The Growing debate Over AI Disclosure in Game Development
The increasing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into game development is sparking a significant debate regarding openness with consumers. While some industry figures believe detailed disclosure is 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, CEO of Epic games, suggests AI listing is most relevant in contexts focused on authorship and licensing, like art exhibitions or asset marketplaces, and less crucial on consumer-facing store pages. He believes focusing on AI’s role in production doesn’t make sense given its anticipated pervasive use in the future.
Valve, though, has adopted a more explicit approach.Since January 2024, Steam requires publishers to disclose any AI usage, differentiating between pre-generated content (used during development) and live-generated content (appearing during gameplay). Developers must also provide a 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 Games 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 for employing AI-generated voiceovers created using text-to-speech models trained on actors’ voices – a direct replacement of human creative work. Though, AI is also used for less visible tasks, such as smoothing animations and cleaning up motion capture in Arc Raiders, which, under Steam’s current rules, still falls under the “AI-generated” umbrella.
Critics of Sweeney’s stance argue for greater transparency, comparing the lack of AI disclosure to omitting ingredients from food products. They point to the precedent of “not actual gameplay” disclaimers in trailers as evidence of the need to prevent player misdirection. Some even suggest Epic should embrace the “Made with AI” label if they believe in its future, even if it potentially impacts sales.
Conversely, others contend Steam’s definition is overly broad. Matt Workman notes that, under Steam’s current guidelines, almost any developer utilizing common tools like Unreal Engine, Google Workspace, Slack, or Adobe software could be required to disclose AI usage, even if generative AI didn’t directly create game content.
This debate underscores the difficulty in defining “using AI” in 2025. While many players are concerned about generative artwork or synthetic voice performances replacing human contributions, studios are increasingly relying on AI-assisted coding, animation, and research – processes largely invisible to the end user.
Ultimately,the industry 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 continue. 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.