Game voice actors demand better compensation

[MattKeil]

Videogame voice actor strike edges closer. (http://kevxml2a.infospace.com/info.ncbuy/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D8A9VS800&qcat=science&ran=10224&passqi=0&feed=ap&more=1)

While I have much respect for voice actors and their profession, I don't think they have much of a case here. When the programmers and developers putting in 60 hour work weeks for months on end are getting paid residuals and a percentage of the gross, then maybe the guys who spend a day in a voiceover booth reading a script a couple times can start whining about it.

[Talisker]

Producers have countered with an offer of a 34.8 percent wage hike over three years, bringing the one-hour rate for union actors to $375 from $278.
Good lord, how can they even afford to eat at those rates? I mean, they've gotta work a solid four hours a week to break a measly $75k/year!

I totally agree, voice actors are getting screwed. :roll:

[roguefrog]

Na, Greedy Buggers.

They provide content to the game, but it's not significant enough to warrent a percentage. Programming is a different story. They have to put all the content together and make it work, and then work along side QA through the crunch pretty much until the game ships.

[Nathan]

So basically this means we'll get David Lucas instead of Stephen Blum doing game voices, right?

That's esoteric, so I will explain: I was trying to find out if the Cowboy Bebop movie dub had the same voice cast as the TV dub. I learned that Blum, playing Spike in the movie, claimed that it was very important to note that he was not David Lucas from the show, because Stephen Blum was in the union and would have hell to pay if he worked on a nonunion show like Cowboy Bebop. Wink, wink.

[TomChick]

The problem is that if the games industry wants to stay competitive in a city like LA, where most voice recording is done and where the actor's union is pretty strong, it's going to have to a) offer more money or b) rely on non-union talent. I believe the current SAG rate for television, which an actor gets no matter what portion of the day he actually works, is around $800.

Also, it feels unfair to a lot of actors that games exist outside the traditional residuals structure. Especially considering syndicated shows. I still occasionally make money from an episode of Beverly Hills 90210 and ER I did way back when. I was in an independent film that eventually found a home on HBO, and I'm pretty sure I get residuals when it's sold overseas or rented. Actors who do voicework on games feel like they're doing the same kind of work, but without the same type of compensation.

Finally, it's not really fair to compare the hourly rate of an actor and that of a programmer, because they're entirely different kinds of work. Although there's a small pool of voiceover actors who dominate the industry, a lot of them are lucky to work once a week. And you can ask anyone who's had to direct a voiceover session: talented actors make a huge difference.

So before you guys write actors off as "greedy buggers" and "whining", it would behoove you to understand a bit more about how the business works. I don't pretend to know the particulars of the negotiations, but I suspect it's a lot more gray that you guys think.

-Tom

[mouselock]

Finally, it's not really fair to compare the hourly rate of an actor and that of a programmer, because they're entirely different kinds of work. Although there's a small pool of voiceover actors who dominate the industry, a lot of them are lucky to work once a week. And you can ask anyone who's had to direct a voiceover session: talented actors make a huge difference.


So the take home message is that we, as a society, value recognizable celebrity far more than people who actually build things, make them go, teach our children, or the like. Nothing new there.

(No offense or screeds intended; this is literally commonplace, I'm not sure why it suddenly surprises anyone that our society is skewed this way just because we're now talking about programmers instead of scientists or teachers or carpenters.)

[MattKeil]

I actually do understand pretty well how the VA industry works, and know several (small-time) VAs who have done work in a few games, and you're right, it's not as cut and dried as the hourly rate makes it seem. Very few VAs work every week, let alone every day. You also have a good point about competing in the LA market, but I don't see how it can be justified considering how small a contribution to a game's overall success the voice acting is. Outside of something like MGS, whose character voices are highly recognizable, would replacing union with non-union really make a noticeable impact on sales? As much as I love playing "spot Cam 'I'm Cam Clarke!' Clarke" in every other RPG I play, I really don't think many other players would miss him.

I support the use of professional and talented actors in games, but I don't know if they have a leg to stand on here.

[TomChick]

So the take home message is that we, as a society, value recognizable celebrity far more than people who actually build things, make them go, teach our children, or the like.

I'm not talking about celebrity, which is a completely different issue.

I'm referring more to the value added in a game when you have a good voice actor who can understand what the producer, writer, and perhaps designer are trying to accomplish, and who can take direction to help them create that. Most actors are bad. Really bad. And in games, it's really not even worth mentioning bad voice acting, because it's usually a given.

But actors with talent are a value commodity who deserve to be paid for their talent, not just the number of hours they worked. That's what I mean when I say it's not fair to compare an actor's hourly rate a programmer's hourly rate. Talent is important in both cases, but the nature of their input -- and the market in which they're used -- is very different.

-Tom

[BaconTastesGood]

This problem has a pretty cut and dried summary: actors are convinced that they are the stars and driving force of whatever medium they're in. Movies, TVs, etc. With games, they're NOT the stars, they're props, and that sticks in their craw.

There is No. Fucking. Way. An actor gets residuals for VO work. Sorry, that's not going to happen. Their "value add" is marginal compared to the designers, artists, and programmers that actually BUILT the game.

But as Tom pointed out, one of the problems is that actors are used to things being a certain way, and instead of recognizing that another industry does things a different way, they're actively trying to impose their world view on others even though they're a tiny, almost irrelevant part, of the scheme. Most actors probably believe that developers and programmers are the game equivalent of production staff on a set (i.e. make up artists, grips, gaffers).

Boo fucking hoo.

It particularly sticks in my craw when union reps use the term "the talent" to talk about the VO staff.

[shift6]

Good thing they have a union. In an industry almost as dangerous as coal mining or as unappreciated as teaching, one's heart swells to know that actors will never be forced to work in such horrid conditions again.
</troll>

Seriously, though... $300 an hour? Shit I'm in the wrong fucking business. Two hours a week of that would approximate what I make now.

[mouselock]

But actors with talent are a value commodity who deserve to be paid for their talent, not just the number of hours they worked. That's what I mean when I say it's not fair to compare an actor's hourly rate a programmer's hourly rate. Talent is important in both cases, but the nature of their input -- and the market in which they're used -- is very different.

-Tom

Erm, I'm not sure I follow. Both require talent; both require you to hone that talent to be skillful in the practice. Yet the voice actors should get residuals or a substantially higher pay rate because.. their jobs require the same amount of "talent" (ostensibly) but in shorter bursts?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say they don't deserve compensation, but I'm not sure how it's any more deserving of compensation to be able to come in and speak lines with emotion for 2 hours than to come in and program normal-mapping routines on next-gen engines for 5. So all I can come up with is that at some price-point disparity you're not paying for the talent any longer, but for the association that it brings you; basically for the brand name.

[wildpokerman]

Putting Samuel L Jackson's name on your box cover will sell a few thousand games.

Putting Joe E Schmucker work a day programmer's name on your box will sell you nothing.

[MattKeil]

But does Sam Jackson fall under the same guidelines as, say, Michael Bell? What are the rules for having a name celeb to a VO role in a game as opposed to someone who would only be known for his/her cartoon or game credits?

[Mark Crump]

There's a few things worth mentioning.

It's easy to point out that a voice actor makes $300 an hour, and that working "x" amount of hours a week = one person's salary. Most actors I've known don't work every day, every week or every month. I also don't know how much more or less the competition is for VO work as opposed to screen/TV.

I'm not saying we all need to stop by the picket lines and give them perishables, but I doubt many voice actors make their full month's living solely off of game VO. Now, I don't know if these are the same actors that do commercial voice work too.

[steve]

It particularly sticks in my craw when union reps use the term "the talent" to talk about the VO staff.
This sentiment is exactly why most voice acting and writing sucks.

Programmers and designers put themselves so far ahead of everyone working on a project (how actor-like of them, to think their own talents are that much more critical to the project than anyone else's), they lose sight of how games present their worlds to the player. These aren't silent games, and are typically driven by some sort of narrative.

And if anyone's going to open their mouth and say something, they better say it well. Maybe you don't need Hollywood actors, but you sure do need "talent."

[McBain]

Putting Samuel L Jackson's name on your box cover will sell a few thousand games.

I'd change "a few thousand" to "a few dozen," personally.

[Linoleum]

One of the problems from an actor standpoint is that the 'residuals' the union is pushing for wouldn't even kick in for the rank and file VO actors who do the bulk of the work in the industry.

The other problem is in this case residual really means royalty, as Doom 3 doesn't get syndicated on Saturday afternoon TV.

It's not worth giving *more* money to high-end stars just to get their voices in a game so the publishers have no reason to budge.

Alas, I can't use this as an excuse to do more VO work...

[TomChick]

[Actors are] actively trying to impose their world view on others even though they're a tiny, almost irrelevant part, of the scheme.

That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the game industry is trying to get them to work according to a business model unlike the way they normally work.

Look, game developers don't have to use union talent. They're free to offer whatever they want to get people to come in and do voiceovers. Hell, they can get Louise in the front office and the cousin of the QA lead if they want. But if they want to use Hollywood talent, they have to play by Hollywood rules. And that includes dealing with a powerful union that has ensured actors are compensated in a particular way.

As for mouselock's point that an actor should get less than a programmer, I completely agree. Which is why programmers are salaried employees and actors are temporarily hired contract workers. Apples and oranges, and the programmers put in more time, effort, and energy. But in the end, the programmers invariably make far more money than the actors for working on a particular game. No one's suggesting it should be otherwise.

And, no, Samuel L. Jackson doesn't fall under the same rules. I don't even fall under the same rules, in a way, since my rate is a few hundred dollars/day over scale. If you've worked enough to build up a body of 'credits', your daily rate is higher. And if you're a celebrity, you don't work for anything less than a huge hunk of money.

But I think part of the issue is that if the union and the game industry can't reach an agreement, guys like Samuel Jackson, who are part of the union, can't do voiceovers. That's got to be a huge bargaining chip for the union.

