• ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    voice actors would agree with your license idea

    The ones who won’t, are probably also those with good enough exp and able to get into “foreground” roles.

    The ones who would, can now have a passive income.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I just wouldnt pitch this idea as a benefit for VAs is all. It won’t be uses by VAs to benefit their profession, it will be used by non-VAs who want to cut costs. Thats not a worthwhile goal to me. We shouldnt be trying to make art more efficient, or remove the human element from it.

      • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Both can be done.

        Depends upon who takes it first.
        If VAs don’t make it efficient for themselves, their clients will make it so and the one who does it, gets to pocket the savings.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Depends who would pay more for the technology. Game developers or invidividual voice actors.

          Maybe if they had a big enough union, they could swing it. Although at that point just get ai voices banned to protect your field.

          Also, just an aside, I wouldnt pay extra for an AI version of an actor I liked. Thats still not them acting.

          • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I wouldnt pay extra for an AI version of an actor I liked.

            If course. It is about paying less after all.
            The actor decided to get some passive income by licensing their TTS and someone used it as they wanted. That’s all there is to it.

            Apart from maybe, being able to get the AI to create different accented versions of a VA (which, said VA doesn’t do otherwise), the AI voice will mostly be of a lower grade than a good VA. Which is what makes it unfit for foreground roles, which the user will be actively listening to.
            You definitely don’t want cutscenes to be filled with half-assed rubbish, which might be otherwise, fine for background chatter, where it is just filling the silence. And in cases where the background chatter is a part of the experience and the devs care about it, they will be getting active VAs like they currently do. There are more perfectionists in artistic fields than one would expect.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Well if their voice won’t draw in buyers, than its a bad investment since you could just use some generic free version a bunch of non-voice actors were paid to make by the company they work for.

              If money is to be made it won’t be the VAs capturing it is all I’m saying. They might even have no room in the market at all.

              • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                non-voice actors were paid

                I feel like being paid for it would kinda make them a VA, but sure.

                And if the quality of AI voice were that bad, it would be worthless anyway and noone would create/use packages for it.