thingsiplay comments on Epic Games CEO says it’s ‘really irresponsible’ of Steam to make studios disclose AI use

Epic Games CEO says it’s ‘really irresponsible’ of Steam to make studios disclose AI use | VGC - 25th Jun 2026 (www.videogameschronicle.com)

submitted 2 months ago by thingsiplay@lemmy.ml to c/gaming@lemmy.ml

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Tim Sweeney claims it’s a “Scarlet Letter” which makes players “try to kill the game”

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has criticised rival Valve for forcing studios to disclose when they use AI in game development.

Epic recently showed how it was integrating AI into Unreal Engine 6.

Time Sweeney said:

“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.

“I think it’s really irresponsible of Valve. They shouldn’t do it, because it makes it much, much, much harder for a game developer to have a chance of success. You have to choose from either not using tools that can make you way more productive, and probably failing due to competition that does.”

Which is totally ignoring the factor that the user should know about the purchase it makes and be able to decide for themselves. Transparency for the player is not a bad thing.

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Not everyone. Just like people hate Ai and don't want to have it, there are developers who think the same. Even if its in everything, why not disclose it? Why hide the ingredient and then we don't know what kind of Ai was used? I hate the idea of hiding it, and acting like humans did the work. But in fact assets maybe stolen from unethical copied sources baked into the Ai models. If people have a problem with that kind of approach, then we have a right to know. What was done exactly? Some background posters? Voices?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Epp@lemmus.org -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

They hate it irrationally, based on misinformation and mob mentality. There are no legitimate reasons to hate it. There are plenty of reasons to hate the companies and their practices that are developing it, but the technology itself is blameless.

People who use open source models, on local hardware are being caught in the crossfire and being required to disclose what tools you use leads to prejudice by people who hold that irrational hatred and misinformed prejudice. It's harmful with no benefit to anyone.

If there are copied sources then THAT is the problem, and plagiarism easily identifiable, with existing remedies for the crime.

Why do you you feel you have a right to know when it has no impact on you, other than enabling your prejudice? If it's truly bad, it should be self evident and no disclosure is thus needed. The fact that it is necessary to have disclosure to determine if AI was used demonstrates that it is irrelevant. Regardless of what tools were used, the final product should be judged on its own merits and faults. Judging based on the tools used, and not the product itself, is infantile.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Who are "they"? There are Nintendo haters. Should we stop talking about Nintendo, just because people could hate it? If there are misinformed people, then we should not hide it, but start informing them. If a few people troll review in Steam, should Steam stop doing reviews for everyone? Because they did troll reviews or misinformed reviews and rating?

Regardless of what tools were used, the final product should be judged on its own merits and faults.

Why do you feel you have the right to tell how others rate a final product, and whats important to them? It should be disclosed transparently and then people should judge themselves.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] Epp@lemmus.org -2 points 2 months ago (8 children)

"They" are the anti-AI mob. Like the anti-woke mob, but for artificial intelligence instead of non-white people and women. Same idea, different target.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. You know when something's made by Nintendo, because Nintendo makes it. For all you know, they use AI, but since they're not bound by Valve's stupid rules you would never have any idea. Why would Steam take away reviews? Just because some people misuse it doesn't mean there would be a blanket removal. That sounds like you're arguing for my case actually: just because there are some bad actors, it doesn't mean you hate the system used by the actors.

It should be disclosed transparently and then people should judge themselves.

Then where do you draw the line? Should they disclose if women worked on a game? Men? Trans? Non-binary? Should they disclose whether they used Windows? Linux? Mac? Should they disclose whether they used markers or paint for their concept art? Some people hate each of those things listed, so you think we should enable discrimination against them, too, by requiring disclosure so people can make their own decisions?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Then where do you draw the line? Should they disclose if women worked on a game? Men? Trans? Non-binary? Should they disclose whether they used Windows? Linux? Mac? Should they disclose whether they used markers or paint for their concept art? Some people hate each of those things listed, so you think we should enable discrimination against them, too, by requiring disclosure so people can make their own decisions?

