At Steam Next Fest, a noticeable part of the showcase is highlighted in red. This is due to a browser extension that highlights games where developers have indicated the use of AI. The Steam client runs on Chromium, which is why the extension works.
The label "festival of slop" quickly appeared online. However, the problem is that the red color explains almost nothing: it does not indicate what exactly the neural network did.
Why the label explains nothing
Starting January 2024, Valve requires developers to disclose the use of generative AI—both pre-created content and content generated during gameplay. A single label covers entirely different cases.
An example is Swaplines. The developers honestly indicated that AI helped compose the store description and translate the menu. The neural network did not touch graphics, music, or in-game generation there.
Another case is an indie horror. The label appeared because of one family photo: the developer considered it unethical to distort a picture of real people, so they generated a frame and manually scratched it in Photoshop.
The result: the red label combines both harmless text assistance and full-fledged generation—without explanations.
The system relies on honesty
Disclosure works only if the developer admits it themselves. Those who indicated AI are highlighted in red. White cards do not guarantee that there are no neural networks in the game.
Many believe that if Valve introduces a filter, as AI opponents request, developers will simply stop indicating neural networks.
What the industry says
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney stated back in late 2025 that such labels are pointless—AI will be involved in almost all future development. Valve clarified in early 2026 that accelerating work through AI development tools is not the focus of this section.
Double standards in code
AI in code has long become routine: auto-completion, debugger, testing assistant, interactive tutorial with links to documentation. Developers themselves share this.
One of them said outright: today, almost any released game contains generated code. Problems begin when even the person who "wrote" it does not understand it.
Hence the uncomfortable question: if replacing artists with neural networks is not allowed, why is it allowed for programmers? Someone reminded that code is also a creative process, not just a dull layer between idea and release.
The real problem
The flow of AI games is quite real. Next Fest is growing so rapidly that indie developers complain: original games are drowning among hastily assembled clones of yet another pixel roguelike in the bullet heaven genre.
This material is prepared solely for informational purposes and does not constitute financial advice or a recommendation.
Related articles
