The use of AI in games has been the source of much virtual ink, and the debate isn't likely to stop anytime soon. Yesterday's statement by Epic head honcho Tim Sweeney has stoked the fire once more. In a reply to a topic about game storefronts ditching the "Made with AI" label, Sweeney said, "it makes no sense for game stores, where AI will be involved in nearly all future production," in an apparent dig at Valve's usage of the label on its Steam platform.
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.November 26, 2025
Valve's approach to its Steam storefront is two-pronged. Since January 2024, publishers must disclose how their games use AI (if at all), making the distinction between "pre-generated" and "live-generated" content. However, Valve asks for a statement from the developers to be partially or wholly included on the game's store page, so players can judge for themselves. Even under the simpler pre-generated banner, a survey from July 2025 stated that about 7% of games on Steam disclosed they had used generative AI in some form.
Sweeney's statement seems clear enough, but it's also easy to misinterpret. A good chunk of the internet took it to mean he thinks that stores straight up shouldn't ding a game because it uses AI, no matter where or how. But that might not necessarily be the case, and this is a situation where semantics and context are of utmost importance.
The "AI" moniker has now been so overloaded and diluted as "app" or "tech." Simply stating that a game uses AI can seem damning, but it can be quite innocuous. Many gamers rebel against the use of AI-generated artwork or voiceovers, which arguably replace or distort the human element in those creations.
However, "using AI" also means using tools like Claude for coding, Replit for repository management, ChatGPT or Perplexity for research, or even something as simple as a guitar amp simulation for an actual musician creating the soundtrack. The question, therefore, is where to draw the line. 'Assistance' versus 'content generation' appear reasonably distinct, but even then, the waters can get muddy.
With that in mind, it's also not difficult to argue that live-generation tools can put a new spin, if not completely break ground, on certain types of games. Fortnite's Darth Vader answering players' voices might be considered gimmicky, but games like Eneme and Retail Mage rely on generative AI as a core feature of their gameplay, hopefully bringing their respective universes to life in a more organic and immersive way.
Backlash to Sweeney and the original post was immediate. Ayi Sánchez, former Counter-Strike artist, likened a lack of disclosure that a game used AI to food products' ingredient list, while Dutch composer Joris de Man reminded Sweeney that game trailers had to eventually get a "not real gameplay" disclaimer to temper expectations. Mike Bethell, an indie producer, was acerbic, stating that "If [Sweeney thinks] AI is the future, wear that 'we used AI to make this' tag with pride, and watch as [his] sales plummet."
It's worth noting that Sweeney also got support from some figures, who mainly pointed out the lack of a defining line on the matter. Matt Workman, the thread's original poster, stated that Steam's catch-all net "is so wide it catches any developer who uses Unreal Engine, Google Suite (Gmail/Docs/Sheets), Slack (MANY AI automations), Adobe Products, Microsoft Office, etc."
Whether Sweeney's broad statement makes sense or is self-serving is arguably up for discussion. One thing is certain, though—this debate isn't likely to stop anytime soon.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.
