390
Peter Molyneux thinks generative AI is the future of games, all but guaranteeing that it won't be
(www.rockpapershotgun.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
390 points (98.8% liked)
Games
16403 readers
1766 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay my company tells me today I need to start recording my emails verbally. They own that and sell it to game companies.
Am I a voice actor?
= Were you "acting" ?