Games

16796 readers

850 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:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

SAG-AFTRA Releases Full Terms Of AI Voice Agreement After Backlash From Members (www.gamespot.com)

submitted 10 months ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] money_loo@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The agreement has two parts--a development contract that governs the recording and creation of an AI voice (called a "digital replica" in the contract), and a contract that covers licensing and use of said digital replicas to develop a game.

In terms of compensation, voice actors will be paid a standard union fee for the initial recording session to create a digital replica, and further compensation if they wish to allow Replica Studio to continue to use the replica after a certain timeframe. Actors can also negotiate compensation for a replica to be created from previously recorded material, with the minimum payment equal to a standard recording session--this also covers deceased performers, if an agreement can be reached with their estate.

Actors can then license their digital replica to be used in games, with payment calculated per every 300 lines of dialogue or 3,000 words (with "words" also including other sounds such as monster noises.) Studios can also pay actors to get access to their digital replica for pre-production--for instance, using the AI voice for placeholder dialogue. If any of the replica's dialogue is used in a publicly released version of the game, the actor is entitled to further compensation.

They’re going to literally be getting more money for letting a computer talk for them only in the places and ways they allow them to, yet some people are STILL angry just hearing the letters AI and that’s good enough for them.

Jesus Christ, at this point they deserve to lose their work.

[–] wccrawford@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

As long as there are decent minimums, I think that sounds like the best contract that could be negotiated. Completely disallowing it was never going to happen. The concern was that they'd be paid once and they out of a job forever, also preventing others from getting jobs as well. Instead, there are ongoing fees that support them instead. I think that's perfectly reasonable, unless there's no minimum fees for those things, and then it's a race to the bottom, and virtually no different than not getting fees at all.

Saying they deserve to lose their work is too much, though.

[–] money_loo@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’m specifically referencing all the fear mongers who think the AI is some evil threat and are still against its usage even under such a fair and restrictive contract.

This is really the best of both worlds for all parties, and as far as I could tell, the only people that might suffer are the consumers if the quality of the AI isn’t very good, but everybody else is still getting paid the same and more.

If you’re upset about that just because of the letters, AI then yeah you deserve to lose your job.

[–] steakmeout@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

No matter how you attempt to justify your statement you’re plain wrong - nobody deserves to lose their work.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Ah, youre the kinda guy who says $1500 loot boxes are totally okay because "no one forces you to spend money!"

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago

Explain to me how $1500 loot boxes that might or might not give you the worthless digital item you want is similar in any way to a contract that allows a VA to earn more money if and only if they allow their voices to be turned into AI?

Does loot boxes ever provide a worthwhile benefit like this contract might to some voice actors?

[–] money_loo@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

What?

I have no idea how you got there from me noticing the pertinent points of the contract, but if it matters I think all that loot box shit should be regulated or maybe even made illegal.