I think it should be said that the experience in a lot of the kind of "multiplayer games played solo" would probably be improved by this (assuming it doesn't actually bleep, and just cuts the audio). Many people, probably a majority, get fatigued by garbage on voice comms and write it off altogether while keeping everyone muted (and a feedback loop of nobody using them seriously develops as a result).
But it also needs to be said that the "opt-in", "end-user" experience thing is obviously horseshit; an insignificant number of people would willingly put this gross bloat on their machine, and Intel would never make money off it. The only way to profit would be licensing it to companies like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and the owners of the largest multiplayer PC games, where there's no reason to believe it would be either "opt-in" or "opt-out" (or not just used to automatically ban/suspend people). They might also end up selling it to any government interested in mass-surveillance (not real-time censorship, that's dumb) which doesn't already have this in development (but if Intel can do it, any other tech company can, and the NSA almost certainly already has this cooking somewhere or already in use in select circumstances).
It's also questionable just in the sphere of video games. The drive for market share of these mindless corporations leads to taking every aspect of human life and transforming it into a commodity (an inferior substitute) that can be bought and sold exclusively on their terms, which ultimately means the terms of a monopoly or cartel catering to the widest market. The kinds of games that would be improved by this are basically antisocial experiences, thoroughly in line with the general trend of compartmentalizing existence into a miserable work-life relieved by a feed of entertainment that subtracts the remaining hours from the day. That this would just let them do one-half of that better (i.e. more profit, more consolidation, more barriers, with more people) doesn't really seem worthwhile.