Steam vs. Epic Games — Platform Choice Over AI Disclosure

Debates around AI often begin with the language of ethics, creativity, and copyright. But actual industry decision-making typically centers on a more practical question: not "what to allow" but "what to disclose" -- this emerges as the primary issue first. Platform roles extend beyond simple distribution channels -- platforms have interests across submission documents, build review, report handling, and policy enforcement before games reach market. As generative AI enters production processes, platforms more frequently ask "who did what?" And this question is increasingly determining industry trust. Steam platform choice: Valve formally instituted a policy on January 10, 2024 requiring disclosure of generative AI use for released games. Developers must declare AI use in the Steamworks registration stage and specify the scope of use -- covering art, text, voice, and code. Valve distinguishes two categories: Pre-generated AI content (AI tools used in development creating pre-generated assets); Live generated AI content (AI generating content in real-time during gameplay). Epic Games Store approach: took a different position -- not requiring mandatory disclosure of AI use, focusing on content quality and standards rather than the AI use itself. The policy divergence signals a deeper platform philosophy difference: Steam treating AI use as a matter of consumer information rights (players have a right to know how their game was made); Epic treating it as a quality and outcome issue (what matters is the final product, not the process). The debate is moving from "is AI useful or dangerous?" to "who manages information about AI use and in what way?"