According to GameSpot, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney declared that AI disclosure requirements “make no sense” for digital game stores like Steam. The billionaire tech mogul made these comments on November 26 in response to motion capture designer Matt Workman, who had argued on November 13 that Steam and all digital marketplaces should drop their “Made with AI” labels. Sweeney claimed these tags only remain relevant for “art exhibits for authorship disclosure” and digital content licensing marketplaces where rights need clarification. He believes AI will be involved in “nearly all future production,” making specific disclosures unnecessary. Major publishers are already embracing this vision—Square Enix aims to automate 70% of QA work by 2027, while Krafton invested $70 million to become an “AI-first company.” EA wants its teams to treat AI as a “thought partner,” and Sony has outlined comprehensive AI gaming plans.
The Great AI Divide
Here’s the thing: Sweeney isn’t wrong about AI’s growing ubiquity in game development. Basically every major publisher is jumping on the bandwagon. But the industry is deeply divided on this. On one side, you’ve got influential figures like Gabe Newell, Hideo Kojima, and Masahiro Sakurai speaking positively about AI’s benefits. They see it as a tool that could help smaller teams compete and streamline development.
And then there’s the other side. Rockstar Games co-founder Dan Houser thinks AI is “overrated.” The Witcher 3 director believes games made exclusively with AI will be soulless. Even developers at companies pushing AI—like Baldur’s Gate 3 and Subnautica 2 teams—are pushing back against their own publishers’ positions. There’s a US congressman calling for regulations after Black Ops 7 sparked heated debates. So while Sweeney sees inevitability, many see a battle worth fighting.
The Practical Problem with Labels
Now, let’s talk about the actual disclosure issue. Sweeney makes a reasonable point about enforcement—how exactly do you define “Made with AI” when the technology integrates into so many tools? Is it only when AI generates final assets? What about AI-assisted level design, bug detection, or even writing assistance? The lines are incredibly blurry.
Workman’s original argument that the label only exists because artists “put up a stink initially” reveals the tension here. But here’s the counterpoint: consumers might actually want to know. Some players actively avoid AI-generated content for ethical or quality reasons. Does removing transparency help anyone except the companies who don’t want scrutiny?
The Human Cost Question
The biggest fear, of course, is jobs. When Square Enix talks about automating 70% of QA work, that means real people. Companies claim AI won’t reduce headcount, but let’s be honest—that’s what automation does. The technology is advancing so rapidly that many roles could become obsolete before workers can retrain.
And yet, there’s another perspective. Some analysts believe the AI bubble is about to burst. Maybe all this investment—like Krafton’s $70 million bet—won’t pay off as expected. The technology still struggles with consistency and creativity. So is Sweeney right about AI becoming ubiquitous, or are we witnessing another tech hype cycle that will eventually settle into more modest, practical applications?
Where This Is Headed
Look, Sweeney’s position reflects where the industry leadership wants to go—full steam ahead with AI integration with minimal disclosure. But the pushback from developers and some consumers suggests this won’t be a smooth transition. The debate isn’t really about labels; it’s about control, transparency, and what kind of creative future we’re building.
What happens when AI becomes so embedded that we can’t even trace its influence? That’s the future Sweeney seems to envision—and he’s probably not wrong about the direction. But whether that future should arrive without any consumer transparency or industry standards? That’s the real question nobody has answered yet.
