AI will be involved in nearly all future games, Tim Sweeney claims amid labeling debate

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has stepped back into the debate over generative AI in game development, arguing that “Made with AI” labels no longer make sense for digital game stores. His comments, posted on X on November 26, were widely interpreted as a criticism of Valve’s disclosure requirements on Steam and quickly sparked strong reactions from developers and artists.

Sweeney was responding to a discussion about dropping the “Made with AI” tag. He wrote that such labels “make no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production.” In his view, AI disclosures belong in contexts where authorship and licensing are central — art exhibitions or asset marketplaces — rather than on consumer-facing store pages.

Valve takes a far more explicit approach. Since January 2024, Steam has required publishers to declare whether their games use AI at all and to specify whether the AI content is pre-generated (created during development) or live-generated during gameplay. Developers must also provide a short description on the store page explaining how AI was used. According to a July 2025 survey, around 7% of games on Steam disclosed the use of generative AI in some form. Unlike some platforms, the Epic Games Store currently offers no tags or notices to indicate if AI was involved in a game’s creation.

Recent controversies show how blurry that label can be. Arc Raiders and The Finals were criticized for relying on AI-generated voiceovers, with many lines produced using text-to-speech models trained on actors’ voices. This is a clear example of generative AI replacing recognizable creative labor. But other uses are less obvious. The animation team on Arc Raiders, for instance, relied on AI tools to smooth transitions and clean up motion — tasks closer to technical assistance than content creation. Under Steam’s rules, however, both types fall under the same “AI-generated” umbrella.

Sweeney’s critics argue that players deserve more information, not less. Former Counter-Strike artist Ayi Sánchez compared removing AI disclosures to selling food without an ingredient list. Composer Joris de Man noted that “not actual gameplay” disclaimers on trailers became standard specifically to avoid misleading players. Indie developer Mike Bithell added that if Sweeney believes AI is the future, Epic should proudly wear the label and “watch as sales plummet.”

Others say Steam’s definition is too broad to be useful. Matt Workman — the original poster in the thread Sweeney replied to — pointed out that by Steam’s current definition, nearly every developer using Unreal Engine, Google Workspace, Slack automations, Adobe tools, or modern office software would technically be required to disclose AI use, even if generative systems never shaped the game itself.

The clash highlights a deeper issue: what does “using AI” actually mean in 2025? For many players, the red line is generative artwork or synthetic voice performances replacing humans. But studios increasingly rely on AI-assisted coding, animation tools, and research systems behind the scenes — workflows players never see.

Drawing a clean line between “AI assistance” and “AI-generated content” is proving difficult, and any labeling policy risks either overwhelming players with blanket warnings or hiding practices that many believe deserve scrutiny.

Whether Sweeney’s position reflects a pragmatic view of the direction of development or a self-interested push to normalize AI without scrutiny is a highly debatable question. What seems certain is that the industry is still far from agreeing where transparency should end and marketing should begin — and the “Made with AI” fight is unlikely to be the last hot topic.