According to IGN, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is publicly calling on Valve to ditch Steam’s AI-generated content disclosure policy that requires developers to disclose AI use on store pages. The policy affects games like Embark Studios’ Arc Raiders and Activision’s Call of Duty, which include notes about using AI tools for content creation. Sweeney responded to an X user in September 2024 arguing the “Made with AI” label doesn’t matter anymore because AI will be involved in nearly all future game production. This comes amid controversy around Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 using AI-generated images that drew complaints from players and criticism from a U.S. Congress member. Sweeney reinforced his position with a shampoo analogy, suggesting mandatory disclosures for developer shampoo brands would be equally pointless.
Sweeney’s AI vision versus player concerns
Here’s the thing – Sweeney isn’t just talking theoretically. Epic has been going all-in on AI implementation, from the AI Darth Vader voice in Fortnite (using Google’s Gemini 2.0 Flash and ElevenLabs’ Flash v2.5 with the Jones family’s permission) to plans for user-created AI NPCs. He’s previously told IGN he believes small teams could soon create games on the scale of Zelda: Breath of the Wild using AI for dialogue and world-building. But is that what players actually want?
The backlash against Call of Duty’s AI-generated calling cards shows there’s definitely a segment of gamers who care about human artistry. When Congress gets involved talking about AI eliminating jobs, you know this isn’t just about game development efficiency. Sweeney’s shampoo comparison feels particularly tone-deaf – nobody’s job gets replaced by Pantene, but artists are absolutely being displaced by AI tools trained on their work.
Where AI disclosures actually matter
Sweeney makes one valid point: there’s a difference between AI used for NPC behavior (which games have done for years) and AI-generated art sold in premium bundles. The former is basically tools assisting development, while the latter directly replaces human creative work that players might value. But his argument that “everything will use AI so why disclose” feels like corporate convenience masquerading as common sense.
Look, transparency isn’t about stopping AI use – it’s about letting consumers make informed choices. If two games cost the same but one used AI art while another paid human artists, some people might reasonably prefer supporting the human creators. Removing that information doesn’t benefit players – it benefits companies who want to quietly cut costs without facing consumer scrutiny.
The inevitable AI future
Sweeney’s probably right that AI integration will become ubiquitous. But that doesn‘t make disclosure pointless – it makes it more important. When everything contains AI, understanding how and where it’s used becomes crucial for understanding what we’re actually buying. Basically, the more pervasive the technology becomes, the more we need to know about its implementation.
The real question is whether platforms like Steam should mandate this transparency or leave it to developer discretion. Given how quickly AI is evolving – remember when Fortnite’s AI Vader started swearing within an hour? – some level of disclosure seems increasingly necessary rather than less. What do you think – should game stores drop AI labels or double down on transparency?
