How much of AI was relied on in the development process of Call of Duty: Black Ops 7?
Executive summary
The short answer: Activision and Treyarch confirm generative AI tools were used to help produce some in-game assets for Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, but the studios have not disclosed any quantitative measure of "how much" AI contributed to the final product [1] [2]. Public reporting and player sleuthing point to a noticeable presence of AI-generated or AI-assisted 2D assets—most visibly calling cards and icons—but no outlet has obtained internal data that specifies percentage, hours saved, or lines of art fully produced by AI versus human-made [3] [4].
1. What the companies admit: AI as a disclosed, supportive tool
Activision placed the same Steam disclosure on Black Ops 7 that it used on previous Call of Duty titles: “Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in-game assets,” and company statements emphasize that AI is intended to "empower and support" developers rather than replace them [1] [5]. Associate creative director Miles Leslie reiterated that AI tools are part of the industry landscape and are intended to "streamline" development, while insisting creative decisions remain human-led [6] [2].
2. What players and journalists observed: visible AI artifacts, especially in cosmetics
Players and multiple outlets flagged a series of calling cards and UI icons that appear to be generative-AI outputs—examples that went viral include artworks in a Studio Ghibli-like style and other assets criticized as unpolished—which led to significant backlash and review-bombing on Metacritic [7] [8]. Reporting by Kotaku, Engadget, PC Gamer and others concluded there is at least a "not insignificant amount" of AI-looking art in the game, though each outlet notes it cannot authoritatively prove which assets were wholly machine-generated [3] [4] [7].
3. What the developers deny or avoid quantifying: the limits of public disclosure
Despite repeated scrutiny, Activision and Treyarch have declined to specify which assets were generated by AI, how many, or what fraction of the art pipeline relied on AI models—leaving the core question of "how much" unanswered by primary sources [2] [1]. Public-facing comments frame AI as an aid and the creative process as human-led, but the company has not provided the metrics or audit trails that would let outsiders convert that assurance into a percentage or hours-based estimate [6] [2].
4. Context and competing narratives: efficiency, layoffs, regulation and reputational risk
Commentators argue two competing narratives: proponents see AI as a cost- and time-saving tool that streamlines workflows in big-budget projects [6] [5], while critics and some lawmakers warn that visible use of generative AI in mass-market titles raises ethical, labor, and copyright concerns and has prompted political attention (Rep. Ro Khanna) and sharp public criticism [9] [10]. Reporting about prior internal pressure to use AI and layoffs at Microsoft-era studios complicates claims that AI is merely an assistive technology, but those connections remain unproven for Black Ops 7 specifically [11] [2].
5. Bottom line and limits of available evidence
Available, cited reporting confirms generative AI tools were used in Black Ops 7’s asset workflow and that some visible in-game art strongly resembles generative outputs, but no reputable source has produced objective, quantitative evidence enumerating the share of assets created or substantially altered by AI; therefore the answer must be: AI was used and visible, but the precise degree of reliance is undisclosed [1] [4] [3]. Any firm numeric claim about percentage of art, hours saved, or headcount replaced would go beyond what the current reporting supports [2] [11].