Epic CEO Tim Sweeney Says GenAI Disclosures on Digital Game Stores “Make No Sense”
The debate around generative AI in video game development continues to intensify, and Epic Games chief executive officer Tim Sweeney has once again made his position clear. While many studios and executives have taken strong stances on the growing use of generative AI, Sweeney argues that one increasingly common practice in the industry should not exist at all: mandatory GenAI disclosures on digital storefronts.
Platforms such as Steam currently require developers to disclose when generative AI tools were used to create parts of their game. For example, ARC Raiders clearly states at the bottom of its Steam page that it incorporates generative AI. In many cases, such disclosures simply confirm what the developer has already admitted publicly. But in others, such as the recently announced narrative project Beyond Words from former Timesplitters and GoldenEye developers, players may not know unless the tag is present.
Even more troubling to some observers are the studios that either quietly admit their use of AI only when confronted or attempt to remove AI generated assets after being caught, as documented by Luke Plunkett.
In response to Unreal Engine developer Matt Workman, who argued on X that generative AI tags and disclosures should be removed from storefronts such as Steam, Sweeney publicly agreed. Sweeney argued that AI disclosures are unnecessary in game stores and unrelated to what matters in that context.
Agreed. The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation. It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production.
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) November 26, 2025
According to Sweeney, generative AI disclosures make sense in art exhibitions, where authorship transparency is required, or in digital licensing marketplaces, where asset rights must be clearly understood. But for game storefronts, he believes such labels are pointless because generative AI will eventually become part of all game development pipelines.
Sweeney wrote:
“The AI tag is relevant to art exhibits for authorship disclosure, and to digital content licensing marketplaces where buyers need to understand the rights situation. It makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production.”
Sweeney’s prediction, however, remains highly contested. When Nexon’s chief executive officer recently suggested that players should assume all games already use GenAI, multiple studios pushed back, reaffirming that they refuse to use generative AI for creative work.
Despite where one stands, the industry trend is undeniable. Generative AI tools are becoming more prevalent, especially in large scale development where they are used in early ideation, iteration, and asset generation. The question is not whether AI will be used, but how visible developers and publishers should be about its involvement.
If generative AI disclosure labels eventually disappear, it may not be because players no longer care, but because store policies shift in response to widespread industry adoption. The more compelling question may come from the opposite direction: will studios opposed to AI begin proudly labeling their games as “No GenAI Used” to differentiate themselves
Such a move would directly challenge claims from executives that players are indifferent to whether a game incorporates generative AI or not.
Do you believe digital storefronts should require GenAI disclosures, or should transparency come only from the developers who want to highlight their methods?
