 |
| The Epic Games Store, whose logo is shown above, does not indicate whether a game was developed using AI. |
The simmering debate over artificial intelligence in video games has erupted once again, with Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney launching a direct critique of how digital storefronts disclose the use of AI. His comments have thrust the industry’s philosophical divide over transparency and technology into the spotlight, pitting his vision for the future against the demands of artists and developers for clear consumer labeling.
The controversy began on November 26th, when Sweeney stepped into a discussion on X (formerly Twitter) concerning the "Made with AI" tags that have become a point of contention. In a post that was widely interpreted as a criticism of rival platform Steam’s policies, Sweeney argued that such labels are becoming obsolete.
"These labels make no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production," Sweeney wrote. He elaborated that disclosures about AI usage belong in specific contexts where authorship and licensing are the primary focus—such as art galleries or digital asset marketplaces—rather than on the consumer-facing pages of a game store.
Steam and all digital marketplaces need to drop the “Made with AI” label. It doesn’t matter any more.
— Matt Workman (@cinedatabase) November 13, 2025
This stance places Epic Games in direct opposition to Valve’s approach on Steam. Since early 2024, Steam has enforced a strict disclosure policy, requiring publishers to declare if their games contain any AI-generated content. This is further broken down into two categories: pre-generated content (assets created during development) and live-generated content (created in real-time during gameplay). Developers must also provide a brief description on their store page explaining how AI is utilized. A survey from July 2025 indicated that approximately 7% of games on Steam have disclosed using generative AI.
In contrast, the Epic Games Store currently has no such tagging or notification system to inform consumers if AI was used in a game's creation.
The Blurry Line Between AI Assistance and AI Generation
The heart of the debate lies in the increasingly ambiguous definition of "using AI." Recent industry controversies highlight why a simple label may be insufficient.
Games like Arc Raiders and The Finals faced significant backlash for their use of AI-generated voiceovers, where text-to-speech models were trained on actors' performances. This is a clear-cut case of generative AI directly replacing human creative roles, a red line for many players and developers.
However, other applications are more nuanced. The same Arc Raiders development team used AI tools for technical tasks like smoothing animation transitions and cleaning up motion capture data. This use case is closer to an advanced form of technical assistance—a digital power tool—rather than primary content creation. Yet, under Steam’s current rules, both the controversial voiceovers and the technical animation cleanup fall under the same “AI-generated” disclosure requirement.
Critics: Players Deserve Transparency, Not Less
Sweeney’s position was met with swift and sharp criticism from across the development community. Many argued that his stance reduces transparency and removes power from consumers.
Former Counter-Strike artist Ayi Sánchez drew a direct comparison to consumer goods, stating that removing AI disclosures is akin to "selling food without an ingredient list." Composer Joris de Man, known for his work on the Horizon series, pointed to the industry’s history of self-regulation, noting that “‘not actual gameplay’ disclaimers on trailers became standard specifically to avoid misleading players.”
Indie developer Mike Bithell offered a more provocative challenge, suggesting that if Sweeney truly believes AI is the future, Epic should lead by example. "If he's so confident," Bithell wrote, "he should put 'MADE WITH AI' banners on Fortnite and watch as sales plummet."
A Definition Too Broad?
Despite the criticism, some developers see validity in Sweeney’s underlying point—that Steam’s definition may be too broad to be meaningful.
Matt Workman, whose original post sparked Sweeney’s reply, pointed out a critical flaw. He argued that by Valve’s current definition, nearly every studio using modern software would technically need to disclose AI usage. This includes developers using AI-assisted coding in Unreal Engine, automation in Google Workspace or Slack, AI features in Adobe Photoshop, and even grammar checkers. In this view, the label becomes so diluted it loses all meaning, potentially flagging games where AI played a minor, behind-the-scenes role never intended to replace human creativity.
The Unanswered Question: What Does "AI" Mean in Game Development?
This clash over store labels highlights a deeper, unresolved issue facing the entire industry: what does "using AI" actually mean in 2025?
For the average player, the concern likely centers on generative AI creating artwork, narratives, or voice performances that directly substitute for human artists. However, inside development studios, AI is increasingly embedded in the foundational tools of the trade—assisting with code compilation, bug detection, animation rigging, and data management. These are workflows players never see and may not object to, yet they technically constitute "using AI."
As an analysis from Tom's Hardware explores, drawing a clean line between “AI assistance” and “AI-generated content” is proving to be one of the industry's most difficult challenges. Any labeling policy risks either overwhelming consumers with overly broad, meaningless warnings or, conversely, obscuring practices that many believe deserve scrutiny and ethical consideration.
The question remains whether Tim Sweeney’s position is a pragmatic acknowledgment of an inevitable technological shift or a self-interested move to normalize AI's role without consumer pushback. What is certain is that the games industry is still far from a consensus on where transparency should end and marketing should begin. The battle over the "Made with AI" label is merely the opening skirmish in a much longer war over the soul of game development.