From Award Disqualifications to a New Economy of “Disclosure”

AI is no longer a side topic in games it’s a structural storyline. In 2025, the question changed from “Are studios using AI?” to “How will studios prove what they used, where they used it, and whether it crosses ethical lines players care about?”

Two major news beats an awards controversy and fresh data about Steam revenues—show how fast the rules are shifting.

The Indie Game Awards reversal: a line in the sand

One of the biggest AI-related headlines in games came after the trophies were already handed out. GamesRadar reported that the Indie Game Awards retracted its Game of the Year and Debut Game awards from Clair Obscur: Expedition 33, citing violations of rules that prohibit generative AI in nominated games and describing how the studio ultimately acknowledged AI use during development. 

This is important because it’s not a vague “AI backlash.” It’s governance: a formal institution setting a rule and enforcing it publicly, even when it’s messy. And it sets precedent. If one award body can remove a trophy after the fact, others can too—festivals, showcases, maybe even platform featuring programs.

The point isn’t that one ruling will stop AI use. It’s that the reputational cost can now arrive as a headline.

Steam’s disclosure economy: the money says “AI is spreading anyway”

Then a second story hit with a very different tone. GamesRadar reported that Steam games that openly disclose generative AI use generated an estimated $660 million in 2025, citing analysis that also noted the growing number of games marking AI usage in their disclosures. 

Put these stories together and you get a paradox:

• In some cultural corners, AI use creates backlash and disqualifications.

• In commercial reality, AI-disclosing games can still do big business.

That’s not hypocrisy it’s segmentation. Different audiences care about different things. Some players see AI as a labor issue and an authenticity issue. Others don’t notice or don’t mind if the game is fun.

The coming compromise: “AI credits” and the rise of disclosure norms

The most likely outcome isn’t “AI banned everywhere” or “AI accepted everywhere.” It’s documentation.

Steam already nudges toward disclosure behavior through store policies and developer transparency norms (even if enforcement varies). Awards bodies are starting to set hard rules. That creates pressure for studios to implement internal tracking:

• What assets were generated?

• Were they placeholders or shipped content?

• Were the training data rights-cleared?

• Was localization assisted by AI?

• Were marketing images AI-assisted?

In other words: AI becomes an accounting problem.

Industry leaders are also trying to calm the “AI replaces people” narrative

At the same time, some executives are pushing back against the idea that AI is the driver of layoffs or staff reductions. GamesRadar quoted CD Projekt’s joint CEO arguing that AI isn’t what’s causing job cuts and expressing skepticism that it can replace core creative talent in building large RPGs.

You can read that as reassurance or as positioning. Either way, it shows how sensitive the topic has become. Studios don’t just want AI tools; they want legitimacy for using them.

Why players feel this more than they think

Even if you never read a dev blog, you’ll encounter AI-related outcomes:

• Art styles that feel “smooth but generic.”

• Localization that’s technically correct but emotionally odd.

• More games, faster, with less distinctive voice.

• Or sometimes better tooling that frees teams to do more ambitious things.

The problem is attribution. Players can’t always tell what’s AI and what’s rushed production. That’s why the fight is turning into “prove it.” If a studio can credibly say, “AI did X but humans did Y,” they can protect trust.

What’s next in 2026: policies become content

Expect AI to be discussed the way monetization is discussed now: not as a technical detail, but as a value statement.

• Some studios will brand themselves as “human-made.”

• Others will brand themselves as “AI-accelerated” and compete on speed.

• Platforms and awards will keep refining rules, because controversy is a forcing function.

The real long-term change is that “AI usage” will become part of the public identity of games. Not every game. Not every time. But often enough that it becomes a permanent category in games news right next to delays, patches, and sales.