According to The Verge, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is calling for Steam and other game stores to drop their “Made with AI” tags, arguing they’ll soon become irrelevant as generative AI becomes standard in production. Sweeney made his case on X this month, stating that while AI disclosure makes sense for art exhibits and licensing marketplaces, it “makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production.” Steam currently requires developers to disclose AI use after initially being cautious about AI-generated content. Sweeney sarcastically suggested extending disclosure requirements to “what shampoo brand the developer uses,” adding “Customers deserve to know lol.” His comments come as other industry leaders like Nexon CEO Junghun Lee recently stated it’s “important to assume that every game company is now using AI.”
Sweeney’s take on AI disclosure
Here’s the thing – Sweeney makes a pretty compelling point about where AI disclosure actually matters. In art galleries or stock photo sites, knowing whether something was AI-generated affects both artistic merit and legal rights. But games? They’re already massive collaborative efforts involving hundreds of tools and technologies. Do we really need to know whether a texture was painted by hand or generated by AI when we’re busy shooting aliens? His shampoo joke actually highlights something important – where do we draw the line on disclosure requirements?
The broader industry context
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Microsoft claims 91% of its engineering teams use GitHub Copilot, and AI is becoming embedded in everything from Photoshop to Unreal Engine. Sweeney previously argued on X that AI should lead to “building better games rather than employing fewer people.” Basically, the cat’s out of the bag – AI tools are becoming as fundamental to development as version control or debugging tools. So why single out AI for special labeling?
The other side of the coin
But here’s where it gets tricky. While Sweeney might be right about AI becoming ubiquitous, there’s a growing movement of indie developers using “AI-free” as a selling point. Some players actively avoid AI-generated content, whether for ethical concerns about training data or just preferring human-crafted experiences. Steam‘s current approach – allow AI but require disclosure – actually gives consumers that choice. Removing labels takes away informed decision-making. So is this about practical irrelevance or competitive advantage for Epic’s store?
Where this is heading
Looking at Sweeney’s broader arguments on X, he seems to be making a forward-looking case. If AI becomes as common as, say, using a calculator for math, then labeling becomes meaningless. But we’re not there yet. The technology’s still evolving, and public perception matters. His position might be technically correct in the long run, but it feels premature. What happens when every game uses AI in some form? Probably the labels disappear naturally rather than needing to be removed by policy. For now, Steam’s disclosure requirement seems like a reasonable middle ground.
