Peter Molyneux thinks generative AI is the future of games, all but guaranteeing that it won't be
Peter Molyneux thinks generative AI is the future of games, all but guaranteeing that it won't be
Peter Molyneux thinks players will be able to generate games from a single prompt in 25 years.
You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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 ^[or if the license terms were unfavourable, like a multi-series license or such], 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.