Valve's Latest AI Disclosure Tweak: A Nerf to Transparency, Not a QoL Buff

Valve has reportedly tweaked Steam’s AI disclosure form, and our analysis at In Game News suggests this isn’t the game-changer for transparency many were hoping for. Instead, it’s a cautious pivot that, while acknowledging the realities of modern dev cycles, ultimately creates a more ambiguous landscape for players. The immediate read? Valve seems to be giving developers a bit more breathing room on internal AI tool usage, but we believe this opens a massive gap in the meta where genuine concerns about AI-generated content can slip through.

The Shift: What’s In, What’s Out

Consultant Simon Carless brought the updated form to light, and its core message is stark: If players don't see it, hear it, or interact with it in the final product, Valve isn't concerned. This distinguishes between "in-game GenAI content" (which still requires disclosure) and AI-based production tools used for “efficiency gains.”

Here’s our breakdown of Valve’s new stance:

  • Mandatory Disclosure: Generative AI content that “ships with your game, and is consumed by players.” This means visual assets, audio, or text directly experienced by the player.
  • No Disclosure Required: “Efficiency gains through the use of these tools.” This explicitly covers AI-powered development tools for:
    • Concept art (or “concept art exploration” as Larian famously put it).
    • “Vibe coding” (using AI to generate code snippets based on descriptions).
    • AI assistance for emails, internal documentation, or other non-player-facing tasks.

Valve's reasoning, as stated in the updated form, is that they “are aware that many modern game development environments have AI powered tools built into them.” While we appreciate Valve acknowledging the current development reality — game engines like Unreal now ship with AI chatbots, and many studios face top-down pressure to adopt these tools — we can’t help but feel this is a concession that prioritizes convenience over player information.

The Hidden Cost of “Efficiency Gains”

On the surface, it makes a kind of sense. No one wants a stressed producer having to list every time a level designer used Gemini to draft an email. That’s fair, it’s not what players care about. However, our twenty years in this industry tells us there's a significant “slippery slope” risk here.

The original form, imperfect as it was, never explicitly demanded disclosure for behind-the-scenes efficiency tools. It always focused on player-facing assets. So, in many ways, this new form isn't a radical departure in its *explicit* requests, but rather a dangerous clarification that solidifies a problematic loophole. It effectively gives a tacit nod to a practice that has already proven problematic: the accidental inclusion of AI “machine slop” in final builds.

We’ve seen this play out already. Critical darlings from 2025, The Alters and Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, both reportedly launched with GenAI assets still present — allegedly by accident. This isn't just a “one-off” glitch; it’s a symptom of deeper issues. When developers are encouraged to think less about the “how” of their AI tools — even for “temporary production shortcuts” — the likelihood of that content enduring into the finished product dramatically increases. It’s like a minor bug in an early build that just never gets squashed before launch.

The Unaddressed Meta: Vague Disclosure and Eroding Trust

Our biggest beef with Steam’s AI disclosure rules remains untouched: the ability for developers and publishers to describe their in-game GenAI content in broad, often vague terms. This leaves players in the dark, unable to clearly discern whether the content they’re consuming was crafted by human hands or “bot-farted” into existence. Valve seems to draw a firm line between “helping hand” AI dev tools and the “more insidious fake-art stuff,” but in practice, that line is blurrier than a poorly rendered texture.

For players, this isn't a QoL improvement. It’s a transparency downgrade. We believe Valve should be championing clarity, not creating more room for ambiguity. This rewrite, while perhaps intended to ease developer burden, hardly better serves the intended purpose of keeping players truly informed. It’s a missed opportunity to buff player trust and truly clarify the increasingly complex landscape of AI in game development. In our view, true authority comes from absolute transparency, and this update falls short.