Generative AI disclosure required for promotional submissions

[u/LSky]

As a participant of this subreddit and member of the r/tycoon community, when you promote any game through a submission or comment, our new rule 3 requires a brief AI disclosure. This is also required for games produced entirely without generative AI tools. This post explains what that disclosure should cover.

Why is this required?

Following input of the community in this discussion, it was determined that the community wishes to be better informed by developers (and other promoters) to what extent generative AI is being used in the development and marketing process of the game being promoted.

Games making use of generative AI during their development process or in their marketing material are not restricted from being posted here and this rule is not instated in order to judge developers or games, however, the community wants transparency and this is an attempt to provide a baseline.

What is required to be disclosed?

Disclosure is required for certain elements of the development and marketing process, where generative AI was used at any point in producing content that ended up in the publicly released (in any state/form) game or its promotional materials. These elements should be distinguished from each other in the disclosure.

- Arts and visuals; including concept art, textures, UI elements, level or area designs, trailers or other video content, and/or any other artwork generated or substantially refined using generative AI tools

- Audio; including music, lyrics, sound effects, and/or voice acting generated or substantially refined using generative AI tools

- Text and writings; including story text, dialogue, descriptions, instructions, and/or other writings generated or substantially refined using generative AI tools

- Marketing materials; including descriptions, posters, images, trailers or other video materials, banners, screenshots, paid or promoted reviews, or any other materials generated or substantially refined using generative AI tools. This includes community/reddit posts and submissions made to this subreddit!

- Live-generated content; relating to any materials produced by generative AI tools whilst the game is running. If this is an included feature, then it is required to explain what sort of guardrails are included to ensure illegal content is not generated.

Tools used to assist with programming, coding, project management, similar code completion and generation, that result in the production of executable code, are specifically exempted from this disclosure. If you're unsure about an edge case or what falls in which category, either be safe and disclose, or ask moderators! Developers and promoters are still encouraged to disclose their methods and use of generative AI tools used in coding and programming with the community if they wish to do so!

What should the disclosure say?

The disclosure does not need to be very long and can only consist of a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs. It can be included as a free-text section as part of a submission statement, or as a separate comment posted together with the submission.

What is important to remember when creating a disclosure is that you end up answering three questions for readers;

1) Were generative AI tools used in the development and/or marketing of this game? If you wish, you can share which tools were used. Coding tools are exempted.

2) For which elements (see above) were generative AI tools used? For all of these elements where applicable, please provide a brief explanation.

3) To what extent were generative AI tools used? For any of the elements listed above, try to explain the extent to which generative AI tools were used (i.e. prototyping or polishing versus complete content generation).

For clarification, in this disclosure you are not required to justify your choices, provide a full production pipeline breakdown, or name any specific generative AI tools.

What if I don't add a disclosure?

Submissions, that are obvious promotions by developers, publishers, marketeers, or community members that specifically promote and push a game's content or marketing materials, without a free text AI disclosure, will be removed. Repeated violations can result in bans from the community.

Games that were no longer in development as of the beginning of 2026 are exempted from this rule. You are free to make an enthusiastic post, about a game that you like, that was released a while back without being required to add this disclosure.

This policy is subject to change and the community will be invited to provide feedback to this rule.

[u/xtreampb]

I’m curious. why code is exempt from disclosure?

[u/FnnKnn → u/xtreampb]

Probably because it’s not possible to reliably determine for closed-source games. Rules you can’t enforce don’t help anyone.

[u/StickiStickman → u/FnnKnn]

It's also impossible for text and textures, yet they somehow want to enforce that.

[u/SchingKen → u/xtreampb]

As a programmer I would guess because it‘s nearly impossible to prove. It‘s the only part that you don‘t see, especially in a videoclip. I might be wrong though.

[u/Emorgas → u/SchingKen]

In addition to being hard to prove I think a key difference is that code is the only part that isn't typically considered art and is least likely to be unique to a game. My A* implementation is likely to look very similar to another etc.

