A couple of days ago, I wrote an article about how researchers discovered an "AI stigma" affecting Steam games that disclose the use of AI during development. For me, the most shocking piece of data revealed that established studios with a positive track record see a "catastrophic" 40% to 60% drop in sales when they use AI.
This stat, as well as others proposed in the research by Ross Burton at Game Oracle, raised a big question that our readers have been discussing in the original post's comment section: Is the perceived AI stigma warranted?
Now, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, who has never been shy about targeting competing PC games storefront Steam, has waded into the same debate.
In a recent interview with PC Gamer, Sweeney offered his opinion about Valve's AI disclosure policy. As Sweeney sees it, these disclosures are a "Scarlet Letter" that results in a "hater community trying to kill the game."
It's a rather harsh comparison, but I'm finding it hard to disagree.
Epic's CEO makes some good points about Steam's AI disclosure policy
Let me preface this: Epic Games does not have a strict AI disclosure policy on games that it sells.
As Sweeney explains, his specific grievance with Steam's AI disclosure policy is that developers who want maximum visibility for their game are essentially required to list it on Steam, such is the power and visibility of Valve's storefront.
When that game is listed on Steam, any AI used during development must be disclosed and displayed on the game's Steam page. As noted, Sweeney sees this as something that can lead to sabotage by those opposed to AI.
It's unfortunate that so many developers now 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 so people can wish list it, and if you want to play 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.
Tim Sweeney, Epic Games CEO (via PC Gamer)
Sweeney explains that this method is "irresponsible of Valve" and that "it makes it much, much harder for a game developer to have a chance of success." Developers are essentially stuck in between two poor choices: not using tools that speed up productivity or using tools that result is a stigma against your product.
The choice that Sweeney highlights here is exactly what the Game Oracle research piece set out to uncover. Sweeney isn't defending AI just because he likes AI. He's defending its use by smaller studios that wouldn't otherwise be able to survive.
The Fortnite example explains a lot
Sweeney unsurprisingly understands that some games fail just because they're junk. Like the Game Oracle study, he posits that it's becoming ever more difficult for developers to compete with massive studios that have seemingly unending budgets.
If you look at a game like Fortnite, we've been improving the game constantly with a large development team for nine years now. Epic has invested billions of dollars into building an awesome content base, not only for ourselves but for creators, too. Now imagine being a startup which has 100 people, investor funding, and you have to launch a game that can appeal to a gamer audience that also has Fortnite available.
Tim Sweeney, Epic Games CEO (via PC Gamer)
AI tools are perceived as a "great equalizer" in this case, and without them, Sweeney predicts a future where those smaller studios simply die off without receiving aid from AI. "There will always be the exceptions," says Sweeney, but it's the economics of the gaming market that are driving his thoughts.
Oversimplification of how AI is used isn't helping developers
Sweeney definitely knows how games get made, and he notes that a lot of what developers do all day can be considered "drudge work." He notes that at Epic Games, the most useful implementation of AI is to offload those types of tasks, leaving time for more important software and creative development.
This is where there's a noticeable gap between developers and gamers. Sweeney acknowledges that there's some legitimate anger about AI stemming from bad practices early on.
It's unfortunate that so many of the AI companies operating early on had such shitty practices, you know, like one of them was found by a court to have gone off to a BitTorrent site and downloaded terabytes of data, that's ridiculous, they shouldn't do that.
Tim Sweeney, Epic Games CEO (via PC Gamer)
Larian, the studio behind Baldur's Gate 3, is used as an example of how this situation can play out.
Larian was using AI to eliminate drudge work and to create early concepts, but gamers largely didn't accept the nuance. They saw AI, they cried foul, and Larian immediately backtracked.
Do I care if a studio creating games as good as Larian does uses AI to speed up productivity in the early stages of development? Not really. Let me know in the comments below if you disagree.
Epic's CEO has his own stake in AI development
I think Sweeney gets a lot right in this interview, especially surrounding the economic asymmetry that many studios have to overcome by using AI. I'm also on board with the idea that AI disclosure often harms the studios that can least afford a failure.
It's well worth noting that there's some background tension regarding Sweeney and AI. Unreal Engine, which is an Epic product, is used by countless studios. Unreal Engine 6, the latest version, includes deep AI integration, and those AI tools are being pitched to any developer who will listen.
Bottom line? The more accepted AI is in game development, the better off Sweeney's UE6 will do.
My final thoughts on AI use in game development
I honestly can't say if Steam's forced AI disclosures are the correct way forward. I value transparency, and in the current climate, I can imagine a ton of AI witch hunts happening if there wasn't a place where you could reliably check if AI was used.
Sweeney makes good points about AI's reputation problem and how AI disclosures mark certain games for failure, and I wonder if clearer information about how AI is used would help at all.
Let me know what you think about the AI disclosure situation. Is it hurting games that would otherwise be a huge success? Is it rightfully causing pushback against games? Sound off in the comments section below!
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.
