Epic Games Somehow Gets Even Worse On AI Than Tim Sweeney’s Anti-Disclosure Take

from the handcuffing-artists dept

There have certainly been some bad takes on both sides of the AI in video games argument. In one corner, we have the never-AI-ers who reflexively claim that any use of any type of AI in any game is a total disqualifier. No quarter is given to nuance. No daylight is offered for discussion. It might as well be religion to those folks. Then, on the other side, you have people like Epic Games’ Tim Sweeney, who has not only directed his company to go all in on the use of generative AI in gaming, but actually had the chutzpah to suggest that his rival Steam’s inclusion of AI-use disclosures on its storefront are “irresponsible.”

But Epic has somehow gotten even worse on AI use than that. Rather than suggesting that generative AI is a potential tool for use in gaming, which can often mean its use is employed on the perimeter of game-creation, Epic has decided to make the use of AI compulsory.

According to a new report by Bloomberg, developers on the game were told to implement an “AI-first” production model using Anthropic’s Claude AI models. The team is not to use any more “hand-written code,” and even artists are being pushed to use the technology that has become a punching bag among actual players. The director of the unannounced game reportedly told developers that all art should be “generated with full AI workflows.”

“We’re embracing AI-accelerated development, led by Epic developers who are the visionaries and creative drivers for everything we do,” Jake Jones, communications director at Epic Games, said in a statement.

It’s hard to overstate just how stupid this is. This isn’t handing artists new and interesting paintbrushes to use. It’s taking their paintbrush away entirely and telling the artists to simply tell a machine what to make. That is a terrible idea. It’s also completely antithetical to how other game makers have employed the use of AI. This is going to turn off both the public, which generally hates the idea of artistic interruption through the use of AI tools, and the pool of artists Epic does and could in the future employ.

AI models are getting better at coding, certainly. But what Epic is clearly doing is anti-artist for the sake of speed-running development after cutting human employment.

The upcoming shooter, which Bloomberg reports was supposed to release in March 2027, has now been delayed due to slow progress and understaffed teams. Despite a $1.5 billion investment by Disney in 2024 for collaborations that include this project, the Fortnite maker laid off 1,000 people earlier this year amid the battle royale’s struggles and the costs of ongoing antitrust litigation.

For the group that is dogmatically opposed to the use of AI in gaming, this is their boogeyman come to life. It’s the starkest example of bad corporate behavior enabled by AI that they could want. And it’s very hard to argue against them when there are bad CEOs and bad companies out here pulling this kind of garbage.

I won’t even try. I’ll repeat that I think there is a place for this technology as a tool to enable artists and enable more art. But if the gaming industry is too poisoned at this point to allow for that possibility to be employed responsibly, then so be it.

Filed Under: ai, video games

Companies: epic