-Tom

[shift6]

Putting Samuel L Jackson's name on your box cover will sell a few thousand games.
I dunno man. Having recognized TV/movie celebrities hasn't really helped quite a few games I can think of, although it did explain multi-million dollar budgets lost on those games. "Riddick" would maybe be an exception since they had the same actor in the game as in the movie, but otherwise?

[Mark Crump]

Putting Samuel L Jackson's name on your box cover will sell a few thousand games.
I dunno man. Having recognized TV/movie celebrities hasn't really helped quite a few games I can think of, although it did explain multi-million dollar budgets lost on those games. "Riddick" would maybe be an exception since they had the same actor in the game as in the movie, but otherwise?

Having some of the cast from LOTR do the VO for Battle of Middle Earth totally sold it for me. I've heard Mr. Elwes work in Bard's Tale really added to the game.

Those are two immediate uses of "Hollywood Talent" I can think of.

[TomChick]

"Riddick" would maybe be an exception since they had the same actor in the game as in the movie, but otherwise?

Riddick had a silly huge pile of established talent that probably wouldn't have been possible if it weren't a Vivendi/Universal property. Michael Rooker, Xibit, Ron Perleman, Cole Hauser, and Vin Deisel, as well as some of the actors from the movie, and then a bunch of regular voiceover luminaries. Game developers want to be able to use that kind of talent, which is why they have to negotiate with the union.

Then there's Halo 2, which is just silly with celebrities and, to my mind, all the better for it.

What's funny to me is how rarely voiceover talent is trumpeted in game PR. If I had David Warner, for instance, in my game, jeeze, I'd want his name of the front of the box or something!

-Tom

[steve]

I dunno man. Having recognized TV/movie celebrities hasn't really helped quite a few games I can think of, although it did explain multi-million dollar budgets lost on those games. "Riddick" would maybe be an exception since they had the same actor in the game as in the movie, but otherwise?
That's because they're casting actors for their celebrity, not because they're always right for the part. When it is right, like in the Grand Theft Auto games, it makes the games seem that much better.

Hollywood can't always get the voice acting thing right. DreamWorks paid Brad Pitt a fortune to do Sinbad; does he really have that distinctive a voice? No, they got him for the marquee. And it didn't really work.

Compare that approach to that of Pixar, which has cast Albert Brooks and Craig T. Nelson as the leads in its last two movies. Neither could get a "real" movie in the theaters nowadays, but they were the right voices.

You get the right voices, it makes your product better.

[Jim Preston]

As Tom points out, there are lots of different issues at work here.

Film and television are considered performances, so each broadcast of that performance is considered an expression of the actor's work, hence they get paid for every broadcast (or typically recieving a portion when the limited rights to broadcast are sold). It's fairly easy to tell how often a film or television show is aired or sold. It's not so easy to tell when a videogame is played or to what duration, so it is much harder to codify.

Film and television are clearly star-driven business where personalities have a direct correlation to revenue. It's not so clear that voice over talent has the same correlation in video games. How many E3 previews did you read? How many of them mentioned high profile VO? Speaking personally, I can't remember one.

Finally, this deal won't happen for the simple reason that publishers do not even want to contemplate the domino effect of offering residuals on work provided. While talented VO actors undoubtedly contribute to a successful title, their contributions and the level of success pale in comparison to that of the lead programmer, art director, lead designer, etc. If a VO actor is given residuals, you can sure bet that the far more crucial contributors to a game's success will be knocking on the door soon. That's why when the union came back with an offer of "only on games that sold 400,000 units" it was irrelevant to publishers because they do not want to establish the precedent of residuals paid for what has always been upfront-only work. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a seperate issue, but I can't imagine any videogame publisher would ever agree to this deal.

[wildpokerman]

Putting Samuel L Jackson's name on your box cover will sell a few thousand games.

I'd change "a few thousand" to "a few dozen," personally.

How much of the gaming press gave free publicity to GTA SA because of Mr. Jackson's work? Console mags and TV shows were falling all over themselves to give this game an award for the voice work and it's mostly because of him.

[jpinard]

I'm a professional and I'll do it for half that rate. I'm sure the programmer's can edit out all the "umms" and "coughs".

[mouselock]

Film and television are clearly star-driven business where personalities have a direct correlation to revenue. It's not so clear that voice over talent has the same correlation in video games. How many E3 previews did you read? How many of them mentioned high profile VO? Speaking personally, I can't remember one.


I agree with all of your points, but the whole thing was a bit lengthy to post. So my question is (aside from the fact that the whole residual idea makes my head spin; it's not like the actor's delivering those lines every time someone buys a DVD!), how is it that VO work, which seems to have far less in common with other "acting" criteria you listed, ended up under the purview of "guild approved activities". Basically, how did in-game VO's end up as something regulated by the union? I assume if Mr. Jackson wanted to, say, go dig ditches as an off job, SAG could say squat about it, since it's not at all related to their work. I see tenuous relations between VO work and acting, but I can think of a lot of reasons why it doesn't work, either (primarily because of the tremendous end-weighting behind the scenes of games in terms of labor compared to even the most laborious of films or commercials).

Then again, maybe the real solution is just to accept games as another form of entertainment medium, and transition the rest of the industry to hollywood rules. Do really well known designers/programmers garner residuals/percentages automatically on their games? I suspect they do. So maybe it's just a matter of the programmers needing to stand up for themselves and quit accepting less than what they're worth. (Hey, we'd all pay $150/game for GTA with good programming and known voice actors, right? ;) )

[Wholly Schmidt]

If I had David Warner, for instance, in my game, jeeze, I'd want his name of the front of the box or something!

-Tom
But as recognizable as his voice is, do people really recognize him? I mean, he's easily my favorite voice actor thanks to Ra's Al Ghul in Batman, he's recognizable from lots of games, and he's been in tons of movies, but he's the kind of guy that people go "Oh him? I didn't know that was his name." I realize it's a chicken and egg sort of thing, but I can understand why PR doesn't think to put him on the cover. "With the talents of David Warner!" doesn't mean anything to anyone. Even a photo of him won't do much for recognition, and "Special Guest Star Jon Irenicus!" wouldn't fly.

[Mark Crump]

So maybe it's just a matter of the programmers needing to stand up for themselves and quit accepting less than what they're worth. (Hey, we'd all pay $150/game for GTA with good programming and known voice actors, right? ;) )

Let's not delude ourselves; if your situation came true, the programmers would be key grips...

[Jim Preston]

Do really well known designers/programmers garner residuals/percentages automatically on their games? I suspect they do.

None that I know of. First of all, there are very few well-known desingers or programmers at all (also a seperate issue). Second, most additional compensation usually comes as a bonus, at least according to GameDeveloper's most recent industry salary survey. There may be some very high profile indivuduals (e.g. Tony Hawk) who get royalties based on units sold, but I have never heard of anyone associated with the actual production of a game getting a residual, whether it's the motion capture actor, the voice actor or the lead programmer.

[Dave Long]

Here's a tip if you're making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won't have to pay any actors any money and you'd actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.

--Dave

[MattKeil]

Here's a tip if you're making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won't have to pay any actors any money and you'd actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.

--Dave

Word.
http://www.toysnjoys.com/importpsp/lumines.jpg

[BaconTastesGood]

Here's a tip if you're making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won't have to pay any actors any money and you'd actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.

I firmly believe that quality VO can make a big difference in the experience (HL2 comes to mind). If SAG comes in with guns drawn and says "Fuck you, we're powerful, you're doing it THIS way", hey, alright, I'm almost fine with that.

What I don't like are these insulting rationales that are foisted off by the Melissa Gilberts of the world that try to paint the VO actors in some kind of exploited light, i.e. "They don't work that many hours" and "This is how it works everywhere else we do things!"

Shit, I hardly work ANY hours these days, maybe I should get eleventy billion dollars for the three hours I do a month to make up for my slack ass? Yeah, that would be pretty cool...who do I send the invoice to?

P.S. Steve: I wasn't saying that VO actors aren't talented, I was annoyed by the use of "the talent", with the implication that it's singularly the domain of the actors.

[steve]

Film and television are clearly star-driven business where personalities have a direct correlation to revenue. It's not so clear that voice over talent has the same correlation in video games.
It's also not so clear it always works in movies either.

Some of the biggest recent movies aren't star-driven, they're IP driven. Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Star Wars... these are the stars, not the actors. Tom Cruise may be needed to get a few million people to see something called Collateral, but would he have added anything to Lord of the Rings?

How many E3 previews did you read? How many of them mentioned high profile VO? Speaking personally, I can't remember one.
But as I'm sure you know, the game press doesn't really care, unless it's a porn actress they can interview.

But hiring a name voice actor is a way you can get Entertainment Weekly, Time, and Newsweek to cover your game, or how it might get mentioned on The Daily Show or Letterman.

Or to think of it another way, what about sports games? If the designers, programmers, and art directors are most critical to a game's success, I guess you don't need the athletes or league license to create a top-selling football game, right? And why pay Madden and Al Michaels to announce?

Since we're at a point where games can't just sell to gamers, you need a way to get millions of people to know about your game. Having name actors is one way to get there.

If a VO actor is given residuals, you can sure bet that the far more crucial contributors to a game's success will be knocking on the door soon.
The bigger question is why they haven't busted down the door already.

[steve]

Here's a tip if you're making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won't have to pay any actors any money and you'd actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.
So there should be no RPGs or adventure games, just puzzle games?

And maybe that tutorial would be more effective if someone told you how to play in addition to showing you what to do.

Even if every game just becomes a giant sandbox simulation, you're going to have to create Mute World if you don't plan on anyone saying anything.

Come to think of it, outside of something like Lumines, what doesn't have any voice acting?

[Marcus]

You know if they sucked less they might make more.

[Angie Gallant]

We can all play Spore forever.

