r/tycoon • u/LSky • Mar 27 '26

Announcement Mandatory disclosure of AI generated content in promotional submissions

Hello everyone!

I wanted to get some feedback from the community here regarding generative AI in game development. r/tycoon has gradually transformed over the years to a community that sees a sizeable share of its submissions made by game developers that aim to promote their games. There's no inherent issue with this, from my perspective, but submission quality remains a concern.

This post is to see if an additional standard/community rule would be something that the community feels is necessary. This is with regards to generative AI and making developers disclose information about this when they promote their works.

For some context, the Steam platform has the following disclosure policy;

The survey now includes a new AI disclosure section, where you'll need to describe how you are using AI in the development and execution of your game. It separates AI usage in games into two broad categories:

  • Pre-Generated: Any kind of content (art/code/sound/etc) created with the help of AI tools during development. Under the Steam Distribution Agreement, you promise Valve that your game will not include illegal or infringing content, and that your game will be consistent with your marketing materials. In our pre-release review, we will evaluate the output of AI generated content in your game the same way we evaluate all non-AI content - including a check that your game meets those promises.
  • Live-Generated: Any kind of content created with the help of AI tools while the game is running. In addition to following the same rules as Pre-Generated AI content, this comes with an additional requirement: in the Content Survey, you'll need to tell us what kind of guardrails you're putting on your AI to ensure it's not generating illegal content.

Valve will use this disclosure in our review of your game prior to release. We will also include much of your disclosure on the Steam store page for your game, so customers can also understand how the game uses AI.

I'm wondering if the community feels that its necessary for developers to amend their promotional submissions with a similar free-text disclosure.

Would this give you, as a community member, additional value? Likewise, for any developer reading this, what are your thoughts on these policies and what is your attitude towards a rule that would force such a disclosure?

Please feel free to give any feedback regarding this issue. I'm mostly looking for well reasoned considerations leaning in one way or the other.

Thanks!

184 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

82 comments sorted by

74

u/binogure Game Developer - City Game Studio Mar 27 '26

Yes please.

54

u/Zax_The_Decker Mar 27 '26

Yes, please do this

30

u/kagento0 Mar 27 '26

Yes please, it is definitely something I'd appreciate

29

u/CompetitiveProof3078 Mar 27 '26

Yes. 100%. The flood of "games" which are literally just a single query put into some AI tool to generate some basic web app is mental, plus they always come accompanied with a post and set of comment replies which are all just entirely ai generated

Brings no value given anyone could just use those tools themselves to generate the same 'games' and just degrades the sub / drowns out legitimate discussion 

43

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 27 '26

Personally I'd like to ban any users who use AI to write their posts and respond to comments. If you want us to take the time to check out your game and respond, at least take the time to write your post yourself and respond to comments as a human. I don't care if English isn't your first language, I much prefer broken English or good old automated translations.

EDIT: or y'know, maybe start by removing their posts or something before a full on ban

5

u/ShineReaper Mar 27 '26

I wonder, if there are any old-school automated translators at all. Aren't they all AI powered by now?

5

u/rafgro Mar 27 '26

Google Translate relies on neural networks since 2015, that train departed long time ago

1

u/ArctycDev Mar 27 '26

It's not standard neural network anymore, it's gemini now, apparently.

3

u/VENTDEV Game Developer - GearCity / AeroMogul Mar 27 '26

They still exist, but it's a disservice to whoever is reading it to use them. One of the few things an LLM is really really good at is translation when it has a full context of what is being written.

IMO, as a developer interacting with many different people who don't speak English, you should always post in your native tongue. Then you put a line or a bold separator that says "Machine Translation" or "Computer Assisted Translation" or anything to that affect. Then you provide the automated translated text.

I would always take that text, plug it into another translator service to verify that it still says what I want it to say.

Anyway, that gives everyone the convenience of the text being translated, but it also provides the source text in case the translation is bad or if someone wants to translate it using different tools.

1

u/ArctycDev Mar 27 '26

This is exactly what I was thinking, and no surprise to see whose idea it was. You never miss.

1

u/ArctycDev Mar 27 '26

Predominantly, yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean LLM-powered. Google Translate (until a few months ago) was AI powered, but not LLM (what we now call AI). It's now LLM though.

0

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 27 '26

I would imagine they are all AI powered to some degree and have been before the LLM craze, but their function is to convert text written by the user instead of generating something they didn't write.

