Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
AI

Call of Duty Maker Activision Admits To Using AI (dexerto.com) 38

Posted by msmash from the for-the-record dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: Activision has finally admitted to using AI-generated content in its games and Call of Duty players aren't the least bit surprised. [...] After years of suspicions from the CoD community, it's now been confirmed by Activision directly that AI-generated content has indeed been featured throughout the FPS franchise. Upon visiting the Black Ops 6 Steam page, fans will notice a new change. Activision has now been forced to disclose its use of Artificial Intelligence in the game's creation. "Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in game assets," Activision said in a statement provided to the platform.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Call of Duty Maker Activision Admits To Using AI More

Call of Duty Maker Activision Admits To Using AI

Comments Filter:
  • The proof is in the pudding, and if it looks good - that's all that matters. Fair criticism about the zombie's fingers though - they need to sort that out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by registrations_suck ( 1075251 )

      This is what I am wondering. I'm not a gamer, so I'm not in tune with these kinds of things.

      SO, what is the issue here? Do gamers actually care if supposed AI was used to develop games? If is - other than some philosophical or political reason, why does it matter? Is it a game quality issue of some kind? Or is it just the standard "AI is bad, because - reasons" argument?

      Why would anyone care for practical reasons?

      • There isn't a real issue to normal people. The background is that every day for the last two decades software developers and artists have complained that they're underpaid, overworked, and underappreciated by the game studios. AI is just the latest thing for them to complain about RE job security.
        • I like how you refer to non-gamers as normal people. It is funny cause it is true.

          • Hmm, I think it's true if you are Gen X or a Boomer. Many people in those generations think games are for kids. Not all of them but a lot of them. Of course, those same people are playing games on their phone, so that makes them gamers as well.

            Amongst the younger generations, gaming IS normal. I'd be more shocked to find someone that doesn't play a game or two on their phone or with the kids on a console. I'm sure they exist but gaming is not just for nerds and kids anymore.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @01:00PM (#65194233)

        Probably not but to me this is a consequence of the AI boosters and marketing people creating a very negative perception, like years ago when Adobe came out with "content aware fill" in Photoshop that to me is the kindof tooling AI offers to artists but I think a lot of folks (myself included) look at this like a Trojan Horse in that Activision is putting toes in the water for what almost all the AI marketeers want, to replace human labor. Just like in criminal court it's not just the outcome that matters but the motives and state of mind of the perpetrators.

        In these cases though it's not a guy turning widgets in a factory it's human artists doing artwork and there is a philosophical issue there I don't think can be ignored and it's obvious Activision knows it because they tried to hide it.

        To me the backlash to AI isn't fully warranted but the AI companies and their boosters (many of which were boosting crypto years ago for similar motivations, that's a factor as well) have only themselves to blame for their outward zeal in wanting to just replace human labor and art.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by KGIII ( 973947 )

          Hmm...

          From what you wrote, I'd mention that Activision isn't actually required to employ people. From a pure business outlook, they should only employ as many people as they need to employ and if tools means that they need fewer humans then they should reduce their staff.

          They're likely not idealists. They're likely in it to make a buck from a lucrative market. If they can reduce their costs, they can increase their profits. (It's not like they'll be handing those savings down to the customer.)

          I echo the 'so

          • I've used emulators for decades now. Originally on Windows and then on Linux when I switched full time a year before Win7 was EOL (when was that?). Emulators are great!

          • They're likely not idealists.

            Nope but the role of society and through that the state is that we get to decide what business motivations are beneficial or harmful and then incentivize or discourage those motivations and outcomes. There is no natural laws of business so if we decide AI in certain forms is harmful for society as a whole we can take action through either legal means or social pressure, usually one driving the other.

            Games have used a forum of 'AI' as well, depending on your definition of AI.

            Agreed there, that is a sticky bit isn't it, the blurriness and all that.

            However that said I would say thing

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by allo ( 1728082 )

        In the end there are a lot of people in artistic communities who would like to make money from commissions but don't make (much) anyway, who now blame it on the AI competition and at the same time fear that their content could have been used to train the AIs, making things seem even scarier to them. They try to incite shitstorms as soon as anyone uses AI. Most normal users don't care or have fun with AI toys themselves and I have yet to see a real artist who really loses customers due to AI. Smart ones alre

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jeremi ( 14640 )

          I have yet to see a real artist who really loses customers due to AI.

