Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Calls for Dropping AI Labels on Game Stores as Technology Becomes Ubiquitous

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney says Steam should drop its 'Made with AI' tags

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney thinks Steam and other game stores should drop "Made with AI" tags, arguing that they'll soon be irrelevant as generative AI becomes ubiquitous in production. "The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation," Sweeney wrote on X in response to a user calling for Steam and other digital marketplaces to drop tags that mark content made using generative AI. "It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." "Why stop at AI use? We could have mandatory disclosures for what shampoo brand the developer uses," he wrote in another post. "Customers deserve to know lol." After initially taking a cautious approach towards AI-generated code and assets, Steam now permits the majority of games that have been developed using generative AI, so long as that use is disclosed. Sweeney, who also runs the rival Epic Games Store, thinks that sort of disclosure is no longer necessary. Earlier this month Junghun Lee, CEO of publisher Nexon, said it was "important to assume that every game company is now using AI," following criticism of the use of AI-generated voice lines in Nexon-published game Arc Raiders. Sweeney weighed in on X then too, arguing that AI "increases human productivity in some areas by integer multiples," but that this should lead to "building better games rather than employing fewer people." Sweeney may be right that AI use is becoming more prevalent, and not just in games, with Microsoft claiming that 91 percent of its engineering teams use GitHub Copilot, and AI becoming increasingly embedded in all sorts of development and creativity tools. But that doesn't mean every developer would support ditching AI labels, with a growing number of indie game developers using "AI-free" as a sales pitch.

Epic Games CEO: Game Stores Tagging Titles for AI Use Is 'Pointless'

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has said it "makes no sense" that game stores are tagging their products for AI use, arguing that "AI will be involved in nearly all future production." "The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation," Sweeney added. Generative AI is now endemic in the game industry, being used in everything from artwork to voice-overs and even writing dialogue. Online game stores like Steam, though they do allow AI content, have been requiring developers to clearly label whether any games listed on the platform have been made with AI since January 2024. Sweeney was responding to another user on X who called on Steam and all digital marketplaces to drop their "Made with AI" labels. Many users on social media took a markedly different view from Sweeney, with one saying they'd prefer to support a "real artist" and that they don't support "AI slop." Companies like Nintendo and Obsidian Entertainment have said they don't plan on using generative AI for their games in the near future; but AI-generated content is becoming a much more common sight on the game industry's biggest platforms. In July 2025, research from Totally Human Media found that 7,818 titles on Steam now disclose generative AI usage -- 7% of Steam's entire library of roughly 114,126 titles -- up from just 1% the prior year. Sweeney is a big believer in the AI-led future of game design, and this isn't the first time he's made bold claims about the future. At a company event earlier this year, he told IGN that the technology for a ten-person development team to build a game on the scale of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is "totally going to be within reach over the next few years." The CEO claimed that generative AI will mean "entirely new genres of games invented that weren't possible or practical before" without it.

Epic Games' Tim Sweeney thinks game stores shouldn't bother with 'made with AI' labels -- statement draws sharp criticism but is also ripe for misinterpretation.