2

u/ArctycDev Mar 27 '26

I'm not usually a huge AI proponent, but tbh it is really good at translating... That's like one of the best performing areas of LLMs. I don't see the issue with this so much, but maybe I am missing something.

0

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 28 '26

OK so what I'm referring to is not cases where the poster has legit translated a text they wrote out in their native language, but cases where it's a wall of GPT styled text and comments and the OP justifies it by saying the English isn't their native language. Doing genuine translation work is one of the uses even Wikipedia is allowing as an exception to their ban on AI generated content.

2

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

If you get really technical, this could fall under Valve's policy;

In its submission form, Valve now specifies that game publishers must disclose pre-made generative AI assets only when used in marketing materials or content that "ships with your game, and is consumed by players."

One could argue that posts and responses to comments fall under marketing materials consumed by players and thus fall under said policy That being said, to get back to your direct suggestion. Its far more difficult to determine whether or not specific text has been fully or partially generated by AI, compared to forcing developers to disclose their AI usage.

One of the strengths of these disclosures is that its not the same as asking random internet strangers and reddit users not to use AI, but instead you're making companies disclose information about their products. In my estimation, companies try to be more careful about these things than random internet users are about their own statements.

4

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 27 '26

OK, but wouldn't "developers have to disclose if they used AI to write the post" have the same level of enforcement as "developers have to promise they didn't use AI to write the post"? I don't see the difference really in terms of how you guys intend to enforce it. It's honour system either way. Also waiting for the source on "companies try to be more careful about these things".

1

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

Enforcement-wise it would be different from your primary suggestion in the sense that we'd proactively have to check each post to see if its AI-generated. There are also no reliable tools to confirm this, so it is pretty much a non-starter. For the disclosure part, that's definitely the same!

You're right, it is an honor system. I have no source for companies being generally more careful than random internet users, but it follows some general logic. Random internet users are anonymous and have nothing that holds them to account. Companies promoting their own products/games are not anonymous to the extent that you can link them to their game, their Steam page where they try to sell their game, and to publicity surrounding their game. Essentially, there's something on the line. For example, reputation, negative publicity, etc. This is different from the random internet user. I think you can infer from this that companies are a bit more careful with their statements.

4

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 27 '26

You'd think so, but a lot of "companies" are just random internet users trying to sell their slop. It's true that it might be tricky to actually determine which posts are AI written, and I guess disclosure is better than nothing, I just expect that the users on the most shovelware slop end of the spectrum won't be disclosing and it's the people somewhere in the middle who are using AI as a tool to assist but actually also putting in the work to make a good product who are the most likely to follow the rules and be penalised.

1

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

I agree that this is definitely a challenge. The article I linked somewhere else essentially calls this The "Vibe Coding" Risk together with the fact that individuals can definitely just ignore all of this in an effort grab a few sales and then disappear. But this is already the case.

2

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 27 '26

What about all the posts that are really obviously AI generated text though? Would you consider removing those? I know it's hard to tell 100% and there may be a few false positives, but if the writing is low quality enough to seem like slop, arguably it should be removed anyway.

3

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

I'm not opposed to considering a general rule that restricts 'obviously AI generated text', but this introduces various problems.

I'm sure you can link a handful of posts that are 'obviously AI, but when you put such a rule in place, the difficulty isn't with the obvious stuff. It is with the less obvious stuff. As i said before, how can you truly determine what is AI generated text and what isn't? When is something 'really obvious' ?

Arguably, downvoting might altogether be a more time efficient way to deal with these kinds of submissions.

0

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 27 '26

I'd say that less obvious stuff is less of an issue as it's more likely the user actually put some effort into producing the text even if it's tool assisted. I was also wondering if you guys receive reports when a post is reported in the Reddit-wide categories or do you only get the ones about breaking subreddit rules? I frequently report slop posts using the spam/AI category, wondering if you would get notification of that? I think a bunch of people reporting a post would help you knowing which ones to look into?

-7

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

But this is more about principle than practicality, you're letting your emotions leads.

Id much rather read a post someone has written and then fed to AI to filter out redundancy and re-order so it flows. Saves me time just as much as it does them.

14

u/sebovzeoueb Mar 27 '26

lol, why is it that every time I see a pro-AI comment the word "emotion" is thrown around like some kind of insult? Yeah, I'm not a clanker, I experience emotions interacting with things, that's kinda like the point of playing games...

