Microsoft wants to use AI in their games, COD confirmed to have generative AI

https://www.pushsquare.com/news/2025/02/xbox-plots-a-catalogue-of-ai-games-and-itll-probably-use-tech-on-ps5

Xbox has been training its artificial intelligence technology on Ninja Theory flop Bleeding Edge, in an effort to eventually make games using generative AI.

Speaking on the Dwarkesh Podcast, he said: “One thing that we wanted to go after was, using gameplay data, can you actually generate games that are both consistent and then have the ability to generate the diversity of what that game represents and then are persistent to user mods, right? So that’s what this is.”

In the concept video, an AI generated version of Bleeding Edge is shown running in 2005 YouTube resolution at around 10fps. The player is then able to use the model to drag in an object and place it inside the game, making it an interactable element.

Nadella explained that his company is going to train the AI on more software, and incorporate its features into its games.

“We’re going to have a catalogue of games soon that we will start using these models, or we’re going to train these models to generate and then start playing them,” he exclaimed.

With Microsoft now transitioning to third-party publisher, you can bet any of this technology it actually uses will end up in PS5 games, so look forward to that.

While the rest of the world will remain sceptical about the results, Nadella simply can’t contain his excitement.

He beamed: “When Phil Spencer first showed it to me, where he had an Xbox controller and this model basically took the input and generated the output based on the input and it was consistent with the game [that was] a massive moment of ‘wow’. It’s kind of like the first time we saw ChatGPT complete sentences or Dolly draw or Sora, this is kind of one such moment.”

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/call-of-dutys-steam-page-confirms-generative-ai-use-after-months-of-player-speculation/

Call of Duty’s Steam page now discloses that the game uses generative AI.

While it’s not clear to what extent generative AI is used in the development of the game, the Steam page now includes an AI Generated Content Disclosure section which simply states: “Our team uses generative AI tools to help develop some in game assets.”

Some players have been accusing Activision of using generative AI for a number of months now, most notable last December when the Season 1 Reloaded update came to Black Ops 6.

As reported by 80 Level at the time, the update included a loading screen showing an illustration of a Santa zombie with telltale signs of AI generation, such as odd-looking ribbons on his parcel, his left hand in an unnatural pose and his right hand having six fingers.

Since January 2024 Steam has been requiring developers to disclose the use of generative AI as part of its terms, which led to some wondering why Call of Duty didn’t have such a disclosure on its Steam page.

However, it has now been discovered by Call of Duty news site CharlieIntelthat the game’s Steam page now finally features an AI disclosure, albeit a vague one that doesn’t go into detail in exactly which in-game assets are AI generated.

Thoughts, SW? Do you care about the use of AI to develop games? It seems off putting to me, considering how much money Microsoft and Activision have.

Don't care for it. Already think games have lost their soul, now that's going to be worse.

Majority the internet when AI is brought up:

Calm down folks. AI is a tool, so long as it's being used for aspects that would benefit the use, I'm willing to see what they do with it instead of writing it off. Furthermore AI has been used in games for many, many years with procedural generation.

Or maybe they'll regain a soul

@RSM-HQ:True, true. Just don't want to see completely AI generated games en masse.

@R4gn4r0k: Wiieeee

Okay, not really!! lol :P

If they do that, just answer with your wallet. And walk.

It's what I did for The Failguard and the other revolting slop being thrown in recent years.

PR for these games love to tell us "this game is not for you" and I happen to agree. I'm someone who enjoys fun and delightful video games, so it's certainly not for me.

On the plus side this seems rather rudimentary still at this stage so perhaps a ways off before we see this producing minimally viable products.

I find it odd that we complain about AI as this boogeyman, but at the same time we acknowledge development costs are sky high and game development takes too long.

AI addresses both of those. It does not mean using AI to generate a game and then shipping it with little changes.

Before, developers would have to spend months and months creating a game world and place mundane things like clocks, chairs, barrels, etc in the world. AI can do that. It can also help smaller developers better compete with AAA studios, forcing the big guys to innovate.

I don't understand this one sided, world is ending view of AI. Everything you do/see has been touched by AI at some point.

The ads you see, billboards to pass, concept art that gets you excited, game trailers, etc.

Sony is also heavily investing in AI for their games and development, and rightfully so.

MS seems to be going all-in on generative AI and trying to promote it as something they can offer to other companies. Recently they said they want to increase margins across the entire company. It seems like something that will be more of a focus for them.

It doesn't look like they have enough resources to review what's generated because the errors have not been caught before they made it into the final product, such as extra fingers on the loading screen zombie:

It isn't the first time Microsoft has put AI into production before it was ready. For example they used it to generate erroneous news articles without verifying anything.

It seems like they have been using an immature technology for production use while lacking a validation process, and they want to go further in this direction.

If it can help with bug testing, shorten development time, and lower costs then I think that could be a very good thing indeed.

@girlusocrazy said:

MS seems to be going all-in on generative AI and trying to promote it as something they can offer to other companies. Recently they said they want to increase margins across the entire company. It seems like something that will be more of a focus for them.

It doesn't look like they have enough resources to review what's generated because the errors have not been caught before they made it into the final product, such as extra fingers on the loading screen zombie:

It isn't the first time Microsoft has put AI into production before it was ready. For example they used it to generate erroneous news articles without verifying anything.

It seems like they have been using an immature technology for production use while lacking a validation process, and they want to go further in this direction.

Unfortunately, this is the way every industry works now.

New cars have issues that are ironed out each yearly iteration, new software or apps, video games, hardware, phones, even new foods have hiccups in manufacturing that are fixed over time.

