daikichi says meeting Steam's formal documentation requirements is not straightforward. This is the exact kind of bureaucratic wall that disproportionately affects small creators with no legal team behind them.
Before the block vs. now
Before the flag, the situation was simple: a solo developer referencing his own back catalogue inside a new game, a practice that is common and legally unremarkable. After the flag, Daikichi is stuck in a review loop, unable to release a demo for a game he built, featuring assets he created, on a platform he paid to access through Steam's developer program.
His response has been measured given the circumstances. Rather than simply swapping out the board game visuals to get through review faster, he pushed back on the principle. "This is my own work, yet I'm being told there's 'suspicion of infringing on third-party intellectual property', and there's absolutely no reason I should have to do that," he wrote.
He has since resubmitted the demo alongside a document granting himself formal permission to use his own work. As of now, the Wired Tokyo 2007 demo page remains listed as "coming soon" with no response from Valve yet.
What this reveals about Steam's review process
This situation exposes a real gap in how Steam handles IP disputes at the indie level. The platform's review process appears to flag visual matches without sufficient context about who actually owns what. When a large publisher gets flagged, they have legal teams who can produce the required paperwork in hours. A solo developer in Japan, working without a legal department, faces a completely different reality.
Here's the thing: Daikichi is not asking for special treatment. He provided evidence during the initial application. Valve's team reviewed it and still said no. That is the part that stings.
The story was picked up by Japanese games outlet Game Spark after Daikichi posted about it publicly, and has since spread across gaming media. For a broader look at how these kinds of disputes play out, the full Eurogamer report has additional context on the developer's communications with Valve.
Valve has not issued a public statement. Whether Daikichi's resubmission clears review or triggers another round of demands is the question the indie dev community is watching closely right now.
