After criticizing Valve for including "made with AI" disclosures on Steam game pages, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is doubling down with a short explanation of why he's so opposed to the tags – they hurt "small developers," apparently.
Echoing the recent sentiment shared by Nexon, that people should just assume "every game company is now using AI" as the technology becomes more widespread, Sweeney spoke out against Valve's integration of AI disclosures on games' Steam listings. He argued the AI tag "makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production" – but that's not where his take on the situation ended.
Sweeney followed up in response to accusations that his opinion "heavily implies that Epic is now using AI coding tools for the latest updates to Unreal Engine," explaining that they are "not true" at all. "I just hate to see Valve confiscate ever more opportunity from small developers by facilitating new categories, cancel campaigns, and review bombing," the CEO continues in his reply. "Steam used to just facilitate downloads."
Not true. I just hate to see Valve confiscate ever more opportunity from small developers by facilitating new categories cancel campaigns and review bombing. Steam used to just facilitate downloads. Then they foreclosed on payments, then price competition, then crypto, now AI.November 27, 2025
He concludes, "Then they foreclosed on payments, then price competition, then crypto, now AI." His thoughts aren't exactly surprising here, especially seeing as he recently chimed in on the Arc Raiders AI debate – the one concerning the new shooter's use of AI text-to-speech – arguing that the tech could actually somehow create "an even bigger opportunity" for voice actors. Expectedly, however, not everyone agrees.
The top comment made under Sweeney's follow-up proves as much. "'I just hate to see Valve putting consumers first,'" quips its writer. Another reads, "Asking to see the ingredients of a product is not confiscating opportunities, man. This self-righteous hyperbole is a bit much," while one underneath states, "Maybe it's not review bombing, maybe people just don't like AI-generated garbage? The existence of those negative reviews indicates the demand for said disclaimers."
I mean… they certainly do make a valid point there. Consumers are allowed to voice their own thoughts via reviews, and it doesn't necessarily mean it's "review bombing" – a solid chunk of the population is understandably still wary of AI.
