As Steam Next Fest opened on October 19, 2026, players began asking Valve for a way to filter out games that use AI-generated content, and IGN reported that this festival seemed to have more low-effort entries than usual. A Reddit user quoted by IGN wrote that they enjoy the Discovery Queue but want to "filter out all games that have AI-Generated content in them (after all, steam already requires you to disclose it)." IGN notes a filter "wouldn't be a huge lift," but Valve would have to add an AI tag, having cut the number of user-defined tags in May.
This post covers what Valve already requires, why a filter is harder than it looks, what Hacker News commenters said, and what players and developers can do now. Facts come from IGN's report and Valve's own AI Content on Steam post. It is part of a larger pattern: we covered Spotify removing 50 million slop tracks and Epic calling its new launcher vibe coded.
TL;DR
| Question | Short answer |
|---|---|
| What happened? | Players say Next Fest, which started October 19, 2026, is full of AI-looking games; some ask for a no-AI filter |
| Is there a filter? | Not reported as of IGN's October 19 article |
| What does Valve require? | AI content disclosure, per Valve's January 2024 post and the IGN report |
| Why not just filter? | IGN says Valve would need an AI tag; tag limits, definitions and enforcement are open |
| Why more AI games now? | IGN links it to Claude Opus 5.5 and a wave of decompilation and mashup mods; no count given |
| Has Valve responded? | We found no Valve statement on a filter |
What players are saying
IGN quotes three Reddit users. One, ScalesGhost, wants Discovery Queue personalization with an AI-content exclusion and tag exclusions such as Incremental Games. Another, EmmaBooney, says it is "all AI slop" and they do not want to participate. A third, aesoprowwy, hopes engagement metrics drop due to "the overabundance of vibe coded games being featured" and that Steam implements stricter submission guidelines.
IGN's senior tech editor Jacqueline Thomas adds context: Next Fest has always had low-effort games, Valve has long taken a laissez-faire approach to curation and relies on its algorithm to boost popular titles and bury the rest, and this festival "does seem worse than previous events." Her practical advice is to ignore the event for a couple of days until popular demos rise.
IGN also ties the moment to industry shifts: Epic delaying a Star Wars shooter to pursue an "AI-first" direction, Epic's CEO saying the company vibe coded its store launcher, and Capcom using AI in its REX program to improve its RE Engine. Those are IGN's characterizations; see our Epic launcher post for what Epic actually said.
What Valve already requires
On January 9, 2024, Valve published "AI Content on Steam" for Steamworks developers, describing how it handles games made with AI. Per the IGN article and the community discussion it cites, developers must disclose AI-generated content when they submit a game, and that disclosure is shown to customers. We could not extract the full text of Valve's page in our tools, so check it directly for the categories and the treatment of live-generated content.
That disclosure is why a filter feels simple: the data exists. The gaps are in how it is stored and used. A disclosure that appears as a paragraph on a store page is not the same as a structured field that the Discovery Queue or search can exclude. If Valve exposed it as a tag or filter, players could hide games that disclose AI use. It would not catch games that do not disclose.
Why a filter is harder than it sounds
- Definitions. "AI content" covers a lot: concept art, voice lines, code completion, a vibe-coded prototype, live LLM dialogue. A single toggle collapses very different cases. Many studios use AI code assistants; few players would want those games hidden.
- Enforcement. A filter is only as good as the disclosure. Developers who want to hide AI use have an incentive to omit it, and verifying is costly. One Hacker News commenter, yipinwong, noted that "trust but verify" would require Valve to build human or AI verification at low return on investment (comment).
- Tags. IGN reports Valve reduced user-defined tags in May, so any AI tag would need to be Valve-defined rather than community-applied.
- Incentives. Next Fest is meant to showcase demos. A filter changes who gets traffic, and developers who use AI disclose less if they fear exclusion.
- Moderation of quality, not tools. The complaint is often about low effort, not the tool. A filter on tools may not fix quality.
