Steam block cleared by developer

Steam’s problem here was not piracy in the usual sense. It was paperwork. A solo developer put his own older creations into a new game, Steam flagged the material as possible third-party IP, and the store review process stalled until he could prove he had the rights. The weird part — and the reason people are talking about it — is that he solved it by licensing the work to himself. ### Who is involved here? The developer is Daikichi_EMP, a Japanese indie creator working on WIRED TOKYO 2007, an anime-style 3D climbing game. The snag came from references in the game and store assets to two board games, Second Best and DinoStone. Those games were also his work, tied to his board-game circle Board Game Teikoku, but Steam’s reviewers treated them as potentially separate third-party property. (automaton-media.com) ### What actually got blocked? This was the game’s demo and store review path, not some broad account ban. Steam requires a store page and build review before release, and that review can stop a launch if something looks off. In this case, the issue was potential infringement tied to assets and in-game references, so the demo got stuck in review limbo instead of moving forward normally. (automaton-media.com) ### Why wasn’t “I made both” enough? Because platforms do not really review intent — they review risk. If a developer name, a publisher label, and an older property name do not line up cleanly, the platform wants something formal it can point to later. Daikichi said his explanation was rejected and that Steam wanted stronger proof, including license agreements or even a legal opinion explaining why no license was needed. For a small developer, that is a brutal ask. (automaton-media.com) ### So what did he do? He made the missing paper trail himself. The document he shared says, in effect, that the person behind Board Game Teikoku and the person behind Daikichi_EMP are the same real individual, and that one side grants the other perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive rights to use the IP. He also stated that he accepted full legal responsibility and signed under penalty of perjury. Valve then cleared the demo on May 9. (automaton-media.com) ### Why would that work? Basically, Steam needed a legible ownership chain. A self-license sounds absurd, but it creates exactly that — a written record connecting the asset owner, the developer identity, and the game being submitted. That fits the broader logic of copyright systems, where signed declarations and identity details matter a lot, and where false claims carry legal risk. Valve’s own DMCA form leans heavily on real names, ownership assertions, and penalty-of-perjury language for the same reason. (automaton-media.com) ### Is this a DMCA case? Not exactly, at least from what is public. This looks more like a Steam review and proof-of-rights problem than a formal takedown fight. But the same basic pressure shows up in both places — the platform wants documentation, not just a story, because it does not want to guess wrong on ownership. (automaton-media.com) ### Why are other indies paying attention? Because a lot of solo developers reuse art, logos, fictional brands, prototypes, or older side-project material across different aliases and tiny labels. In real life, that is normal. In platform review systems, it can look messy. The Daikichi workaround is funny, but the catch is serious — if you do not keep clean records, you can end up needing legal-style proof for your own stuff. (automaton-media.com) ### Bottom line? This was a tiny Steam story, but it lands because it shows how automated or checklist-heavy moderation sees creators — not as one person with a messy history, but as a chain of rights that has to be documented. Daikichi got through by turning “trust me” into paper. For small developers, that is the real lesson. (automaton-media.com)