Who actually benefits from Call of Duty: Black Ops 7’s AI art controversy?

I’ve lived through many Call of Duty controversies, from MW2’s No Russian mission to loot box overload. Still, few have arrived as swiftly, or as on zeitgeist, as the discovery that Call of Duty: Black Ops 7’s calling cards appear to include generative AI artwork. What began as a handful of screenshots on launch day has quickly spiralled into a wider debate about transparency, value, and the future of human-made art in blockbuster games.

Many of the game’s calling cards display the kind of visual tics that seasoned artists can spot at a glance: fingers that don’t quite add up, characters whose faces drift slightly off-model, and backgrounds that feel too synthetic to belong to a studio known for its polish.

These aren’t high-profile cinematic assets, but they’re the small slices of style and personality players earn through gameplay. And that’s precisely why the discovery has landed so hard; it feels a little sneaky, a bit underhanded. Let’s not forget that Activision was accused of using AI for cinematics and marketing art in Back Ops 6, a claim it denied. So here we are again with an AI art controversy, this time used for ‘incidental’ art.

Activision confirms the use of AI

Amid mounting speculation around Black Ops 7’s AI art use, Activision released a statement addressing the concerns. In it, as reported by XboxEra, the publisher said: “We use a variety of digital tools, including AI tools, to empower and support our teams […]. Our creative process continues to be led by the talented individuals in our studios.”

It’s a carefully worded reassurance that reflects the message Activision has been using for months: AI is being used, but the artists are in control. Yet for many players and industry creatives, the artwork itself tells a different story, one where the balance between assistance and overreliance may have quietly slipped.

When costs drop, why don’t prices?

One reason this dispute has struck a nerve is that it speaks to a bigger, simmering tension across the industry. Generative AI tools promise speed, efficiency, and cheaper production pipelines. But while AI may lighten a studio’s workload or shrink a budget line, the price of a premium game like Black Ops 7 isn’t getting any lower.

If anything, game prices continue to edge upward, even as artists and developers face layoffs and teams become leaner. For players, it’s hard not to ask the obvious question: if AI is taking on more of the work, and if publishers are saving time and money, then where is that value going? Because it certainly isn’t landing in the hands of the people buying the game.

There’s also a cultural dimension at play. Calling cards, perk illustrations, and rewards in all games, not just Black Ops 7, have always been a space for personality, a place where illustrators flex style and humour, particularly inside a series like CoD that otherwise trades on tactical realism.

Replacing that human expression with AI-generated imagery feels, to many, like a hollowing-out of one of the game’s most characterful corners. It also feels like mission creep, using AI in undisclosed ways that gradually become more ingrained in the game. If you’re going to use AI in game development, be open about it, maybe use it creatively, perhaps for areas of development that can be improved, but let gamers decide.

The industry is watching and recalibrating

While no major studio will admit it publicly, Black Ops 7 is now a case study in how not to introduce AI into a beloved franchise. Artists across the industry are already discussing how easily ‘supportive tools’ can cross the line into fully generated content, and how difficult it becomes to convince players that craft still matters when the results look rushed or uncanny.

My, possibly controversial, view is that the technology itself isn’t the villain here; poor implementation is, a lack of transparency is, and fundamentally, a lack of creative use is. AI-assisted workflows are already used sensibly across games, from early concept exploration to mood boards and iteration. I have my doubts if AI can create good concept art from scratch, as it will always be iterative on existing ideas, but perhaps there’s a way to help generate more art based on a human’s first, original concepts. Just as importantly, once those AI tools bleed into final, player-facing art without the care or oversight fans expect, the damage is immediate.

What happens next?

The practical fallout remains to be seen. Activision hasn’t indicated whether it will review or replace the questionable calling cards, and no policy changes have been announced. But what has become clear is that players are no longer willing to shrug off AI missteps as harmless experimentation. In a series as commercially dominant as Call of Duty, quality is part of the contract (incidentally, this is one of the worst-performing CoD releases, both in terms of player count and reviews).

The irony is that AI was supposed to make production smoother; still, here, it’s ignited one of the most divisive conversations in the series’ recent history, and that’s saying something for Call of Duty. Unless studios start handling these tools with more transparency and taste, Black Ops 7 won’t be the last AAA game caught in the crossfire.

Need to know more about AI art? Read my take from the recent Freepik Upscale Conference. Want to create art the human way? Read my guide to the best digital art software.