What Hacker News said
The HN discussion of the IGN story (about 50 points when we checked) leaned toward nuance:
- rivetfasten argued that "ban Z" is not a thoughtful answer to "Z created a problem," calling blanket bans a lazy solution (comment).
- yipinwong pointed out the verification cost for Valve (comment).
- j45 compared AI-built games to the shift from assembler to higher-level languages and said many people are drawn to imagining building their own games (comment).
These are individual opinions, not data. They do show the split: players want discoverability tools; developers worry about stigma and about drawing the line.
Four ways Valve could respond
These are our options, not anything Valve has said.
| Option | How it works | Upside | Downside |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opt-out filter | Hide games whose disclosure says they contain AI content | Simple and fast; uses data Valve already collects | Blunt; misses undisclosed use; stigmatizes light use |
| Granular tags | Separate tags for AI art, AI voice, AI code, live generation | Matches how players actually object | More work for developers and reviewers; definitions disputes |
| Festival quality gate | Stricter review for Next Fest entries | Targets the event where the complaint arose | Slower, and may exclude real small teams |
| Algorithm only | Keep relying on wishlists, reviews and engagement | No new rules | Does not address the discoverability complaint during the first days of an event |
A granular approach seems closest to the complaint in the quoted posts. Players are not describing a problem with a developer using autocomplete; they are describing storefront art and demos that look generated and thin. A tag distinguishing "generated art or assets shipped in the game" from "AI used in development tools" would capture the difference, at the cost of extra categories for Valve to define and police.
Any approach has to reckon with scale. If AI coding agents lower the effort of producing a submission, the volume of games entering stores will keep rising, and every store, not only Steam, will face the same question of whether to label, rank down or remove. Platforms outside games have taken different paths, and the comparison is useful: music services have tended to remove or demote at scale, while Steam's tradition has been to label and let customers decide. Which of those models holds up when submissions double again is the real test.
What changed: cheaper creation, same shelf space
The supply side matters. When a capable coding model can turn a prompt into a playable prototype in an afternoon, the number of submissions grows faster than any store's ability to curate. We have seen the creative side in friendslop browser games built with Claude Opus 5.5 and the legally murky side in AI-decompiled game ports. Spotify's case, where it removed tens of millions of low-quality tracks, shows one platform's answer: remove and downrank rather than label. Valve's historical answer is the algorithm: let wishlists, reviews and engagement sort.
What players and developers can do now
Players
- Use wishlists and follow developers or curators you trust, rather than browsing the full festival list.
- Read the AI disclosure section on a store page before wishlisting.
- Give feedback to Valve through the platform's feedback channels and community posts; filter requests are most useful when they describe what you want to exclude (undisclosed AI art, for example) rather than all AI.
Developers
- Disclose accurately. Under-disclosing risks trust and, potentially, store action.
- Say how you used AI: assisted code, generated placeholder art that you replaced, or final assets. Specifics read better than a checkbox.
- Make sure the demo has a distinct, human-directed design identity. Players say they are reacting to sameness and low effort.
What to watch
- A Valve statement on a filter or an AI tag.
- Whether Valve changes Next Fest rules, such as stricter submission review for festival entries.
- Any measurement of how many Next Fest entries disclose AI use; right now the discussion rests on impressions.
- Platform comparisons: how other stores treat disclosure.
This post reflects IGN's October 19, 2026 report, Valve's 2024 post, and Hacker News comments as of October 20, 2026. We found no Valve statement on a filter.
Related reading
- Spotify removes 50 million slop tracks
- Epic's vibe-coded launcher and the faster-than-Steam claim
- AI-decompiled game ports: Halo, Vice City and Black Ops
- Friendslop browser games built with Claude Opus 5.5
- Video games, cognition and AI cognitive debt
- AI-generated posters and slop prompting
- Sources: IGN, Valve: AI Content on Steam, HN discussion