The alternative is waiting years or decades to release a product and either get beat to the market, or have that market change and you waste the millions/billions in R&D

I don't think so. I feel like it's a new direction they're trying to get off the ground in a kind of forceful manner. The proposal of how/when to use it seems like it is being imposed from the top down. MS have been investing with pioneers of AI tech, and they want to see some type of recuperation for that investment. They also want to sell it to others, and one way to do that is to show that you can be successful with it, so there is the pressure to make it happen internally.

It feels more like what we saw with blockchain, where it's a startup industry that has a lot of investment capital and they're trying to shove it in different places because someone put dollar signs in their eyes. Maybe it's the way they want the industry to work, because if it doesn't then they made a bad investment.

It's not like game developers have been getting excited about it organically, such as talking about it themselves in interviews and getting excited about possibilities, and developing and integrating the tools themselves. It's not like gamers have been getting that excited about it and started looking for that bullet point in a list of game features. It seems more like the opposite.

Unfortunately, how you FEEL isn't how the market works.

As I've said before on this forums, im in a group that writes these investment reports for the Navy (military as a whole, but Navy is my responsibility).

You FEEL that MS is doing it for the reason you stated, but its not true. AI is huge and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. MS, like you said, is looking to provide a service for other developers. That's what they do. Will it be licensed out? Of course.

What MS is doing what's called a "proof of concept", showing that these ideas work while continuously developing them. This sparks interest, investment, and guidance on which direction to take it. It is not revealed as a finished product.

Your point about developers not getting excited is false. R&D shows that there is a need for this, and has been for a long time. We just didnt have the technology for it. As for implementing themselves? There's only a handful of companies that could even afford to research and develop TOOLS to help other companies. Developing an AI system is hard, and takes a lot of software engineers. Small developers (or even publishers) dont have that amount of capital to make that investment. This is an industry NEED, which is why MS spent billions on it. To feed that need.

Its the same thing that happened with Unreal back in the day, or Havok engine, or Metahumans from Epic. It is a proof of concept. There's no released/announced piece of tech or software that did not have a proof of concept at some point, and software is often released in beta form so guide direction for broad appeal and use.

I get it, 90% of consumers don't see it that way, but this is the way new tech works and why the industry evolves so quickly. Your post feels like a limited view of it from a console war perspective. In that context, its easy to crap on them. But Sony is doing the same. Why? Because it brings costs down, and makes developing games faster = more money and larger margins.

It WILL cost developers their jobs, but JOBS + TIME is why budgets are inflated. Developers are pouring people at the problem to get games out faster (with contractors and support studios), or paying more money for licensed games, or just making sequels.

@navyguy21: If you say so.

"Developers are pouring people at the problem to get games out faster (with contractors and support studios), or paying more money for licensed games, or just making sequels."

MS is selling skin bundles for $90, you think they're going to solve that "problem" with AI? MS is selling $90+ games now day one, do you think they'll stop doing that too? They want to increase margins, those "problems" aren't going away with AI, and the quality is already suffering.

And there's the motivation...

@navyguy21: If it just leads to ensh**ification and shrinkflation then I can see why some might be disappointed with this future. I guess we'll have to see how the pointy haired bosses use it. Private sector does not work the same as public sector and has different concerns and goals.

Interested to see what comes of that from MS.

I'm not against using AI to assist with development. It's a tool at the end of the day. It makes some things that were not feasible a lot more feasible. Basic example: An RPG where the NPCs can actually say your characters customised name. You called your character Zarrshhhhtbeefcake? Hail Zarrshhhhtbeefcake! Skyrim has a cool mod because of course it does :P.

Same with the art and such like. If AI can do a lot of the drudge work then all the better too. Lowers the cost of development and makes bigger ideas more feasible for smaller studios.

But, like any tool, there will be room for abuse and some publishers throwing out some AI generated slop. But then there is no shortage of poorly made games at the moment either...sadly.

Do people even still care about COD? Player numbers have been dropping and it's obvious a lot of gamers have moved on

The people mindlessly buying these games yearly, doubt their standards are high enough to care about this.

@girlusocrazy: that is not an extra finger. That is a curb

I've said it before and I'll say it again... Western game development is dying and it will be taken over by China and AI within the next 10 years unless drastic changes occur.

I think indie games make AAA games look really really bad on a constant basis.... And for the last decade or more.

no one cares outside your echo chamber

In that case there are 3 curbs, 2 fingers, and 1 thumb

@TheEroica: Yeah but that means there is always something fun to play either way, it seems difficult to keep up with all the good games.

Put me down for "shit that will never actually come to fruition". Not only is this a terrible idea for preservation, it sounds like another harebrained idea for a tech giant to soak up more AI hype investor money. AI will be a major part of the production of games eventually, but the demos MS has been showing so far are embarrassingly raw and uninspired. It's like the second coming of Hololens. Nadella's doing a terrible job of convincing us of the virtues of Frankenstein-ing assets of games in this fashion

I don't object to AI entirely, I just take issue with it being "generative" as it takes jobs that a human can noticeably do better.

AI as a tool is fine. If they want to use it to help artist, that's great; it should be used to replace artists.

I'd much rather see modern AI used to make NPC's more lifelike in their behavior, help generate on-the-fly responses to genuine human input (i.e. I type in "Hello how are you" and the AI replies back with a response). I mean let's bring back the text-based video games of the 80's lol

They really do.

Smaller studios, smaller budget, technically inferior game engines in many respects, not nearly as large a budget for production values...and yet so so so so SO much more fun to play.

It's gotten to the point where I sort of consider AAA game development the black sheep of the industry, and indie games (and small-scale developers) the standard.

I think most people including those here would be surprised if they knew how much AI was used in the vast majority of games these days.