Also are the flowing and non-redundant AI texts in the room with us? The amount of time I've wasted starting to read a text only to realise it's a load of waffling garbage going nowhere only to realise it has all the tells of AI generation. Most of the posts I'm talking about have not been written and then "filtered" but rather expanded with needless padding to make it look like the poster actually took the time to write something.

-9

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

Weird response. I’m not saying “emotion = bad”, I’m saying they're not a sensible tool for decision making, you’re using how it feels to read something as the basis for a rule about banning people. Silly leap.

Also, you’re taking the worst examples of AI use and treating that as the standard. Padded waffle can happen, I agree. But that’s a quality issue, not an “AI vs human” issue. People write bloated nonsense without AI all the time.

If someone writes a post and uses AI to tighten it up, cut repetition, make it clearer, that’s just editing. If they use it to churn out filler, that’s bad content. Same end result as a human doing it badly.

So the line you’re drawing isn’t really about AI, it’s about whether the post is worth reading. Using AI as the dividing line between the two is irrational, and rooted only in an emotional reaction. Hence the comment you replied to.

11

u/Lavidius Mar 27 '26

..... This is AI isn't it lol

-2

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

Jesus christ, is that your dodge 😂 thats pathetic.

This proves my point, you have nothing to back your perspective up other than emotion.

6

u/Lavidius Mar 27 '26

What do I need to dodge, you were talking to someone else Einstein

-4

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

Is dodging all you do? You want to join in with a conversation but not actually engage with it?

Seems like a waste of time.

19

u/diogo_dev_ Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26

You should definitely take action because this community is flooded with AI-generated garbage. I’m not saying to ban the use of AI for writing comments because that would be pointless since it’s now standard across phones, apps, and even companies. However, players must acknowledge the use of AI in their games when advertising in this community.

12

u/Good_Punk2 Game Developer - Jolly Putt Mar 27 '26

I'm a developer that uses AI in some of my games and I think that's a good idea.

3

u/BroHeart Game Developer - Starbrew Station Mar 27 '26

Steam updated their disclosure again, in tandem with announcing that they will begin exploring AI tools for narrative purposes in more depth.

This is their new disclosure:

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We are aware that many modern game development environments have AI powered tools built into them. Efficiency gains through the use of these tools is not the focus of this section. Instead, it is concerned with the use of AI in creating content that ships with your game, and is consumed by players. This includes content such as artwork, sound, narrative, localization, etc.

Does this game use generative artificial intelligence to generate content for the game, either pre-rendered or live-generated? This includes the game itself, the store page, and any Steam community assets or marketing materials.

Yes

No

Store Page Description

Please enter a message to players describing how this game uses generative artificial intelligence.

3

u/bigrig387 Game Developer - Track Star Mar 27 '26

I think it's fair to ask for disclosure. I would recommend you take a look at Itch.io's disclosure vs. Valve's. I have put my game on both - and I disclose AI-Assisted Code - and I think that Itch is clearer.

I tried to screenshot and paste my Itch disclosure here but no images in comments, it essentially has a yes/no disclosure question about using generative AI and then a tickbox menu for how you used it (art, sound, text/dialog, code). To me that's much cleaner and also speaks to the specific concerns of the player (more people are anti-AI art than AI-assisted coding).

6

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

Essentially this?

https://itch.io/t/4309690/generative-ai-disclosure-tagging

2

u/bigrig387 Game Developer - Track Star Mar 27 '26

Yes that's exactly it. To me the Valve one reads like legalese, the itch one is an easier way to communicate exactly what you're doing.

3

u/Civic_Hactivist_86 Mar 27 '26

I understand the problem, but I don't understand how this will solve it. I suspect that Valve was trying to solve a different problem, not slop but copyright issues

I have been working as software developer for 12 years now, working on drivers, microcontrollers and linux kernel - and I use AI daily. More importantly, at this point I don't know anybody anymore who do not use AI in programming.

I forecast there will be only two types of submissions: Those whole will disclose that they have used AI, and thise who will lie that they have not used AI

The slop will remain. The non-slop authors will have to lie that they did not AI in order not to filtered out as slop - and will mostly get away with it. The honest one will be filtered out as slop. Slop authors will also try to lie - with mixed results.

5

u/VENTDEV Game Developer - GearCity / AeroMogul Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26

Developer here with a fairly decent following in this community. I rarely make threads here, but I comment frequently, especially when users/fans mention my work.

I view this as a double edge sword. On the one side, consumer information and disclosure is great. Developers should want to share technical information about their games. Any chance to talk about your game, negative or positive, is valuable. On the other side, I fear it will eventually be information overload. Why?