The use of AI in games has been the source of much virtual ink, and the debate isn't likely to stop anytime soon. Yesterday's statement by Epic head honcho Tim Sweeney has stoked the fire once more. In a reply to a topic about game storefronts ditching the "Made with AI" label, Sweeney said, "it makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production," in an apparent dig at Valve's usage of the label on its Steam platform. Arc Raiders and The Finals have both caught flak for their use of generative AI, mainly centered around the voiceovers on both games, where many lines were created using text-to-speech based on models of actors' voices. That's fairly clear cut, but drawing a line is trickier when the animation staff for Raiders used AI tools to help smooth out animations and perform better transitions, a task that arguably falls under the "assistant" definition, but also toes the line. Valve's approach to its Steam storefront is two-pronged. Since January 2024, publishers must disclose how their games use AI (if at all), making the distinction between "pre-generated" and "live-generated" content. However, Valve asks for a statement from the developers to be partially or wholly included on the game's store page, so players can judge for themselves. Even under the simpler pre-generated banner, a survey from July 2025 stated that about 7% of games on Steam disclosed they had used generative AI in some form. Sweeney's statement seems clear enough, but it's also easy to misinterpret. A good chunk of the internet took it to mean he thinks that stores straight up shouldn't ding a game because it uses AI, no matter where or how. But that might not necessarily be the case, and this is a situation where semantics and context are of utmost importance. The "AI" moniker has now been so overloaded and diluted as "app" or "tech." Simply stating that a game uses AI can seem damning, but it can be quite innocuous. Many gamers rebel against the use of AI-generated artwork or voiceovers, which arguably replace or distort the human element in those creations. However, "using AI" also means using tools like Claude for coding, Replit for repository management, ChatGPT or Perplexity for research, or even something as simple as a guitar amp simulation for an actual musician creating the soundtrack. The question, therefore, is where to draw the line. 'Assistance' versus 'content generation' appear reasonably distinct, but even then, the waters can get muddy. With that in mind, it's also not difficult to argue that live-generation tools can put a new spin, if not completely break ground, on certain types of games. Fortnite's Darth Vader answering players' voices might be considered gimmicky, but games like Eneme and Retail Mage rely on generative AI as a core feature of their gameplay, hopefully bringing their respective universes to life in a more organic and immersive way. Backlash to Sweeney and the original post was immediate. Ayi Sánchez, former Counter-Strike artist, likened a lack of disclosure that a game used AI to food products' ingredient list, while Dutch composer Joris de Man reminded Sweeney that game trailers had to eventually get a "not real gameplay" disclaimer to temper expectations. Mike Bethell, an indie producer, was acerbic, stating that "If [Sweeney thinks] AI is the future, wear that 'we used AI to make this' tag with pride, and watch as [his] sales plummet." It's worth noting that Sweeney also got support from some figures, who mainly pointed out the lack of a defining line on the matter. Matt Workman, the thread's original poster, stated that Steam's catch-all net "is so wide it catches any developer who uses Unreal Engine, Google Suite (Gmail/Docs/Sheets), Slack (MANY AI automations), Adobe Products, Microsoft Office, etc." Whether Sweeney's broad statement makes sense or is self-serving is arguably up for discussion. One thing is certain, though -- this debate isn't likely to stop anytime soon.

Epic's Tim Sweeney says AI labels on Steam are meaningless as generative tools become universal

Serving tech enthusiasts for over 25 years. TechSpot means tech analysis and advice you can trust. A hot potato: Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is pushing back against the way major PC storefronts flag games that use generative AI. He argues that labels like Steam's "AI-generated content disclosure" have no place in online game stores because AI will soon be embedded in almost every part of the production process. Valve introduced a formal policy on generative AI for Steam in early 2024, requiring developers to disclose how AI systems are used in each game and adding visible 'AI-generated content' disclosures on individual store pages. Nexon's co-op shooter Arc Raiders is one such example. Sweeney's position, laid out in a reply on X, is that this kind of tagging might make sense for galleries or stock-asset marketplaces where authorship and licensing status are central to the transaction, but not for consumer game stores. In his view, generative AI is quickly becoming just one more tool in a long chain of software - from compilers to physics engines - that underpins game development. Once AI is ubiquitous, singling it out on store pages becomes meaningless. The Epic CEO has previously argued that generative systems can shrink production bottlenecks and give smaller teams access to capabilities that once required large art, writing, or QA departments. He has described scenarios where models generate context-sensitive dialogue guided by human voice actors rather than entirely replacing them. The disagreement over labels comes amid unresolved legal fights about whether training data scraped from the public internet infringes the rights of artists, writers, and other rights holders whose work ends up in model corpora without permission or compensation. Media companies have begun suing AI vendors over alleged unauthorized use of copyrighted catalogs, and rights experts expect those cases to shape how courts treat both model training and downstream outputs. Valve's disclosure rules are one way platforms are trying to insulate themselves from that uncertainty. For now, PC storefronts are experimenting with different answers to the same question: whether generative AI is a special case that warrants consumer-facing labels or simply another layer in the tech stack that can be handled behind the scenes. If Sweeney's prediction proves accurate and AI appears in nearly every release, platform-level disclosures could eventually become so common as to be little more than a checkbox. However, many developers and players still argue that the label matters because it encodes both ethical concerns about training data and aesthetic preferences about how games should look and sound. How long the gap between Steam's approach and Epic's will persist may depend less on technical adoption - AI use in game development is expanding rapidly. Instead, it may hinge on whether regulation, litigation, or sustained consumer pressure forces game stores to treat AI not just as an internal production detail, but as material information that belongs on the front of the box.

Epic's Tim Sweeney says AI tags make 'no sense' as 'nearly all future production' will be made with AI anyway

AI use in game development has been a divisive issue in recent times Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is well-known for his occasionally controversial stances, and the gaming chief has waded into the spotlight again with a comment on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in gaming - and not everyone will be pleased. Sweeney was replying to a comment on X saying that "Steam and all digital marketplaces need to drop the "Made with AI" label. It doesn't matter any more." In response, Sweeney concurred with the comment: "Agreed. The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation. It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." Epic Games takes a notably different approach to rival online game storefront Steam on this point. Disclosures surrounding the use of AI in games development are not displayed in Epic's online store. On Steam, they're shown prominently, allowing customers to see whether artificial intelligence has been used in the creation of the game. On the Steam page for the popular ARC Raiders game, for instance, Steam displays the following: "The developers describe how their game uses AI Generated Content like this: During the development process, we may use procedural- and AI-based tools to assist with content creation. In all such cases, the final product reflects the creativity and expression of our own development team." That statement is nowhere to be found on Epic Games' online store, however. Sweeney's comments might strike a chord (positive or negative) with gamers, and AI's role in game development has been a hot topic in recent times. ARC Raiders came in for much criticism for its use of AI-generated vocal lines, which critics said could encourage more developers to take jobs away from human creators. The matter that Sweeney was discussing - the "rights situation" - is particularly pertinent in gaming, where it can be unclear whether AI-generated content has infringed upon the rights of whoever created the elements that the AI was trained on. But Sweeney seems to be arguing that this is not a relevant concern in the gaming sphere, since "AI will be involved in nearly all future production" anyway. Whether he's right or wrong, plenty of games studios are either considering using AI during production or are already actively doing so. Yet there are many developers that have taken the opposite stance and have ruled out employing AI tools in their titles. This is clearly still a thorny issue in the industry, and with different retailers and developers taking different approaches, it's unlikely to be solved any time soon.

CEO of Fortnite Maker Furious That Steam Is Labeling Games With AI-Generated Assets

Demanding a shred of transparency, apparently, is going too far. Steam, the video game storefront used by over a hundred million gamers every month, requires that developers disclose if their products use AI-generated content. Someone at Valve, however, apparently forgot to ask Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney if he'd be okay with this policy first. In a discussion on social media, Sweeney -- whose company makes the megahit game Fortnite and is a major rival to Valve with a gaming marketplace of its own -- fumed about Steam's AI content disclosures, and agreed with a post calling for Valve to drop the feature because AI use "doesn't matter anymore." "The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation," Sweeney wrote last week. "It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." Gamers across the site mocked Sweeney's take, and it clearly got under his skin. "Why stop at AI use?" he doubled down. "We could have mandatory disclosures for what shampoo brand the developer uses." "Customers deserve to know lol," he added, mocking the idea. Sweeney's sounding off shows just how controversial generative AI use remains in the arts and entertainment industry. Huge concerns swirl over the tech's ability to wipe out jobs, not to mention churn out soulless dreck instead of carefully handcrafted work. Voice actors went on strike against the video games industry for a year to fight for stronger protections, and have been among the most outspoken critics of the tech's rapid creep into the industry. Like the tech industry at large, game developers themselves have been besieged with brutal layoffs. Meanwhile, behemoths like Google and Microsoft brag that over a quarter of their code is now written with AI. Epic, it's also worth noting, has rolled out an AI assistant for its widely used Unreal game engine. Valve has taken a notably cautious stance on AI where others have embraced it or turned a blind eye. In 2023, it reportedly rejected games containing AI-generated assets, telling developers that the "legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear." Next year, it officially opened the door to AI content, but with a major catch: going forward, developers would need to disclose if their products contained any assets, including art and music, that were created with the help of AI. For any "live-generated" AI content made while the game is running, the developer would also need to explain what guardrails it was instating to prevent the generation of illegal copyrighted content. Notable titles that have disclosed AI usage this way include the new extraction shooter Arc Raiders, which used AI to generate new lines of dialog using the voices of actors who were hired for the job. In response to the same post Sweeney was agreeing with which called for Valve to drop the AI disclosures, a Valve employee defended the company's policy. "This is like saying food products shouldn't have their ingredients list," Ayi Sanchez, an artist who's worked on titles like Counter-Strike 2, responded. "Consumers should have the information to decide if they want to buy something or not depending on its content. The only ppl afraid of this are the ones that know their product is low effort."