          I think the loss scenario is more like: you come up with a cool character or drawing that catches on, it starts to sell and attract attention, and by the next day there are 35 different half-assed (or even fully-assed) AI-rendered variations of it for sale across the Internet, and they are selling at 25% of your price because it only took a few minutes worth of work for their "creator" to create and post them. So your sales drop as some percentage of your natural customer base pays for these knockoffs rat

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by allo ( 1728082 )

            The comparison that people make is fan art. And personally, I think fan art should be fine, and if the original is good enough, it should be no problem.
            But here we have the point of why traditional artists should take a look at AI. They draw a character over the course of a week, the next morning there are 20 bad clones. Their next painting will not be finished until next week. Of course people say "Cool, I want the original and then 5 clones, so I have 6 in total".

            But if the creator uses the first image to

      • The people that care are the "digital artists" that know how to use photoshop, blender and 3dmax really well. If AI can come along and do 90% of their job, why bother with them going forward?

        That's probably the issue at hand. Same as other artists being upset AI is eating their lunch. As much as people hate doing "boring work" instead of "creative work" that boring work was paying the bills. Now they are left with just "creative work" and that doesn't pay unless you are super special and can get people to p

      • Activision is using generative AI tools to create sloppy content and some of it is for sale.

        I do not understand the psyche of those who buy this stuff, but I do understand that at least part of the upset is the passing off of garbage for content - it's an insult to some of the users. It's slightly like having to watch Ads that you don't like. In itself, it is definitely not big news.
    • People who want to support artists care. I would not buy an AAA game if it had AI content unless it was part of the game loop such as procedurally generated levels.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by smooth wombat ( 796938 )
        People who want to support artists care.

        But it's okay to steal the work of music and movie artists, right?
        • It's not. But there's a big distribution and ownership problem that makes it compelling. There is also a big assumption that every pirated copy would have been a sale and competes in the same playing field. Generative AI on the other hand is literally marketed as a replacement for the original product on which it was trained.
    • Why create a game program? Just use an AI to generate the game on demand.
    • My words exactly, why cares?

  • Anyway...

  • excuse me while I try to summon outrage (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Turkinolith ( 7180598 ) on Tuesday February 25, 2025 @12:37PM (#65194187)
    Quite a few companies are doing some sort of AI stuff now. What articles often don't get into is the scope.

    Make whole new characters? Generally not. Use AI to uprez older textures or adjust 3d model geo to fit characters? Sure.
    • Drop artists and QA so that a middle manager could spit out more promotional material without even caring to check how many fingers it drew and dumping it on paying audience... Just stinks of a crappy product and shameful for a big company to do. Quality assets were kind of a tell-tale sign that perhaps time and care were taken to get other areas well designed and polished. Now it's a losing battle to screen out the junk and a time sink to work out the rest of the game might be rushed incoherent AI drivel.

      • You know you can always just not buy the new shitty game, right? I find 20 year old games better most the time anyway. Vote with your wallet. Don't like how a company operates? Stop giving them money then.

    • They've been using software to generate clouds and textures for decades and then shaders were doing a lot of work as well adding details to things just as putting moss on the north side of tons of trees.

      What about randomized game levels?

      oh, what about the programmers jobs lost because online games replaced programmed computer opponents with humans over the internet? You net gamers took our jobs!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Quite a few companies are doing some sort of AI stuff now. What articles often don't get into is the scope.

      Make whole new characters? Generally not. Use AI to uprez older textures or adjust 3d model geo to fit characters? Sure.

      It's Call of Duty, who could tell?

  • Is 'using AI' now some sort of Orwellian double speak for 'using a computer'?

    Yes, your honour , Activistion developers admit to 'using a computer', to develop their games. This use is not limited or restricted to the following, general computations, data generation, sorting, transforming, mathematical operations, storing and receiving data.

    How dare they have the sheer audacity to use technology in the pursuit of making joy for the fans.

    • Seriously, I could rewrite that article starting with, "Activision gloats about using AI to generate fresh content 450% faster than any competitors. Gamers Rejoice!"

  • Copyright (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Just remember, material created by a non-human is by law not subject to copyright.

    • Wish I had mod points. This is the important thing I think people fail to realize.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xenx ( 2211586 )
      That only really applies to content created, without "significant" human involvement, by AI. That is why their statement says their team uses AI tools to help develop, instead of AI tools to develop. The level, and specifics, of copyright control would have to be determined in court.

    • What if I setup my own AI on my own server and train it with my own data? At that point, how could you argue the output isn't mine?

      You can already download an AI model and run it 100% locally. If you train it on all your own stuff, it only knows your stuff. I'm sure Activision has a lot of stuff they own to train the AI on.

      Besides, if these are all in-game assets, you wouldn't know what is and is not AI generated anyway. Especially if the training data was all of Activision's games and digital assets.

  • These DO need AI.
    Badly!

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of beauty required launch 1 ship = 1 Millihelen

Close