The war between Epic Games and Valve has found another battlefield, and this time artificial intelligence is at the center of the controversy. Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, has once again criticized Steam's policies, describing its requirement to disclose the use of generative AI as “abhorrent.”
His argument is that forcing developers to reveal this information exposes them to online harassment and could damage their chances of commercial success. But is transparency really the problem, or is the industry struggling to accept that players want to know how their games are made?
The controversy is nothing new. Since January 2024, Steam has required developers to disclose certain uses of generative AI in their games, particularly when the technology creates content that players can experience. The objective is to provide consumers with information about what they are buying, rather than leaving them to guess whether images, dialogue, voices, or other elements were generated using artificial intelligence.
Sweeney sees things differently. According to the Epic Games executive, these declarations can become a weapon against studios, allowing hostile communities to target games simply because they used AI during production. In his view, forcing developers to make such disclosures creates unnecessary risks in an industry where competition is already fierce and production costs continue to rise.
There is a reasonable concern hidden inside that argument. Not every application of artificial intelligence is identical. Using AI to accelerate repetitive tasks is very different from generating an entire soundtrack, replacing artists, or producing assets based on questionable training practices. Treating every possible use as equally controversial would make little sense, and developers should not automatically be judged for adopting new technology.
However, that does not mean Steam's approach is inherently wrong. Players have legitimate reasons to care about how the products they purchase are created. Some may welcome AI-generated content, while others prefer games built through traditional artistic processes. Giving consumers relevant information allows them to make their own decisions instead of leaving that choice entirely in the hands of publishers.
The debate becomes even more interesting when we consider Epic's own direction. The company is increasingly embracing AI across its development tools and future plans, including its ambitions for Unreal Engine. Sweeney believes these technologies will become an essential part of game production, improving productivity and helping developers compete in an increasingly demanding market.
That prediction might prove correct. Artificial intelligence could help smaller teams build ambitious projects, automate tedious tasks, and experiment with ideas that would otherwise require enormous resources. Yet greater efficiency does not automatically guarantee better games, nor does technological progress eliminate the need for accountability.
There is also an uncomfortable question surrounding Epic's criticism: if transparency threatens a game's commercial prospects, should the solution be to hide the information or to improve the way AI is used? Online harassment is a real concern, but removing disclosure requirements would not necessarily solve it. It could simply leave consumers with fewer tools to understand the products they support.
Ultimately, this dispute reflects a much larger conflict over the future of game development. AI is advancing faster than the industry's rules and public expectations can adapt, and neither complete rejection nor unconditional acceptance offers an easy answer.
Steam's policy may need refinement as technology evolves, but transparency should not automatically be treated as an attack on developers. If AI is destined to become a standard part of gaming, the industry will need to establish how it can be used responsibly. Players deserve information, developers deserve fair treatment, and neither principle should have to disappear for the other to survive.