[MattKeil]

Or to think of it another way, what about sports games? If the designers, programmers, and art directors are most critical to a game's success, I guess you don't need the athletes or league license to create a top-selling football game, right? And why pay Madden and Al Michaels to announce?

Well, we're about to find out, thanks to EA. Of course, I expect you're right, and Madden will sell millions while the competitors languish on the shelves with their imaginary leagues.

The problem may not be that VAs don't "deserve" the kind of benefits they're after, but that games just aren't there yet in terms of the way the industry works. Seems to me that they might be at more of an advantage if they tried this shortly after the beginning of the next gen, when the whole "games are becoming cinematic experiences" card can be played on a much more believable level than it can right now. I mean, when you look at something like Gears of War, you certainly don't want to hear something like a Working Designs voice cast coming out of your speakers.

[scharmers]

Here's a tip if you're making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won't have to pay any actors any money and you'd actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.


Sure...why not just pull the amazing Simon [tm] from out of the closet and paste "Dance Dance Revolution 9" on it. Pure game, right there.

--scharmers

[MattKeil]

Here's a tip if you're making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won't have to pay any actors any money and you'd actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.


Sure...why not just pull the amazing Simon [tm] from out of the closet and paste "Dance Dance Revolution 9" on it. Pure game, right there.

--scharmers

Not just that, but pure awesome. (http://www.x-entertainment.com/downloads/commercials/simon.html)

[BaconTastesGood]

The bigger question is why they haven't busted down the door already.

Several reasons. Yay, I get to use the list tag!

it is much easier to stay organized than to get organized. If SAG did not exist today, the odds of it ever existing would be low. It's very hard to become unionized in this day and age, but it's pretty easy to stay unionized due to inertia.
developers are still dealing with a combination inferiority complex and general happiness to be working in games, period. EA's attitude is "You can be replaced", and developers believe that.
Developers are used to stability and a steady income, and if something threatens that (and, indirectly, the livelihood of their homes, families, and sports cars), they get very panicky.

[steve]

Several reasons.
Sure. And because they're unwilling to change anything, they should probably quit whining. At least actors took the risk when they were being taken advantage of by the studio system.

Is SAG unnecessary and too powerful? If you're Tom Cruise, sure. If you're Tom Chick, you're probably pretty happy with the health plan.

[MattKeil]

The controversy over the VAs does make me wonder if any devs will start to rattle the old cage, too, particularly if the unions are successful here. Will the coming gen see the "developers' union/rights" issue reach a boiling point, or will the aforementioned inertia continue?

[Jason McCullough]

Interesting reaction. Is everyone also this opposed to the actor's unions?

[noun]

I'm sure they have a case in there somewhere, but I gotta say, as someone who works for a living it's really hard to feel sympathy for someone pulling $300 an hour.

Aren't most of the big names also doing voice work for cartoons, anyway? Take Jim Cummings or Tara Strong. Now those folks have some talent, but how many voice actors have 100+ games and cartoons on their resume?

[Cold Blooded]

Interesting reaction. Is everyone also this opposed to the actor's unions?

Different issue. An actor's appearance fills the content of a motion picture and is usually directly responsible for box office sales. A voice actor's performance is usually not a selling factor and figures considerably less into the development/production equation. Though part of the problem may be that language (stating that actors don't contribute as much to a game's success as developers, while true, suggests a dismissive attitude on the part of the game companies).

To make a tired point, games aren't the same as Hollywood.

Personally don't agree with the idea of the Screen Actor's Guild trying to open up big-money royalty plans because it sets a dangerous precedent that could end up making all established voice talent (not just the top Hollywood talent, but any established game talent) prohibitively expensive for everyone except the big boys. Think about it for a second, if one card-carrying SAG member signs a big fat royalty deal (which SAG is apparently looking to make standard), every voice actor in town will want the same.

Maybe an EA or a Sony can keep tapping the movie talent despite an expensive royalty structure, but can a Bioware or a Firaxis keep up?

(For the record, to address an earlier point, referring to actors/voice actors as "talent" or "the talent" is a common entertainment industry term, not a veiled insult for game developers.)

[Jason McCullough]

So the criticism is based on absurd counterfactuals where big money voice actors shut all the small players out of the business? Yeah, that's definitely a problem I see upcoming in the game industry.

I'm sure they have a case in there somewhere, but I gotta say, as someone who works for a living it's really hard to feel sympathy for someone pulling $300 an hour.

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*! Woo! "$300 an hour" is not an accurate description of your pay scale when you only work a couple hours a week, you know. It's the same class of union-busting propaganda as all those references to "$100,000 a year dock workers", which came from by estimating the annual pay of a dock worker who has a 52 week year of 40 hours + 20 overtime, when no such worker exists.

[Marcus]

I blame madden.

[BaconTastesGood]

Sure. And because they're unwilling to change anything, they should probably quit whining. At least actors took the risk when they were being taken advantage of by the studio system.

There are some significant impediments to developers organizing. First, there's a cultural one -- a lot of developers are kids in their 20s who don't particularly see a problem with the current system, and they don't respect their "elders" and thus aren't willing to say "Hey, they think this is fucked, let's support them".

Second, and this is the bigger reason, is that it is VERY fucking hard to unionize when you lack centralization. Actors and automotive workers benefit from their strong locality. Teachers tend to concentrate on much smaller unions (statewide, vs. nationwide).

Game developers are spread all over the place, so it's tough to get people organized, if not impossible (granted, with the Interweb it's a lot easier, but still -- just getting the names of developers is tough, the visible few are a tiny, tiny minority of the whole).

That said, I'm not particularly fond of the idea of a game developer union either.

[extarbags]

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*! Woo! "$300 an hour" is not an accurate description of your pay scale when you only work a couple hours a week, you know.

Every hour a week that they work (at the new rate of $278/hour) is worth over fourteen thousand dollars a year. So if they can find five hours of work a week, five, they bring in over seventy thousand a year, way more than a lot of people even in this country. I get where you're coming from, but are you telling me that voice actors that don't suck can't find five hours of work in an average week, to net them a pretty nice salary? Or three hours a week to net them a comfortable one (43k+/year)?

[mouselock]

I'm sure they have a case in there somewhere, but I gotta say, as someone who works for a living it's really hard to feel sympathy for someone pulling $300 an hour.

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*! Woo! "$300 an hour" is not an accurate description of your pay scale when you only work a couple hours a week, you know. It's the same class of union-busting propaganda as all those references to "$100,000 a year dock workers", which came from by estimating the annual pay of a dock worker who has a 52 week year of 40 hours + 20 overtime, when no such worker exists.

While this is true, there's a big difference between making 50k a year by working 60 hour weeks and making 50k a year by working 10 hour weeks, don't you think?

[extarbags]

I'm sure they have a case in there somewhere, but I gotta say, as someone who works for a living it's really hard to feel sympathy for someone pulling $300 an hour.

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*! Woo! "$300 an hour" is not an accurate description of your pay scale when you only work a couple hours a week, you know. It's the same class of union-busting propaganda as all those references to "$100,000 a year dock workers", which came from by estimating the annual pay of a dock worker who has a 52 week year of 40 hours + 20 overtime, when no such worker exists.

While this is true, there's a big difference between making 50k a year by working 60 hour weeks and making 50k a year by working 10 hour weeks, don't you think?

Jesus Christ, mouselock, ten hour weeks?! Even at the barely-legal new rates, that's over a hundred and forty-four thousand dollars a year!

[TomChick]

I get where you're coming from, but are you telling me that voice actors that don't suck can't find five hours of work in an average week, to net them a pretty nice salary? Or three hours a week to net them a comfortable one (43k+/year)?

I don't know if that's what Jason is telling you, but I'll tell you. Look, I'm not here to champion actors, and god knows, they can be a pretty reprehensible lot. But you guys really don't understand how the business works. Example:

While this is true, there's a big difference between making 50k a year by working 60 hour weeks and making 50k a year by working 10 hour weeks, don't you think?

I can guarantee you that that an actor who gets 10 hours of paid work in a week spent a hell of a lot more time than that getting the work. It's a serious grind, with lots of legwork required, lots of running around auditioning, lots of money spent doing, I dunno, demo reels or classes or whatever other moneysinks actors fall prey to. Then there are managers and agents who basically take a quarter of their income. Then there's the fact that it's usually long spells of nothing, particularly during the months this town sort of shuts down.

I don't have a lot of first-hand knowledge of the voiceover business, and I'm not really involved in TV or movies or theatre any more, but it's not like a normal job. It's a silly exhausting chase and it's brutal to most people. A guy who can wring 10 hours of work out of every week is doing incredibly well for himself.

Having said that, Jim's post makes a lot of sense from the developer's perspective. I don't pretend to understand what's going on with the give and take between the negotiators over this deal, but you guys are just doing a lot of knee-jerk 'Those actors are greedy!' hokum without understanding their side of the business.

-Tom

[Linoleum]

Heh, what Tom said.

It's just like being a game developer, get paid to have fun and play games all day! :wink:

[steve]

I get where you're coming from, but are you telling me that voice actors that don't suck can't find five hours of work in an average week, to net them a pretty nice salary? Or three hours a week to net them a comfortable one (43k+/year)?
Do you realize how many people are competing for that work? And that the hourly figure is usually a rate for a day or two of work on a single project? And as Tom noted, the ones that do get the work have agents and managers that can take a significant cut. No one denies that it's a great job. But it ain't necessarily easy money, otherwise everyone would be raking in the bucks.

And I'm sure it's a tough decision for a company whether to spend, I don't know, $50K to get Samuel L. Jackson for day or $5000 for Sammy K. Jackson. But if signing Mr. Badass Motherfucker connects his character to his movie roles, gets your game mentioned on TV a few times, gets some mentions in mainstream magazines, and can be leveraged in other ways, maybe it's worth the cash.

[extarbags]

I'm not saying it's easy, Tom. But if a guy gets five hours of game voicework a week at the new rates, even if he spent thirty-five hours finding that work, that still amounts to putting in a standard work week for over 70k a year.

I can see this being a problem for the guy that voices "Effeminate Guard No. 3," but I have a feeling that guy has another source of income anyway, kind of like how I don't imagine you had to sell your house when Living Single went off the air. But I just can't imagine a professional voice actor, someone who dedicates all of their working time to it, doesn't get paid for more than five hours a week, on average. Maybe I'm wrong. But it just seems unlikely to me.

[shift6]

I'm not really involved in TV or movies or theatre any more...
ThreadJack

So what are you doing now, radio? Have you put acting totally off to the side for awhile?

[extarbags]

Do you realize how many people are competing for that work?

Just like game development. Just like game reviewing, in fact. It's a job that appeals to lots of people, because it's a job that, presumably, allows one to do something related to something they're interested in.

But see my above posts. To make a decent amount of money, they really don't need to work all that much. And if they can't find enough, they might just not be cut out for that racket.

[TomChick]

So what are you doing now, radio?

I haven't been chasing the actor thing for many years now. I make a living as a freelance writer, mainly doing reviews. It's not nearly interesting enough to jack the thread in any meaningful way, but nice try. :)

I'm not saying it's easy, Tom. But if a guy gets five hours of game voicework a week at the new rates, even if he spent thirty-five hours finding that work, that still amounts to putting in a standard work week for over 70k a year.

So what's your point? That actors should be paid less? That the union is evil and is trying to bilk the game developers? That everyone should move to LA and become an actor?

I'm simply saying that your math is deceptive for a number of reasons, which I've already explained. Actors are many things -- deluded, vain, dumb -- but greedy isn't really one of the qualities that you can infer from these negotiations, particularly if you don't really understand their side of the business.

-Tom

[Kool Moe Dee]

Here's a random thought I'll throw out:

Does anybody think that a AAA, well-known actor or actress (the person from which video games are alleged to benefit the most) is turning in anything close to their best work when doing VO for a game?

(From what I've heard, the usual attitude is more along the lines of, "It's just a game, it doesn't really matter...")

[SirBruce]

I'm not really involved in TV or movies or theatre any more

Did "Reporter Gordon" get fired?

Bruce

[Talisker]

Does anybody think that a AAA, well-known actor or actress (the person from which video games are alleged to benefit the most) is turning in anything close to their best work when doing VO for a game?

(From what I've heard, the usual attitude is more along the lines of, "It's just a game, it doesn't really matter...")
Brian Cox sure as hell did for Manhunt. Whatever they paid him, it was absolutely worth it -- was the only thing that kept me playing beyond the first level or two. He made the game. (well, "made the game" enough that I actually played a good chunk of the way through, instead of 20 minutes)

[jpinard]

They should be paid on how well they did or sucked.

[XtienMurawski]

This isn't really about games. It's just posturing by SAG to make up for the fact that the union folded on DVD residuals. A lot of union members were pretty upset about that. I believe all this stuff about standing up to producers and threatening to strike is just bunk designed to make those union members feel like their union is doing something for them.

"Why don't you just join the union? We'll go upstairs together and cap daddy."

-Amanpour

[RichardC]

Does anybody think that a AAA, well-known actor or actress (the person from which video games are alleged to benefit the most) is turning in anything close to their best work when doing VO for a game?

Don't forget the millions of times when the company slams out a fortune to buy the actor, then gets the sound guy with no experience of VO direction to actually record the lines, turning in flat performances cut between blatantly different recording sessions. If they're going to splash out cash hire celebrities, I'd much rather they hire experienced voiceover types specifically - the guys used to acting with their voices, and putting the necessary energy into the performance to make it work - the likes of John diMaggio, even if their names inspire shouts of 'Doesn't he play baseball?' Just look at the superb voicework in Vampire.

(And lest we forget, for every 'Starring Samuel L. Jackson', there's an Under A Killing Moon boasting 'Starring Margot Kidder')

So basically this means we'll get David Lucas instead of Stephen Blum doing game voices, right?

Yes, and we'll get Jimmy Flinders instead of Cam "I'm Cam Clarke!" Clarke; which will make all the difference.

I admit to playing Spot The VA in games ("Jennifer Hale, take two drinks"), but really, all I care about is that the voice fits the character. Razputin may have been about one line from screaming 'VICTORY FOR ZIM!', but that was fine - unlike the Lesser Snake, his voice works great for both of them. Likewise, Rob Paulson may have read Morte like Yakko Warner and more or less every other voice, but hey, no matter.

Lucasarts always got this bang on - I don't know anything about the guy who played Manny Calavera, and I wouldn't want to listen to the one who played Max reciting War and Peace, but the voices fit so perfectly. You could tell that they hadn't just rushed to do it at the last minute, and it had a huge, huge impact on the atmosphere, humour, narrative...

...by contrast, there is no excuse for this (http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk/audio/mp3/sophiasak.mp3), for this (http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk/audio/mp3/momentofsilence.mp3), for for this (http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk/audio/mp3/conspiracies_sisteryoubastard.mp3), or for the many other awful clips I've got saved around the place. Brrr. Lishping Death Knights, atonal songs, grotesque translation...

Horrible.

[Ben Sones]

I'm not saying it's easy, Tom. But if a guy gets five hours of game voicework a week at the new rates, even if he spent thirty-five hours finding that work, that still amounts to putting in a standard work week for over 70k a year.

And if it always worked that way, that would be awesome for them. But it seems unlikely. Freelancing is nowhere near that predictable, in any field. I'll bet there are plenty of weeks where voice actors spend 50 hours doing legwork and are paid for 0 hours. This is why you see so many actors working second jobs in restaurants in LA; if you aren't big-name talent, then it's tough to make ends meet with acting alone.

[Mark Crump]

This work isn't just lying around waiting for any slob to do it. Look at how many games come out during a given month, and also keep in mind that many of them don't have an VO other than "Time extended"

For giggles, I did an IMDB search on the guy who played Glotis in Grim Fandango. Since the 1998 release, he's worked on 13 projects. That means he's averaged 2.1 acting gigs a year since then (counting his other credited work). And he's one of the better actors in the biz.

[Aleck]

Just one further side note.

Tom has done a pretty good job of explaining that actors aren't a bunch of greedy bastards. I know a fair number of folks who are "in the biz," or at least trying to be in the biz. Many have a number of successful projects under their belts.

Almost none are full time actors, because you just can't count on the work. There's an old joke in LA, where you meet someone at a party, ask them what they do, and they respond that they're an actor. The retort on the quick is "and where do you wait tables?"

It's a cut throat business, and while a few people make truly sick money, most do not.

Tom, does SAG work out contracts such that your social security and all that is taken care of, too, or do you get to pay that out of your own pocket?

[steve]

But see my above posts. To make a decent amount of money, they really don't need to work all that much. And if they can't find enough, they might just not be cut out for that racket.
You're just not getting it.

Besides, there are a lot of professions where outsiders say, "They don't need to work much to make a lot of money." How about musicians? Or baseball players (minimum wage: 300,000, even if you're a reliever that sits in the bullpen and pitches to one lefty every three games)? Or computer technicians; they get paid WAY too much to remove spyware and crap like that. Anyone can do that.

[Matthew Gallant]

Westwood College Online needs to offer a voice acting for games course, then SAG/AFTRA can go suck it!

[Marcus]

Westwood College Online needs to offer a voice acting for games course, then SAG/AFTRA can go suck it!

Hahaha an online class for voice acting. Thats like taking an online class for public speaking.

[wildpokerman]

I'm not saying it's easy, Tom. But if a guy gets five hours of game voicework a week at the new rates, even if he spent thirty-five hours finding that work, that still amounts to putting in a standard work week for over 70k a year.

I can see this being a problem for the guy that voices "Effeminate Guard No. 3," but I have a feeling that guy has another source of income anyway, kind of like how I don't imagine you had to sell your house when Living Single went off the air. But I just can't imagine a professional voice actor, someone who dedicates all of their working time to it, doesn't get paid for more than five hours a week, on average. Maybe I'm wrong. But it just seems unlikely to me.

OK let's compare me the average joe worker making about half as much per year with Mr. Voice actor making that 70k.

First off I don't have a manager and an agent each taking 10% off the top of all my gigs. so I'm already looking better. Secondly at work I'm not a contractor so I get benefits through my work such as health insurance, a pension and a 401k with a match. All these benefits are probably available through the union except the 401k match. Problem is that the match adds 15% to my salary with profit sharing and match and my employer pays 75% of my insurance, they also pay half of my social security while Mr. Voice actor is responsible for the whole shebang.

To top it all off to make $35K a year I can live anywhere I want if I have a resonable skill set and a degree while the voice actor has to live either in LA or New York. There's no one looking for voice work in Hopalong Texas where you can rent a place for $500 a month and eat at restaurants all day for 20 bucks.

If you do a little math you'll see that the programmers look like they're doing pretty well for themselves compared to the voice actors.

[Timemaster Tim]

Thats like taking an online class for public speaking.

Available at Clackamas Community College (http://dl.clackamas.edu/sp-111.htm), and Lewis-Clark Community College (http://www.lcsc.edu/dl/Schedule-Spring/Courses/COMM204.htm).

[Marcus]

Wow...

Thats insanely retarded.

[Sachant]

I now want to be a voice actor. Talk about a great part time gig.

[Supertanker]

Besides, there are a lot of professions where outsiders say, "They don't need to work much to make a lot of money." How about musicians? Or baseball players (minimum wage: 300,000, even if you're a reliever that sits in the bullpen and pitches to one lefty every three games)? Or computer technicians; they get paid WAY too much to remove spyware and crap like that. Anyone can do that.

This is what I kept thinking while reading through this thread. If you want to use their services, you have to pay the rates a particular profession demands. I'm sure the game companies pay their lawyers more than they pay their programmers, and I'll bet the lawyers don't have crunch times months on end. If you want a lawyer, you pay the rate they demand. If you want a professional voice actor, you pay the rate they demand.

"I'm sure I can arrange a nice little honorarium from the Student Fund."

[McBain]

How much of the gaming press gave free publicity to GTA SA because of Mr. Jackson's work? Console mags and TV shows were falling all over themselves to give this game an award for the voice work and it's mostly because of him.

I don't think that was at all responsible for the success of the game.

A friend of mine is a huge fan of SLJ (I'd go as far as calling him an almost-fanboy), and even he wouldn't go buy a game solely because it has SLJ's voicework in it. Case in point: He doesn't have GTA:SA, even though he's well aware that it features the work of big fuckin' Sam.

Shrug.

[steve]

I'm sure the game companies pay their lawyers more than they pay their programmers, and I'll bet the lawyers don't have crunch times months on end.
Exactly. And as you know, all lawyers do is snort coke off the stomachs of hookers all day, and occasionally write a cease and desist letter. Which they download from Google and change the names around.

[Talisker]

...all lawyers do is snort coke off the stomachs of hookers all day, and occasionally write a cease and desist letter. Which they download from Google and change the names around.
And here I thought Sharpe was just friendly when we were playing Planetside--turns out he was high! Man, I picked the wrong field.

[Timemaster Tim]

Exactly. And as you know, all lawyers do is snort coke off the stomachs of hookers all day, and occasionally write a cease and desist letter. Which they download from Google and change the names around.

Yes, it's fun to take a poke at lawyers.

Lawyer at the Pearly Gates: There must be a mistake St. Peter. I'm too young to die!

St. Peter: According to your billable hours, you're 93.

Okay, back to the voice actors. I don't see why the game companies would want to agree to demands for residuals. It seems like they will just open up a can of worms with respect to residuals for other members of the development team.

[BaconTastesGood]

It seems like they will just open up a can of worms with respect to residuals for other members of the development team.

Realistically....no. EA could say "Okay, we're paying residuals to SAG voice actors" and absolutely nothing would happen except some anonymous blogs. Things are so shitty in terms of work environment at most development houses that I highly doubt a little bit of jealousy at some faceless (literally) entities would really cause any more strife.

It's not like a bunch of developers are going to unass themselves and start in with "Well, we're underpaid, overworked, get shit credit, are treated like dirt...but, DAMMIT, THIS IS THE LAST STRAW, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T AFFECT US!!"

[Jason McCullough]

So the abstract principle here is "how dare they have a union and get paid more than me?" Y'all are strange.

[Cold Blooded]

Again, one man's perspective here, but my concern isn't about developers suffering morale problems because voice actors get billed over them, or about claiming that voice actors are overpaid or lazy.

My concern, which seems to have been glossed over (again, not claiming it's more important than anyone else's) is that a more restrictive royalty structure that pulls even more money out of the pockets of game companies could affect the already shrinking piece of the pie that most smaller (read: non-huge) shops are ending up with these days. It could also, in the long run, keep professional voice actors out of reach for smaller or even mid-sized shops running with tight budgets. The Maddens and the Halos have nothing to worry about. But consider games like Baldur's Gate, Grim Fandango, etc. without professional actors because they were out of budget. Could they possibly have become what they had without the voice talent they had?

Don't believe that voice actors' contributions are insignificant, myself, but will say that the SAG demands seem a bit steep and overreactionary to the big game industry profit numbers that analysts seem to enjoy throwing around so much. Probably isn't the case, but the wording in the original article suggests that someone from SAG read about rising game industry profits and his/her eyes lit up with dollar signs. Article also suggests that a battle line has been drawn between two angry sides throwing stones at each other...hoping it doesn't escalate for the reasons above. Just two cents here.

[noun]

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*!

I'm not following you on this point, Jason. Does Microsoft pay something other than 8 hours of your contracted wages for a paid holiday?

[Squirrel Killer]

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*!

I'm not following you on this point, Jason. Does Microsoft pay something other than 8 hours of your contracted wages for a paid holiday?

Divide his daily salary by the number of hours he worked...

[noun]

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*!

I'm not following you on this point, Jason. Does Microsoft pay something other than 8 hours of your contracted wages for a paid holiday?

Divide his daily salary by the number of hours he worked...

Oh. I guess the argument was that salaried workers get PTO while voice actors don't?

[Squirrel Killer]

On paid holidays, I technically make an *infinite salary*!

I'm not following you on this point, Jason. Does Microsoft pay something other than 8 hours of your contracted wages for a paid holiday?

Divide his daily salary by the number of hours he worked...

Oh. I guess the argument was that salaried workers get PTO while voice actors don't?

Perhaps, but I think it was more to point out the absurdity of taking one data point out of context (like a freelancer's hourly rate, or a salaried worker's calculated hourly rate on a paid holiday) and saying is yearly take home pay is ((hourly rate * 40) * 52).

[Angie Gallant]

I just side with the side that feels that professional voice work is more of a prop than a star, so they don't deserve residuals. Sorry that sucks for them, but if non-SAG workers are happy to do it then people will remain happy to use them.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, I guess I need to work on my jokes.

[Wobbo]

Here's a tip if you're making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won't have to pay any actors any money and you'd actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.

--Dave
EXCACTLY. System shock 1's non-CD dialogue, emails, and logs were just fine WITHOUT actors; the only thing that improved the experience was Shodan, and even that was heavily com com com putER EDDDDITTTTTEEEEEDD Duh. And of course you dont need to be all that talented to portray a 1-dimensional computerized voice in the first place

So there should be no RPGs or adventure games, just puzzle games?

And maybe that tutorial would be more effective if someone told you how to play in addition to showing you what to do.

Even if every game just becomes a giant sandbox simulation, you're going to have to create Mute World if you don't plan on anyone saying anything.

Come to think of it, outside of something like Lumines, what doesn't have any voice acting?
Apparently you didnt play any games before the invention of the CD-Rom (or perhaps you didnt like any of them). In that case you might do well to look at how dialogue was handled in those days... suffice to say gamers lived through it

Games are GAMES, not movies. note the System shock/ System shock "CD-enhanced" example
That said to the extent there are VOs they should be paid whatever they demand. I support unions on princible regardless of circumstances and I think Jason's nailed it...
So the abstract principle here is "how dare they have a union and get paid more than me?" Y'all are strange.

[extarbags]

they should be paid whatever they demand.

What? Does this go for everyone? Cause man, it sure would be nice if I could set my own wage.

[Ben Sones]

What? Does this go for everyone? Cause man, it sure would be nice if I could set my own wage.

You can. In fact, if you have ever turned down a job because the pay was too low, then you have. Everyone gets to demand the wage they want to make. That doesn't mean you'll get it, but if the wage is in line with what the market will bear, you might.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

Everyone gets to demand the wage they want to make. That doesn't mean you'll get it, but if the wage is in line with what the market will bear, you might.

The whole purpose of a union is to secure benefits greater than what the market will bear, and never was that more true than in the case of SAG trying to obtain residuals for computer game voice-over talent.

[Ben Sones]

The whole purpose of a union is to secure benefits greater than what the market will bear, and never was that more true than in the case of SAG trying to obtain residuals for computer game voice-over talent.

The purpose of a union is to give employees, collectively, more bargaining power. Nobody is shackled into hiring union labor. Game companies that don't want to pay union rates can hire non-union talent. If voice-overs are really as non-critical to a game's success or failure as you imply, then they might be better off going that route. But if they want the best actors, they probably aren't going to find them that way.

[MattKeil]

They could just go to Vancouver for their VAs instead.

[extarbags]

What? Does this go for everyone? Cause man, it sure would be nice if I could set my own wage.

You can. In fact, if you have ever turned down a job because the pay was too low, then you have. Everyone gets to demand the wage they want to make. That doesn't mean you'll get it, but if the wage is in line with what the market will bear, you might.

No, I can't. I can ask for whatever wage I want, but I can't set whatever wage I want. And what he said, what I was responding to, was this:

they should be paid whatever they demand.

See the difference? He didn't say "they should be able to demand whatever pay they want." He said, "they should be paid whatever they demand." I make twelve dollars an hour right now. There's nothing stopping me from going into my boss's office and DEMANDING ON THE SPOT that he raise me up to four hundred dollars an hour. But if his rule applied to tech support jokers as well as voice actors, I would actually get it.

[Jonathan Blow]

I demand infinity plus one dollars!!

[RichardC]

EXCACTLY. System shock 1's non-CD dialogue, emails, and logs were just fine WITHOUT actors; the only thing that improved the experience was Shodan

Er...no. The audio logs contributed hugely to the atmosphere.

[GregB]

Er...no. The audio logs contributed hugely to the atmosphere.

I'll go one further and claim that the audio logs not only contributed to the atmosphere, but they contributed to the gameplay.

Once you started an audio log, you could continue playing (exploring, shooting, fiddling with your inventory, etc) while listening to the log at the same time. With only text you had to stop everything and read which disrupts the flow of the game.


Apparently you didnt play any games before the invention of the CD-Rom (or perhaps you didnt like any of them). In that case you might do well to look at how dialogue was handled in those days... suffice to say gamers lived through it


You got Steve pegged Wobbo. He's a total n00b. :roll:

[Midnight Son]

I demand better voices!

[steve]

EXCACTLY. System shock 1's non-CD dialogue, emails, and logs were just fine WITHOUT actors;
As someone else noted, there could be a huge difference in the emotional connection with a player between reading a log that says, "I hope I see you again" and someone acting out that line. Granted, if it's a crap line reading the effect is lost, but I thought reading logs while walking around the station--and knowing those were the voices of people that had died--was way more haunting than it was when standing there reading text.

Another advantage of voice acting: more editing. Granted, most games are still too verbose, but if all you have is text, you tend to write more. Instead of tight, sharp dialogue, you tend to get long, rambling bits that generally aren't all that well-written.

