Data analyst finds 'AI stigma' on Steam can reduce the number of reviews a game gets by around 53%—and the reviews it does get are more negative

AI Stigma on Steam: A 53% Drop in Reviews for Games Using Generative AI

Since the rise of generative AI and modern chatbots, the ethical implications of their use in game development have sparked endless discussions. However, how does AI fare when viewed from a purely business perspective? According to a recent blog post from Game Oracle, authored by market data analyst Ross Burton, AI stigma can have a tangible impact on player reception and engagement.

The study analyzed a sample of 9,879 games released between January and October 2025, filtering out spam, purely commercial releases, and free-to-play games. While this approach might exclude some popular free-to-play titles and games accused of using undisclosed AI art—such as FragPunk—it still provides a broad overview of the industry. Of the sampled games, 17.9% explicitly disclosed the use of AI in their development.

Overall, AI use was linked to a slightly less enthusiastic reception. Games that did not use AI tended to have more reviews, with fewer of them receiving zero reviews. Moreover, when focusing on games that received at least 100 reviews, the median rating was about 4% lower for those using AI. However, when comparing games that were otherwise similar in terms of publisher, developer experience, and game type, the results were more striking.

The 53% Review Reduction: A Stark Contrast

After controlling for variables like publisher, developer experience, and game type, the data revealed a significant disparity. Developers who used AI saw a ~53% reduction in reviews compared to those who did not. To explain this penalty, an unmeasured factor would need to be strong enough to nearly triple the odds of AI adoption while simultaneously causing a 22% reduction in review counts, independent of publisher backing and developer experience.

The report highlights that the impact of AI stigma was more pronounced for larger, more accomplished developers. It states: "Our data suggests that for low-quality games, AI makes no difference. But for high-potential games, the 'AI Stigma' is real and severely punishes developers who otherwise would have succeeded." This implies that the reputation and expectations surrounding a game can influence how players perceive its use of AI.

Games that extensively used AI and still achieved massive success, such as The Finals, illustrate the nuanced nature of AI adoption. Game Oracle notes that "AI can be used well, or it can be sloppy, and that matters." The study concludes that AI is a tool, not something to be avoided outright. The analogy used is that "Would you avoid using a hammer to build a shed? No, of course not. Just don't go around hitting everything with it."

The Mixed Landscape of AI in Game Development

Despite these findings, the industry remains divided. Many game developers are skeptical of AI's potential as a mere tool, and the landscape has evolved since 2025. For example, Clair Obscur won game of the year awards despite using AI-generated placeholders, and Crimson Desert has already sold millions of copies this year after employing similar techniques. However, with the recent release of Crazy Taxi, it seems that the developer's AI use has been more talked about than the game itself.

The issue is further complicated by the prevalence of undisclosed AI use. Industry figures like Epic CEO Tim Sweeney have pushed back on the need for AI disclaimers, while major studios continue to invest in the technology. Sony, for instance, recently touted AI tools as a means to "unleash the creativity of studios." Given this ongoing investment and support, it’s unlikely these findings will prompt an industry-wide shift in the near future.