"AI will be involved in nearly all future production," says Epic Games boss, so having Steam games disclose whether they were built with AI makes "no sense"

Making developers disclose whether or not generative AI has been used during the making of a game, and how, "makes no sense", according to Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney. Sweeney made the remarks while responding to a post on X by former Unreal Engine developer Matt Workman (who, incidentally, uses generative AI in his motion capture work) who said: "Steam and all digital marketplaces need to drop the 'Made with AI' label. It doesn't matter any more." "Agreed," agreed Sweeney. "The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation. It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." Sweeney then followed his comment a few hours' later with another post that read, "Why stop at AI use? We could have mandatory disclosures for what shampoo brand the developer uses. Customers deserve to know lol." The 'made with AI' labels Sweeney and Workman are referring to are mandatory disclosures developers must make on Steam if their game contains traces of AI use. Take Arc Raiders' Steam page, for example: its "AI Generated Content Disclosure" explains that, "During the development process, we may use procedural- and AI-based tools to assist with content creation. In all such cases, the final product reflects the creativity and expression of our own development team." Arc Raiders' Epic Games Store page does not carry such a disclosure. Sweeney's comments have understandably provoked reaction across the gaming industry, with decorated indie developer Mike Bithell, of Bithell Games, posting on Bluesky: "I just find this really sad. Imagine being so certain that you need slop machines to do your work, that you convince yourself that EVERYBODY must need them," he wrote. Sweeney's declaration that "AI will be involved in nearly all future production" suggests Epic might be looking at using it across its colossal business - a business that includes Fortnite, the ubiquitous Unreal Engine, and the Steam-like Epic Games Store. And if it does, that decision will likely reverberate across the industry. Generative AI use in game development remains a contentious issue, as studios figure out how to potentially embrace this powerful technology without risking people's jobs - assuming that is even possible. South Korean company Krafton, which makes PUBG and Inzoi, has taken considerable flak for announcing it is now an "AI-first" company and offering voluntary redundancy to staff who don't want to be a part of that. PUBG creator Brendan Greene has distanced himself and his Krafton-backed studio PlayerUnknown Productions from that approach, saying "I've been really heartened to see the community revolt against AI stuff". Meanwhile, Konrad Tomaszkiewicz, the game director of The Witcher 3 and co-director of Cyberpunk 2077, believes games made with AI will have no soul, but also that there can be good uses of AI during development.

Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney doesn't like how Steam puts labels on games made with AI

