Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has publicly criticized Valve for insisting that games listed on the Steam platform must disclose their use of AI, calling the policy "offensive." Previously, Epic had publicly supported the application of generative AI in game development.
Sweeney stated: "Forcing developers to write such political statements, which are then used as weapons against them by hate groups incited by their own hands, is extremely malicious."
Steam's AI disclosure rules require developers using generative AI in their games to clearly specify how AI is used. For example, the disclosure for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 reads: "The development team used generative AI tools to assist in creating some in-game assets."
As early as November 2025, Sweeney began opposing AI disclosure requirements in the gaming industry, arguing that Valve's approach makes no sense given the trend that "almost all content production will incorporate AI in the future."
In June this year, he went further, comparing Steam's AI disclosure requirements to a "scarlet letter," insisting that this would "make the path to success for game developers incredibly difficult."
Sweeney's latest remarks came in response to a comment by Matt Workman. Workman's X profile indicates he works for Fal, a generative media cloud service provider, handling "content and user atmosphere operations." Workman argued that "requiring disclosure of AI-generated content by 2026 is an absurd premise and truly embarrassing for Valve and Steam," a sentiment Sweeney clearly agreed with.
This month, Epic Games and Sweeney have frequently made high-profile statements regarding generative AI in gaming and development. Last week, when introducing the revamped PC client, Epic jokingly stated: "Our Epic Games Store was coded by vibes."
Just yesterday, Epic announced a Unreal Engine game creation contest—events of this type require participants to complete game development within a short timeframe. The initial contest rules mandated the use of AI and promised unlimited intelligent agent support. Epic later withdrew this mandatory requirement, updating the rules to state: "The amount of AI used is entirely up to the participants, with no limits."
On the other hand, the Steam Next Fest demo event has just concluded, with the number of AI-assisted games participating reaching a historic high. The total number of demo games was nearly double that of the June 2026 Next Fest. Once Steam's recommendation algorithms take effect, all poorly made AI games quickly drop to the bottom of the charts, but the influx of numerous AI titles has indeed made the game store's content increasingly cluttered.
Meanwhile, others are using AI to clone popular games at record speeds, with knock-off versions of hit titles appearing almost overnight. Many game developers have even chosen to cancel the release of their own demos just to reduce the risk of plagiarism.
Unsurprisingly, Sweeney's latest remarks sparked two common counterarguments in the comments section: If AI is so great, why hide it? And if the answer is "because some people hate AI," then what are the reasons for their hatred?
In my view, this precisely explains the undefined "hate group" Sweeney referred to—at least his wording easily leads people to believe that anyone who opposes or resists AI belongs 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 this to the media.
Legally, AI-related copyright issues are fraught with pitfalls; creatively, AI may hollow out the value of core creative processes; ethically, AI service providers have yet to adequately address the environmental impact of this technology and the widespread unauthorized use of copyrighted material in training data. More importantly, the AI industry is notoriously difficult to profit from, with leading companies barely maintaining themselves through inflated valuations. This top-heavy market is long overdue for adjustment. So far, these AI companies have mostly only managed to disrupt the consumer hardware market and unsettle the software industry ecosystem, undermining people's leisure, entertainment, and hobby experiences amidst high living costs.
In the gaming industry, criticism of AI mostly focuses on the generation of assets like art and music. More developers acknowledge AI's auxiliary role in programming. The Asian gaming market generally has higher acceptance of AI than Western markets, although many studios worldwide still explicitly oppose it. But even if you consider current programming merely machine-assisted creation—a view shared by Valve co-founder Gabe Newell, who holds an even more radical perspective—it's easy to understand why people want constraints on AI usage. The development team for Deadlock also uses AI, but interestingly, they haven't marketed AI as a core selling point for the brand.
To put it plainly, just look at Steam's updated AI disclosure policy. It states: "Furthermore, AI technology in games is evolving rapidly, and we aim to address related issues appropriately. Many artists and creators are concerned about the exploitative use and misuse of AI, which is entirely reasonable. However, we also recognize that technologies and tools will undergo significant changes in the coming years, and many creative game developers are exploring ethical ways to use AI to produce high-quality entertainment content. If you plan to release a product on Steam and believe we have overlooked important aspects in our AI-related rules, please feel free to communicate with us."