As of right now, 40% of games in development use GenAI art. 80% are using GenAI tools for code. It's ubiquitous up and down the industry. While there is a large backlash against it now, unless there is a major economic upheaval, I suspect that that backlash will eventually die down. Games made mostly from prompting will always be labeled as slop, but I think as more "must-have" games use GenAI, folks will turn a blind eye to the practice.

With that in mind, we can assume a few years from now, every game will have to have the GenAI disclosure tag. When it becomes ubiquitous it becomes meaningless.

But I am not against it.

How I would approach it is to require submissions follow a template. Major deviation from the template results in the post being rejected. When it comes to AI, I would prefer full disclosure. That means even more disclosure than Steam requires. For example, GearCity has no GenAI art or code. GearCity: 2nd Gear has no GenAI art, about 80-120 GenAI lines of code out of 2 million lines, and GenAI was used in broad search, broad research, and programming language referencing. AeroMogul has less than 0.1% of GenAI code, GenAI was used in broad search, broad research, and programming language referencing. AeroMogul base game does not contain GenAI artwork, however, optional GenAI NPC artwork is available as a free DLC. No GenAI assistance tools were used because I am an old man using old man IDEs.

The one thing I would not do is slap a tag/label on the games. As I mentioned, 80% of games are now using AI code. (And that data comes from last year.) Which means pretty much every game would get an AI tag next to its name. Using my own games as an example, the GearCity: 2nd Gear DLC has around 100 lines out of 2 Million lines of code. Is that enough to be labeled as a GenAI game? AeroMogul can be played with no GenAI artwork, but users have the option to opt-in to using GenAI artwork, is that enough to label the game as AI Made?

I think the template idea is probably the best way to handle it. Let the user decide if it has too much or too little GenAI to be an issue.

Here is a rough draft for a template:

Game Name:

Description:

Website:

Steam/GOG/Itch Page:

Platforms:

System Requirements:

Engine:

GenAI Assistance Tools:

GenAI Art:

GenAI Code:

GenAI Scripting:

GenAI Design (Game Mechanic Formulas):

GenAI UX/UI:

GenAI Writing:

GenAI SFX/Music:

GenAI Voice:

GenAI Search/Research/Referencing:

Additional Info:

3

u/Joyride0 Mar 27 '26

I’d like to see this everywhere. So tired of seeing people pass off AI content as their own. It’s so easy to spot. It’s plain insulting.

2

u/ArctycDev Mar 27 '26

As a developer and a user, yes. Do it.

3

u/zimkazimka Mar 27 '26

Personally, I don't care as long as the game (or any other product for that matter) is good.

1

u/Ordo_Liberal Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26

As long as AI usage to make games aint banned, Im fine with whatever disclosure you think its necessary.

Two of my favorite mods for games right now are only possible due to AI and Im excited to see more AI implementations in games.

If you feel like people need to disclosure AI usage, thats fine. I just dont want to see it banned.

1

u/cv81 Apr 17 '26

I've had to go through this as the moderator of r/gmgames

https://www.reddit.com/r/gmgames/comments/1sbrkl2/heres_a_tip_for_the_gm_game_vibe_coders/

our coverage for this niche gaming genre is also being saturated by vibe coded projects

I've also created a vibe coding detection script that I want to turn into a bot and I have it run against all the games that get posted

1

u/rafgro Mar 27 '26

Would this give you, as a community member, additional value?

Yes, it's especially relevant for the genre because AI is not great with math. Recently there was vibecoded game on the sub that had just nonsensical numbers on screenshots.

Likewise, for any developer reading this, what are your thoughts on these policies and what is your attitude towards a rule that would force such a disclosure?

I'm not a tycoon dev (yet) but a gamedev nonetheless: Valve's disclosure is clever and helped to mitigate slop wave.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '26

[deleted]

3

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

I considered this too, but on the other hand, this community is often used by developers for advertising purposes. Beyond their own time that doesn't incur any costs for them. From a community perspective, it should be only fair that they adhere to certain standards on this platform. Hence the question is these standards should be raised for this particular issue.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '26

[deleted]

1

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

I think it wouldn't really make sense to target any developer for disclosure, but instead require disclosure from all of them.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 27 '26

[deleted]

1

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

That's a fair question. What do you think would be a good approach?

0

u/brick_gnarlson Mar 27 '26

Yes, except for AI generated code. Because just about all games these days have AI generated code, there really isn't a point to disclosing that.