Apparently you didnt play any games before the invention of the CD-Rom (or perhaps you didnt like any of them). In that case you might do well to look at how dialogue was handled in those days... suffice to say gamers lived through it
Oddly enough, I did.

And I still think good voice acting is better than straight text. I preferred, say, the CD versions of Day of the Tentacle or Sam & Max over the floppy editions because they had such good voice acting that really matched the characters.

In general, I'd much rather hear someone say, "Um, hey, come help me" then have to read a pop-up message. It's more natual, and it's better for gameplay (no visual cues needed, no obtrusive pop-ups). Would Gauntlet have been as fun with pop-ups for each character when they needed food badly?

[Justin Fletcher]

Since we're talking about acting, there seems to be a subtext to the detractors' comments that actors don't deserve that amount of money because the job is easy compared to "real world" jobs. No, it isn't as "hard" as digging ditches eight hours a day nor does it adhere to normal work hours in either time or duration. However, acting (including voice acting) is physically and mentally demanding and requires a specialized skill set and a large dollop of talent. Actors are specialists, much like an art director or a lead programmer in a development house. They aren't sitting around sipping pina coladas and rolling through the occasional bit of dialogue. It's not something that everyone can do. Strike that. It's not something that everyone can do well.

Some people apparently don't care if Samuel L. Jackson or Billy the Janitor do the voice work in games. Some apparently don't care if there is voice acting at all. Fine. Judging from the responses in this thread, though, there are a large amount of people who think that quality voice acting enhances the gaming experience. And apparently that has translated to the developers, otherwise why would they bother including it in their games? Now I have no idea whether the residual negotiations represent a fair deal for either side. But I do know that, just like most other things in this world, if the developers want quality, they're going to have to pay an equitable rate for it.

[Dante Rising]

A few voice actors who really made a difference in games I've played:

-The voice actor for minsc in Baldur's Gate
-The voice actor for Snake in Metal Gear Solid
-The voice actors for Raziel and Kain in the Soul Reaver/Legacy of Kain series. (some of my favorite acting of all time)

I see no problem paying these people $300+ per hour, as their voices added a great deal of flavor to these games.

[BaconTastesGood]

I see no problem paying these people $300+ per hour, as their voices added a great deal of flavor to these games.

A lot of arguments are arguing past each other here. I don't think so many people mind the hourly because, hey, it's like any other contract gig, you're not working all the time (billable) but you're still honing your craft. There's a going rate, that's fine. Today most pubs still pay scale for SAG voice actors, and several are SAG-only.

There's nothing wrong with that. MY problem is that SAG is now posturing with "We do things a certain way, and so far we've let the game industry get away with doing it THEIR way, and screw that, we want them to adapt to our model". And by "our model" they mean getting residuals under the presumption that the voice talent is the driving impetus behind a game's identity and popularity.

THAT I have a problem with. If anyone deserves residuals it's the developers who spent 3 years working under shitty conditions to squeeze out that loaf.

So, to be clear, I'm not against hiring SAG VA's and paying them decent hourlies, but I AM against the whole residual/prima donna thing.

[BrewersDroop]

They could just go to Vancouver for their VAs instead.

Or outsource to a third world country. I'm not sure the gaming world is ready for that just yet though.

[Aleck]

Apparently you didnt play any games before the invention of the CD-Rom (or perhaps you didnt like any of them). In that case you might do well to look at how dialogue was handled in those days... suffice to say gamers lived through it
Oddly enough, I did.


I'm STEVE BAUMAN, BITCH!

[Justin Fletcher]

If anyone deserves residuals it's the developers who spent 3 years working under shitty conditions to squeeze out that loaf.
I totally agree with that. I do not, however, agree with the sentiment behind this:

"The union's demand for an equity stake, or residual structure, is unreasonable and not fair to the hundreds of people who often spend years developing a game," Howard Fabrick, an attorney representing publishers in the talks, said in a statement. "Voiceover work represents a small fraction of a video game's development and consumer enjoyment."
If, as Mr. Fabrick implies, actor residuals would infringe on developer residuals, then there'd be a problem. Except (wait for it) there are no developer residuals! "The hundreds of people who spend years developing a game" don't see bupkis in back-end profit. Mr. Fabrick represents the CEOs and shareholders of the publishers, not the "common man."

So, to be clear, I'm not against hiring SAG VA's and paying them decent hourlies, but I AM against the whole residual/prima donna thing.
The concept of residuals is not a "prima donna thing." It isn't like The Stones insisting a snooker table be installed at every concert venue. Residuals ensure that the talent responsible for entertainment get a fair share of a profit stream that can go on for years and years and years, which in the past has only enriched the publishers/distributors/bigwigs.

The issue shouldn't be "Developers don't get residuals, so why should actors?" The issue should be "Actors should get residuals, and so should developers."

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, if anything, EA's trodden-down developers need to take a lesson from these guys.

There's nothing wrong with that. MY problem is that SAG is now posturing with "We do things a certain way, and so far we've let the game industry get away with doing it THEIR way, and screw that, we want them to adapt to our model". And by "our model" they mean getting residuals under the presumption that the voice talent is the driving impetus behind a game's identity and popularity.

That's not the reason they get residuals; they get residuals because their work is used for all eternity, practically, to make money for the company selling the content, and they have a good union that gets them that instead of flat-rate.

It's think it's also "more efficient" from a economic efficiency standpoint.

[Linoleum]

You can release "The Last Starfighter" (circa 1984) on DVD and make money. Residuals are worth something here.

You cannot release "Skyfox" for the Apple II (circa 1984) on an emulator and make money.

Trying to compare games to movies, tv or music just doesn't work.

[Dave Weinstein]

Actors get residuals on films and television, in part because they are a major part of the draw.

When it comes to games, the voice actors are far more analagous to the grips then they are to the stars.

[Phil_Stein]

Actors are not only a major part of the draw for TV and movies, they are a major part of the production, however you measure it (time, money, presentation impact, etc.)

In the average video game, by contrast, much less than 1% of the development effort is by voice actors, and, barring cases of exceptionally bad or exceptionally good actors, they have much less of an impact on the game.

PopTop's games had, perhaps 40-70,000 hours of development effort in them (not counting marketing, etc.) - programmers, artists, musicians, actors, etc. The V.O. acting amounted to 2-4 hours typically. On more character driven games, this might by in the low hundreds of hours.

[Marcus]

They could just go to Vancouver for their VAs instead.

Or outsource to a third world country. I'm not sure the gaming world is ready for that just yet though.

Then playing games would be like calling Dell tech support.

"wait...what did he just say?"

[Jason McCullough]

You can release "The Last Starfighter" (circa 1984) on DVD and make money. Residuals are worth something here.

You cannot release "Skyfox" for the Apple II (circa 1984) on an emulator and make money.

Trying to compare games to movies, tv or music just doesn't work.

Oh, I imagine it won't get them any more money in this case, yeah, but it's not like residuals are pointless like some were implying.

[Justin Fletcher]

You can release "The Last Starfighter" (circa 1984) on DVD and make money. Residuals are worth something here.

You cannot release "Skyfox" for the Apple II (circa 1984) on an emulator and make money.

Trying to compare games to movies, tv or music just doesn't work.
Of course it does. The timeframe is just compressed. PC games have a longer shelf life than consoles, but they obviously don't have the legs of TV shows or movies. Still, I'm sure the voice actors for Starcraft wouldn't have complained a bit if they'd only gotten residuals for, say, five years.

Actors get residuals on films and television, in part because they are a major part of the draw.
All levels of actors can get residuals, not just the stars who are "the draw." On Seinfeld, the titular Jerry was more of a draw than Jerry Stiller, but you can bet that Stiller gets residuals. Of course, I'm sure that Seinfeld makes much, much more than Stiller; that's where the "draw" factor comes into play.

When it comes to games, the voice actors are far more analagous to the grips then they are to the stars.
No, the actors are analogous to actors. The lighting modelers are analogous to grips. The difference is that most people would agree that the "grips" make a more crucial contribution to games than the actors. The fact that developers should get, say, 90% of the residuals and the actors should get 10% doesn't change the fact that residuals should be paid.

And really, who are the "stars" in games anyway? As Steve says, name actors in games can boost the visibility of a game. However, I agree that the presence of big time actors doesn't (and shouldn't) overpower the focus of a title. You could argue that in the few cases of a Carmack, a Meier, or a Wright, the designers are the stars. A more accurate analogy, though, is that they are directors, not stars. Spielberg, not Hanks. The "stars" are the games themselves, which are the culmination of the efforts of all the people involved in making them.

Thus, residuals should not be about "star power" but about fair remuneration for artistic and technical contributions. I know it's easy to say "Everyone should get residuals!" when actors have a union backing them and developers do not. However, actors had to fight for the rights that they now enjoy in the Hollywood system. Maybe it's time for developers to do the same.

[EFlannum]

Actors are not only a major part of the draw for TV and movies, they are a major part of the production, however you measure it (time, money, presentation impact, etc.)

In the average video game, by contrast, much less than 1% of the development effort is by voice actors, and, barring cases of exceptionally bad or exceptionally good actors, they have much less of an impact on the game.

PopTop's games had, perhaps 40-70,000 hours of development effort in them (not counting marketing, etc.) - programmers, artists, musicians, actors, etc. The V.O. acting amounted to 2-4 hours typically. On more character driven games, this might by in the low hundreds of hours.

Having worked on several more character driven games and having been pretty involved in the voice work, it doesn't even get to the low hundreds. We spent somewhere around 80 hours tops in the studio for games like Sacrifice and Bard's Tale which both had a large amount of voice acting done by SAG members. However I'd also say that the impact that the VO work had in those games was much greater than could be derived simply by looking at the hours involved.

