Why Identity V players launched the 423 spending boycott after the AI poster controversy

On April 11, after Identity V officially released the new “Ivory Tower Series” skin poster, players on social platforms flagged multiple details as suspected AI-drawing errors, then escalated into organizing a “423 spending strike,” with the discussion later reaching trending lists.

Placed in an industry context, this is not a dispute about one artist, but about whether the content production pipeline is transparent. The evidence players cited focused on hand structure and perspective logic, including “a deformed four-finger left hand,” “abnormal hand proportions,” and “object intersections,” all of which are common flaws in current AI image outputs. More objectively, users are not inherently against tool iteration, but they do use spending behavior to demand that delivery quality and disclosure obligations stay aligned.

From a design perspective, Identity V’s art value is not only about looking good; it also supports character recognition, worldbuilding extension, and skin premium pricing. If promotional art contains basic structural mistakes, the damage is not limited to one poster’s reputation—it can also affect player expectations about the consistency of future skin quality. The risk resembles an early second-generation product phase: features launch quickly, but QA standards have not upgraded at the same pace.

A key reason the controversy expanded is a perceived gap in rule consistency. The article notes that Identity V previously explicitly banned AI-generated entries in fan-art competitions, while official materials were then questioned for possibly using similar technology, leading the community to call it a “double standard.” At the same time, players mainly targeted NetEase rather than Identity V’s developer Joker Studio, showing that public criticism had shifted from a “single work problem” to a “management and process problem.”

Looking across the market, this is not an isolated case. NetEase’s Worlds Beyond was criticized over suspected AI-like issues such as “three-segment arms” and “fused fingers,” and Marvel Rivals faced similar doubts even after previously stating it had not used AI. That pattern shows the industry is still searching for balance between efficiency gains and aesthetic stability. On the other hand, YOOZOO has publicly stated that AI is already used in art asset production and localization workflows, and said it can reduce average development cycles by 65% and cut art resource production costs by 70%, which means corporate adoption incentives will persist.

For players, the most practical standard is simple: first, check whether the official side clearly labels where AI was involved; second, check whether the final output reaches detail quality worthy of paid content. If both are met, the tool attribute need not be overemphasized. If labeling is missing and quality fluctuates, spending strikes become a predictable community response. For publishers, AI is better used as an assistive production tool, not a replacement for final aesthetic gatekeeping; if that step fails, each new campaign risks repeating the same trust cost.