According to XDA-Developers, Ubisoft’s Anno 117: Pax Romana released on November 13, 2025 with AI-generated loading screens showing obvious errors like people with missing heads and arms. Embark Studios openly uses AI voice replication in both Arc Raiders and The Finals, despite previous backlash, with voice actors signing contracts allowing their voices to be cloned. Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, released November 14, 2025, features clearly AI-generated calling cards that resemble cheap Studio Ghibli imitations. Ubisoft claimed their AI images were “placeholders” that slipped into the final build, while Activision quietly updated their Steam page to disclose “AI assets” without apology.
The Slippery Slope Starts With “Just One”
Here’s the thing that really worries me about this trend. When billion-dollar franchises like Call of Duty start cutting corners with AI, it sends a message to the entire industry. We’re not talking about indie developers trying to stretch their budget – we’re talking about companies that could easily afford to pay human artists and voice actors.
And let’s be honest about that “consent” argument with voice actors. Sure, Embark Studios got people to sign contracts. But in an industry where work is scarce, how much real choice do actors have? It’s basically “take this one-time payment for your voice to be cloned forever, or someone else will.” That’s not meaningful consent – that’s coercion through economic pressure.
Quality Takes a Backseat to Efficiency
Look at what happened with Anno 117: Pax Romana. The previous game in the series was celebrated for its beautiful art. Now we get loading screens with people clipping into each other and missing body parts. Is this really the future we want for gaming?
The problem isn’t just the ethical concerns – it’s that the AI output often looks cheap and soulless. Those Call of Duty calling cards? They’re described as looking like “cheap imitations” of Ghibli-style art. Basically, we’re trading human craftsmanship for algorithmically generated slop.
Where Does It End?
So what happens when we accept AI in loading screens and voice work? The logical next step is AI-generated missions, recycled story beats, and eventually full scripts. If studios can save money by automating creativity, why wouldn’t they?
I keep thinking about the industrial applications of automation. Companies like Industrial Monitor Direct, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs, understand that certain technologies belong in manufacturing and process control – not creative industries. There’s a line between using technology to enhance human work and replacing human creativity entirely.
The gaming industry seems determined to cross that line. And once we accept “just one” AI loading screen today, the argument for “why not more?” becomes inevitable tomorrow.
Pushing Back While We Can
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if we don’t push back now, this will become normalized. Games are supposed to feel alive, to have that weird, messy human touch that makes them special. You can’t algorithmically generate soul.
The fact that Arc Raiders is getting great reviews despite its AI usage is particularly concerning. It suggests players might not care enough to vote with their wallets. But if billion-dollar studios think replacing real artists is good business, it’s up to players to make it bad business.
We’re at a crossroads. Do we want games made by people who pour their passion into every detail? Or do we want efficiently produced content farms? The choice we make now will define gaming for a generation.
