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

    You know the way these programmers talk about AI, I think they just don’t want to have to work with anyone else.

    How is this not taking from voice actors and giving to yourself in that regard? The system you described would mean only the biggest names get paid, all so a developer can avoid learning social skills.

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

      The system you described would mean only the biggest names get paid

      Rather, it’s more like, we as the user get a greater variety of background NPC banter, for the same game price.

      Take X4 for instance. The only banter we get is different types of “hello”.
      Only in cases of quests, is there any dialogue variety. When there is any such banter out of quests, it’s mostly incoherent (or was that another game, I need to check again).
      It doesn’t really make sense that 2 or more people meet in a docking area, say, “Hi”, “Hello”, “Good day to you” and then just keep on standing staring at each other’s faces as if they were using some sort of telepathy, or just staring at each other without any conversation.
      It would be fun to be able to have conversations that, while clear that they would not be able to yield any Quest, should still have variety enough to be fun when the player stops by, eavesdropping.
      This sort of thing is there in a lot of games by high budget studios, while at the same time, the games have pretty large file sizes.
      This way, we can reduce both production and distribution costs.

      And the VAs, they don’t need to do all the work of speaking each dialogue every time the story writers come up with new banter, but the studio will be getting their voice for those lines, essentially increasing the value of the licensed TTS package, meaning the VA gets more work done than the work they do and gets paid more (well, the last part depends more upon the market condition).

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

        As a consumer I’d rather a real person voice acted it live or not at all. Thats petty to put your entertainment above someone’s livelihood.

        • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          I don’t really think of it that way.
          Instead, more like:

          • If there’s no voice, noone got paid
          • If there is a voice, someone got paid x (> 0) amount
            • And if the offered amount was lower than what the VA would expect [1], then the dev won’t get the license

          Also, in the above condition, the VA only needs to make the TTS package once (then maybe a few upgrades if the standard gets updated) and gets to reuse it for multiple licenses.


          1. or if the license terms were unfavourable, like a multi-series license or such ↩︎

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

            Thats just extortion. You can argue you disagree but its just a difference of opinion. I also don’t think that voice actors would agree with your license idea. I’m sure there would be a few exceptions though.

            • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 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
                1
                ·
                2 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
                  ·
                  2 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
                    2 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.