According to TechSpot, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is challenging Steam’s approach to labeling games that use generative AI. Valve introduced a formal policy in early 2024 requiring developers to disclose AI usage, with visible ‘AI-generated content’ tags appearing on store pages like Nexon’s Arc Raiders. Sweeney argues these labels make no sense for consumer game stores, comparing AI to other standard development tools like compilers and physics engines. He believes AI will soon be embedded in nearly every part of game production, making special disclosures meaningless. The disagreement comes amid ongoing legal battles about whether training data scraped from the internet infringes artists’ rights. Valve’s disclosure rules appear designed to insulate the platform from this legal uncertainty.
The philosophical divide
Here’s the thing – this isn’t just about labels. It’s a fundamental disagreement about how we should think about AI in creative work. Sweeney sees AI as just another tool in the chain, no different from Photoshop filters or procedural generation. But Valve’s approach suggests they see it as something special, something consumers have a right to know about before purchasing.
And honestly? Both sides have a point. When every game uses AI for something – whether it’s upscaling textures, generating dialogue trees, or creating background music – does labeling it actually help consumers? Or does it just create unnecessary stigma around what’s becoming standard practice?
The legal backdrop
You can’t ignore the elephant in the room here. Valve didn’t just wake up one day and decide to add AI labels for fun. They’re covering their bases while courts figure out whether training AI models on copyrighted material actually infringes rights. Media companies are already suing AI vendors, and nobody knows how this will shake out.
Steam’s approach is basically: “We’ll make developers disclose everything, then it’s on them if there are legal issues.” Epic’s stance is more: “This is the new normal, let’s not treat it as exceptional.” It’s a classic case of established platform versus disruptive newcomer, even though Epic’s store has been around for years now.
What this means for developers
For smaller teams, Sweeney’s vision is pretty appealing. AI tools can level the playing field, giving indie developers access to capabilities that used to require massive art or writing departments. He’s described scenarios where AI generates context-sensitive dialogue while human voice actors guide the process – not replacing creatives, but augmenting them.
But here’s the question: if consumers start avoiding games with AI labels, does that defeat the purpose? Some players genuinely care about supporting human-created content, and they’re willing to pay for it. Steam’s labels give them that choice, while Epic’s approach would take it away.
Where this is headed
I think Sweeney is probably right about one thing – AI will become so ubiquitous that labeling it will eventually feel like labeling games that “use electricity” or “were made with computers.” But we’re not there yet. We’re in that awkward transitional period where some people see AI as magical and revolutionary, while others see it as ethically problematic.
The real test will be whether regulation or consumer pressure forces platforms to maintain transparency. If enough gamers demand to know which games use AI-generated assets, storefronts will have to comply regardless of what CEOs like Sweeney think. For now, it’s fascinating to watch two major players in PC gaming take such different approaches to the same technological shift.