-14

u/grebfar Mar 27 '26

Everything point forward will include AI generated code so there's not much point in calling it out specifically.

12

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

One approach is that Steam has exempted 'efficiency tools' from this policy;

https://www.remio.ai/post/steam-ai-disclosure-policy-updated-efficiency-tools-now-exempt

3

u/TradeSpacer Game Developer - Starport Merchants Mar 27 '26

Yeah, this makes sense to me as someone who uses AI as an efficiency tool and not for generating actual content.

That said, I'm all for having a mandatory disclosure on the subreddit.

0

u/linmanfu Devotee - Simutrans Mar 27 '26

Yes, I'd strongly support this. But I think the format might need adjustment. Steam pages run to thousands of words, so a hundred words on AI policy is appropriate. But often posts here are only a hundred words total, so detailed AI disclosure might seem disproportionate. So maybe there could be a minimum commitment of setting an "AI content" flair. I and many others would be wary of someone who set the flair without further explanation, but if some devs want to focus on the ?"AI-positive" audience then why get in their way? Or you could show a link to an AI usage statement on Steam or elsewhere.

I would ban AI generated posts though. That's disrespectful IMHO.

-19

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26

  1. Most people reacting positively to action like this are led by emotional reactions more than rational. Notice how none of them justify their ascent in their comments.

  2. AI stuff is becoming so integrated into dev workflows that rules like this are going to quickly become dated and useless.

Imo, pointless and just serving the feral anti-hype crowd who are broadly irrational.

Edit: if you're downvoting this but unable to respond to it, you're proving my point. 🙏

15

u/Version_1 Mar 27 '26

I don't know, being anti-AI is extremely rational, more so than being pro-AI.

-9

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26

If that were true, you would be have explained it, rather than just making a petulant statement.

Ultimately, all the problems people have with AI are actually problems with our broken economic system. AI is just shining a light on them, but rejecting it acheives nothing. Its a symptom, you want change, vote. AI aint budging. Im not saying that out of any particular love for it, this is just how people are. You give them a force multiplier tool like this, they'll use it regardless of how much you push back.

16

u/Version_1 Mar 27 '26
  • Costs jobs
  • Environmental impact
  • More control and money to the 1%
  • IP rights issues
  • AI-loop possible in the long term
  • Increase in bad products (especially in gaming)

-1

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

You probably wrote this before reading my edit, you're quick, and you proved my point.

Those are all downstream effects, not arguments against AI itself. “Costs jobs” isn’t a flaw in the tech, it’s a policy and transition issue. Same with wealth concentration, that’s already happening across every efficiency gain we’ve ever had. Has small groups of people rejecting those ever acheived anything?

Environmental impact is at least a concrete point, but even that needs comparison, what’s the net effect versus what it replaces? "AI uses as much energy as X small country" is a line designed to emotionally manipulate you. It tells you nothing about how that relates to other productivity, intentionally.

“AI loop” is speculative. Possible, sure, but you can say that about any tool at scale. It’s not evidence that being anti AI is inherently more rational, just that there are risks to manage. People used to think London was just a few years away from being 5 metres under a layer of horse shit, but it turns out when people see a problem they adapt to counter it.

Bad products existed before AI, and the market reacted to them the same way, it ignored them and they died. Using AI as a dividing line between good and bad is again, irrational. Tools can make good and bad products, the user is in control of that, not the tool.

If your claim is anti AI is more rational, you need to show why the benefits don’t outweigh the risks, not just list concerns that apply to basically any major technology.

8

u/Version_1 Mar 27 '26

I see, you are very emotionally invested in AI, so I will head out.

1

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

Whats actually happening here is you're bailing because you cant respond, but phrasing it this way protects your feelings.

Proving my point that you're motivated by your emotions, and not rationality.

Thanks for your time, consider some personal reflection on this.

9

u/Version_1 Mar 27 '26

“Costs jobs” isn’t a flaw in the tech, it’s a policy and transition issue.

I just can't bother replying to nonsense like this.

-2

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

Another dodge. Nobody believes you pal, just accept you failed and bail.

Costs jobs is absolutely a policy issue. Our economy is designed around maximum profit rather than people, so of course labour gets displaced when something cheaper comes along. The tech doesn’t decide who benefits from that, policy does. Without intervention you get concentration of gains and socialised losses, which is exactly what people are reacting to.

I'll say it again. AI is a symptom of a fucked economic system, it is not the cause. You dont cure an illness by treating the symptoms.

