Support us on Patreon
PayPalWith the increasing amount of games using AI, Epic Game's Tim Sweeney believes the AI messages on stores like Steam make no sense.
Currently, if a game that's released on Steam uses generative AI in some way, it needs to be disclosed. Developers have to go through a content survey on their games to detail things like mature content and AI use. From Valve's own public rules on it as a reminder first:
If your game used AI services during development or incorporates AI services as a part of the product, this section will require you to describe that implementation in detail:
- Pre-Generated: Any kind of content (art/code/sound/etc) created with the help of AI tools during development. Under the Steam Distribution Agreement, you promise Valve that your game will not include illegal or infringing content, and that your game will be consistent with your marketing materials. In our prerelease review, we will evaluate the output of AI generated content in your game the same way we evaluate all non-AI content - including a check that your game meets those promises.
- Live-Generated: Any kind of content created with the help of AI tools while the game is running. In addition to following the same rules as Pre-Generated AI content, this comes with an additional requirement - in the Content Survey, you'll need to tell us what kind of guardrails you're putting on your AI to ensure it's not generating illegal content.
You've probably seen the notices buried at the bottom of Steam store pages, like this one for Stellaris from Paradox Interactive:
Which you can make much bigger and clearer so you don't miss them with a browser plugin covered here on GamingOnLinux recently.
Jumping into the discussion now is Epic Game's CEO Tim Sweeney, posting a reply to someone on X (Twitter):
It's no surprise that Sweeney is in favour of it, with games like Fortnite previously using AI like being able to chat with Darth Vader.
The situation with generative AI is evolving constantly, but even Sweeney here notes there are rights issues. To be more specific: a lot of the generative AI models used everywhere are trained on material without the permission of the original author of various works. There's been many lawsuits on it to the point that I don't think I need to rehash any of that here - they're all reported on constantly in depth elsewhere.
Even if it does end up everywhere, it's still a good thing to know how it's being used - isn't it? It's a discussion that swings wildly between camps. AI slop makers and people in favour of AI generation will naturally not want these types of notices and will fight against them, while the other side no doubt value seeing the notice to make more informed purchasing decisions.
One thing is for sure - generative AI is complicating everything and companies are repeatedly enshittifying their products with generative AI, and it's going to continue on for some time.
What are your thoughts on the AI disclosures? Leave a comment.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
See more from me
You can also find comments for this article on social media: 
Last edited by rea987 on 27 Nov 2025 at 6:08 pm UTC
People tell me AI will be everywhere, but then people tell windows is everywhere.
Maybe, but not here, and i am thankful for that. :)
Mountain Man 2 hours ago
Quoting: ArehandoroIf a game uses AI models that have been trained on material without the content of their authors (Spoiler, all of them) I consider that game to be built illegally, and as such, I will obtain it and play it via "illegal" methods.That is one of the dumber excuses for piracy I've come across. If a game uses generative AI, but you still want to play it, then pay your money and play it legally. Otherwise, stand on principle and don't play it at all.
I'm not sure I see the point of his objection, anyway. Like, PEGI-13 games are ubiquitous, guess there's no point age-rating games.
Kimyrielle 27 minutes ago
It makes even less sense considering that in, say, 2-3 years from here, even experts will probably be unable to tell if an asset is AI generated or not, which will render the remaining discussion about whether or not to put labels on it, obsolete, too.
My personal take: We should start embracing what cannot be stopped anyway, and rather talk about how to compensate artists, writers and coders for using their assets for AI training. That's the real issue, at least in my opinion.
Uh, that's not a great take, tbh. "It's gonna happen, so just accept it"? Nah.
Maybe you're right about the coding element. Despite evidence that using AI tools for development actually slows you down, that's only true for experienced developers. A lot of indie studios are probably using genAI tools built into their integrated development environments (IDE) and you're right, that ship has probably sailed. After all, who's going to champion all the GPL licenses they stomped on to train that model?
However, art, music and voice acting are a whole 'nother story. These AI assets are very much not only built on non-attributed, probably copyrighted work, but when they're used in a game, they're also actively putting artists, musicians and voice actors out of work.
I'm not having that. So these disclosures are extremely important (to me).
How to setup OpenMW for modern Morrowind on Linux / SteamOS and Steam Deck
How to install Hollow Knight: Silksong mods on Linux, SteamOS and Steam Deck