TL;DR: Valve requires Steam games to disclose AI-generated content to address copyright concerns, though the label's relevance is debated as AI tools become standard in game development. Epic Games' CEO argues the tag may soon be obsolete, but public awareness and transparency remain key reasons for its continued use. Valve added tags and labels to Steam games that feature AI-generated content a while ago, and it also updated the submission process so developers can disclose the specific AI tools they used to help create their games. To get a good picture of how it looks, simply check out the ARC Raiders store page, which includes an "AI Generated Content Disclosure" section. Granted, the AI disclosure on the ARC Raiders store page is pretty generic and doesn't specifically mention the game's use of AI-generated voices, but it's there for those wanting to know which games have been developed with AI-based tools. Valve added the tag and requirement well over a year ago, which is a long time in the fast-moving AI space, and many are wondering if it's still required, as most creative and productivity apps have all been steadily adding AI tools and features. In a response to someone saying exactly that, Epic Games founder and CEO responded with an emphatic, "Agreed." Adding that putting an AI tag "makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." He prefaced this by saying it's more relevant to art exhibits and "digital content licensing marketplaces" that deal with AI-generated images and video, but not games. Many of the responses to Tim Sweeney's post on X claim that he's being a little contradictory if you classify games as art, especially when it comes to concept art, character designs, textures, and other visual and aesthetic elements. And for that reason, the AI tag on Steam should remain in place for public awareness. Ultimately, it's the potential for copyright infringement that has been intrinsically linked to AI-generated art that led Valve to add the "AI Generated Content Disclosure" to games on Steam in the first place. And when looked through that lens, it makes sense. The counterargument that game engines and other apps key to the development process are adding AI tools for all manner of tasks shouldn't require a label, also makes sense. And if we get to the point where most major releases from 2026 onward feature some use of AI, no matter how small, the "AI Generated Content Disclosure" could end up on countless game pages on Steam. And with that, Tim made the follow-up joke/remark, "Why stop at AI use? We could have mandatory disclosures for what shampoo brand the developer uses. Customers deserve to know lol."

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Is Not a Fan of AI Tags in Video Games; Explains Why

Sweeney says AI labels are relevant for authorship disclosures Epic CEO Tim Sweeney shared a rather controversial opinion on Wednesday. He opined that artificial intelligence (AI) labels are pointless when listing a video game on a marketplace, since in the future more developers will tend to use the technology in different production processes. The opinion comes at a time when the gaming industry is divided on the usage of AI, with some refusing to use the technology in the games while others finding benefits in AI-generated art, 3D models, and animations. AI Labels in Games Not Necessary, Says Tim Sweeney In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), Sweeney said, "It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." He also underscored that an AI tag is more relevant when it comes to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and digital content licensing marketplaces where the buyer needs to understand the rights. The comment came in response to another user's post who highlighted that Steam and some other digital marketplaces have started using the "Made with AI" label to games. These labels act as a type of disclosure to let the user know that digital artworks or enhancements have been made using generative AI technology. Since the gaming industry is split on the opinion, many would find Sweeney's comments about AI becoming the norm in the future, controversial. Recently, the director of the popular gaming title Witcher 3, Konrad Tomaszkiewicz, told Eurogamer, "I think that AI should help people and AI shouldn't replace them. It needs to evolve to the place where it will be the tool which helps us[..]not something which steals the author rights and creates the graphics or the animations because it learns from the creations of people[..]I don't feel that games created with only AI will have soul." The sentiment against AI usage in gaming is even more prominent when it comes to tell-tale and roleplaying games (RPGs) that are majorly text-based, which means low-effort games can be developed quickly and flood the marketplaces. According to a post, Steam has more than one thousand games that use generative AI in some capacity. However, on the other end of the spectrum are games like Arc Raiders, which used AI-generated text-to-speech voices, which were trained on real actors. The rest of the game was developed using human developers and automation tools that have been a part of the industry for years.

Valve artist says that's "like saying food products shouldn't have their ingredients list" as Epic's Tim Sweeney and more call on Steam to drop the 'Made with AI' label

