Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has reignited debate within the gaming community after arguing that labels showing whether a game was made with artificial intelligence are unnecessary for online game stores. His remarks, shared on 27 November through a reply on X, follow ongoing industry discussions about the role of AI in game development and its implications for creative work, transparency, and intellectual property rights.
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
Epic challenges the need for AI labels
Sweeney was responding to a post claiming that digital platforms should remove the “Made with AI” tag, as it “doesn’t matter any more.” In his reply, Sweeney agreed, stating: “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.”
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.
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) November 26, 2025
His comment highlights a clear difference between Epic Games’ stance and Steam’s, its major competitor in the PC gaming market. While Epic’s store does not display AI-related disclosures on game pages, Steam prominently shows information describing whether and how a game uses AI-generated content. This allows players to see the extent of AI involvement in development.
On the Steam page for ARC Raiders, one of the platform’s popular titles, users are shown a statement explaining the developers’ process. It reads: “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.” This disclosure does not appear anywhere on Epic’s version of the same game.
Industry tension over AI in development
Sweeney’s remarks arrive as AI continues to divide opinion across the industry. Many studios have begun experimenting with AI tools to speed up development, generate assets, or assist with coding, while others have publicly rejected the technology to preserve human-led creativity.
ARC Raiders, for example, previously faced criticism from players who objected to its use of AI-generated vocal lines, expressing concern that such practices might reduce opportunities for human voice actors and other creative professionals. This reaction reflects a broader problem that the rise of AI could displace jobs across various roles in game development.
The central issue Sweeney raised—the “rights situation”—remains especially complex. Developers, publishers, and legal experts continue to debate whether certain AI-generated assets could infringe on the rights of creators whose work is used to train AI systems. Despite this, Sweeney suggests that such concerns may become less relevant as AI becomes integrated into “nearly all future production.”
A debate with no clear end in sight
Whether Sweeney’s perspective will gain broad support is uncertain, as many studios and players remain wary of the long-term impact that AI could have on creative industries. With major storefronts taking contrasting approaches and developers forming their own policies, the sector is far from reaching a consensus.
As the use of AI in gaming grows, the divide between transparency advocates and those who see disclosure as unnecessary may deepen further. For now, the future of AI labelling in game stores remains unsettled, and the debate is likely to continue as new tools and practices evolve.
