• @ulterno
    link
    English
    0
    edit-2
    6 days 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
      16 days 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
        link
        English
        06 days 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
          14 days 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
            link
            English
            03 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.