inlandempire
SteamI've thought for a while they should put the AI disclaimers at the top of the pages instead of at the end of the game's description and you have to click 'See More'
Actually, seems like you don't have to press 'read more.' But I always think you do.
For now, for players browsing the thousands of Next Fest demos, finding genuine, hand-crafted games has become an exhausting chore. On the other hand, indie devs are afraid of AI-generated copycat games and some go as far as pulling out of Steam Next Fest to avoid getting their game stolen.
Any small game developer would have to be a fool to use Next Fest as is. This is awful.
Stringent labeling rules are a must. Not just on Steam but on everything "si" slop based.
even flash games from the early 00s had soul in them
And now they're ported to rust and hosted on steam! :cry😢
Slop games have always been a problem on Steam. I can't remember who it was since it was forever ago, but I used to watch a YouTuber who would "review" the shovel-ware that would show up on Steam. That being said, LLMs sure make putting out slop so much easier. The skill floor for creating garbage is even lower than it was before, which is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed.
Before those AI-slop games I think it was asset-flips with tons of achievements. We really need Steam to finally do something.
If you’re proud of your use of LLMs, you’d want to promote it. The only legitimate reason to conceal it is you consider it problematic.
LLMs are a competency solvent and credibility chipper. It’s bad enough if you can afford sacrificing some slack, but a lobotomy it’s catastrophic if you haven’t.
Does it count if I'm not proud of my use of LLMs?
I just used gemini to make a mod for Total War, Warhammer 3, because the mod I wanted was not available anywhere. It had to have been the most annoying modding I have ever done. I thought it would save time, it ended up just being me telling the llm that it was making shit up 80% of the time. I finally got working code after what felt like 6 hours of supervising the dumbest programming intern on the floor. My take away, is that I could beg for code better next time, but it did not improve my own ability by much at all. In fairness it would have probably taken me the same amount of time or longer, but the integrity of the code would be higher. I have to believe Claude or GPT are better for this task.
I disclosed that I used AI to make the mod, and for the artwork. I feel like I put an unnecessary target on my back with the declaration considering like 99.999999% of the billion mods for this game are AI slop and AI assisted and do not make similar disclosures though AI use is obvious.
I recently used one of the heavier ChatGPT models to make a mod pack for Minecraft, fixing some of the things that prevent me from playing the game (usually I lose interest quickly after starting a new world). I had it stitch a bunch of pre-existing mods together and test that they didn't conflict or make the game too easy. And I had it make a new mod which added custom villagers to villages who point you to destinations full of tough scary monsters guarding a prize that's needed to beat a final boss. The villagers only give directions if you use one of the expanded food mods to cook a complex recipe for them. If you defeat the bosses scattered around the world, there's a distant Mordor-style volcano you can then travel to and defeat the final boss. And the biomes are arranged in a spiral with the size of the biomes increasing the further you get away from spawn. I also had it leave tips and instructions around loot chests around the map to teach me how to use the mods and remind me how to build automated farms. This combination of conditions actually motivates me to play the game because there's a real goal now and a progression that keeps the game engaging all the way through. I don't plan on releasing it anywhere because I've heard a lot of anecdotes from people who made mods with AI and got yelled at for it. Still cool that I can ask for a complex custom mod pack one evening and start actively playing it the next morning.
If you make more mods using AI, I would definitely recommend utilizing one of the heavier GPT or Claude models to limit the amount of rework. I did give it full access to a laptop I have dedicated to AI agent use so it could test and iterate things without my involvement. Completely understandable to not want to give an AI model that level of control. I have to imagine that if I were running the tests myself, I would have had to hand-hold it quite a lot more than I did. Your mileage may vary.
It's about context. I'm working on a game right now, an idea I've had for decades but has always been out of reach. AI has helped me a lot to develop it quickly while also working a full time job. And I'm also working hard to avoid disclosing the AI use - not because I don't want people to know but because of the deserved stigma around AI slop.
Steam's current stance (last time I checked) is that if the AI makes assets the player sees, hears, reads or otherwise experiences first-hand, then you must disclose it. But if the AI is used as a tool to produce the code that runs the game, it does not require disclosure. I personally agree with this and have tried to adhere to these rules.
In practice, it means that rather than having some generative tool make my in-game textures, I instead had AI create code that procedurally looks at 3D assets and defines how an artist would draw lines to represent that object if they saw it in real life. And when it comes to audio, I'm doing my own Foley work. For all of the dialogue in the game, I'm writing it myself, which is going to amount to hundreds of hours of work.
