A fresh dispute over Steam's place in PC gaming has drawn a sharp response from former Valve developer Chet Faliszek, who has criticized Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney's recent comments on artificial-intelligence disclosures, Steamworks, and Valve's influence over the games business.
The exchange is part of a long-running tension between Epic and Valve, two companies with very different positions in the PC market. Epic operates both the Epic Games Store and major development technology through Unreal Engine, while Valve runs Steam, maintains Steamworks services, and develops its own hardware and software ecosystem. Sweeney has repeatedly argued that Valve's platform creates harmful barriers. Faliszek, whose past work at Valve included Portal, Half-Life, and Left 4 Dead, sees the situation very differently.
In a video published on his YouTube channel, Faliszek addressed a string of recent remarks from Sweeney. He said some of the Epic chief's arguments seemed disconnected from the actual policies being discussed, bluntly telling him: "You're kinda crashing out, dude."
The disagreement over Steam's AI disclosures
One major point of contention is Steam's approach to games that use generative AI. Valve asks developers to disclose certain uses of AI on Steam store pages, including material used during development and AI-generated content that can appear while a game is being played. The policy does not prohibit AI-made games outright. Instead, it is designed to give prospective buyers information before they decide whether to purchase a title.
For useful background on this topic, read Bungie Outlines Destiny Revival Ambitions, From Unvaulting to a Possible Legacy Project.
Sweeney has characterized those disclosures as political, arguing that developers are being forced to make statements that could be used against them by hostile groups. He also raised a hypothetical comparison involving political affiliation, asking whether Valve should compel developers to disclose that information as well.
Faliszek rejected that comparison. In his view, nobody is seriously asking for political-party disclosures from game makers, and framing the argument that way distracts from the far narrower question of whether customers should be able to see how AI was used in a product.
"Players are just making informed choices," Faliszek said, arguing that the disclosure is about customer information rather than an attempt to dictate a purchase decision.
His central objection was that Sweeney's argument appears to underestimate players. Faliszek said people buying games can decide for themselves which details matter to them, whether that means generative AI use, technical performance, monetization, accessibility features, online requirements, or other factors. A listing does not force a consumer to reject a game; it makes a relevant detail available to those who want it.
Faliszek used his own preferences to make that distinction. He said frame rate is not a subject he personally cares about in the same way some players do. But he does not object to performance information being available because he recognizes that other customers may consider it important. By the same logic, he argued, players concerned about AI-generated assets, writing, voices, or live content should be allowed to factor that information into their choices.
Fab's own AI labels complicate the argument
Faliszek also pointed to Epic's Fab marketplace, the company's digital marketplace for assets. Fab includes AI-related disclosure practices of its own. That matters because it undercuts the notion that such labels are inherently unreasonable or purely political, Faliszek argued.
He noted that Sweeney has said Fab would maintain its AI disclosure system even if Steam changed or removed its policy, describing the information as something that makes practical business sense. Faliszek's response was that Epic cannot convincingly present the same type of information as sensible for its own marketplace while condemning Valve for offering it to Steam customers.
The debate is bigger than a single label. Generative AI has become one of the most divisive subjects in game development, particularly where creative labor, consent, training data, quality control, and transparency are concerned. Some players actively avoid games that use it. Others do not care about its presence if the final game meets their standards. Still others support broader adoption of AI tools. Steam's policy attempts to accommodate those competing views by making disclosures visible rather than choosing a side for every buyer.
That does not settle the philosophical argument over AI, and it likely will not end the criticism. But Faliszek's position is that transparency offers room for individual choice, whereas removing information limits that choice.
Does Steamworks create a walled garden?
Sweeney's other major claim was even broader: that Valve has held gaming back by keeping developers' PC games inside a Steamworks-centered social ecosystem. He argued that this structure prevents players from easily communicating across iOS, Android, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, and competing PC storefronts.
Faliszek challenged the premise on several fronts. He acknowledged that Epic has built an "amazing" collection of tools and said its backend offering surpasses Valve's in some respects. Epic's strength in engine technology and services is difficult to dispute; Unreal Engine is used across a huge range of games, and Epic Online Services has been positioned as a cross-platform option for developers.
But Faliszek argued that Valve has made a different choice rather than simply failing to provide every conceivable solution. In his telling, Valve does not try to control or build every tool a developer could need. Instead, it provides a platform and various services while leaving space for third-party tools, middleware, community projects, and alternative technical approaches.
That approach can create inconvenience. Developers may need to combine services from multiple providers instead of receiving a single all-encompassing package. Yet Faliszek argued that it also avoids a different criticism: if Valve attempted to solve every technical, social, engine, and backend problem under its own umbrella, critics could reasonably accuse it of expanding into an even more powerful monopoly.
His point was not that Steamworks is perfect, or that developers must use it. Rather, he maintained that tools exist, external solutions are allowed, and developers can select alternatives. Some studios do use third-party systems, and Faliszek said that is entirely acceptable.
A clash of platform philosophies
The back-and-forth highlights two contrasting visions for how PC gaming services should work. Epic has frequently promoted integrated technology, cross-platform support, and a more unified services layer. Valve's model is often more decentralized in practice, even while Steam itself remains the dominant storefront for many PC players.
Neither company is a neutral observer. Epic has a commercial reason to challenge Steam's influence as it continues to operate a rival store. Valve has an enormous installed audience, extensive community features, and years of customer familiarity behind Steam. Arguments about what is "pro-consumer" or "anti-developer" therefore carry business implications as well as ideological ones.
Faliszek focused especially on the player side of the equation. Steam has a large audience because many people want to buy and manage games there, he said, and that audience has expectations about product information and platform features. From that perspective, AI disclosures are not an obstacle imposed on consumers; they are a response to a portion of customers asking for clearer information.
There is also a practical complication in describing Steam as a closed social system: cross-platform communication and multiplayer depend on individual games, publishers, platform rules, and the services selected by each developer. Steamworks can be part of that equation, but it is not the only possible foundation for online features. The industry already contains games with cross-play and cross-progression across PC, console, and mobile platforms, built through a variety of technology stacks.
The Alan Wake 2 challenge
Faliszek ended his response with a direct challenge to Sweeney: bring Alan Wake 2 to Steam. The Remedy Entertainment sequel launched on PC through the Epic Games Store, with Epic serving as publisher, and it has remained central to debates over Epic's strategy of securing or publishing PC titles outside Steam.
Faliszek argued that keeping such a high-profile game away from Steam is itself a form of walled-garden behavior. If the priority is broad consumer access and opposition to limiting player choice, he suggested, making the game available on the biggest PC storefront would be a straightforward step.
There has been no indication that Sweeney will accept that challenge, and no new Steam release plan for Alan Wake 2 was announced in connection with the dispute. Epic's publishing relationship with the game makes the question more complicated than a typical third-party storefront decision. Still, the example neatly captures the contradiction Faliszek believes sits at the center of Sweeney's criticism.
Epic and Valve are unlikely to resolve their differences anytime soon. The companies disagree over store competition, platform fees, online ecosystems, AI transparency, and what meaningful openness looks like in a business full of competing interests. For now, Faliszek's response has shifted attention back to a simple consumer-facing question: how much information should players receive before they spend their money? His answer is clear--give them the facts and let them decide.
Community
Discussion
Start the conversation.
No comments have been posted yet.