The use of generative AI tools in game development has been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, a major point of controversy within the video game industry. Some figures, notably, many studio heads and executives, are all for using generative AI in game development. Others don't think it's necessary at all. While we know Epic Games chief executive officer Tim Sweeney sits firmly in the former camp, he has also weighed in on another aspect of the issue, the fact that digital stores like Steam require developers to disclose that generative AI tools were used in the making of their game.
Currently, games published to Steam that were made with generative AI tools must disclose their use. ARC Raiders, for example, includes such a disclosure at the bottom of its Steam page, though with how forward Embark Studios has been about its use of generative AI, we wouldn't have needed the tag to know generative AI tools were used.
In other cases, though, like the recently announced game Beyond Words from former Timesplitters and GoldenEye developers, if not for the disclosure at the bottom, we'd likely not know generative AI tools had been used. And then there are those who still don't disclose its use, admitting it only after they are caught having used it, or don't admit it at all, and quietly patch it out.
In response to Unreal Engine developer Matt Workman arguing for the removal of generative AI tags and disclosures on storefronts like Steam in a post on X (formerly Twitter), Tim Sweeney agreed with Workman's post, saying that having generative AI tags on platforms like Steam "makes no sense."
Not because those who care about avoiding games made with generative AI have to keep an eye out for the disclosure, and even if it's not there, keep themselves aware for any signs of it. But because in his mind, there will come a day when every game is made with generative AI tools.
"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."
GenAI being used in "nearly all future production" might be what the future looks like in Tim Sweeney's head, but it's debatable that GenAI tools will catch on to such a degree. When Nexon's chief executive officer claimed that players should already be assuming all games are made with GenAI, multiple developers stood up to point out that they would never use GenAI tools for their creative endeavours.
Whichever side you fall on, GenAI tools in game development, especially in triple-A game development, are undoubtedly here to stay. So there will continue to be games made with these tools, and we could get to a point where the disclosures are removed because enough games are using these tools. However, it would be interesting to see if developers who are against using GenAI would respond by highlighting that they did not use GenAI in making their game. It would seriously put to the test what executives are saying, that consumers "do not care" if something was made with GenAI or not.
Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.
