Less than a day after Pearl Abyss released Crimson Desert to commercial success, players began scrutinising the game's environmental art, and some are now questioning whether the South Korean developer has included artificially generated images without proper disclosure.
The controversy centres on several in-game paintings that players believe show telltale signs of generative AI. One particularly bizarre example, which circulated widely on social media, depicts what should be a historical battle scene. Instead, it shows a chaotic assembly of centaurs with distorted proportions, horses emerging from human bodies, and figures that morph into rocks. The anatomical impossibilities and blurred features are characteristic of AI image generators struggling with complex compositions.
Other paintings have been highlighted on Reddit, with one player stating they were "loving the game" but found it "disappointing to see Pearl Abyss use AI art every now and then throughout the world." However, other players have disagreed, saying they do not believe the paintings in question were made by AI.
The uncertainty matters because of a specific regulatory environment. Since early 2024, Steam has required publishers to disclose generative AI use on their games' store pages. Developers must disclose pre-generated generative AI assets only when they ship with the game and are consumed by players. Crimson Desert's Steam page contains no such disclosure.
Whether these paintings are placeholder art accidentally left in for release, a poor attempt at getting away with AI art, or simply wonky for some other non-AI-related reason remains unclear. A massive open-world game like Crimson Desert encompasses vast quantities of decorative content. The game features sprawling worlds with tons of details and systems sprinkled throughout it, so poor in-game paintings could simply be the result of sloppy quality control.
Competing considerations complicate the picture. Some players view any use of AI art in a premium, full-priced game as undermining trust between developer and audience, especially when disclosure is absent. Others note that environmental paintings are minor details that do not materially affect gameplay or the broader experience. Between these positions lies a legitimate disagreement about how strictly studios should police their asset pipelines and whether failing to disclose immaterial AI use warrants significant consequences.
It is unlikely that Crimson Desert will face serious trouble with Valve, especially given that the game sold two million copies in a single day, though the studio may need to add a disclosure notice or patch out offending examples. Pearl Abyss did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The timing of the revelation adds context. Crimson Desert has already weathered a turbulent launch week, with players criticising convoluted controls, investors dumping the developer's stock, and reviewers sharing mixed opinions. Despite these challenges, the game surpassed two million units sold just one day after release, with Pearl Abyss saying it was "incredibly humbled" by the commercial response.
The AI painting question will likely inform how observers evaluate Pearl Abyss's commitment to transparency and quality assurance as the studio manages post-launch feedback. For industry observers, the episode illustrates the practical tensions that emerge when disclosure requirements meet the scale of modern game development. A game with thousands of decorated spaces inevitably contains some weak assets; whether generating those assets artificially without disclosure crosses an ethical or regulatory line depends partly on severity and partly on how seriously one treats consumer information rights.