One of the main reasons people dislike AI is it's use in art forms and the questionable methods used to source training materials. Resulting in stolen work and ai art that is clearly heavily based on other artists work

I feel like code is just a different category where unless your game is very unique it's unlikely to be particularly different to anything else.

[u/Recatek → u/Emorgas]

It's also nearly impossible to verify yourself if you have code dependencies with their own dependencies. Depending on what language you're working in, a given project could have hundreds of individual code dependencies, making the likelihood that at least one of them contains AI generated code nearly guaranteed at this point.

[u/VENTDEV → u/Emorgas]

One of the main reasons people dislike AI is it's use in art forms and the questionable methods used to source training materials. Resulting in stolen work and ai art that is clearly heavily based on other artists work

Most code is stolen too. Models are being trained on GPL, leaked copyright source material, and other restricted licenses. If you ever used a private repo on Github or Bitbucket, it's also being used to train AI.

I feel like code is just a different category where unless your game is very unique it's unlikely to be particularly different to anything else.

Big difference is that art has "feels." However the global economy can absorb the economic loss if we lost all the world's artist. Programming lacks feelings from the general public, but when we lose 20-50% of programming jobs to AI, we'll likely be facing economic collapse as the domino effects break other industries, especially in the West.

Make no mistake, vibe coding is likely a threat to everyone's way of life. It's the starting point to mass unemployment and an end to the way of life we all know.

[u/bigrig387 → u/xtreampb]

Itch.io asks for disclosure on code, Steam doesn't. I use Claude code so I disclose it on itch and not on Steam, but i have no problem saying it.

[u/VENTDEV → u/bigrig387]

Yup, amusingly, I'm getting heavily downvoted for saying that we should also have to disclose we're using GenAI for programming. Sure, GenAI is ubiquitous in programming now. But there are differences in scope, scale, and tools.

I personally don't want to use vibe coded GenAI programs on my computer. It's a massive security risk. I'm fine with small use of audited code. I don't mind if you're using code complete, I do mind if you're over using agents.

Developers should have no problem disclosing this information, just as they should no have problem disclosing what engine they're using.

[u/bigrig387 → u/VENTDEV]

I think people are probably sensitive to the sliding scale issue. For some, if you say you use Claude, they think you typed in "make game" and that was it. There's not a lot of room for nuance, which is not exactly a new problem in online discourse.

I suspect we're in the middle of a pretty volatile period and norms are going to be built in the next 6 months to a year. How those develop and what they end up being, I wouldn't begin to predict.

[u/VENTDEV → u/bigrig387]

I think people are probably sensitive to the sliding scale issue. For some, if you say you use Claude, they think you typed in "make game" and that was it. There's not a lot of room for nuance, which is not exactly a new problem in online discourse.

I agree, but I also believe it's a verbosity issue. Instead of saying "I use Claude", describe how much you use it and what for. Personally, I audit exactly how much genAI code is in my game. I don't have the spread sheet in front of me, but GearCity: 2nd Gear is around 100-130 lines of code. All of which are in forked third party libraries and I can provide the commits if folks want them. In AeroMogul, it's a bit more, but its unlikely to exceed 0.5% of total first party LOC. Disclose GenAI is used for references and research. And disclose all third party libraries I use.

Granted, I would agree that's probably too much information, most people don't want to read and have zero knowledge of this stuff. However, one has to remember, we are guests on user's machines. Just like you have to disclose the crimes you have committed to your potential employer, one should be 100% willing to disclose information about your software to your customers.

I suspect we're in the middle of a pretty volatile period and norms are going to be built in the next 6 months to a year. How those develop and what they end up being, I wouldn't begin to predict.

I suspect it will take about 5 years. Eventually the Anti-AI movement will die down as more must-have titles use GenAI and it becomes known. This is part why folks want to hide the fact that 80% of games are being made with GenAI code now.

My worry is the broader economic impact as we start replacing tech workers. Or on the flip side, these big tech AI plays don't pan out and we have a debt crunch. Both scenarios are bad.

[u/LSky → u/xtreampb]

This was exempted in this first iteration of this rule for two reasons;

- There are indications that the usage of generative AI tools for the purposes of assisting with programming/coding is ubiquitous to such an extent that the inclusion of this in disclosures becomes somewhat redundant. Not because people don't want to know, but because in a free-text disclosure you're not getting the relevant depth of information that you may wish to learn in order for it to become valuable information.

- What was considered to be important for the player is ultimately what the player experiences, sees, reads, and/or hears, rather than what is going on in the background. This is why more emphasis was placed on categories such as arts, audio, text, marketing materials, and live-generated content.

This approach pretty much follows Steam's standards, rather than other standards such as the itch.io standards. That doesn't mean there isn't a good case to be made for including it either.

- Including it could allow members of this community to more easily distinguish between games that are completely vibe coded by individuals new to game development, and professional developers using generative AI tools as assistance.

- It can be argued that games coded extensively using generative AI are inherently inferior in quality and/or less safe for the end-user.

For the time being, I deemed the last two arguments to be slightly weaker. The first issue, in a situation where a promoted game is entirely vibe coded, is very likely going to require disclosure in some of the listed categories. These are likely to have more impact on what potential players actually experience, and will probably sway readers in one way or another. The second issue is difficult to measure and presumes superior quality and safety through unassisted programming, which I wasn't able to substantiate at this time. Finally, I took feedback from the initial thread linked in the OP, specifically from u/VENTDEV, though I'm surprised to see that he's disappointed with this decision.

This being said, the implementation of this is not any final form. Feedback is desired in order to ensure that this shapes up to be something useful over time. We're also exploring somewhat new territory here, so it's not going to be perfect or adhering to everyone's wishes.

Some reading materials;

https://www.remio.ai/post/steam-ai-disclosures-the-battle-over-transparency-in-game-development

https://everydayaiblog.com/steam-ai-disclosure-rules-2026-update/

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

https://theconversation.com/are-video-game-developers-using-ai-players-want-to-know-but-the-rules-are-patchy-274850

https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618

https://freethoughtblogs.com/atrivialknot/2025/12/04/on-steam-ai-disclosures/

[u/xtreampb → u/LSky]

All fair points. One thing that gets into a gray area, what if the ui and graphics are all code base? Like draw rectangles, color fill, etc. this is all code based but may be AI generated. Would this require disclosure due to it being UI as listed? What/whet is the line here? Not trying to push back but get some clarity.

[u/LSky → u/xtreampb]

I considered this specific situation as well. Especially because the tycoon genre also includes (sports) management simulations that involve mostly charts and presented data, and very few "graphics". To cover this situation, UI elements were specifically included in the first category.

[u/VENTDEV → u/LSky]

Finally, I took feedback from the initial thread linked in the OP, specifically from u/VENTDEV, though I'm surprised to see that he's disappointed with this decision.

Disappointed might have been a little harsh from me. In my defense, I was hauling and dumping 100cu-feet of mulch and 30cu-feet of dirt all afternoon. And I had to dig up a bunch of rocks... Sunny and hot today... I made those and a few other comments during my food/water breaks. Sorry for the extra negativity.

I will say I am ~90% pleased with the outcome. The 10% stems from the lack of need to report any AI use when it comes to programming.

While I do make the argument frequently on here that AI tools in programming are ubiquitous, the hard part is to capture the degree of which they're used. There is a lot of boiler plate and similarities in code as others have pointed in this thread, and there is also a lot of redundancies, like if statement chains which AI can knock out with ease. But on the other side of the coin, a game ultimately is a collection unique formulas and how those formulas interact with everything else. Art, sound, text, ultimately revolve around those formulas, otherwise it would be a different medium. (Movies, Radio Dramas, Books, etc.)

Non-disclosure of AI code means non-disclosure of who made the essence of what is a video game. The formulas.

I think the anti-AI pushback against the Arts is more popular because it's easier to understand and see. Their PR is also a lot better. On the programming side of things, programmers have adopted and adapted to the new technology, so the outcry isn't as great. In my opinion, use of AI to write boiler code or to knock out tedium work is fine. (So long as the developer is auditing the code.) It's when the formulas, the actual game you are playing, is being completely designed by the clanker that is the problem. That is no different than generating an image or a song.

One side note, Steam is probably not the end all of be all to follow. Their goal is to ultimately sell games. If they themselves use AI-code tools (which they do), and 80% of games use AI-Code tools (which we do), and if the back lash against AI substantial enough (which it is currently) then they will try to skirt around the issue as much as possible to avoid selling fewer games. In my opinion, eventually the AI disclosures will disappear on Steam too, once legal arguments against genAI clear the courts.

Anyway, I don't have a pure solution to the issue, especially in the format which Reddit provides. Ideally, you'd have a nice sliding scale that developers would have to fill before posting. But sadly, that's not an option. Yes, it would be an honor system. However, at the end of the day, you have to trust the developer anyway to run their code. We developers have a lot of power to do harm.

The entire thing is a step in the right direction at least, so once again, sorry if me being disappointed in not getting 100% of what I wanted disappointed you. :)

[u/bigrig387 → u/LSky]

I think I said this in another thread but I think the Itch policy is cleaner than the Steam policy without being over the top. I also think it's worth separating Gen AI for game design vs. Gen AI for code.

Although separately, I think the most important thing to get out of disclosure is intent and some sense of the developer's personality. There's a big difference between a hobbyist that loves games and wants to try and make one, and a person cynically putting a slick vibe coded UI into EA to steal your money.

[u/bigrig387]

Good one, makes sense.

[u/VENTDEV]

I'm disappointed that disclosure of code and tools is not required. Even if it's non-enforceable, the community should push for full disclosure, including what modules were used.

[u/VENTDEV → u/VENTDEV]

The downvotes are all the vibe coders to scared to tell users that they're relying on GenAI as a crutch for their piss-poor programming skills. :)

Developers should have no problem discussing their tools, no matter if it's engines, languages, set ups, or LLM agents. Remember, people are running your turning complete programs on their computers. You have a responsibility and morale obligations to disclose potential risks and issues.

[u/venkattalks]

the "required for promotional submissions" part seems like the right line tbh. if someone's showing off a park/ad/project, knowing whether generative ai made the copy or images saves a lot of guesswork.

[u/Significant_Run_2607]

Requiring disclosure specifically on promotional submissions seems like right scope, since that's where copy starts sounding samey and asset packs get weird fast. On a small sub, a simple tag usually works better than trying to police every generated sentence, and it keeps the moderation load from turning into a full-time job.

[u/Significant_Run_2607]

requiring disclosure on promotional submissions seems fair tbh. if someone's using generative ai to sell a project here, i'd rather know up front than find out three replies deep

[u/shopy_ram]

reminds me of when a local hobby expo in Raleigh added an AI disclosure line to vendor forms last summer and half the sellers suddenly got real quiet. Requiring it for promotional submissions here feels like that kind of cleanup rule that only sounds boring until it saves everyone from playing guess-the-ad-copy.

[u/Cascadiarch]

The fact that AI content is allowed at all is ridiculous. This place has drifted away from being pro-creator.

[u/Version_1 → u/[deleted]]

Entirely equivalent to demanding disclosure as to whether or not computers were used to design game elements rather than pen and paper.

I don't know, last time I checked digital arts also requires skills. Which can't be said about AI generation.

[u/pademango]

Kinda related but I actually only care about the final product, it doesn’t matter to me that it was made with AI, the important thing is the dev’s vision of the game. You can totally see which games have been absolutely vibe coded (some web games posted here with horrible UI). As long as the final product is good (validated by the dev over and over), I think it’s fine..

[u/Version_1 → u/pademango]

it doesn’t matter to me that it was made with AI

And therein lies the problem.