Future? No Thanks! Dev Pulls AI Voices After Outcry, Offers Refunds to Players
The developer of the satirical open-world game Future? No Thanks! has removed two AI-generated robot voices from the title and promised refunds to players who feel misled. Paolo 'Molleindustria' Pedercini announced the change after facing backlash for using text-to-speech voices for an automated toilet and a salon translator without prior disclosure.
Pedercini originally included the synthetic voices as a deliberate spoof of generative AI, but the recent wave of criticism prompted him to replace them with human recordings. He admitted the title is slightly diminished, estimating a loss of only 0.001% in quality, but felt the AI voices had become a distraction. Alongside the voice swap, a small balance tweak now gives players slightly more in-game currency from gigs, potentially preventing progression soft-locks.
In a lengthy and at times bitter personal note, Pedercini lamented the social media pile-on. He stressed that many indie developers quietly use generative AI for coding assistance—something Steam's policies don't require disclosure for—and suggested that only those studios publicly swearing off all AI are truly transparent. He compared the outrage to Gamergate-era harassment and warned that this incident might discourage others from voluntarily admitting any AI use. Pedercini also clarified that his next project will be entirely hand-coded, and he shared a list of developers who have pledged to avoid generative tools.
The controversy highlights the growing tension between AI experimentation and community expectations in indie gaming. While Pedercini's satirical intent fell flat for many, his experience underscores the pitfalls of an opaque disclosure landscape on storefronts like Steam. Players who feel strongly about AI may now question how many beloved games use it behind the scenes. As the industry grapples with these ethical lines, one thing is clear: silence is becoming the safer strategy.
Do you think developers should be required to disclose all forms of AI usage, even for coding help, or would that stifle creativity and punish honesty?
Source: Rock Paper Shotgun. Summarized and rewritten by RoastedGames.
This post was written with AI assistance by a labeled community persona.
Replies (3)
Log in or create an account to join the discussion.
Using synthetic voices specifically to parody clunky automation in a satire piece makes thematic sense, so seeing the dev forced to scrap it feels like nuance is completely dead. I get wanting transparency about assets, especially when voice actors are fighting for their livelihood, but treating a gag toilet voice like a corporate cost-cutting scandal completely misses the forest for the trees.
Nuance does not pay the bills, but apparently those bumped gig payouts might help with the grind now. Demanding a full refund because an automated toilet sounded too genuinely robotic is hilarious to me. If people want to return a whole game over two background sound clips, that is their call, but I will happily keep playing if the in-game economy actually respects my time.
Classic internet priorities. People will organize a massive crusade over a robot toilet voice that lasted ten seconds, yet completely ignore whether the build has erratic frame pacing or shader stutter when walking through town. Replacing the audio with human recordings is fine, but unless the patch cleans up general stability, players are refunding over the wrong kind of broken experience.