I’d like to be clear what you’re referring to, because I only know two things Valve is allowing in that regard
Games using GenAI are allowed on steam, but disclosure is required, which is a position I appreciate.
Steam hosts promotion events organized by third parties, where banners are displayed, a special page is available, and a lot of games go on sale - in those events (and AFAIK, none of Valve’s own events) promotional art is displayed that is submitted by those third parties, and sometimes has blatant GenAI use
Is there something else I’m unaware of? Because otherwise I guess it’s a matter of where you draw the line, because I’d still consider Steam the best platform available, and have to agree to disagree.
It’s more complicated, because Valve absolutely isn’t perfect and contributes to problems, and most of that comment is valid. I still wouldn’t boycott them as it stands, because I do see them as the best option and don’t mind them getting some of my money.
The best alternatives have their own flaws, GOG using GenAI in official promotional material and no Linux launcher, itch barely having a launcher, which is valid, but is severely lacking compared to Steam.
The ai tag is only required for assets made with ai. You can vibe code your entire game and as long as the assets weren’t ai generated you don’t have to disclose AI usage.
There are plenty of games using Midjourney to generate textures which are then heavily modified to look less AI generated. Should they opt to not disclose their ai usage?
Lying to your customers and audience about how your game was made is fucked up and I don’t plan on supporting developers who do this.
I think the forced distinction between ai code and GenAI art is harmful because it is meant to shallowly appease the anti ai crowd while also demeaning the act of writing software as not art and not representative of the artistic value of a video game, which I strongly disagree with.
I’m an adamant AI hater, but I think this is fine. If the game runs smoothly and without bugs, I don’t care if the game was programmed with AI. If it’s a buggy mess, it gets filtered out with all the other asset flip garbage. Steam supports returns and you can pretty quickly determine if a game is garbage within that return window, and leave a review saying it’s a buggy mess. Sure, it’s an extra step but almost all of the buggy garbage on Steam is immediately apparent from the Steam page or a AAA game, both of which would never get my purchase to begin with.
You can advertise your game as no AI on steam despite heavily using it for everything that makes the game a game.
I don’t just buy games because they’re fun I buy games to support a developer. I’d rather support a developer that still places value on the craft of game development.
I’d like to be clear what you’re referring to, because I only know two things Valve is allowing in that regard
Is there something else I’m unaware of? Because otherwise I guess it’s a matter of where you draw the line, because I’d still consider Steam the best platform available, and have to agree to disagree.
They said the trending thing and got reflexive upvotes. That’s all it was.
It’s more complicated, because Valve absolutely isn’t perfect and contributes to problems, and most of that comment is valid. I still wouldn’t boycott them as it stands, because I do see them as the best option and don’t mind them getting some of my money.
The best alternatives have their own flaws, GOG using GenAI in official promotional material and no Linux launcher, itch barely having a launcher, which is valid, but is severely lacking compared to Steam.
The ai tag is only required for assets made with ai. You can vibe code your entire game and as long as the assets weren’t ai generated you don’t have to disclose AI usage.
it’s closed source how would anyone check anyway?
There are plenty of games using Midjourney to generate textures which are then heavily modified to look less AI generated. Should they opt to not disclose their ai usage?
Lying to your customers and audience about how your game was made is fucked up and I don’t plan on supporting developers who do this.
That is kinda true… I don’t think Valve actually says that, but I don’t think there’s a way to tell, so people can get away with not disclosing it.
They updated their guidelines explicitly to say this.
I think the forced distinction between ai code and GenAI art is harmful because it is meant to shallowly appease the anti ai crowd while also demeaning the act of writing software as not art and not representative of the artistic value of a video game, which I strongly disagree with.
Absolutely, the idea that graphics and sound are somehow sacred but code isn’t is just bullshit.
Aw dang it, thanks for letting me know. I fully agree with you, so it’s a shame.
I’m an adamant AI hater, but I think this is fine. If the game runs smoothly and without bugs, I don’t care if the game was programmed with AI. If it’s a buggy mess, it gets filtered out with all the other asset flip garbage. Steam supports returns and you can pretty quickly determine if a game is garbage within that return window, and leave a review saying it’s a buggy mess. Sure, it’s an extra step but almost all of the buggy garbage on Steam is immediately apparent from the Steam page or a AAA game, both of which would never get my purchase to begin with.
My issue is that it’s misleading
You can advertise your game as no AI on steam despite heavily using it for everything that makes the game a game. I don’t just buy games because they’re fun I buy games to support a developer. I’d rather support a developer that still places value on the craft of game development.