Steam Users Beg for "No AI" Filter as Vibecoders Flood Next Fest

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Steam’s latest Next Fest is being flooded with hastily produced, AI-assisted games, prompting calls for a “No AI” filter on the storefront. Commenters disagree on whether banning or labeling AI use would actually help, noting that many developers already quietly rely on AI tools and that “AI-made” is a poor proxy for quality. The deeper concern is how Steam should handle an overwhelming volume of low-effort titles—AI or not—through better curation, pricing barriers, or improved recommendation and review systems.

Core complaint: AI “slop” flooding Steam Next Fest

  • Many see Steam Next Fest’s front page overrun by low-effort, AI-heavy “vibecoded” games: generic art, bad balance, poor implementation, and little evidence of playtesting or intent.
  • Slop existed pre-AI (asset flips, shovelware), but AI drastically lowers effort and increases volume, overwhelming traditional cues (stock assets, bad copy) people used to avoid bad games.

“No AI” filter vs “No slop” problem

  • A big faction wants a simple “No AI” toggle based on Steam’s existing AI self-disclosure, analogous to content tags. They argue:
    • Consumers have a right to avoid AI-assisted products.
    • Even if 90%+ of games get tagged, they’re fine missing them.
  • Others say “AI” is the wrong axis:
    • Good and bad games exist on both sides of AI use.
    • What people really want is “no low-effort cash grab,” which is much harder to define or detect.

Practical and definitional challenges

  • Where to draw the line: AI for code completion, debugging, art upscaling, placeholder art, DLSS, translations, UI copy, or core assets and design?
  • Some argue almost all modern software uses LLMs somewhere; truly “AI-free” may be near-zero.
  • Self-reporting invites lying; closed-source binaries are hard to audit.
  • If everything ends up tagged “AI,” the label may lose meaning and players will ignore it.

Curation, incentives, and alternative fixes

  • Many see this as a curation and discovery failure, not fundamentally an AI issue. Proposed responses:
    • Stronger human or community curation; better recommendation systems; more visible refund stats or refund rates.
    • Higher listing fees or restored Greenlight-like gatekeeping to raise the effort floor.
    • Richer review dimensions (fun, aesthetics, originality) and rating of demos.
    • Games journalism and independent curators reclaiming a bigger role.
  • Others worry about giving Valve even more gatekeeping power or pricing out poorer devs.

Attitudes toward AI itself

  • Split sentiment:
    • Some view AI as just another tool that can empower solo/indie devs and improve productivity without harming quality.
    • Others see AI as overwhelmingly producing “soulless copycat” content, eroding expectations of quality and artistic integrity, especially in visual art.
  • Several note a “dark forest” dynamic: many devs quietly use AI but won’t admit it due to consumer backlash.