The Growing debate Over AI Disclosure โin Game Development
The increasing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into game development is โsparking a significant debate regarding openness with consumers. While some industry figures believe detailed disclosure โis needless, others argue players deserve to know the extent to which AI contributed to a game’s creation.
The core of the disagreement centers on how and when to label games utilizing AI. Tim Sweeney,โ CEO of Epic games, suggestsโค AI listing is most relevantโฃ in contexts focused onโ authorship and licensing, like art โexhibitions โor asset marketplaces, and less crucial on consumer-facing store pages. He believes focusing โon AI’s role in production doesn’t make sense givenโฃ its anticipated pervasive use in the future.
Valve, though, has โฃadopted aโ more explicit approach.Since January 2024, Steam requires publishers to discloseโ any AI usage, differentiating between pre-generated content (used during development) and live-generated content (appearing during gameplay).โข Developers mustโฃ also provide โa brief clarification of how AI was implemented. A July 2025 survey indicated approximately 7% of games on Steam currently utilize generative AI in some capacity. In contrast, the Epic Gamesโข Store currently lacks specific tags or notifications regarding AI involvement.
Recent controversies have highlighted the ambiguity of current labeling practices. Arc Raiders and The Finals faced criticism forโ employing AI-generated voiceovers created using text-to-speech models trained on actors’ โvoices – a direct replacement of human creative work. Though, AI is also used for less visible tasks, such as โsmoothing animations andโค cleaningโ up โขmotion capture in Arc โคRaiders, which, under Steam’s current rules, still falls under the “AI-generated” umbrella.
Critics of Sweeney’s stance โฃargue forโค greater transparency, comparing the lack of AI disclosureโ to omitting ingredients from food products. They point to the precedent of “not actual gameplay” disclaimers in trailers as evidence of the needโ to prevent player misdirection. Some evenโ suggest Epic โshould embrace the “Made with AI” label ifโค they believe in its future, evenโ if it potentially impacts sales.
Conversely, others contend Steam’s definition is overly broad. Matt Workman notes that, under Steam’s current guidelines, almostโ any developer utilizingโฃ common โtools like Unreal Engine, โคGoogle Workspace,โข Slack, or Adobe software could be required to discloseโฃ AIโข usage, even if โคgenerative AI didn’t directly create game content.
This debate underscores the difficulty in โdefining “using AI” in 2025. While many players are concerned aboutโ generative artwork or synthetic voice performances replacing humanโข contributions, studios โคare increasingly relying on AI-assisted coding, animation, and research – processes largely invisible to โthe end user.
Ultimately,the industryโ remains divided on were to draw the line between necessary transparency and potentially overwhelming warnings,and the discussion surrounding AI disclosure in game development is likely to โคcontinue. Weather Sweeney’s position represents a pragmatic acceptance of AI’s future or a desire to normalize its use without critical scrutiny remains a point of contention.