No, they should tell if Ai is used and what is being done. There is no line. Every single human has the right to decide for themselves, even to boykott because the stars didn't align. Its their right. I don't know if the gender of the developer should disclosed or not, that is an entirely different topic with an entirely different meaning. Maybe you don't understand the difference between Ai and human? Because the gender of the human has nothing to do with the issues the Ai brings to the table. And why mention if they used Windows or Linux or whatever operating system? What is your thought process to bring this into our discussion?

I think you try desperately to muddy the discussion and the critique brought on the table, with non relevant examples as a counter argument.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Epp@lemmus.org 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

Windows, Max and Linux are tools in game development, same as Visual Studio, Photoshop or AI. Only one of them is being singled out for disclosure.

I think you seem to believe AI makes games in a vacuum, and there are no people involved. It's not the AI that suffers due to the boycott by the ignorant, it's the people who make the games. You like to desperately pretend that no people are involved in the process, but that is a delusion. You're hurting people with your prejudice, not AI.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Windows, Max and Linux are tools in game development, same as Visual Studio, Photoshop or AI. Only one of them is being singled out for disclosure.

Because it does not matter if you use Windows or Visual Studio. These are not generative tools based on stolen data. Ai is. If you don't understand the difference and why people have an issue with Ai, then no wonder we don't agree on.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

What data is missing? It's stolen in the same way an artist "steals" art by watching a Disney movie. Or a musician "steals" it by listening to an album. Nothing was stolen.

And Visual Studio is very much so generative. You generate programs with it using code; code that by your definition was "stolen" from a textbook, a blog, or a StackOverflow post.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

It’s stolen in the same way an artist “steals” art by watching a Disney movie. Or a musician “steals” it by listening to an album.

No, it is not. Data is extracted and copied and analyzed with machines. As said before, you seem not to understand the different of a Large Language Model dataset/program and a human. This is not the same, nor should it be treated like the same. It's like suggesting that a Bash script you wrote can download, extract data from books and then you claim its the same as how humans watch films. It is not.

You generate programs with it using code; code that by your definition was “stolen” from a textbook, a blog, or a StackOverflow post.

No. Stolen means not respecting the license and not even giving credit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

It is only different because you say it's different. Whether human or machine, in both cases it's learning from the material. There's no law in any county against a machine learning from content. Whether there should be is an entirely different discussion.

Stealing has a definition: "Stealing is the act of taking, using, or appropriating another person's property, ideas, or services without right, permission, or legal consent, with the intention of permanently depriving the true owner of their use or value"

Permanently depriving the owner. It means something is taken and is now gone. Nothing is missing. Nothing was stolen.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml [S] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Ai is not "learning". These are autocomplete algorithms. They don't understand it. As said copying into a database and then just autocompleting based on probability is not learning and thinking. There is no reasoning. Its fundamentally different to how humans learn.

Stealing has a definition: “Stealing is the act of taking, using, or appropriating another person’s property, ideas, or services without right, permission, or legal consent, with the intention of permanently depriving the true owner of their use or value”

Whats the source for the definition and why is that definition correct and mine wrong? Did you ask an Ai? That's probably you don't have a source.

Permanently depriving the owner. It means something is taken and is now gone. Nothing is missing. Nothing was stolen.

That's when you talk about real goods, not code. You forgot your Ai to tell that. In software and art stealing is if you take it and use it without permission, and possibly give no credit.

In example, if you see a photo on the net that is sold to you, but you copy it and use it without permission, without respecting the license, then its stolen image. The owner does not know, nor did you rob the ability for him to use the image. Another example is to take an Open Source project that is licensed under GPL, but then use it without respecting the license and sell the product on Steam for money. That is stolen Open Source project.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 point 2 months ago*

You literally don't understand what you're talking about. It's not a database, no copies are being made. The weights of digital synapses are adjusted in a neural network, the same as happens in our brains when we learn something. For all intents and purposes it is indeed learning from an example, not making a copy. There's no "auto-complete" involved, anymore than there is when a human creates something using something else as inspiration.

No copies are being made, no money is being made by something being sold. You can download the models and use them for free. You are only paying for access to the hardware to host the neural network, not the model itself. Again, nothing has been stolen, and no copies have been made. It's learning from data, same as people do from open source projects.

If there was a license that said you are not allowed to learn from reading the code, then you might have a point, but there are none of those that exist to my knowledge. If you weren't meant to learn from them then they wouldn't be publicly available.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent