all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 8 months ago

I don't like that they used them in the first place, but I'm glad to see this move. They certainly have the money.

  • source
  • [–] 67 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    To me this just feels like the next step of ‘shipping a game before it’s finished’.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago

    i mean, yea sure. but you could say that of any game that has like updated content.

    the ai voices, even though the voice actors were paid for explicitly training an ai, and to allow on the fly changes and extensive callouts, were a point of contention with a sizeable part of the comunity, so this seems like a good thing all around to me. the voice actors get work, the voice lines they replace stop having that ai inflection. a win win.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    I wonder if they're gonna do the same for The Finals as well

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Damage is done from my perspective. I won't buy a game where they think they can use AI in place of people. Or that they can "fix it in post."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    I will buy it if they are all replaced.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Finally, a move in the right direction. But I wonder how long it lasts...

  • source
  • 8 comments in c/arc_raiders@jlai.lu view that post
    [–] [S] 8 points 8 months ago

    The article mentioned https://www.gamesindustry.biz/embark-studios-head-patrick-soderlund-explains-how-arc-raiders-was-made-on-a-quarter-of-the-budget-of-a-aaa-title

    Söderlund explained “a lot” of the in-game voice lines in Arc Raiders are recorded by human actors and there are now fewer AI-generated lines in the game than there were when it launched last year.

    “We re-re corded some of the lines post-launch and made them with real voices,” Söderlund told the outlet, clarifying that they don’t want to “replace” real performers.

    “There is a quality difference. A real professional actor is better than AI; that’s just how it is. We look at [AI] first and foremost as a production tool. We can test things internally. We can test 15 different lines without recording them, and then we know what to record. It’s also a way for us to work, not replace actors. We don’t necessarily believe in replacing humans with AI all the time.”

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Honestly I really don’t have that big of a problem with this. I understand the auto-AI-hate, but really sounds like everyone, including the voice actors, knew what they were getting into. Meanwhile Siri was developed long before the current AI trend, the VO had no idea what she was recording for, and yet Apple doesn't get much hate for that. Meanwhile we’re crucifying this small dev studio with a fraction of the resources of Apple.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    The bigger issue is the ethics of the training data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah and in this case it’s entirely ethical, they paid people directly to use their voice for ai training.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    "Oh shit people hate us for doing this backtrack backtrack" yeah, no...

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    We don’t necessarily believe in replacing humans with AI all the time.

    ...all the time.

  • source