'We support the work of those who are trying to limit the harm generative AI is doing to videogames and our world, and apologise that Big Walk’s LLM usage may not meet their standards'
Valve’s disclosure policy is very specific. It’s about visual assets (models and textures), audio (music and VA), script writing (not explicitly translation or subtitling either), and that’s it. There is no requirement to disclose AI-assisted, AI-researched, or fully AI-generated code.
The assets stuff also is specifically about the final game. If a studio uses AI for placeholders and doesn’t ship them in the actual Steam game, it’s not required to disclose that process.
Remember, this Big Walk scenario specifically isn’t about Steam disclosure or the wider debate on what “AI use” in code/game dev is or if that use is ethical/acceptable. The IGF’s rules for award eligibility do define chatbot-assisted troubleshooting as AI use, and that “AI use” means ineligibility for the award.
By the rules of the contest, House House isn’t qualified for the award. Issues about the ease of cheating this rule are criticisms of the IGF.
AI generated code does need to be disclosed actually, per https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618. It’s unclear to me exactly where the line is drawn between what needs to be disclosed through that and using AI for research like this, but IMO this is probably removed enough from the final product that it shouldn’t need to be disclosed.
To be clear, fuck ai, but examples like the one given are fair enough that I can’t really be mad at them for using it.
Welp, I’m stupid I guess. I do recall House House saying that code did not have to be disclosed.
Looking at the current Steam documentation, rather than that linked article from 2024, no mention of “code” is made (I used Ctrl+f to make sure this time).
Yeah, I chose that article because it’s the one that provides the closest thing to a definition for “content” I could find, which is still mentioned in the documentation. Outside of that I cannot say what the actual rules are, it’s not like I’m going to try to vibe code a game to test or anything.
Directly due to the immediately obvious grey areas regarding “ai assisted code design” (including tools like Unity and Unreal moving towards directly including AI “assistance” in the engine’s main toolkit), Steam’s policy is currently (and was at the time of Big Walk’s release) that only AI-generated assets must be disclosed.
Valve’s disclosure policy is very specific. It’s about visual assets (models and textures), audio (music and VA), script writing (not explicitly translation or subtitling either), and that’s it. There is no requirement to disclose AI-assisted, AI-researched, or fully AI-generated code.
The assets stuff also is specifically about the final game. If a studio uses AI for placeholders and doesn’t ship them in the actual Steam game, it’s not required to disclose that process.
Seems like it’s just punishing devs that know they used AI for something not typically considered “AI use”, but are honest enough to admit it.
Would be nice to see what parts were tagged with AI so people could make their own judgements.
Remember, this Big Walk scenario specifically isn’t about Steam disclosure or the wider debate on what “AI use” in code/game dev is or if that use is ethical/acceptable. The IGF’s rules for award eligibility do define chatbot-assisted troubleshooting as AI use, and that “AI use” means ineligibility for the award.
By the rules of the contest, House House isn’t qualified for the award. Issues about the ease of cheating this rule are criticisms of the IGF.
AI generated code does need to be disclosed actually, per https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618. It’s unclear to me exactly where the line is drawn between what needs to be disclosed through that and using AI for research like this, but IMO this is probably removed enough from the final product that it shouldn’t need to be disclosed.
To be clear, fuck ai, but examples like the one given are fair enough that I can’t really be mad at them for using it.
This article is from 2024.
The actual form (not visible to the public) has changed in January 2026: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/simoncarless_interestingly-pc-video-game-platform-steam-activity-7417944215675908096-OGNg/
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/valve-tweaks-and-clarifies-ai-disclosure-rules-for-steam
Where on that page does it say code needs to be disclosed?The most relevant bit I found is this, and that is not about code:Code is mentioned directly in the bit you quoted.
Welp, I’m stupid I guess. I do recall House House saying that code did not have to be disclosed.
Looking at the current Steam documentation, rather than that linked article from 2024, no mention of “code” is made (I used Ctrl+f to make sure this time).
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/contentsurvey
Yeah, I chose that article because it’s the one that provides the closest thing to a definition for “content” I could find, which is still mentioned in the documentation. Outside of that I cannot say what the actual rules are, it’s not like I’m going to try to vibe code a game to test or anything.
Directly due to the immediately obvious grey areas regarding “ai assisted code design” (including tools like Unity and Unreal moving towards directly including AI “assistance” in the engine’s main toolkit), Steam’s policy is currently (and was at the time of Big Walk’s release) that only AI-generated assets must be disclosed.