Discourse is swirling around Steam's AI labelling after Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney doubled down on calling out the platform's handling of such assets. In response to someone claiming the category is unnecessary, an artist at Valve says it's crucial for allowing people to make informed purchases. Matt Workman, a cinematographer and motion capture specialist, posts on Twitter that "Steam and all digital marketplaces need to drop the 'Made with AI' label," because he believes it's becoming meaningless. Ayi Sánchez, an artist who's contributed to Counter-Strike at Valve, disagrees. "This is like saying food products shouldn't have their ingredients list. Consumers should have the information to decide if they want to buy something or not depending on its content," he says. "The only people afraid of this are the ones that know their product is low effort." Workman responds that art isn't comparable to food or appliances because they can be harmful to your health and wellbeing if improperly advertised. "I'm not afraid of the label personally. I think it's not enforced on Steam and the rules are not clear for developers or players," he adds. They have another exchange over the distinction between household items and creative works, before Sánchez adds that labels for AI are an ethical concern, saying we shouldn't "excuse a technology" relying "on cultural laundering, IP infringement and slopification." He continues: "I know I am not alone thinking that creation is a matter of creators, not prompt engineers. Educated consumers will pick an original over counterfeit." Over on LinkedIn, Workman weighs in further, sharing a story on Sweeney's comments and adding: "As it currently stands Valve/Steam's 'Made with AI' net is so wide it catches any developer who uses Unreal Engine, Google Suit (Gmail/Docs/Sheets), Slack (MANY AI automations), Adobe Products, Microsoft Office, etc. This lacks nuance." While there are perhaps critiques to be made on Valve's execution for Steam's 'Made with AI' label, the fundamental idea of making sure players understand the tech has been used is sound. Some people care less than others on the inclusion of generative work in any given release, and we're all better for having more information, rather than less.

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Doesn't Think Digital Game Stores Should Have GenAI Disclosures, Says It "Makes No Sense"

The use of generative AI tools in game development has been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, a major point of controversy within the video game industry. Some figures, notably, many studio heads and executives, are all for using generative AI in game development. Others don't think it's necessary at all. While we know Epic Games chief executive officer Tim Sweeney sits firmly in the former camp, he has also weighed in on another aspect of the issue, the fact that digital stores like Steam require developers to disclose that generative AI tools were used in the making of their game. Currently, games published to Steam that were made with generative AI tools must disclose their use. ARC Raiders, for example, includes such a disclosure at the bottom of its Steam page, though with how forward Embark Studios has been about its use of generative AI, we wouldn't have needed the tag to know generative AI tools were used. In other cases, though, like the recently announced game Beyond Words from former Timesplitters and GoldenEye developers, if not for the disclosure at the bottom, we'd likely not know generative AI tools had been used. And then there are those who still don't disclose its use, admitting it only after they are caught having used it, or don't admit it at all, and quietly patch it out. In response to Unreal Engine developer Matt Workman arguing for the removal of generative AI tags and disclosures on storefronts like Steam in a post on X (formerly Twitter), Tim Sweeney agreed with Workman's post, saying that having generative AI tags on platforms like Steam "makes no sense." Not because those who care about avoiding games made with generative AI have to keep an eye out for the disclosure, and even if it's not there, keep themselves aware for any signs of it. But because in his mind, there will come a day when every game is made with generative AI tools. "The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation. It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." GenAI being used in "nearly all future production" might be what the future looks like in Tim Sweeney's head, but it's debatable that GenAI tools will catch on to such a degree. When Nexon's chief executive officer claimed that players should already be assuming all games are made with GenAI, multiple developers stood up to point out that they would never use GenAI tools for their creative endeavours. Whichever side you fall on, GenAI tools in game development, especially in triple-A game development, are undoubtedly here to stay. So there will continue to be games made with these tools, and we could get to a point where the disclosures are removed because enough games are using these tools. However, it would be interesting to see if developers who are against using GenAI would respond by highlighting that they did not use GenAI in making their game. It would seriously put to the test what executives are saying, that consumers "do not care" if something was made with GenAI or not. Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.

Epic Games boss Tim Sweeney doubles down on his critique of Steam's AI disclosures: "I just hate to see Valve confiscate ever more opportunity from small developers..."

