A developer removes AI-generated voices from a game and offers refunds to players who feel betrayed, saying no thanks to the future.

Future? No Thanks! developer removes two AI voices and offers refunds after backlash

Background: an open-world satire and a belated AI disclosure

The open-world satire Future? No Thanks! has been updated after its lead developer, Paolo “Molleindustria” Pedercini, belatedly disclosed earlier this week that he had used generative AI in the game. The update removes two instances of text-to-speech generated voicework for in-game robot characters: an automated toilet and an automated translator in a hair salon.

Pedercini had previously written in a blog that he used genAI for these characters as a spoof of generative AI. He said the voices were recorded earlier this year, but he decided not to use them because he thought the actual uncanny text-to-speech was funnier in that context. In the new blog post, he explained that the new generation of text-to-speech counts as user-facing AI-generated content and that this keeps creating all sorts of annoyances and bad optics.

The update: removed voices, refunds, and a gameplay tweak

The removal came after a number of angry reactions on social media and some coverage in the press. Alongside removing the two text-to-speech generated voice instances, Pedercini is offering refunds over Paypal or Venmo to people who “still feel betrayed” by the AI-generated voices.

The update also changes part of the game’s economy. Pedercini tweaked Future? No Thanks! so that the “various gigs give you a bit more money, possibly preventing some situations of soft-locking players from achieving all the quests.”

Despite the removal, Pedercini still thinks the text-to-speech voices belong in Future? No Thanks!. He writes that, in his opinion, “the game is worse now, but only, like, 0.001% worse.”

Backlash: the original blog post and the social reaction

The blog includes a “personal update” in which Pedercini describes the backlash to the game’s genAI elements rather bitterly. He writes that “Somebody from Bluesky (the Twitter/X clone) dragged me due to a post disclosing what I foolishly thought a minor use of generative-AI in Future? No Thanks!”

He also says he gave versions of that statement multiple times before, whenever asked by festivals and events. According to him, Steam doesn’t require disclosure of generative AI for things like code assistance, so many people assume their favorite indie games don’t use AI at all just because the developers stay mum.

In the personal update, Pedercini writes: “Not me, I’m a good boy and I wanted a page I could link to that explains that NO, this is not a vibecoded slop game but YES, I did ask chatGPT to fix a broken shader and a few things like that.” He adds that, more foolishly, he included a paragraph that sounded like he was trying to exculpate himself by poo-pooing on colleagues who advocate for an AI-free life. That paragraph was deleted after the original blog’s publication, but not before it had been screengrabbed and shared on the socials.

Steam context: disclosure rules and what they do not require

The article notes that Valve updated Steam’s rules in January to allow “efficiency” tools, such as coding assistants. It also states, based on anecdotes and conversations with other developers rather than any kind of statistical survey, that it seems very likely many developers on Steam are not disclosing their genAI use. The policy is described as having been more of a gesture on Valve’s part than a mechanism of real accountability.

Pedercini’s response: apology, sarcasm, and a wider warning

Pedercini acknowledges the problem with his original post. “Look, it was not a good post,” he writes. “Defeatist, hastily written. I thought nobody would read it. Anyway, slow news day, everybody fucking hates AI, the whole scene piled on.”

He then caricatures some of the people yelling at him over social media: “Am I satirizing the puppy killing machine by KILLING PUPPIES?” He compares the anger he received to being harassed by Adam Baldwin’s followers at the height of the Gamergate hate campaign.

The blog ends with Pedercini sharing a list of developers who have sworn off generative AI. “Big props to them,” he writes. “Give them a follow. SteamFest is drowning in actual slop, help them stand out.” He adds that he hates to break it to readers, but they should probably assume that all studios that have not made a public statement against all generative AI are using it for coding in some capacity. He guesses that this episode is not going to encourage more voluntary disclosures.

Current stage: a patched game, a refund offer, and a changed stance for the next project

Future? No Thanks! is now in a post-update stage: the two text-to-speech generated robot voices have been removed, refunds are offered through Paypal or Venmo for players who feel betrayed, and the game has been adjusted so that gigs give players a bit more money to help avoid soft-locking. The dispute has moved from the original disclosure to a wider argument about Steam-era AI disclosure norms. Pedercini says his next game will be “completely hand-coded.”