But it's worth it to produce a game with a human touch to it, which doesn't need to disclose use of AI-created assets. If there was a requirement to disclose use of an LLM in producing the backend code, I gladly would. AI has saved me countless hours by writing the game's source code, which would easily have taken a year or more for me to write and debug by hand. I just don't want my game to be lumped in with games that are churned out from an AI without an eye for quality, completeness, or a unique look and feel to the assets. I've put too much work into this game for someone to take one look at an AI tag and decide that it's low-quality slop.
So, based on how you describe it, you're trying to avoid having to make a required disclosure by generating code that makes the visuals rather than generating the visuals directly? To put it in the way I see it: you're willfully trying to find and abuse a loophole in the disclosure policy because you know having that disclosure makes your game less desirable to a potential audience?
This is why there's very little trust for anyone who uses genAI. Rather than recognize that its use is creatively bankrupt, ethically questionable, and disrespectful towards the art form it's emulating, they'll use any little loophole or technicality to justify deceiving their audience.
Respectfully, I get that you have a worthwhile story to tell and are putting a lot of work into the writing, but either make the game with the help of genAI and make the disclosure, or tell the story in a medium using the skills you have without resorting to genAI. Trying to weasel your way out of making the disclosure is, in my opinion, more disrespectful than the low quality spam.
I don't particularly agree with that stance. In terms of what I'm dealing with in the game, there's really no difference between the developer asking an AI to make an asset filter and them knowing they need to Google kuwahara image abstraction .
When it comes to making an asset, I care that someone thought about what it should look like. Having it generate the asset is just hitting shuffle until you stop. Having it build the filter or tool is no different than finding a tool or filter and then using it to make the asset.
It's not a loophole. It is the actual intent of the AI disclosure rule. Generative AI uses inference to produce visuals. I am using AI to create procedural code that draws lines in the way I want them drawn. Using the curves and styles I have defined. You can argue that you want AI usage in backend code to be disclosed as well, which I would probably agree with. But I don't agree that building logic to define how 2D lines get rendered is the same as prompting an AI for an image and using that image as an asset in a game. They are completely different ways of producing graphics and look entirely different from one another. I do not want to make a game where the art style looks AI-generated. And mine does not look that way, because the art is not made by AI. Still, I respect and appreciate your opinion on the topic and would be interested in hearing further feedback on the process I'm using.
Thanks for an intelligent take in a thread full of slop logic.
Making the backend does not make you a good game dev, you also have to make a fking game thats enjoyable to play, sht so many games don't require coding to make, I see no difference between that and directing an ai on the backend. Or do you hate no code engines meant for ppl to make games easily?
Fucksticks attacking you is a reason t want to hide it
Not necessarily true. The legitimate reason to hide it is irrational stigma. Why voluntarily paint a target on your back, if there's no downside to not doing so? Just refuse to engage in the AI tagging, and all anyone has are unverifiable accusations.
Again, if you’re proud of your use of the grey goo extrusion sphincter, you’ll be able to defend it.
If you care so little about your creative abilities, and choose to abdicate the responsibility to develop them, why would you care what others have to say?
While this comment has the wrong essence, it does raise a valid concern. There should be some way to detect and ban AI deterministically.
This is impossible.
SteamDB has a filter for the AI Content Disclosed tag, which means we can exclude games with it. Now I know some lie, and others also use to state that they don't use AI, however it's the best we've got for now.
https://steamdb.info/sales/event/713414759190366804/?displayOnly=Demo&tagid=-1368160
This kind of slop isn't exclusive to AI, it just made the cost of making one less
Just look at the publisher Playway, they were already doing barely functional slop way before
The massively reduced effort and cost is the problem here, though
Not really. Maybe gamers will have to be a little more selective with the games they buy. That would actually work out better than what we had before AI.
Not really, as in its very easy to spot
GabeN will never allow that because it will eat into his bottom line
You mean the guy who owns and controls the only storefront in the entire industry with a forced AI disclosure?
While I want an AI filter, it isn't the kind these people want. What I want is an AI that looks at my owned games, reviews, wishlist, and personal sentiments, then assembles a list and calendar of games that I am likely to play.
I enjoy hentai games - but don't like ladies with big boobs nor thicc butts. Your standard filter wouldn't be able to understand that.