After criticizing Valve for including "made with AI" disclosures on Steam game pages, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is doubling down with a short explanation of why he's so opposed to the tags - they hurt "small developers," apparently. Echoing the recent sentiment shared by Nexon, that people should just assume "every game company is now using AI" as the technology becomes more widespread, Sweeney spoke out against Valve's integration of AI disclosures on games' Steam listings. He argued the AI tag "makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production" - but that's not where his take on the situation ended. Sweeney followed up in response to accusations that his opinion "heavily implies that Epic is now using AI coding tools for the latest updates to Unreal Engine," explaining that they are "not true" at all. "I just hate to see Valve confiscate ever more opportunity from small developers by facilitating new categories, cancel campaigns, and review bombing," the CEO continues in his reply. "Steam used to just facilitate downloads." He concludes, "Then they foreclosed on payments, then price competition, then crypto, now AI." His thoughts aren't exactly surprising here, especially seeing as he recently chimed in on the Arc Raiders AI debate - the one concerning the new shooter's use of AI text-to-speech - arguing that the tech could actually somehow create "an even bigger opportunity" for voice actors. Expectedly, however, not everyone agrees. The top comment made under Sweeney's follow-up proves as much. "'I just hate to see Valve putting consumers first,'" quips its writer. Another reads, "Asking to see the ingredients of a product is not confiscating opportunities, man. This self-righteous hyperbole is a bit much," while one underneath states, "Maybe it's not review bombing, maybe people just don't like AI-generated garbage? The existence of those negative reviews indicates the demand for said disclaimers." I mean... they certainly do make a valid point there. Consumers are allowed to voice their own thoughts via reviews, and it doesn't necessarily mean it's "review bombing" - a solid chunk of the population is understandably still wary of AI.

'Why Stop at AI Use? We Could Have Mandatory Disclosures for What Shampoo Brand the Developer Uses' -- Epic Boss Tim Sweeney Says Steam Should Ditch Its AI Generated Content Disclosure - IGN

As the debate around the use of generative AI to build video games rages on, Tim Sweeney, boss of Fortnite developer Epic Games, has waded in to call on Valve to ditch its AI Generated Content Disclosure for Steam games. Valve's rules mean developers must disclose their use of AI-generated content on a game's Steam store page. For example, the Steam page for Embark Studios' Arc Raiders includes a note from the developer on how the game uses AI-generated content: "during the development process, we may use procedural- and AI-based tools to assist with content creation. In all such cases, the final product reflects the creativity and expression of our own development team." Activision's Call of Duty also includes an AI disclosure: "our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in game assets." Sweeney, though, believes there's no point in having such disclosures because pretty much all video games will use AI. Responding to one X / Twitter user who called on Steam and all digital marketplaces to drop the "Made with AI" label because "it doesn't matter any more," Sweeney agreed, adding: "the AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation. It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production." Sweeney's tweet has sparked much debate about the rights and wrongs of Steam's policy here. While Sweeney may be right to say the use of generative AI during video game development is becoming more prevalent, some say removing AI disclosures would make it harder for some customers to make informed purchasing decisions. Activision was dragged into this debate recently when Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 players complained about AI-generated images they had found across the game, primarily focusing on calling card images with a Studio Ghibli-esque styling, following a trend of AI-Ghibli images from earlier this year. A member of U.S. Congress subsequently called Activision out, demanding tighter regulation to "prevent companies from using AI to eliminate jobs." In the case of art -- particularly art sold in premium bundles or battle passes -- it seems reasonable to expect a generative AI disclosure to help inform customers about their purchasing decisions. But this is not backed up by law, and Valve is enforcing this policy because it believes it is the right thing to do. And it's worth point out that using generative AI to make in-game art and selling it to gamers is of course different to the use of AI in, say, NPC behavior or animation work -- something that has been a part of video game development for years. The ever chatty Tim Sweeney then used shampoo to reinforce his point in a response to another tweet -- although, as many have pointed out, letting customers know about shampoo isn't quite the same thing as, say, letting them know they've replaced artists with AI-generated slop trained on their work. It's no surprise to see Sweeney take this position on AI, given Fortnite's extensive use of the technology. Over the summer, Epic released AI Darth Vader into Fortnite and announced plans to let people create their own AI NPCs. The original Darth Vader was voiced by James Earl Jones, who died in September 2024 at the age of 93. The AI version of his voice, powered by Google's Gemini 2.0 Flash model and ElevenLabs' Flash v2.5, was used with the Jones family's permission. Within an hour of the feature going live, Fortnite players manipulated Vader into saying the kind of things very much associated with the Dark Side of the Force, including swearing. Epic soon patched it out. Speaking to IGN in June, Sweeney predicted that small teams would soon be able to use AI prompts to make video games on the scale of Nintendo masterpiece The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. "AI characters giving you the possibility of infinite dialogue with a really simple setup for creators means small teams will be able to create games with immense amounts of characters and immense and interactive worlds," he said. "What would it take for a 10-person team to build a game like Zelda Breath of the Wild in which the AI is just doing all the dialogue and you're just writing some character synopsis? That's totally going to be within reach over the next few years." If you're hunting for the best offers this week, we're actively rounding up the strongest Black Friday deals on video games, tech, and more. You can find all our top picks and price drops in our full Black Friday hub, or check out our relevant pages for PlayStation, Nintendo, and Xbox deals.

