You know, I don’t disagree with your ultimate point. But if you look through this comment chain you should recognize that the way you chose to make it is:

1. Needlessly antagonistic, and (therefore)
2. Not very effective

If you wanted to convince anyone or provoke interesting discussion I think you failed.

In the future, you should just make your argument/statement instead of asking “clever” bad faith questions.

It’s a race to the bottom.

Yes, you can decline to opt in, but the guy next to you (or the guy next to him) will opt in and sell his AI voice package for less than it costs to employ a real person. And unlike a real person, the AI voice package can work 24/7 on 10,000 productions at the same time.

If anyone can opt in, then no one can really opt out.

Is this a good thing? For the bottom line of the people making the games, sure. And maybe 3% of that savings will trickle down to the consumer.

But it’s pretty bad for the voice actors.

The board has given no real reasoning for why they fired him. Until they do, there’s no reason anyone should consider this anything other than an internal power struggle that resulted in a coup.

And Sam didn’t have a job anymore. Why shouldn’t he go work for Microsoft? He was pushed out of OpenAI, is he contractually bound to never do something different?

Did musk hire expertise? Or do the actual engineering?

It sounds like your actual argument is that neither he nor they founded the company.

I guess it just sprang into existence on its own…

Agreed. I actually can’t even remember if I finished it or just set it down one day and forgot to come back to it.

The story was… Sort of interesting? The art direction was just way ahead of the gameplay, which was a shame.