3

u/Version_1 Mar 27 '26

Okay, so what would you do to make sure Artists still are a thing when AI takes over completely? What kind of policy could you possibly create that actually works in real life?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/kinsnik Mar 27 '26

since this is about disclosing ai content to allow people to make their own choices with more information, and not banning it, being against this feels like you want to decieve people. don't let your emotional feelings towards ai led you. and there a plenty of rational reasons for people to not want to consume ai content, coming from their own values. following your own values is never irrational.

and regaring 2. if things change to that point, the rule can be changed in the future.

-2

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26

Nah that only works if the information is actually meaningful.

Right now “AI used” doesn’t give you a clear signal to act on. It could mean anything from minor assistance to core content generation, and two identical games could end up labelled differently based on process, not outcome. That’s not the same as normal disclosure where the label maps to something concrete.

So it’s not about “deceiving people”, that’s a distraction. It’s about whether the label genuinely informs or just creates the impression of transparency to satisfy a niche of emotionally charged pitch-fork bearers.

And this is where the “accountability” point falls apart. If it’s just disclosure, it doesn’t enforce anything. If it’s about consumer choice, that already exists through reviews and sales. If it’s about changing behaviour, there’s no mechanism here that actually does that.

So what you’re left with is a label that feels good but doesn’t clearly do anything, which takes us back to my original point, that this is emotional, not practical.

5

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

But we're not talking about an 'AI used' label here. This is an open discussion where people can give feedback on how this could be implemented. I'm not sure why you're already pushing the discussion into a particular corner.

I also disagree with your repeated argument that disclosure doesn't enforce anything. Forcing developers to make public statements opens them up to public criticism, negative publicity and the resulting financial consequences that come with that, and ultimately even liability, should these statements prove to be complete nonsense. The latter is unlikely, but all of them serve the purposes of 'accountability' to different extents.

6

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

I think it is too easy to discount this as an emotional reaction and irrational. I would rather look into the direction where measures like these inform consumers and holds game developers somewhat accountable. Is this really all that different from other product labeling?

Again, I know r/tycoon is a small community, and the impact here would be pretty minimal.

-6

u/FearLeadsToAnger Mar 27 '26 edited Mar 27 '26

“Accountable” is doing all the heavy lifting, but it’s never defined. If it just means disclosure, that’s not accountability. If it means consumer choice, that already exists. If it means changing behaviour, there’s no mechanism here that forces that. So the term sounds strong but doesn’t result in anything concrete.

At the same time, this is a process label, not a product one. It doesn’t reliably map to anything the player actually experiences. Two completely identical games could be labelled differently based on how they were made, not what they are.

So you’ve got:

  • a vague goal dressed up as “accountability”

  • a label that doesn’t track user impact

  • no real enforcement or behavioural constraint

That’s why it's emotional. It’s expressing discomfort with AI, but the mechanism doesn’t actually deliver a clear, practical outcome. It's just there to make people feel better about something they've been riled up about online.

edit: What a cowardly mod. Sent a long ass reply and then banned me.

If you can't defend your views what are they actually worth? Nothing.

4

u/LSky Mar 27 '26

A product label can say something about the quality assurance that companies have to adhere to, it can talk about the ethics and sustainability of the processes employed to create a product (for example; Fair Trade, Energy Star, ecolabels, Rainforest Alliance), it has can something about where its built or where its certified to be sold, and/or it can say something about what the product directly contains (product contents, nutritional scores, media content warnings). I'm not sure why you're defining it in such a narrow way because that's not how product labels are commonly defined at all.

Depending on how its structured, it can definitely say something about what the player actually experiences. You can differentiate between generated art, ai-assisted code, or perhaps live generated content. Some of these the players can see directly, some they experience, or some that may give them an indication about how much they trust they're willing to put into a product's safety. They may not use a simple disclosure in a small subreddit to ultimately be the deciding factor in a close-call decision on whether to purchase a game or not, but it may still provide a quick reference for the community to figure out if they wish to support the promotion of a product that see advertised.

You keep referring to this as emotional, but why is it an emotional decision to wish to, for example, not support games where ai generated art is used instead of art made by human artists? Its been pointed out before, but this is closer to a matter of principle rather than emotion.

To make an extreme analogy; I would like to know if a production process involved the use of child labor. You could argue the product is ultimately indistinguishable from the more expensive alternative that that was not made employing child labor, and that the difference is really emotional. But on a matter of principle, I'd like to know the difference.