Ditto for my preference of stylized aesthetic over photorealism. A huge chunk of games would vanish from my sight, with that taken into account.
Doesn't the new Steam personalized calendar work for you? On paper it sounds like exactly what you're describing https://store.steampowered.com/personalcalendar/
Not quite. It only takes hashtags, it doesn't consider things that can be described in plain English. IMO, one of the valuable things about AI is that it can take multiple factors into account and determine whether something is the right mix to interest me.
For example, I like Shoot'em Ups, but only if they got upgrade progression systems similar to Tyrian 2000 and Sky Force. Temporary power ups and roguelike Shmups aren't my thing. An AI can parse the game description and screenshots, then determine whether it has what I personally enjoy.
Oh that makes sense yeah
Maybe something like the interactive recommender but with a lot more sliders so you can adjust specific aspects https://store.steampowered.com/recommender
I have yet to see the actual numbers about this, I'm pretty sure it's worse than what my gut feeling (and anecdotal observation) tells me: I download a TON of demos during Next Fest, it's my favourite events of the year, so I tend to browse through hundreds of demos sorted by charts.
- February had around 3000 demos and 717 of those has declared using generative AI (keep in mind there's also a bunch that did NOT declare using it, a lot of Steam capsules artwork are generated by AI despite no disclaimer for example)
- June had 4411 demos (27% more) and 553 of those (12%) has declared using generative AI (27% less) (that can mean either less demos using generative ai OR more demos hiding the fact they're using generative ai)
- October (current edition) has 6509 registered demos, that's a huge jump (57% more)
If you ask me the huge jump in committed demos is very likely due to vibe coding quickly becoming the de facto standard over the summer and turning out massive amounts of code in a few hours. I assume many "developers" have already accepted that this is how things are done for the moment and don't even declare AI use anymore. "I haven't written a single line of code last month!" is something I keep hearing lately. Even from indie devs who have already launched somewhat successful games on Steam. Some of them seem so happy about it that I wonder if they have any critical thinking skills at all because them essentially not working anymore means they're all out of the job soon.
Making a game involves a lot more work than just coding. You don't necessarily have to be out of work due to that. Some people may even be in work due to that, if they had a good strong vision for a game and it's mechanics but we're lacking coding skills. Still, it's a complicated situation so it's not black and white.
I'm pretty sure its companies capitalising on the hype.
They shit out a 75% complete game, then use AI to wrap models on a skeleton to make a "game", that makes a good demo. Unfortunately the original company only wrote so much original code, so all these demos really can't get past that (which makes an insane sales pitch, your hard work finally made your dream come true - just pay us $12.99 a month!).
It's 8000 actually.
Oh, my source might be wrong then, where did you get the number?
From the next fest page.
Login to steam Home>Account>Store Preferences>Tags to exclude I put AI and Artificial Intelligence. It seems to do alright at filtering out the "ai" slop. Doesn't stop me from checking to see if the ai warning is still there but haven't seen any in awhile since doing that.
That filters out human-made games that are about AI
Games with no AI... do you know what games are? Because no
those are mostly for gameplay tags, you're filtering out the Talos Principle games for example
That's a good start, but it only works with games where AI use is disclosed.
I forgot we could do that. Will definitely enable this filter, the AI generated games are so annoying 😩
Steam/Valve doesn't care.
Valve loves AI
What makes you say that?
I'm not going to pretend like Valve is some sort of Angel Corp but they also definitely have repeatedly skipped the opportunity to screw their consumers.
*every cooperation loves Ai.
I think at this point there isn’t a single player pushing back against it.
IDK nintendos stance on it, but even Capcom is updating the RE engine to have AI stuff now.
Maybe you who doesn't understand what it is might be in the wrong?
Can I search only for games that do use it so I know it's not been slung together by elitist pricks who don't know how to code and refuse to use tools to help?
Oh wow another post from a licker who can't consider the various nuances of this topic.
A production team using tools to automate portions of their workload is not the problem. I would argue we should have another term for these "AI" tools so that we can talk about them without the rightful fury we have towards AI as a whole.
Generative AI is a blight. Vibe-coding is a blight. A large number of people who have not drunk the AI enhanced kool-aid can see this clear as day.
And we arnt even talking about the blight data centers and their out of touch tech overlords are bringing to the conversation; its all entangled.
