When you buy a game on Steam, you probably want to know if any of its art, audio, or writing was generated by AI. Turns out, the people actually making those games agree with you, almost unanimously.
A recent survey of 826 games industry workers found that 88.4% believe Valve should require developers to disclose any use of generative AI on storefronts. That's not a slim majority. That's a near-consensus from inside the industry itself, and it puts real pressure on Steam's current approach, which many developers clearly think falls short.
Use code GGWP67 at checkout to redeem this offer before code expires again.
Get 67% Off GAMES+ Subscription
What Steam Currently Requires (And Why Devs Aren't Happy About It)
Here's the thing: Valve updated its AI disclosure policy back in January, narrowing the requirement so that developers only need to flag generative AI content that is directly "consumed by players." Back-end efficiency tools, AI-assisted code, and behind-the-scenes pipeline uses? None of that needs a mention.
Almost half of survey respondents pushed back on that approach. When asked whether they agreed with Valve's player-facing-only disclosure rule, 48.7% said no, 32.1% said yes, and 19.2% were unsure. That's a significant chunk of the industry signaling that the current policy doesn't reflect what players actually deserve to know, per the full survey breakdown.
And it's not just about policy disagreement in the abstract. 76.8% of respondents said they would voluntarily disclose AI use on their Steam page, even for concept work or efficiency purposes, even when not required to. That's a meaningful gap between what the platform mandates and what developers themselves consider the right thing to do.
How Developers Think Disclosure Should Actually Work
When the survey dug into the format of disclosure, opinions got more specific. A checklist approach was the most popular option, favored by 51.9% of respondents, where games would spell out exactly how AI was used across different areas of development. Another 13.7% wanted a full, detailed written disclosure for every title. Only 28.4% thought a simple yes-or-no flag was sufficient.
The key here is that most developers aren't asking for a vague label. They want specifics. Which parts of the game used AI? Was it concept art that got replaced? Placeholder voiceover? Background music? Knowing the difference actually matters to a lot of players.
Steam's AI disclosure settings
What Developers Are Actually Using AI For
Despite all the noise around generative AI in games, the survey data paints a picture of fairly cautious adoption, at least among the respondents here. 66.1% said their studio uses no generative AI tools at all. Among those who do, the most common applications were brainstorming (9.3%), code generation (9.1%), creating reports (7.9%), and code review (7.7%).
The uses that tend to alarm players most, such as voice generation (2.3%), text generation (1.8%), and music or audio creation (1.3%), were among the least common. Around 85% of respondents said AI should never be used for those things at all. The one notable exception: 82.9% said using AI to generate placeholder audio early in development, with the intent to replace it with real recordings later, was acceptable.
The Comment That Should Give Everyone Pause
Among the open-ended responses left by developers, one stood out. A respondent wrote: "The only reason we are declaring the usage is because currently players care. For the time being, we should be specific and clear about its use. In the near future, players will no longer care and then we won't disclose it anymore."
That's a striking admission. It frames disclosure not as an ethical baseline, but as a temporary PR concession. Whether that attitude is widespread or represents a fringe view is hard to say, but it's the kind of comment that makes the case for platform-level requirements rather than voluntary self-reporting.
Where This Leaves Players
Right now, Steam's policy leaves a lot of room for AI use to go unmentioned. The survey makes clear that a large portion of the development community wants stricter rules, and many would go beyond what's currently required even without being told to. But "many would" and "all must" are very different things. Whether Valve acts on this kind of industry pressure, or continues to keep its requirements minimal, will say a lot about whose interests the platform is prioritizing. Make sure to check out more:
