I mean, it sounds like you care more about the job than about the art piece. Just because writing out the character wouldn't necessarily be good (especially without Voice lines to involve the character!), and nobody is ever happy about a recast.

I think given the circumstances any of the options would be acceptable, including the one that Saphophyte described, just because no matter which option was chosen someone was leaving the table unhappy.

I think one reason I'm ok with it is because that character already existed and had a voice, and this is an update.

If they made a new game and synthesized his voice for a new character instead of hiring someone new then I'd have more of an issue.

The point of video game development is to produce a video game for people to play. It is not to make video games as expensive as possible and create a maximum amount of make-work, employing as many people as possible.

Otherwise, heck, go build models for areas that one never actually sees, because that would require more modeling work. Build the sets in reality and record sound on them, because that would require construction workers. Disallow the graphic artists from using computers to do their work, because it requires more graphic artist work to create the artwork using only pre-computer techniques. There are an infinite number of ways to generate greater labor requirements in making a game; there's nothing unique about synthesis of a character's voice. The game might cost thousands of dollars a copy, but its creation would, no doubt, employ a great many people.

If they hire someone new then they have to re-record the old lines too and remove the original VA work. If the family got compensated then it's not them just saving the profits, but also, in a way, paying the original VA for this work.

I wouldn't say it's such a bad thing in this specific case.

I mean they hired a VA to give the lines still, they just used ai to make them sound more like the original VA.