Tim Sweeney says AI labels on game stores should go
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney wants digital storefronts to drop "Made with AI" tags. His take is blunt: AI will be used in almost all future game development, so the label adds noise instead of clarity.
He agrees disclosures matter in places where authorship and rights are the product-art exhibitions and licensing marketplaces. But for game stores, he says the AI tag "makes no sense," arguing AI should be treated like any other production tool.
Epic vs. Steam: two playbooks
Epic's storefront does not show AI disclosures on game pages. It treats AI like engines, DCC tools, or middleware-part of the pipeline, not a consumer-facing detail.
Steam takes a different route. Valve asks developers to explain how AI-generated or AI-assisted content shows up in their games, aiming to address concerns about rights, training data, and production workflows.
Why this matters for engineering and production teams
The split creates practical work for teams shipping on multiple stores. You may need to maintain different disclosure formats and review processes depending on where you launch.
- Store compliance: Expect per-store checklists for AI usage notes, visible copy, and support responses.
- Provenance and licensing: Keep records of models, datasets, and licensed inputs. This isn't just legal due diligence-it speeds up store reviews.
- Model and tool governance: Track which models are allowed for code, art, audio, and text. Document versioning and settings.
- QA and content safety: Add tests for hallucinations, style drift, IP lookalikes, and unsafe outputs if generative systems touch shipped assets.
- Player trust: Even if a store doesn't require a tag, a concise studio statement can preempt support tickets and social blowups.
Actionable next steps
- Map your AI surface area: where AI touches concepting, placeholder assets, shipped content, live ops, and support tooling.
- Create a single source of truth: a short "AI in our pipeline" doc covering tools, datasets, rights, and human review gates.
- Prep store-ready disclosures: a 2-3 sentence template that explains use, review oversight, and ownership.
- Lock down data provenance: store licenses, dataset summaries, and approval trails alongside assets in version control.
- Run a legal pass: copyright, likeness, and data use. Align with local regulations and platform terms.
- Add kill switches: feature flags or content toggles for AI-driven systems so you can hotfix without a full patch.
- Train the team: guidelines for prompt hygiene, reference use, and redlines (no unlicensed lookalikes, no personal data, etc.).
The open questions
- Thresholds: what counts as "AI-assisted" versus "AI-generated" in asset pipelines with heavy human edits?
- Code: do teams disclose LLM use for boilerplate or refactors if the shipped result is fully reviewed and tested?
- Mods and UGC: how should studios message AI-generated user content that appears in-game?
- Enforcement: how will stores verify claims about training data and rights?
Sweeney's stance treats AI as standard tooling. Steam's approach centers on player transparency. Until the industry aligns, assume you'll need both: robust internal governance and store-specific messaging.
If you need a primer on authorship and AI, see the U.S. Copyright Office's guidance on AI and copyright here. For practical upskilling on AI for engineering and content teams, explore Complete AI Training by job role.
Your membership also unlocks:
