Australia Did It has been in Steam’s approval queue since October 20. The game was rejected on November 5 over a minor issue with a controller input, which was fixed that same day, but its developers were still waiting for a response when they spoke with Eurogamer. The delay had already disrupted its release date.
The backlog turns a routine publishing step into a scheduling uncertainty. Valve acknowledges that the process is delayed and that the wait can reach 12 business days, but it has not confirmed that the increase in AI-created games is the cause. For studios, the difference between a review resolved in a few days and one that drags on for weeks is not administrative: it can shift a release and throw its campaign off schedule.
A queue already disrupting announced release dates
Australia Did It, developed by Rami Ismail and Aesthetician Labs, was scheduled to launch on November 10. Its publisher, Mystic Forge, explained on the Steam forums that the team was still waiting for final approval and did not know when it would arrive. Ismail told Eurogamer that he used to allow 10 to 14 days before launch to receive feedback, make corrections, and publish on time.
It is not an isolated case. TwoMenGames had to remove the release date for Amazing Slot Survivor (A.S.S.), which was due out on November 13; the demo became available again while the studio looks for another date. Bottled by Bears and Food Devils are also among the affected projects. In October, Caravarn Carnage: Fruity Road waited from the 16th until it received approval on November 1; Ashen Legacy faced a similar delay before a launch scheduled for November 6, according to Kotaku.
In other cases, the impact has already resulted in late launches. Lacey’s Flash Games came out four days late and Wheel Make It three weeks late, according to Kotaku. In the latter case, the first rejection was because the review team could not figure out how to access local co-op, which is played by sharing a keyboard. The episode shows that not all extra time is due to a complex evaluation: it can also stem from an instruction the studio needs to clarify, after which the game goes back for review.
Valve’s explanation and suspicions about AI
Valve attributes much of the delay to builds that need to be reviewed again. The company said it normally aims to test each build within three to five business days, but that it can now take up to 12. It added that its workload has increased significantly in recent months and that it has been adjusting the process to meet demand.
It has also added checks to the submission instructions. PC Gamer reported on a new checklist that asks developers, among other things, to run the game through Steam for at least five minutes, check the required redistributables, and verify that cloud saves and achievements work. The store page must include at least five gameplay screenshots, according to that report. Valve says these checks are intended to reduce submissions that come back with problems and help more builds pass on the first try.
Meanwhile, several developers link the backlog to the rise in low-quality games made using generative AI. Kotaku noted that around 4,000 games were released on Steam in October and that nearly half disclosed some use of AI during development. It also reported that, by mid-October, more games had already launched on Steam in 2026 than in all of 2025, although two and a half months of the year remained. These figures help describe the volume, but they do not prove that AI caused the approval delays.
“If sloppers can submit several game clones a day through automated systems, the only way for Valve to stem the tide of games damaging genuine developers' work is to put constraints on game distribution, increase fees, or make the process more complicated.”
— Rami Ismail, developer
Valve has not publicly linked the delay to AI. The company has allowed the vast majority of games that use the technology since 2024 and changed its disclosure policy this year: developers must report its use in specific cases, such as content generation. In another statement, a Valve representative said the company does not want to decide which tools developers can use. That caution contrasts with Ismail’s concern: if the platform needs to curb automated clones, he fears it will end up imposing restrictions that also make publishing more difficult for legitimate studios.
The cost of not knowing when a game will be published
For a small team, an announced date coordinates more than the game’s release. It lets the team notify the community, organize communications, and plan the work leading up to launch. If approval is delayed, the campaign loses synchronization: players ask when the game is coming out, the press cannot always receive complete keys, and the visibility associated with the store page may weaken.
The case of Food Devils illustrates the financial risk. Studio Daimon, the Italian studio developing it, has nine people and has spent four years working on the game. Its director, Alfred Kamon, told Kotaku that the team needs the revenue before the end of the year and that Steam pays with a one-month delay. Not being able to publish soon, therefore, does not just shift a calendar date: it can put pressure on the cash flow of a studio that is counting on those sales.
The delay also reduces the room to choose a launch window. Kamon said Food Devils was due to launch on November 5, but the team moved the release earlier after learning that Ocarina of Time would be released that day. If the review prevents the team from sticking to its plan, the studio may end up competing with bigger releases it had tried to avoid. This is not a choice between equivalent dates: the original decision already accounted for the attention major releases attract.
The challenge of moderation without holding back indies
Valve has to process more submissions and, according to its explanation, some of them are sent back for review. A stricter checklist can reduce avoidable errors and speed up approval for complete builds. But it also shifts more responsibility to developers: carefully preparing each test does not eliminate uncertainty about when a response will arrive or how long a new review will take.
The alternative Ismail proposes—restricting distribution, raising fees, or making the process more complicated—shows the potential cost of responding to clones with general rules. Measures designed to curb automated submissions could add obstacles for small teams that already follow the process and fix the issues identified. For now, Valve has made no decision in that direction: it is the risk the developer describes if the company tries to tackle the problem without a specific response on AI.
Steamworks documentation lists specific requirements for the store page and build: the game must launch on the listed operating systems, advertised features must be present, and screenshots must represent the game. The new emphasis on testing through Steam adds a practical check to that process. For teams, meeting it can prevent a rejection over basic issues, but it is not a reliable schedule while Valve acknowledges that reviews are delayed.
In addition to approval, affected developers are asking for clear timelines. Kamon told Kotaku he would prefer the interface to warn that the wait could last weeks, rather than guide studios with a three-to-five-day window. Valve has acknowledged the delay and says it is adjusting its process; it has not yet confirmed that the volume of AI games is the source of the backlog. In the meantime, the next release may depend on a review whose response date the studio does not know.
Sources: GamesIndustry.biz, Eurogamer.net, Kotaku, Steamworks, PC Gamer