I dont give a shit if a team wants to use a model to help with certain tasks and then review it by hand before PR. That leaves a human in the middle who presumably understands the output based on their prior experience / years of hard earned knowledge. I also dont care if an artist wants to train a model on their own content to help with content creation, that's a cool use case. Or a model trained on royalty fee / public domain..I can see a use case for this but we still need to weigh that against "could I have provided work for a local artist, programmer, etc." Are we disincentivising these passions by taking away the already limited income sources available.
Anyway I forgot the point I was trying to make, Fuck AI (outside of a few morally acceptable use cases)
You do realise they're the same fucking tools, right? Your wilful ignorance doesn't change that.
You probably could do that. Even if it makes no sense to search for spam or slop content.
Ah, Mr. Sweeney. Don't you have some CSAM to generate?
What the actual fuck is wrong with you?
Dude, I don't mind the usage of AI on a small scale to solve small problems, but there are people generating 90% of the game with AI and only developing the remaining 10%, what the hell.
And? Your point? What is the cut off for human gruntwork to make it good and not badwrongfun?
Yeah, because the elitist pricks who don't kbow how to code are definitely the ones NOT using AI.
The elitest pricks are the ones refusing to use the extremely useful tools available
Such filter would be problematic in itself, because it is publisher information. That means any non Ai tagged project is falsely advertised as non Ai.
Would still be help filter out some of the slop.
I think it would do more harm than being useful. Edit: it's like using a virus scanner that only detects viruses that the developer says its a virus.
No, it's a first pass filter. People against AI like myself know it's a publisher declared thing but that's still hundreds of results less I'd have to filter through. No virus scanner promises 100% accuracy, it promises to be part of a solution that still requires user diligence
That's the issue with such Ai filter. Its useless if we have to trust publishers tag it correctly. If they do this ai slop, do you trust them doing that? It will bring false security for users trusting the filter would work correctly.
There will never be a perfect system. Already users rely on the AI tag on Steam, why not just make it easier to exclude those?
You're letting perfection be the enemy of progress. You will never outsmart the most malicious dev or the laziest user. Ever. What you can do is make progress, take in feedback of how that improved things and where it still fails, and then make more progress.
Nah he's right. If you add an AI filter then companies will just stop tagging their games as AI generated. It's not a matter of anyone outsmarting anyone else it's just common sense. There wouldn't be any progress here, we would actually make things worse.
Steam needs to do something on their own, or crowd source it somehow. But they'll never do that. They don't even review games for quality level as it is.
Why wouldn't you want to filter viruses that the developer says is a virus?
I think you did not understand the issue. I do not want to trust a virus scanner, that only trusts what the developer of a virus declares to be a virus or its safe.
Why wouldn't you trust a developer that tells you that their software is a virus?
I think you didn't understand the issue. I do not want to trust a virus scanner, that ONLY (important part is the word "only") trusts a developer of a virus, that declares it to be a virus, or lies about it and declares it to be safe. I do not want to trust a virus scanner that just trusts the word of a virus developer.
Is it really hard to understand my English? Am I speaking Chinese?
Is it so hard to understand that your analogy is not applicable? This is not an AI detection tool. This is developers declaring "yes, this game was made with AI".
I don't think most malware devs care about brand reputation
I think that has nothing to do with my objection.
Well if a virus dev lied and hurt their rep it wouldn't matter.
A steam dev lying has brand reputation to care about. Any company larger than a 3 person indie team has to care about PR if they want to be more than a one hit studio.
So I think it matters because its an impactful distinction between reality and your anecdote
Well if a virus dev lied and hurt their rep it wouldn’t matter.
I didn't say virus dev, but an antivirus dev / tool. It's like you trust only an antivirus tool, that relies on what the virus devs report. The antivirus tool represents the Steam filter in my objection.
Yeah so it still relies on virus devs report, like we both previously mentioned.
That is where and who I meant was lying.
Grandfather those in explicitly.
Just make the options yes AI, no AI, and unreported AI.
Takes the burden off small devs, but requires accountability for long, big projects
What accountability? Companies will just say "no AI" so they aren't filtered. How will you enforce the tag while also providing due process for developers?
Report system to a manual review, utilising existing NSFW reviewal process.
If the dev can produce sources for their work, its obvious its not AI. If every project just "started finished", and the dev known nothing about it, its probably AI.
And images make it obvious even when AAA companies use AI, making a lot of slop trivially bannable.
I wouldn't be surprised if this alone at least pushed off the slop for half a decade.
