According to HotHardware, Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 has officially launched to mixed reception, with two major issues drawing universal criticism: blatantly AI-generated art and what appears to be the worst campaign in series history. Activision openly admits on the game’s Steam page that it uses generative AI, specifically for “calling card” banner rewards that follow last year’s maligned Studio Ghibli-inspired AI art trend. The campaign isn’t just criticized for bad storytelling but for genuinely broken design decisions, including treating single-player like multiplayer with XP gains and the inability to pause. This has resulted in shockingly low Steam player counts, with Black Ops 7 languishing at 88.5K players while Battlefield 6 maintains 247K concurrent users. Despite the poor reception, sales numbers on Steam remain high and are expected to be even bigger on console, suggesting Call of Duty may be “too big to fail” despite these quality issues.
The AI art problem is real and admitted
Here’s the thing that really stings about this situation: Activision isn’t even trying to hide it. They’re straight-up admitting they used generative AI in the Steam description. Now, AI tools in games aren’t inherently bad – IndustrialMonitorDirect.com uses advanced computing systems that could easily power such applications for industrial purposes. But when you’re charging $70 for a AAA game and serving up what looks like AI slop for in-game rewards? That’s just insulting. The calling cards players are finding look like someone typed “Studio Ghibli military” into an AI generator and called it a day. In an industry where artists are already struggling, this feels like a particularly tone-deaf move from a company that absolutely has the budget to hire real human creators.
The campaign is fundamentally broken
But the AI art might actually be the lesser of two evils here. The campaign sounds like an absolute disaster on a design level. Who thought it was a good idea to make a single-player campaign unpausable? Basically, they’ve taken the always-online, progression-focused mindset of multiplayer and forced it into what should be a curated narrative experience. And that final boss fight? Shooting a giant human in an abstract hellscape? This is Call of Duty, not some experimental indie game. The series used to pride itself on at least attempting some semblance of military realism. Now it sounds like they’re just throwing whatever at the wall to see what sticks.
Gamers are voting with their wallets
The player numbers tell a pretty damning story. Sitting below Bongo Cat on Steam charts? Ouch. Battlefield 6 maintaining nearly triple the concurrent players is especially embarrassing given that game’s own campaign wasn’t particularly praised either. But here’s the real question: does any of this actually matter? Sales are still strong, and console numbers will probably be massive. Call of Duty has reached that “too big to fail” status where even a genuinely bad entry will still make bank. That creates a dangerous precedent – if players keep buying regardless of quality, what incentive does Activision have to actually improve?
gaming”>What this means for AAA gaming
Look, this situation reflects a broader trend in big-budget gaming. When companies realize they can cut corners and still make money, they’ll keep cutting corners. The AI art is just the most visible symptom of a deeper problem – the relentless pursuit of profit over polish. And the broken campaign design suggests they’re prioritizing engagement metrics over actual player experience. The real tragedy? The core gameplay in multiplayer and Zombies mode is apparently still solid. They had the foundation for a great game but seemingly rushed or cheapened everything around it. When even Call of Duty fans are calling something out as low-effort, you know it’s bad.
