According to GameSpot, Ubisoft has acknowledged that AI-produced artwork made it into the recently released city-building RTS Anno 117: Pax Romana and will replace it in an upcoming update. Sharp-eyed fans spotted the problematic loading screen featuring a Roman banquet scene with tell-tale AI mistakes including misshapen faces and bodies that don’t follow human physiology. The image was first identified by a Reddit user who noticed the low-quality background art, and Kotaku subsequently pointed out another potential AI image featuring headless Roman senators. Ubisoft claims the AI art was a “placeholder asset that unintentionally slipped through our review process” and was always intended to be replaced. The final version will be swapped in with the upcoming 1.3 patch, though it appears to be a retouched version of the original AI image.
The AI art slip-up epidemic
Here’s the thing – this isn’t an isolated incident. We’re seeing this pattern repeat across the gaming industry. Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 got called out for using AI in their “Ghibli-style” Calling Cards. Arc Raiders faced backlash over AI voiceover work. And now Ubisoft joins the club. It’s becoming a trend where companies use AI tools during development, then get caught when those placeholder assets accidentally ship with the final product.
But what’s really interesting is how quickly the community spots these slip-ups. The Reddit thread that first identified the Anno 117 AI art shows just how attuned gamers have become to spotting AI-generated content. They’re looking for those tell-tale signs – weird hands, distorted faces, physics that don’t make sense. And when you see the side-by-side comparison, the differences become pretty obvious.
The placeholder problem
Ubisoft’s explanation that this was a “placeholder asset” that slipped through raises some questions about their development pipeline. How does temporary AI art end up in the final build? And if they’re using AI for “iterations, prototyping, and exploration” as they admit, how many other games might have similar slip-ups waiting to be discovered?
Basically, we’re in this awkward transition period where AI tools are being integrated into creative workflows, but the quality control and final approval processes haven’t quite caught up. Companies want the speed and cost savings of AI during development, but they’re learning the hard way that gamers have zero tolerance for AI artifacts in finished products.
The bigger regulatory picture
This isn’t just about gaming aesthetics anymore. Congressman Ro Khanna has already called for regulation around AI use, and incidents like this will only fuel that fire. When major publishers like Ubisoft and Activision are getting caught using AI in ways that consumers find objectionable, it’s only a matter of time before regulators step in.
So where does this leave us? We’re probably going to see more of these incidents before we see fewer. The cat’s out of the bag on AI tools in game development, but the industry hasn’t figured out how to use them responsibly or transparently. The question is whether companies will learn from Ubisoft’s quick response and be more careful, or if we’ll keep seeing these AI art slip-ups until someone forces the issue with actual regulation.
