Steam’s AI disclosure rules focus on generative AI used to create content players consume—not simply on whether a developer used an AI-powered tool while making a game. The key distinction is whether that content was prepared during development and shipped with the game, or generated while the game runs. Developers must disclose applicable uses in Steam’s Content Survey; for live generation, they must also describe safeguards against illegal output. Valve says much of the disclosure appears on the game’s store page, where players can read what the developer says was generated.
This guide reflects Valve’s publicly accessible Steamworks Content Survey guidance as checked on October 30, 2026. Valve announced its player-facing AI disclosure approach on January 10, 2024; industry reporting on January 16, 2026 described a clarification to the disclosure form. The current public Steamworks guidance is the operative source for the rules below—not an older version of form wording.
What does Steam require developers to disclose?
Developers must disclose generative AI used to create content that ships with a game and is consumed by players. Valve’s examples include artwork, sound, narrative, and localization. A useful first question is therefore not simply “Did we use AI?” but “What did AI help create, and will players encounter that material?”
The relevant questions appear in the third section of the Content Survey. Developers complete the survey before submitting the store page and product build for review. Valve’s stated focus is player-consumed content, not efficiency gains from AI-powered development tools. That distinction is not a blanket declaration that every AI-written line of code, or every other production use, is categorically exempt; describe the actual contribution and answer the survey as written.
Keep an inventory of AI-assisted material as the game develops. For each item, record what it is, where it appears, whether it reaches players, and whether it is generated before release or during play. This is more useful than a list of software or services, because the disclosure is about the content and how players encounter it.
What is the difference between pre-generated and live-generated AI content?
Pre-generated content is produced with AI assistance during development and then shipped for players to consume. Live-generated content is produced with AI assistance while the game runs. A game can use both, so developers should not force all of its AI use into one category.
| Type | When the content is generated | Examples | What to explain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-generated | During development, before the player encounters the shipped content | AI-assisted character illustrations, recorded dialogue, written narrative, or translated text included in the game | Which shipped, player-consumed content was AI-assisted |
| Live-generated | While the game is running | Text, dialogue, images, or other content generated in response to a player or game state | What can be generated and what safeguards are used to prevent illegal output |
The practical distinction is about timing and player experience, not whether the AI output is impressive, prominent, or produced by a particular tool. A fixed image created with AI during development remains pre-generated even if the player can see it repeatedly; a system that creates new dialogue during a session is live-generated even if the possible subject matter is tightly constrained.
Does AI used only to speed up development need to be disclosed?
Valve says workflow-efficiency gains from AI-powered tools are not the focus of this survey section. The important distinction is between using a tool to make the development process more efficient and using AI to create content players consume.
For example, a developer’s use of an AI assistant to help organize a schedule is different from using generative AI to create dialogue, art, sound, or localization that appears in the game. Still, do not translate “not the focus” into “AI code never needs to be disclosed.” The survey’s public guidance is centered on player-consumed generated content; when a use does not fit clearly, describe what happened and consult the survey rather than relying on a broad exemption that Valve has not stated.
Do store-page and marketing assets count?
This point needs care because the public survey documentation and reporting about the January 2026 form clarification describe the scope differently. Valve’s accessible guidance emphasizes content shipped with the game and consumed by players, while Game Developer’s January 16, 2026 reporting described revised form wording that includes generated material in associated marketing, such as store-page assets.
For a developer, the prudent approach is to identify AI-assisted promotional assets separately from in-game content and answer the current survey questions as presented in Steamworks. Do not assume a marketing image is covered—or excluded—based on a description of an earlier form. For a player comparing store pages, distinguish a disclosure about promotional material from a statement about the game’s playable content; they are not the same claim.
What extra safeguards apply to live-generated AI?
Developers using live-generated AI must describe guardrails intended to prevent illegal content from being generated. A general statement that a system is moderated is less informative than identifying, in plain language, what kinds of output the system is designed to block and how generation is constrained.
Valve has also said it does not want to ship live-generated Adult Only Sexual Content at this time. That is a specific position about live-generated content. It should not be paraphrased as a ban on every adult game, every game that uses AI, or every pre-generated adult asset.
Live-generation safeguards matter because the output may vary between sessions and may be influenced by player input. Disclosing the feature does not make an unlawful result acceptable, and a description of safeguards is not a promise that a system can never produce a prohibited result. The developer remains responsible for the product and for managing the live service it offers.
