Epic's Tim Sweeney Says AI Tags on Game Stores Are Pointless

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney argues that marking games as “made with AI” makes no sense — because AI will soon be baked into nearly every game. Here’s why he thinks the labels should go.

Epic’s CEO Reckons AI Disclosure on Games Is Already Outdated

And now we have a new twist in the debate around AI in games. The CEO of Epic Games, Tim Sweeney, said that marking games with a “Made with AI” tag doesn’t make sense anymore — because artificial intelligence will soon be part of “nearly all” game development. That’s a bold claim, especially since some game stores already show those labels to keep things transparent. But Sweeney argues the practice belongs in art galleries or licensing marketplaces, not in digital game stores. Here’s what that means for players, developers — and trust.

Tim Sweeney says tagging games as "made with AI" on digital stores no longer makes sense
He argues AI is becoming standard in development, so a label would soon apply to almost every game
According to him, the tag only makes sense in contexts of art/licenses, not game storefronts

Why Sweeney Thinks “AI tags” Are Becoming Useless

He agreed with a comment calling on all digital marketplaces — including Steam — to drop their “Made with AI” label.
His main point: AI is becoming so integral in development that nearly every game will use it someday.
He says the tag only makes sense when you want to disclose authorship — like in art exhibits or content-licensing tools — not for complex games.
He even joked: if we label AI use, where do we stop? Maybe next we’d have to list what shampoo devs used that morning.

So, in Sweeney’s view: this isn’t about hiding anything shady. It’s about pragmatism. Once AI is everywhere, highlighting it becomes pointless.

What the Current Policy Says

On Steam: since early 2024, developers must disclose whether they used generative AI during development — and describe how. That info shows up on each game’s store page under “AI Generated Content Disclosure.”
On the rival Epic Games Store: there’s no such requirement — and after Sweeney’s recent comments, there’s little chance of one showing up soon.
Some games already list disclaimers: for example, one notes that developers “may use procedural- and AI-based tools to assist with content creation,” then clarifies that the final product reflects developers’ creativity.

In short: what you see on storefronts now depends heavily on the platform — and the developer’s willingness to disclose.

What This Could Mean for Players and Developers

For players: fewer “Made with AI” tags may make it harder to judge how much human work went into a game’s art, story or design. Some may like that (less bias), others may dislike it (less transparency).
For developers: dropping mandatory disclosure could speed up releases, avoid stigma, and make AI just another tool — not a warning label.
For the industry: Sweeney’s stance could influence other platforms. If major players abandon disclosure requirements, we may enter a phase where “AI-assisted” becomes the norm and no longer singled out.
It also raises deeper questions about authorship, creative credit, and what counts as “original” work when so much gets built with help from AI.

Where the Counter-Arguments Come From

Even though Sweeney’s argument makes sense in a “future-proofing” way, not everyone agrees:

Some say that by removing labels, developers shield themselves from accountability — especially around copyright, reuse of art/data, or ethical issues.
Others argue players have a right to know how a game was made. For them, AI-use is a material fact that affects the experience, and labels help make informed decisions.
There’s also the concern that “AI-assisted” becomes a catch-all phrase: does it mean textures were scaled, dialogue helped, concept art tweaked — or that entire assets were generated? Without disclosure, players won’t know.

So while Sweeney sees disclosure as “pointless,” critics see it as a matter of trust, ethics, and fairness.