On the general issue of voice actors getting residuals I am all for it in cases where the actor has a large impact on the game. Of course I feel that developers should also get them. I always find it funny that the game I worked on that sold the least number of copies is the only one I've ever seen any direct compensation from and that ended up being tiny due to low sales.

Oh another big difference between movie royalties and developer royalties (when they happen) devs only get them while they are with the company, so if you work on a hugely popular game even if you saw any money from it, you'd only get that as long as you stay with the company. Of course a lot of people would point out that there is all that job security with being employed by a company while I would argue that what we have at most publishers/developers these days is a per project hiring policy anyways (only the poor saps on the dev team aren't aware of it when they sign on.)

[Rob Beschizza]

All I know about voice acting is that I hear the same voices in every second game or cartoon I see.

It always looks to me like pre-OS X mac business software: a clique system designed from the ground up to keep fresh talent off the gravy train. Seriously, there's one guy who always plays the hero, one guy who always plays the cute little monster, etc. It destroys suspension of disblief, at least whatever is left over after the shitty standards of modern animation have had their go.

[chet]

All I know about voice acting is that I hear the same voices in every second game or cartoon I see.

It always looks to me like pre-OS X mac business software: a clique system designed from the ground up to keep fresh talent off the gravy train. Seriously, there's one guy who always plays the hero, one guy who always plays the cute little monster, etc. It destroys suspension of disblief, at least whatever is left over after the shitty standards of modern animation have had their go.

Examples?

[Ben Sones]

-The voice actor for minsc in Baldur's Gate
-The voice actor for Snake in Metal Gear Solid
-The voice actors for Raziel and Kain in the Soul Reaver/Legacy of Kain series. (some of my favorite acting of all time)

I'd add:

-The girl who played April Ryan in the Longest Journey
-The guy who played Garrett in Thief
-The guy who played Guybrush Threepwood in the last few Monkey Island games

None of these games would have been the same without the contributions of those actors. Which is not to belittle the work of all the other folks (programmers, designers, artists, etc.) who made the games--a game is a group effort, after all. But I think it's silly to say that voice talent doesn't matter.

But if his rule applied to tech support jokers as well as voice actors, I would actually get it.

Heh... fair enough. Fortunately, that rule applies to neither.

[BaconTastesGood]

Examples?

I know Mark Hamill (http://imdb.com/name/nm0000434/) does a lot of games, he pretty much makes his living at it.

Patrick Warburton does a LOT of shit. Buzz Lightyear, Tak, Venture Bros., Emperor's New Groove, Metal Arms, Kim Possible, more shit than I can list.

[Rob Beschizza]

Examples?

I googled it. The two I'm bored with are Cam Clark and Frank Welker.

[MattKeil]

Mark Hamill has done 7 games since 2000. He makes his living in animation, not games, as he's far too pricey for most game budgets. That's the main reason he's not the voice of Luke in the SW games.

I googled it. The two I'm bored with are Cam Clark and Frank Welker.

Clarke is pretty overused, but Welker is generally just additional voices. He rarely plays a major role, probably because he's the biggest name in voice acting and few game companies are willing to pay for him. The man has done literally hundreds of voices, and having him in game casts is a very welcome thing, IMO.

Perhaps also relevant to this discussion, the only primary character (other than Fred in the Scooby Doo games) I can remember Welker voicing is one of the Floigan Brothers, which was arguably the worst Dreamcast game ever made. Even the best actors can't save a crappy game.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Examples?

Jennifer Hale (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0354937/) is an easy score in "spot the voice actor" bingo.

[Euri]

Bastila, Die!

[RichardC]

Jennifer Hale: When you really, really need an insipid/prissy voice in a hurry.

Earl Boen is another one who seems to crop up quite a bit - the voice of LeChuck in the talkie Monkey Island games.

[GregB]

Paul "Col Roy Campbell" Eiding has been in practically every game ever made. He generally easy to spot.

Michael "Raziel" Bell is also easy to identify.

[bago]

The guy who does zim deserves every penny he gets.

[CustodianV131]

Don't be surprised when the voices in future games have a bit of an Indian accent. If I had the chance I would move to India and make the games there. Big movie industry for actors, Lots of dirt cheap programmers with no union to speak of. Dreamland really :D.

You see it with programming teams from the former soviet controlled countries already and India is even cheaper.

It really getting hard to build a profitable company in the 1st world countries unless you strike gold and have a hit and even then the big companies usually step in and take over.

Another industry soon to be lost to the low income countries?

[RichardC]

VICTORY FOR RAZ!

Mind you, one that really sticks in my mind is John diMaggio's awful, awful performances in Final Fantasy X. Normally he's great - everyone from Bender to Smiling Jack to Dr. Drakken is superb, but oh dear, oh dear, was Wakka annoying as all hellfire. Voice director. Please. Be. Fired.

[RichardC]

Don't be surprised when the voices in future games have a bit of an Indian accent. If I had the chance I would move to India and make the games there. Big movie industry for actors, Lots of dirt cheap programmers with no union to speak of. Dreamland really :D.

A glimpse of the outsourced future: Legacy: Dark Shadows. The Musical. (http://www.legacythegame.com/download/BurglerRen_V1.mp3)

[AlexxKay]

-The guy who played Garrett in Thief

That would be Stephen Russell:
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,12766/

I might also add George "Minute Man" Ledoux:
http://www.georgeledoux.com/games.html

[Kalle]

Mind you, one that really sticks in my mind is John diMaggio's awful, awful performances in Final Fantasy X. Normally he's great - everyone from Bender to Smiling Jack to Dr. Drakken is superb, but oh dear, oh dear, was Wakka annoying as all hellfire. Voice director. Please. Be. Fired.

Worse than the abomination that is Tidus?

[EFlannum]

Jennifer Hale: When you really, really need an insipid/prissy voice in a hurry.

Earl Boen is another one who seems to crop up quite a bit - the voice of LeChuck in the talkie Monkey Island games.

Jennifer Hale is actually a great actor with a lot of range. I am surprised when I hear her in some things, direction makes a huge difference. I thought she was great for example in the first Ground Control whereas in things like Grandia extreme she was horrible.

[RichardC]

Oh, I'm not knocking her personally by any means - I've heard her do good characters too (Fall From Grace/Deionnara in PST and Katrina in QFGIV, for instance) and no actress could do much with the kind of simpering dialogue she so often seems to get lumbered with. I just mean that she typically seems to be who the voice casting guy seems to gravitate to when he's got an irritating female lead to cast - the likes of EE in MGS2 or Elena in Grandia.

Worse than the abomination that is Tidus?

Not as bad as Yuna, certainly.

[Aephir]

Not to beat a dead horse, but...

Programmers and artists tell actors to get in line

Xeni Jardin writes, "The video-game industry's geek workforce has something to say to Hollywood actors: Get in line for your share of the industry's profits." Wired interviewed a few game developers and programmers, and it seems with the recent demand by voice actors for residuals for their work on video games, those who do all the hard work are stepping up and demanding their own fair share.

http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,67707,00.html

[McBain]

I'm not sure I can see any scenario coming out of this where PC Gaming actually wins.

[Jasper]

Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Programmers and artists tell actors to get in line
Which makes sense, the difference is that Programmers and Artists so far happily bend over to keep their jobs and are afraid to unionize, while actors have enough good sense to collectively bargain. As a result actors can bargain for a fair share of profits, while programmers and artists in the game industry slave away for massive amounts of unpaid overtime. Sure actors are asking for a better deal, but why would they want to grab their ankles just because Programmers and Artists do? I'm a programmer myself, and I'm constantly amazed at just how spineless so many in the industry are.

And no, paying programmers and artists reasonably is not going to kill PC Gaming any more than it killed Hollywood. There is plenty of room in the profit made by EA et al to handle it. Moreover, judging from non game industry jobs if (for example) EA programmers worked sane hours and schedules they'd be flat out more productive -- waterfall scheduling with massive built in overtime is not efficient.

[Alan Dunkin]

Well, there are plenty of places in this industry where one can work reasonable well, get paid reasonably well, and where you don't have to worry about that kind of nonsense. You do OT when you need to. In essence, you do your fucking job. The horror stories have a tendency to get out more than the successes.

Efficiency != unions. Sorry, but while unions may not kill the industry, it'll do a lot more harm than good.

--- Alan

[Nick Walter]

I like puppies.

[steve]

Which makes sense, the difference is that Programmers and Artists so far happily bend over to keep their jobs and are afraid to unionize, while actors have enough good sense to collectively bargain.
If programmers and artists really want royalties, they need to work on a contract basis instead of as full-time employees. Full-time employees should get performance-based bonuses, but few people in Hollywood work full-time; that went out with the studio system. And I could be wrong, but most of the full-time people probably don't get royalties because they're not necessarily tied to individual films/projects.

How do you calculate a full-time programmer or artist's salary if he or she works on multiple games? Do they "clock in" to determine the work for each, and scale the royalty? If they worked on an engine, does it apply to each subsequent game? If a texture is re-used, do they get royalties?

It seems like it could be an accounting nightmare for a full-time company to try to determine everyone's contribution. It's easy if you have a contract; you work on Game X, then you're done.

[Nick Walter]

How do you calculate a full-time programmer or artist's salary if he or she works on multiple games? Do they "clock in" to determine the work for each, and scale the royalty? If they worked on an engine, does it apply to each subsequent game? If a texture is re-used, do they get royalties?

It seems like it could be an accounting nightmare for a full-time company to try to determine everyone's contribution. It's easy if you have a contract; you work on Game X, then you're done.

I can't speak for the game dev industry, but the software industry in general does track employee contributions to individual projects down to at least daily granularity and more usually hourly granularity. They have to do this for accounting, since labor cost of programmers is the biggest cost of a software project, and the accounting gets really confusing fast if multiple departments are working multiple projects at once.

[Talisker]

Seems to me the time an actor spends on a film set is a miniscule percentage of the total number of man-hours involved in creating the movie -- do grips, digital fx guys, foley artists, cinematographers, etc, typically get residuals?

