According to a major new survey by GamesIndustry.biz, almost nine out of ten workers in the games industry (88.4%) believe Valve should force developers to declare any generative AI usage. The findings expose a significant gap between what developers and industry workers want from Steam and what Valve is currently requiring.
The tension erupted just weeks after Valve updated Steam's AI disclosure policy in January to specify a focus on AI-generated content that is "consumed by players," rather than "efficiency gains" from AI use behind-the-scenes. The GIBiz survey found that almost half of respondents disagreed with this policy change.
The shift matters because it means developers no longer need to flag AI tools used during production, such as code assistants or concept ideation platforms. Instead, only AI content that ends up in players' hands needs disclosure. Valve says this distinction avoids excessive bureaucracy. The industry disagrees.
The survey ran for just under two weeks and had 826 respondents. One of the more surprising results is that 66.1% of respondents said there was no use of generative AI tools within their studio, with 30.6% saying they were used to some extent. The survey does skew towards smaller-scale development studios: 64.8% of respondents work in studios of up to 49 team members.
The survey reveals not just disagreement over what should be disclosed, but also how. 51.9% believe a checklist approach would work best, with games specifying to players exactly how AI was used, with 13.7% saying a full and detailed disclosure should accompany every game. The current system is looser; developers simply fill in a free-form text field on their store page.
2025 has seen an exponential influx, with one in five (20%) of all titles released in 2025 featuring GenAI in some form. That surge marks an increase of 681% of total titles using GenAI compared with April last year. Yet despite this rapid growth, transparency remains inconsistent. AI disclosure on Steam doesn't have a consistent format, with developers simply using a text field where they can write their disclosure in free form. Since it's not treated as an official tag, consumers also can't search or filter for AI content when browsing for games in the store.
The disclosure question sits at the intersection of three competing interests. Developers worry about backlash from players who oppose AI in games. Publishers want to move quickly without compliance headaches. Players want to know if they're supporting work created with generative tools. And Valve? The company is trying to stay ahead of potential copyright and legal exposure, which is why it requires live-generated content to be flagged more strictly than pre-generated assets.
Meanwhile, according to last year's Game Developers Conference survey, a majority (52%) of developers reported working at companies that utilize generative AI tools. However, 9% of developers surveyed said their companies were interested in generative AI tools, down from 15% last year, and 27% said their companies had no interest in using them, a 9-point increase from 2024. Interest is cooling even as adoption spreads.
The fundamental tension remains unresolved. Most respondents (78.1%) said they never used AI for anything. Yet the vast majority believe other developers should be forced to disclose when they do. That disconnect suggests the industry sees AI transparency less as a personal inconvenience and more as an accountability issue. Whether Valve will listen remains an open question.