According to The Verge, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has publicly stated that Valve’s Steam store should stop requiring developers to disclose when their games use AI-generated assets. Sweeney’s argument is that AI tools are becoming ubiquitous in development, making such labels pointless. He specifically contrasted this with Epic’s own store policy, which doesn’t mandate these disclosures. This puts the two dominant PC game storefronts at odds on a key policy issue. The immediate impact is a clearer philosophical divide in how platforms view AI’s role in creative work. And it’s sparking a much bigger debate than just about checkboxes.
The Real AI Debate Isn’t About Tools
Here’s the thing: Sweeney has a point, but it’s not the whole story. He’s right that AI is already everywhere in the dev pipeline. Think about it. Advanced autocomplete in code editors? That’s AI. Procedural generation tools that have been around for years? That’s a form of AI. Flagging every instance would be ridiculous. But that’s not what most gamers are worried about, and I think that’s where the “indieman” comment from the source nails it. People aren’t scared of AI-assisted coding. They’re terrified of AI slop—bland, derivative artwork and soulless, procedurally-generated text that makes a game feel cheap and hollow.
Coding Vs. Creativity: A Critical Distinction
So, is there a difference between using AI for code and for art? Absolutely. Using an AI to help debug a tricky function or write boilerplate backend code is about efficiency. It’s a tool to solve a technical problem, much like a more powerful compiler. The creative vision remains human. Outsourcing the entire artistic direction or narrative to a machine is a fundamentally different proposition. It’s often about cost-cutting and replacing human creative expression. One augments the developer; the other aims to replace the artist and writer. That’s a distinction worth making, even if the line gets blurry.
steam-s-policy-might-stick-around”>Why Steam’s Policy Might Stick Around
Valve’s disclosure policy, while clunky, is likely a reaction to the legal and ethical minefield AI art is currently traversing. It’s a CYA move. By forcing disclosure, they’re putting the onus on the developer to ensure they have the rights to the training data and the outputs. For a platform as large and risk-averse as Steam, that makes business sense. Epic, as the challenger, can afford to be more laissez-faire to attract developers frustrated by Steam’s rules. Basically, this isn’t just a philosophical debate; it’s a competitive strategy. Epic is using this as a wedge issue to position its store as the more developer-friendly option, especially for smaller teams dabbling in AI tools.
The Ubiquitous Future Is Coming
Sweeney is probably correct that AI will be woven into everything, and explicit labels will become meaningless. But we’re not there yet. Right now, the label acts as a signal—fair or not—of a game’s potential quality for a segment of consumers. It’s a proxy for the fear that a game is asset-flip slop made with minimal human effort. The real solution won’t be removing labels. It’ll be the market deciding. Gamers will vote with their wallets, and truly great games that use AI thoughtfully will force us to refine our biases. The bad, lazy AI slop will just get ignored, which is what should happen anyway.
