Lying about the AI disclosure is a huge red flag and sadly common. I'm a fan of the emerging Organization genre that's blowing up in popularity, and it's just as rife with undisclosed AI usage as it is with.. disclosed AI usage.

From a business perspective it makes sense: people don't want AI in their games, so if they disclose AI then people won't buy that game. From the perspective of a gamer, it sucks donkey balls and if you lie about that then I'm never buying any of your products again.

The thing that's really kind of frustrating about it though is that those are the perfect kind of games for low quality asset-flip shovelware before the advent of AI. It's basically the one place where that kind of approach to development wouldn't really bother me. It's truly a crazy timeline when I'm looking back fondly on asset flips

And said they would take down the translations rather than use AI disclosures.

That's fair. The disclosure might kill the business, but the cost of translation might do, too.

I saw the same, don't worry about it. Really hate that shit.

A flood of shitty games already killed the video games industry back in the Atari days. It didn't recover outside of arcades until Nintendo revived it with the NES and a part of that was a licensing system that set a standard for what games could be released.

One direction things could go to save this is curators that sort through the mess and separate the slop from the gems. And even the slop could be further broken down into "uninspired clone just chasing money" and "good game idea by someone that doesn't have the right skills or resources, so it might improve". IMO the only way this will work in the long run without getting corrupted is by making the curation a subscription service, otherwise AI "curators" that are really just marketers will dominate.

And then people will slowly realize that any game they try is a gamble with lower and lower odds of finding something good and stop spending money on games. But even then, it might not stop the slop from being generated if the costs are low.

If steam just tries to block the slop, I expect that small indie creators will end up suffering the most, especially as the AI tools improve and it gets harder and harder to tell what is produced by AI.

Sorry. I'm just old enough to remember a time before Steam's monopoly. And watching the generations of G*mers just accept and defend it, is rather annoying.

It's fully delusional. Most studios used the technology many years back and mostly for placeholders. You can and will never be able to avoid media touched by the algorirhm

I feel the same way about Apple. They should have a tag for whether the developer used a Mac. We need to pick apart all the tools that developers use and boycott the ones that upset us!

The solution is to immediately demand a refund on any game where you even catch a whiff of genAI. Even if it's past the usual refund terms, request one. Make it painful for Steam, and they will be much more inspired to solve the problem.

Definitely, the situation sucks all around. Maybe stronger curation by Valve would be an option to mitigate it somewhat.

Yes I know, that's why I said I hope I get down voted for saying it.

But my point is, it would make a significant impact on the asset flips and LLM slop.

I'm not even saying they should do it. Valve has the data to make better decisions than I ever could. I'm sure whatever they're doing is backed by data. Which is kind of what you said, a disclaimer that they used LLMs/machine synthesis.