Don't label AI games: Epic CEO Tim Sweeney tells Steam, and he's correct

Labelling AI development is pointless as future games rely on AI everywhere Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has thrown a grenade into the discourse surrounding Artificial Intelligence in video games. His target is Steam's policy of mandating disclosure labels for games that use generative AI, and his verdict is blunt: "It makes no sense." While critics might dismiss this as typical billionaire contrarianism or a defense of his own Unreal Engine ecosystem, a closer examination suggests something else: Sweeney is looking further down the road than everyone else. He is arguing that treating AI as a "hazardous material" that requires a warning label is a fundamental misunderstanding of how software is built. And he is correct. Also read: AMD FSR Redstone Ray Regeneration in Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 - Look out NVIDIA Sweeney's critique, delivered via a sharp thread on X (formerly Twitter) this week, cut through the technical jargon with a sarcastic analogy. If the industry insists on labeling the tools used to make a game, he argued, we are on a slippery slope to absurdity. "Why stop at AI use?" Sweeney posted. "We could have mandatory disclosures for what shampoo brand the developer uses. Customers deserve to know lol." The humor masks a serious point about utility. We do not demand developers disclose if they used Photoshop to edit textures, or if they used Visual Studio to write code. Sweeney's point is that Generative AI is rapidly becoming just another utility in that same stack. Perhaps the strongest argument against these labels lies in the history of gaming itself. We often forget that "AI" has been a foundational pillar of video games for forty years. Since the days of Pac-Man, developers have used artificial intelligence to control non-player characters (NPCs). When an enemy in a stealth game investigates a noise, or when a racing game adjusts the difficulty of opponent drivers, that is AI. We don't demand a warning label for "Smart Enemy AI" - in fact, we celebrate it. Also read: I tried gaming on a non-gaming laptop, and this was my experience The current controversy draws an arbitrary line in the sand. It suggests that when algorithms are used for logic and behavior (NPCs), it is acceptable innovation. But when algorithms are used for visuals and assets (Game Art), it suddenly requires a disclaimer. Sweeney's stance suggests this distinction is meaningless. Whether the computer is generating a path for a monster to walk on, or generating the texture for the monster's skin, it is simply code assisting the developer. If we didn't label the former, there is little logic in labeling the latter. Sweeney is correct because he is judging the technology based on its trajectory, not its current controversial infancy. Steam's policy (and the player backlash it seeks to mitigate) currently treats Generative AI as an external alien force. But in game development, it is already becoming the mortar that holds the bricks together. If a developer uses an AI-powered "content-aware fill" to extend a background texture, does that warrant a "Made with AI" warning? If an AI helps squash a bug in the physics engine, does the consumer need to be notified? Sweeney's argument is that soon, the answer to "Does this game use AI?" will be "Yes" for 100% of titles on the market. At that point, a warning label becomes noise. Policies built on temporary fears rarely age well. Steam's current labeling policy is a reaction to fear - fear of copyright theft, fear of job losses, and fear of "low effort" asset flips. These are valid concerns for today, but they are stopgaps. Sweeney is betting on a future where AI is simply the new standard for efficiency. Labeling it creates a false dichotomy between "Human Games" and "AI Games," a line that is already blurring beyond recognition. Sweeney is right: judge the game by how it plays, not by the brand of digital shampoo the developers used to clean up the code.