Games that disclose the use of AI during development may face a major disadvantage on Steam, according to new research examining thousands of releases from 2025. The study suggests that titles with AI disclosures receive fewer reviews, lower average ratings, and potentially much weaker sales than comparable games made without disclosed AI tools.
The findings do not prove that players are actively avoiding every game that uses AI. However, they show that developers may face a real commercial risk when generative AI becomes part of the production process, especially if the game comes from an established studio with an existing audience.
Steam began requiring developers to disclose AI use in January 2024. Those notices explain whether AI was used for game assets, music, voices, text, or other parts of development. Since then, the number of games carrying those disclosures has continued to grow.
AI Disclosures Were Linked to Fewer Steam Reviews
The research examined nearly 10,000 Steam games released between January and October 2025. Around 21% of those releases included an AI disclosure on their Steam page.
Because Steam does not publicly provide exact sales figures for most games, the research used review counts as a rough estimate of player interest and sales performance. This is a common method in the PC game industry, though it is not a perfect substitute for direct sales data.
At a basic level, games with AI disclosures averaged four reviews during their first month after launch. Games without AI disclosures averaged seven reviews over the same period.
The gap remained after the research controlled for factors such as release timing, genre, developer experience, and publisher support.
| Study result | Games with AI disclosure | Games without AI disclosure |
|---|---|---|
| Average first-month reviews | 4 | 7 |
| Games receiving no reviews | Nearly 20% | Around 15% |
| Average rating for games with 100+ reviews | 84.6% | 88.3% |
| Estimated review gap after controls | 53% fewer reviews | Higher review totals |
The statistical model estimated that a game disclosing AI use could receive about 53% fewer reviews than a similar game without an AI disclosure.
In practical terms, a non-AI game that receives 100 reviews might be expected to receive only around 47 reviews if it had an AI disclosure, assuming other conditions were similar.
Established Studios May Face the Biggest Penalty
The research suggests that small and inexperienced developers may not suffer as much from the AI stigma.
For a solo creator or tiny studio with little marketing support, AI tools may simply be one way to finish a project with limited resources. These developers often struggle to get attention regardless of their production methods, so the negative impact from an AI disclosure appears smaller.
The situation looks different for larger studios with established fanbases, stronger marketing, and previous successful games.
According to the research, studios with more resources could see a sales decline of around 40% to 60% when AI is used in development. That is a serious risk for companies that may turn to AI to reduce costs, speed up asset creation, or automate repetitive work.
The results suggest that players may expect more human-led work from studios that already have the money, staff, and experience to make games without relying heavily on generative AI.
The Problem May Be More Than Player Backlash
It is tempting to assume that players are simply boycotting games with AI disclosures, but the research does not prove that.
Many Steam players may never read the AI disclosure section before buying a game. Reviews, trailers, price, genre, word of mouth, and previous work from the developer may matter more to most buyers.
Another possibility is that AI use may be connected to other problems. A studio using AI carelessly could also make weaker decisions around art direction, quality control, writing, voice work, or game design. In that case, the disclosure may be a warning sign rather than the sole reason for poor sales.
Some AI-assisted games have still found success. That shows that AI use does not automatically make a game fail. The issue appears to be how the technology is used and whether players feel it has harmed the quality or originality of the final product.
Developers May Need to Treat AI as a Tool, Not a Shortcut
AI will likely remain part of game development, especially in areas such as graphics upscaling, testing, animation support, and production workflows.
But the study shows that studios need to be careful about using generative AI for visible creative work. Players may accept AI when it supports developers behind the scenes, but they may react differently when it affects art, writing, voices, or other elements that shape a game’s identity.
For developers, the message is simple: AI may help reduce workload, but it cannot replace skilled creative work without consequences.
Discussion (0)
Be the first to comment.