Thursday, June 25th 2026
Epic Games CEO Calls Steam AI Disclosure "Irresponsible"
Epic Games CEO, Tim Sweeney, has a reputation for his hot takes on the gaming industry, and he has previously been vocal about both the perceived benefits of AI in gaming and his criticisms of its detractors. Now, the executive has expanded on his prior comments about Valve's mandatory generative AI disclosure, which he previously said "makes no sense for game stores," in a new interview with PC Gamer. These comments follow the recent announcement that Unreal Engine 5.8 and Unreal Engine 6 will add more generative AI features to the game engine. Addressing the question of AI art and how it may be more of a PR problem, Tim Sweeney said that "it's just a question of adaptation of tools, because there's nothing like a prompt-to-game solution on the horizon that anybody expects will work," going on to explain that artists at Epic Games are already using generative AI to "reduce the drudge work," referring to some of the more tedious parts of the 3D modelling and texturing process.
He goes on to advocate for using AI, stating that "it's impossible to reconcile the idea that developers shouldn't use productivity-improving tools with the state of the industry." He goes on to explain that how you go about creating an in-game asset isn't important, and that "you might spend a million dollars modeling a flower pot to get the most detailed flower pot creatable by humanity, but you could also scan a flower pot with a very high resolution camera," and that "the value is not in creating a perfect flower pot...the real value is in building the scene and building the game and building the narrative." Ultimately, his argument is that AI makes it cheaper to make games and in-game assets, but he argues that "it's unfortunate that so many developers are put into this position. If you want to launch a game and get it as widely publicized as possible, you've got to put it on Steam...then you have to get this Scarlet Letter of AI attached to your product, and now there is a hater community trying to kill the game." He calls Valve's AI disclosure "irresponsible" and says that it makes it "much, much, much harder for a game developer to have a chance of success."
Sweeney's comments follow a recent analysis that saw AI games on Steam sell as many as 53% less units, so his argument that the tech deters players may hold water, however, it should also be mentioned that the aforementioned analysis also found that the backlash was worse when it was a large studio using AI, and that players frequently reviewed games made with AI more negatively. Anecdotally, there have also been several instances of backlash against successful games using AI art for final assets or during the development process, and several indie game developers have spoken out against the use of generative AI, including Pocketpair and Fireshine Games. The developer of Vampire Survivors also recently announced that it would be reconsidering its collaboration with Fortnite after Epic Games showed off an AI-heavy workflow on social media.
Despite his positive attitudes towards AI art, Tim Sweeney seemingly does not think that AI can replace artists in the game development pipeline, with the CEO commenting that "You're not going to create good art by giving a computer a prompt and having it spit out a mesh. You're going to get good art by an awesome artist using all of the tools available to make it."
Source:
Tim Sweeney via PC Gamer
He goes on to advocate for using AI, stating that "it's impossible to reconcile the idea that developers shouldn't use productivity-improving tools with the state of the industry." He goes on to explain that how you go about creating an in-game asset isn't important, and that "you might spend a million dollars modeling a flower pot to get the most detailed flower pot creatable by humanity, but you could also scan a flower pot with a very high resolution camera," and that "the value is not in creating a perfect flower pot...the real value is in building the scene and building the game and building the narrative." Ultimately, his argument is that AI makes it cheaper to make games and in-game assets, but he argues that "it's unfortunate that so many developers are put into this position. If you want to launch a game and get it as widely publicized as possible, you've got to put it on Steam...then you have to get this Scarlet Letter of AI attached to your product, and now there is a hater community trying to kill the game." He calls Valve's AI disclosure "irresponsible" and says that it makes it "much, much, much harder for a game developer to have a chance of success."
Despite his positive attitudes towards AI art, Tim Sweeney seemingly does not think that AI can replace artists in the game development pipeline, with the CEO commenting that "You're not going to create good art by giving a computer a prompt and having it spit out a mesh. You're going to get good art by an awesome artist using all of the tools available to make it."
94 Comments on Epic Games CEO Calls Steam AI Disclosure "Irresponsible"
And yes, this reminds me of another similar case, since it’s similar:
Literally the meme where all companies are shooting their faces off with a shotgun and Valve/Steam is looking at everyone in disbelief.
Its a complete shitshow, and the real damage is yet to come. I've been looking at an interpreter to read out 'damage report documents' and the success rate is high... but the performance is absolutely dreadful, so you have to place this in an overnight process or something asynchronous. Basically, we're not giving the AI performance KPIs, we're just going with the flow because 'this is how the thing works'. And that's not even including all the fringe cases; for example uploading several documents in one file, uploading holiday pics instead, etc. Its going to be good fun seeing the investment at the end of this shitstorm and the actual gains.
Madness. I remember companies telling their service providers what they can and can't do and how long they want that to take. SLAs and shit. But with AI? All bets are off.
And, let's keep in mind to enable this we 'need' many square km worth of datacenters, extreme energy and water usage, on a planet getting scarce on said resources. Something's gonna give.
Because that's what's next, the collective epiphany that all these engines are in fact propaganda machines. Technology is never neutral and already the evidence is piling up.
All big tech needs is a drop in the ocean and the butterfly effect will do the rest, because every AI is simply copying its own output ad infinitum as it gets reinforced by all the questions it gets asked. Its a complete paradox and it can only work for a short while before it starts showing flaw upon flaw.
EG1. It's a real quote btw, he just didn't use airplanes (obviously) but ships and navigators.
Google also told me that the 8700G is the best Socket AM4 APU. And also that The Expanse: Osiris Reborn is coming in October 2025 (when I asked it was already November).
it’s really odd to complain about transparency…People hate generative AI in arts, voice, creativity in general (design me a final boss for my game), even if it’s going to be modified afterwards it just looks bad and is extremely generic. It’s a fact otherwise people wouldn’t even realize it was slop to begin with
If Epic thinks people are going to line-up for a UE6 game whose assets were all or in great part generated by a black box they are the irresponsible one…and can’t imagine the intellectual property turmoil behind those assets
There’s a world of difference between helping artists and develops and replacing artists and developers..
The same goes to the minuscule parts, like the lonely plant in the dark corner, that nobody sees. But it takes couple of times to make it with "A.I.", and then this habit/pattern transfers on other, critical parts.
And yes, the publishers, and studios, were complaining about piracy for more than tree decades, and how criminal is to try the game before purchase, because there no effin demos anymore. But if they use the AI, that has stolen the work of an entire world, its fine. It doesn't add up.
But... replacing creative work with AI is a big no from me. Art is meant to convey thoughts and feelings. What kind of feelings can I get from an AI that doesn't even understand its own answers to my questions?
it’s great to have a human VA giving humanity, a personality to a character but AI can modulate the voice of an actual human to make it sound robotic, inside a submarine etc there’s real possible benefits but people are just obsessed with replacing the humans in the art where it should be the center
Would this make these Games not at least partially pirated?
ARRRR...
In my opinion, the only valid arguments against GenAI for game assets are that they're going to displace human work (short-term), kill human-made artwork (long-term), eventually make people dependent on the goodwill of large companies to provide their AI services/models at affordable costs and without strings attached.
Until recently most people never cared about how game assets were being created or retrieved, except for obvious "asset flip" cases. It's just that now being against "AI" is hip.
Sad.