Abstract:
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney publicly criticized Valve's insistence that games listed on the Steam platform must disclose AI usage, calling this policy "offensive." Epic has previously publicly supported the application of generative AI in game development.
Swinney said: "Forcing developers to write these types of political statements and then using them as weapons against developers by the hate groups they incite is extremely egregious."
Steam's AI disclosure rules require developers who use generative AI in games to clearly state the specific usage scenarios of the AI. For example, the disclosure content of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4" is: "The development team uses generative AI tools to assist in the production of some in-game assets."
As early as November 2025, Sweeney began to oppose the game industry's AI disclosure requirements, saying that under the general trend that "almost all content production in the future will incorporate AI", Valve's approach is illogical.
In June of this year, he went further and compared Steam's AI disclosure requirements to a "scarlet letter brand," insisting that it would "make the road to success for game developers extremely difficult."
Swinney’s latest comments were posted in response to comments from netizen Matt Workman. Workman's personal profile on the X platform shows that he works for Fal, a generative media cloud service provider, and is responsible for "content and user atmosphere operations." Workman believes that "requiring disclosure of AI-generated content by 2026 is a ridiculous premise and is really embarrassing for Valve and Steam." Sweeney obviously agrees with this.
Since this month, Epic Games and Sweeney have frequently made high-profile statements on the topic of generative AI in the gaming and development fields. Last week, when Epic introduced the revised PC client, it joked: "Our Epic Game Store is based on atmosphere code."
Just yesterday, Epic announced it would hold an Unreal Engine game creation competition - this type of competition requires contestants to complete game development in a short period of time. The original competition rules mandated the use of AI by contestants and also promised unlimited intelligent agent support. Epic subsequently withdrew this rigid requirement, and the updated rules stated that "the amount of AI usage is completely determined by the contestants, and there is no limit to the amount."
On the other hand, the Steam New Product Festival Trial Exhibition has just concluded. The number of AI-assisted games participating in this exhibition has reached a record high. The total number of trial games is almost twice that of the New Product Festival in June 2026. Once Steam's recommendation algorithm took effect, all shoddy AI games quickly fell to the bottom of the list, but the influx of a large number of AI works did make the content of the game store more and more cluttered.
At the same time, some people are using AI to reproduce popular games at record speeds, and copycat versions of popular games will appear almost overnight. Many game developers even choose to cancel the release of their own demo versions, just to reduce the risk of plagiarism.
As expected, Sweeney's latest remarks triggered two common rebuttals in the comment section: If AI is so good, why hide it? If the answer is "because some people hate AI," then what are the reasons why people hate it?
In my opinion, this can exactly explain the undefined "hate group" Sweeney mentioned - at least his expression can easily make people think that all people who oppose or resist AI belong to this group. So, why do people oppose generative AI in games, and why do they want stores to clearly label AI content? Dozens of developers and industry experts have explained the reasons behind it to the media.
From a legal perspective, AI-related copyright issues are full of minefields; from a creative perspective, AI may hollow out the value of the core creative process; from a moral perspective, AI service providers have never responded positively to the environmental impact of this technology, as well as the large-scale misappropriation of copyright-protected content in training materials. More importantly, the AI industry is known for its difficulty in making profits, and leading companies rely on inflated valuations to survive. This top-heavy market has already reached the point where it needs to be adjusted. So far, most of these AI companies have only impacted the consumer hardware market, disrupted the ecosystem of the software industry, and destroyed people's leisure, entertainment and hobby experiences at a time when living costs are high.
In the field of games, most criticisms of AI focus on the generation of assets such as art and music. More developers recognize the auxiliary role of AI in programming, and the Asian game market is generally more accepting of AI than the Western market. However, there are still many studios around the world that are clearly opposed to AI. But even if you think programming today is just about machine-assisted creation—and even Valve co-founder Gabe Newell holds a similar, if more radical, view—it’s not hard to understand why people want to limit the use of AI. The development team of "Deadlock" is also using AI, but interestingly, they have not promoted AI as the core selling point of the entire brand.
To put it bluntly, take a look at Steam’s updated AI disclosure terms, which states: “In addition, AI technology in games is developing rapidly, and we hope to properly handle related issues. Many artists and creators are worried about the exploitative use and abuse of AI, which is completely reasonable. But we also know that technology There will be huge changes in tools and tools in the next few years, and there are many creative game developers who are exploring the ethical use of AI to create high-quality entertainment content. If you plan to release a product on Steam and think we have missed something important in the AI-related rules, please feel free to communicate with us. ”
Comments