Does disclosing AI use make the content acceptable on Steam?
No. Disclosure is not permission, a waiver, or a certification. Valve says products on Steam must follow its content rules regardless of what a developer reports in the survey. Its review considers AI output against Steam’s distribution requirements, including concerns such as illegal or infringing material and consistency with the game’s marketing.
Steam’s onboarding requirements also prohibit material the publisher does not have adequate rights to use or that violates laws where the product is offered. A developer should not treat a survey answer as a legal conclusion about a specific image, voice, text, or dataset. A player should likewise understand the disclosure as a statement from the developer, not Valve’s guarantee that every asset is lawful or that the description is complete.
Where can players find the disclosure, and how should they read it?
Look on the individual game’s Steam store page for the AI-generated-content disclosure and read the developer’s description of what was generated. Valve’s January 2024 announcement explains the store-page disclosure approach.
A useful disclosure should help answer four separate questions:
- What kind of material? For example, artwork, sound, narrative, localization, or another player-facing asset.
- Where is it used? In the playable game, in associated promotional material, or both.
- When is it generated? Before shipment or while the game runs.
- For live generation, what safeguards are described? Look for a meaningful explanation rather than treating a generic AI label as a full account of the system.
These are comparison questions, not a Valve-issued rating scale. A disclosure is most useful when it is specific enough to distinguish a handful of fixed assets from a central runtime feature. It does not quantify the amount of AI used, grade the work’s quality, or independently verify the developer’s statement.
Does a game with no AI disclosure guarantee that it is AI-free?
No. The survey targets a defined category of generated content; the absence of a store-page disclosure cannot by itself establish that no AI was used in any part of production. Nor does the absence alone prove that a developer has broken Steam’s rules. Players should avoid treating missing information as proof about a particular game without independent evidence.
A 2026 Flockbay report provides one limited view of how often disclosures appeared: it counted 1,670 games, or 35.04% of a seeded-random sample of 4,766 Steam releases from January through August 2026, as carrying an AI disclosure. That is a sample, not a census of all Steam releases, and the figure measures disclosures—not independently verified AI use. The Flockbay report should be read with those limits in mind.
How should developers prepare an accurate disclosure?
A concise internal record makes the survey easier to answer and reduces the risk of overlooking content as a project changes. Before submitting the survey, developers can work through this checklist:
- Inventory player-facing material. Include art, audio, narrative, localization, and other generated content that players encounter. Track promotional assets separately where relevant.
- Describe the AI’s contribution. Record whether it generated, transformed, or assisted with the material; avoid substituting a tool list for a description of the content.
- Classify timing. Mark content created during development for shipment as pre-generated and content created while the game runs as live-generated. Record both if both apply.
- For live generation, document safeguards. Explain the guardrails designed to prevent illegal output, including the boundaries that matter to the actual feature.
- Check the build and store page against the answers. Valve says the survey responses are considered alongside the product build and store page. Make sure the description matches what players can encounter and what the page promises.
- Revisit the answers when the feature changes. A new generated asset, live-generation feature, or changed player experience can make an old answer incomplete. If an approved answer needs to change, use Steam Support rather than assuming the approved survey can be edited directly.
Valve recommends allowing at least seven business days before a store page and build need to be ready, to account for review and possible changes. That is general submission guidance, not a special AI-disclosure deadline.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I change a Steam AI disclosure after the game is approved?
Valve says some survey results cannot be edited after the build and store page have been approved. Contact Steam Support, identify the affected survey result and what changed, and explain how a tester can reach the relevant content.
How do I report illegal output from a game with live AI generation?
Valve announced a way to report illegal content inside games that use live-generated AI. That mechanism is specifically described for illegal in-game output; do not assume it is also the route for every concern about a missing or inaccurate store-page disclosure.
Does Steam let developers charge players for live AI generation?
Valve’s survey FAQ discusses managing the expense through the game’s main price or supported options such as microtransactions, subscriptions, or DLC. Developers remain responsible for managing service access and player payment.
How early should I submit a Steam game for review?
Valve recommends submitting the store page and build at least seven business days before they need to be ready, leaving time for review and changes. That is general scheduling guidance rather than an AI-specific rule.