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