Honestly, this lawsuit is laughable. James Earl Jones himself allowed his voice to be used to train AI before his passing, and his family has given their blessing on this implementation in Fortnite.
Besides, it’s not like this Darth Vader AI is replacing any jobs; it’s a chat bot, capable of giving live responses to players across many live matches ongoing around the world. Unless it is feasible to hire a massive team of Darth Vader voice actors to be able to respond to player requests to “force choke me daddy Vader” live across hundreds of ongoing matches while staying completely in-character 24/7, their argument about Epic Games “replacing voice actors with AI” holds no water.
Honestly, if these versions have the complete up-to-date game printed on them that do not require servers to validate or update in order for me to play the game in the future, I do see the value in this. Doom the Dark Ages 85 megabytes news the other day was harrowing. Physical media hasn’t had the full game on it for a lot of games for quite a while now. If your disc doesn’t have the full game on it, then I don’t believe you own a physical copy of the game.
exactly! it’s a way to own a complete copy on disc, independent from the servers. I know there are other companies offering that specific thing, but more players in the space is a good thing imo
There is no evidence that Guillemot or Deraine were directly involved in sexual harassment or bullying at the company, they are being accused of complicity.
Which has been said from the very beginning. They didn’t do it themselves, but they knew of it and didn’t do jack to stop it.
I am absolutely on the voice actors’ side here, but isn’t this a less than ideal argument? It seems to presume a right to be employed. If epic don’t want to use voice actors, why would they have to? I’m genuinely asking because isn’t this just a form of automation? Again, on the side of real voice actors, anti gen AI, I’m trying to understand.
This is the point of collective bargaining contracts. A union negotiates the rules by which their members and companies interact, sign a contract, and then both are bound by that contract for the term.
The union is claiming the contract they have in place prevents the automation of voice by the bound company unless they get agreement from the union first.
Oh I know how unions work, they’re quite important and do mostly very good work where I live. I just always assume any unions that manage to even exist in the US are little more than begrudgingly tolerated by employers. I didn’t realise they were referring to actual contractual obligations, I see. Thank you for clarifying.
If he thinks any studio is going to pick up his ridiculous ideas for a game without having Hideo can-do-no-wrong Kojima at the helm of the studio, then he’s as self-absorbed as I think he is.
Depending on how detailed the material he leaves behind is (or how detailed they want to pretend it is) they could likely still get some mileage out of it. We might end up with a Tom Clancy situation.
Maybe, but I really doubt it. The only reason his ideas even remotely work is because he has a history of wackjob narratives inside otherwise (metal gear) solid games + complete authorial control over the entire product. Give one of his games to someone else to produce and they need to be exceptionally strong and resilient in the face of a team and investors that will naturally - as a part of development - be asking “what about this, people won’t like it, or it doesn’t play test well.”
The “why” for every little part of the game concept needs to exist or whoever is left in control will have a very difficult time explaining what the value is when that question is raised.
All this is perhaps superseded if Kojima names an heir in addition to passing along a bunch of ideas.
Cuz it’s egomaniacal behavior. He thinks he’s so cool and unique and innovative that his ideas are worth something even after he perishes, sometime in the next TWENTY or so years. It’s not like he’s bedridden right now.
Apple had its steering rules overturned. Nothing in the new ruling changes the initial ruling that Epic violated App Store rules and was justifiably removed.
makes sense. Epic immediately started offering in-app store software, so other companies could implement Fortnite-like stores into their own apps in a way that bypasses Apple’s payment system. It’s plain to see that Apple will do everything they can to stop that from happening. Services are about 25% of Apple’s revenue, which means that if they lose most of that revenue stream, their profit margin is almost cut in half. Combine that with how much tariffs are going to cut into iPhone revenue, and now this is more like an existential fight for Apple.
videogameschronicle.com
Najnowsze