Epic Games just declared itself neutral territory in gaming’s most divisive culture war, and the timing couldn’t be more calculated.
In a recent interview with GamesRadar+, Epic Games Store VP Steve Allison made the company’s position crystal clear. “We do not police how developers make their games,” he said, confirming that Epic imposes no restrictions or disclosure requirements on generative AI use. Instead, the storefront takes what Allison frames as a hands-off approach: “We let players decide. We let developers decide how they’re going to communicate with their players.”
The statement reads like a direct counter-punch to Valve, whose Steam platform has required AI disclosure since early 2024. But what Epic is really doing here is making a calculated bet on where the industry is heading.
the philosophical split between storefronts
Steam and Epic now represent fundamentally different philosophies on AI transparency. Valve recently clarified its rules, specifying that disclosure applies to AI-generated content consumed by players like artwork, audio, and narrative elements rather than behind-the-scenes development tools. Nearly 8,000 Steam titles disclosed AI use in the first half of 2025 alone, compared to around 1,000 during all of 2024. The trend is unmistakable.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has been vocal about his disdain for these labels. He’s called them irrelevant for game stores, arguing that “AI will be involved in nearly all future production.” When asked if tagging makes sense, he once quipped: “Why stop at AI use? We could have mandatory disclosures for what shampoo brand the developer uses.”
Allison takes a softer tone but lands in the same spot. “I don’t want to say it’s a fool’s errand, but it’s a very, very difficult thing to accurately police,” he told reporters. The implication is clear: why build enforcement infrastructure for something that will soon be ubiquitous?
what this really means for developers and players
Epic’s stance is strategic for a storefront still fighting for market share. With Steam commanding roughly 75 to 80 percent of the PC gaming market, Epic needs every advantage it can get. Positioning itself as the friction-free alternative for AI-assisted development could attract indie studios particularly smaller teams who see generative tools as a way to punch above their weight.
“We think that it’s going to help a lot of these smaller teams make awesome shit,” Allison said, “like we haven’t seen from a six or 10 man team.”
But there’s tension in this framing. Allison also acknowledged legitimate concerns about AI replacing workers. “If they’re using it to fire people and all those kinds of things that people are worried about, that’s a terrible thing that we don’t endorse. But we don’t think that’s how AI is going to be used in game development.”
That’s a confident prediction about an industry that laid off over 10,000 workers in 2024.
the market reality check
Epic’s year-in-review numbers tell an interesting story. Third-party game spending hit $400 million in 2025, up 57 percent from the previous year. The store reached 78 million monthly active users in December. But total gameplay hours dropped 14 percent, and only 16 to 18 percent of people who claim free games actually purchase anything afterward. The Fortnite launcher stigma hasn’t fully faded.
Letting developers skip AI disclosure removes one more potential friction point for publishers weighing where to release. It’s a subtle competitive move wrapped in libertarian rhetoric about market freedom.
| Platform | AI disclosure required | Enforcement level | Current stance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steam | Yes, since January 2024 | Voluntary but displayed on store pages | Recently clarified to focus on player-facing content |
| Epic Games Store | No | None | “We let players decide” |
| GOG | No formal policy | N/A | No public position |
why this matters beyond storefronts
The real question isn’t whether Epic’s policy is right or wrong. It’s whether consumer sentiment will eventually force standardization anyway. Players who care about AI provenance already check Steam’s disclosures before buying. Players who don’t care never looked in the first place. Epic is betting the second group is larger, and they’re probably correct.
But neutrality has limits. When Sweeney recently waded into a controversy about AI-generated illegal content on social media, Allison declined to comment on whether he agreed with his boss’s reasoning. Running a storefront that doesn’t police AI use is one thing. Defending every possible application of the technology is another.
The coming years will test whether transparency requirements become industry standard or remain a competitive differentiator. For now, Epic is betting that the future belongs to whoever makes building games easiest, regardless of how developers get there.
Will players actually reward platforms that demand transparency, or will convenience win out as it usually does?
