Generative AI is now widely used in game development, supporting everything from concept art and translation to coding assistance and internal workflows. Steam requires developers to disclose when AI is used during development. However, according to recent analysis, that disclosure alone may already be enough to deter many players.
game oracle We analyzed 9,879 Steam games released between January and October 2025. Free-to-play titles, obvious fraudulent or spam releases, and statistical outliers were intentionally excluded. Summary of results:
Average number of reviews in the first month after release
• AI disclosed: 4 (19.8% no reviews)
• No AI disclosure: 7 (15.2% no reviews)
Average user rating (at least 100 reviews)
• AI disclosed: 84.6%
• No AI disclosure: 88.3%
The difference becomes even more pronounced when you consider factors such as developer experience, publisher support, genre, and release timing. According to the study, comparable games with AI disclosures receive approximately 52.6% fewer reviews than similar titles without AI disclosures. Simply put, if a comparable game without AI disclosure receives 100 reviews, you can expect the same game with AI disclosure to only receive around 47 or 48 reviews. Steam does not publish official sales numbers, so this study uses review counts as a rough indicator of commercial performance.
game oracle It also emphasizes that not all relevant factors can be measured accurately. Budget, marketing, development experience, and overall production quality all play important roles. Therefore, we cannot automatically blame the decline in game performance due to AI disclosure on the AI itself. AI may also be used more frequently in projects that are already constrained by tight deadlines, limited budgets, or lack of sophistication.
Reddit community rejects AI, but not in all cases
On Reddit, many users have openly criticized AI in games, often associating AI revelations with “AI slop,” shovelware, and a lack of real creative effort. The argument is simple. If the developer appears to be cutting corners, players will see little reason to spend money on the game. For many, therefore, AI seems less like a sign of innovation and more like evidence of cost reduction. Some people balk at the idea that AI will automatically kill game sales. A common counterargument is that bad games just sell poorly, and that many of the titles studied may be small, low-profile, or poorly executed projects regardless of their use of AI.
For many communities, the type of AI use also makes a difference. Generally, AI-assisted coding, debugging, and temporary placeholder assets are viewed more favorably than AI-generated artwork, decorations, or synthetic speech. In other words, many players seem willing to accept AI as a support tool, but become more critical when AI begins to replace human creativity.
The importance for developers is clear. AI can take some of the workload off, but it can’t replace creative vision or good game design. Studios using this solely to push low-effort content to Steam may face increased resistance. However, AI does not necessarily have to be a liability if used carefully, wisely, and without any visible loss of quality.
As a kid in the ’90s, the Game Boy was my steady companion. After school, the PlayStation was turned on. When I finally got my first PC, I was completely hooked. Since then, my passion for gaming has never waned. For me, writing for Notebookcheck means reporting on topics that are very close to my heart. In addition to gaming, I also like writing about e-mobility, solar power, and innovative gadgets. When I’m not sitting at my computer, I’m probably on a water rescue mission on the Baltic coast, or at the local pool trying to counteract the downside of geek life: sitting for long periods of time.