[Mark Crump]

Which makes sense, the difference is that Programmers and Artists so far happily bend over to keep their jobs and are afraid to unionize, while actors have enough good sense to collectively bargain.
If programmers and artists really want royalties, they need to work on a contract basis instead of as full-time employees. Full-time employees should get performance-based bonuses, but few people in Hollywood work full-time; that went out with the studio system. And I could be wrong, but most of the full-time people probably don't get royalties because they're not necessarily tied to individual films/projects.

How do you calculate a full-time programmer or artist's salary if he or she works on multiple games? Do they "clock in" to determine the work for each, and scale the royalty? If they worked on an engine, does it apply to each subsequent game? If a texture is re-used, do they get royalties?

It seems like it could be an accounting nightmare for a full-time company to try to determine everyone's contribution. It's easy if you have a contract; you work on Game X, then you're done.

It's no different than an Ad agency, like I work for, having people fill out their time sheets with the job code to different projects.

[Alan Dunkin]

I don't think I was saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that if you have a job to do, you have a deadline, and if it takes you 50 hours a week to do it instead of 40, then do it. It's not about assigning blame, it's about doing your job - and thereby helping others do their job. I'm not saying you should be working 80 hours a week for every week of your job because it can't be done in 40, I'm saying when more needs to be done, there should be flexibility in there to do it.

There's a lot that can be done to teach employers in this industry to be more responsible and efficient without resorting to the nonsense of unions. Lawsuits for the ridiculous practices at EA should help.

--- Alan

[Kraaze]

I don't think I was saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that if you have a job to do, you have a deadline, and if it takes you 50 hours a week to do it instead of 40, then do it. It's not about assigning blame, it's about doing your job - and thereby helping others do their job. I'm not saying you should be working 80 hours a week for every week of your job because it can't be done in 40, I'm saying when more needs to be done, there should be flexibility in there to do it.

There's a lot that can be done to teach employers in this industry to be more responsible and efficient without resorting to the nonsense of unions. Lawsuits for the ridiculous practices at EA should help.

--- Alan

Hmm, I still disagree. If I find my job requires me to work 50 hours a week then I stop and ask myself why. If I screwed up an estimate, or slacked off and got behind, then I will happily work the ten extra hours to catch up the project. That was my fault, I should fix it. If I have to work 10 hours of unpaid overtime because management gave me more work than could be done in 40 hours a week, then management fucked up and needs to fix it. Just working unpaid overtime encourages management to repeat the same pattern of employee-abusive behavior.

P.S. Sorry for the psuedonym switch, I don't necessarily want an employer googling me on this one ;-)

[Alan Dunkin]

Yeah I guess it's just different attitudes of being an employee. Say I'm working on an MMOG and we launch on July 1. There's a lot of work that needs to be done. 40 hours a week won't cut it. I work the hours I need to work to get my projects done.

Is it a fault of management? Probably... forcing a release date, putting abnormal time constraints on a project, too much needing to be done, not enough staffing, etc. At the same time, I feel that not doing the amount of work I could be doing to help finish the project is frankly more detrimental to the project - for myself for helping release a crappy project, to the team for not helping others release a better project, and for the customers who frankly I need to help convince they haven't purchased a crappy project. And for me financially, because if the project is truly crappy it may reflect on me and I'll be living in a shoebox, or less dramatically, on my end-of-year bonus. It's not like I'm not getting paid anything, I get paid fairly well, but sometimes things need to be done.

Now maybe if I worked in a more corporate environment or, heaven forbid, I was unionized, I wouldn't care as much.

--- Alan

[Chris Nahr]

Quick, someone update the Q23 pseudonym diagram! :P

[Alan Dunkin]

LOL haha.

Yes in secret I'm just pandering to my future employers :)

--- Alan

[steve]

Seems to me the time an actor spends on a film set is a miniscule percentage of the total number of man-hours involved in creating the movie -- do grips, digital fx guys, foley artists, cinematographers, etc, typically get residuals?
It probably depends on their contract. If they're the best digital FX guy or foley artist, they might be able to negotiate such a deal.

Not all actors get points on box office either. Residuals on TV, though, go down pretty far. I used to help this one guy at a bank I worked at, and he was one of those guys who was in every movie ever made, but he had 1-2 lines in each. And when one of his movies appeared on TV, he'd have a check for a few bucks.

[Charles]

What the better game companies do, is award everyone in the company yearly (or periodic) bonuses based on their position in the company, and the performance of the company as a whole.

[Charles]

Yeah I guess it's just different attitudes of being an employee. Say I'm working on an MMOG and we launch on July 1. There's a lot of work that needs to be done. 40 hours a week won't cut it. I work the hours I need to work to get my projects done.

Is it a fault of management? Probably... forcing a release date, putting abnormal time constraints on a project, too much needing to be done, not enough staffing, etc. At the same time, I feel that not doing the amount of work I could be doing to help finish the project is frankly more detrimental to the project - for myself for helping release a crappy project, to the team for not helping others release a better project, and for the customers who frankly I need to help convince they haven't purchased a crappy project. And for me financially, because if the project is truly crappy it may reflect on me and I'll be living in a shoebox, or less dramatically, on my end-of-year bonus. It's not like I'm not getting paid anything, I get paid fairly well, but sometimes things need to be done.

Now maybe if I worked in a more corporate environment or, heaven forbid, I was unionized, I wouldn't care as much.

--- Alan

Just have to chime in here... you are pandering to the fallacy that you must take personal responsibility for the project in all cases, and that you personally control the outcome based on your own singular contribution.

Fact of the matter is, if the project is being fucked up by management, all you are doing is working for free and justifying their poor decisions. This is what leads to all the problems in the industry.

[Nick Walter]

Just have to chime in here... you are pandering to the fallacy that you must take personal responsibility for the project in all cases, and that you personally control the outcome based on your own singular contribution.

Fact of the matter is, if the project is being fucked up by management, all you are doing is working for free and justifying their poor decisions. This is what leads to all the problems in the industry.

That's not entirely true, though I largely agree with you. I think the best way is for both management and employee to feel some responsibility for outcomes. Balance prevents a lot of the very real problems of abusive management or apathetic labor.

Things like the EA spouse fiasco stem from American culture that tends to push the employee responsibility angle heavily. This creates situations where management can take advantage of it to get extra free labor from employees who feel duty-bound to complete undermanned projects on time.

[Charles]

That's not entirely true, though I largely agree with you. I think the best way is for both management and employee to feel some responsibility for outcomes. Balance prevents a lot of the very real problems of abusive management or apathetic labor.

Yes, for sure, I agree 100%. But feeling responsibility for problems that are a direct result of poor management results in way more personal problems than a job should ever influence.

Plus, what happens when you get that one guy who works the absurd hours no matter what, is that management puts him on a pedestel and gets angry at other employees for not matching him, and it exacerbates the problem.

Note that I have absolutely no problem with the little bit of crunch that's extremely unavoidable on any software project towards the end, and I personally will put in extra hours if I feel like I want to, but I will *never* put in extra hours just because the project is in a bad situation due to reasons outside my own control.

[Alan Dunkin]

It's not as if I'm saying I should personally blame myself if a project doesn't do well, but in order for someone to be able to take pride in their work, there has to be the possibility of being.. well, the opposite of prideful. You can't absorb all the positives and absolve all the negatives on poor management. Well I guess you could on truly shitty projects actually.

If a project fails and I know I did what I could, I can't feel too bad about it. But in order to get there, I would have to know I did what I could - in other words, I did my job.

--- Alan

[Doug Erickson]

I wouldn't mind VA work being abolished altogether. I really can't abide voicework in my games.

[Charles]

If a project fails and I know I did what I could, I can't feel too bad about it. But in order to get there, I would have to know I did what I could - in other words, I did my job.

--- Alan

So you think your job is stressing yourself out for other people's problems?

[Shadarr]

I wouldn't mind VA work being abolished altogether. I really can't abide voicework in my games.

I like voicework when it's during gameplay. Metal Arms and BG&E did a good job of that. For cut scenes (if you absolutely have to have them) I'd rather just have text.

[Justin Fletcher]

Wired interviewed a few game developers and programmers, and it seems with the recent demand by voice actors for residuals for their work on video games, those who do all the hard work are stepping up and demanding their own fair share.
Good. It's about time.

Seems to me the time an actor spends on a film set is a miniscule percentage of the total number of man-hours involved in creating the movie -- do grips, digital fx guys, foley artists, cinematographers, etc, typically get residuals?
I don't think so, but I bet they also get paid a hell of a lot more than scale.

If programmers and artists really want royalties, they need to work on a contract basis instead of as full-time employees. Full-time employees should get performance-based bonuses, but few people in Hollywood work full-time; that went out with the studio system. And I could be wrong, but most of the full-time people probably don't get royalties because they're not necessarily tied to individual films/projects.

That's an excellent point. It seems logical that programmers and artists should reap a portion of the rewards that their efforts bring their companies. Whether as cash bonuses or incentive programs, the rewards would be doled out through the corporate structure. Contract employees, like actors, wouldn't have access to such company-based incentives. Thus, SAG demands residuals to ensure actors get their fair share. The fact that programmers and artists don't get their fair share is an entirely separate issue.

Again, no one is holding a gun to the industry's collective head. They don't have to use SAG actors. The fact that there is even any discussion going on with SAG means that companies feel that union actors offer something that non-union actors don't. Whether that's true or not is debatable, but it certainly seems to be something the industry believes. Otherwise, companies would just give the "prima donnas" the raspberry and hire the thousands of other struggling actors that haven't accrued enough credits to join SAG.

[VegasRobb]

Hollywood unions reach deal with video game makers

The unions, which said they struck the deal with reluctance, vowed to continue their bid to win payments for actors for each game sold. Actors who appear in movies and television shows receive residual payments when those works are shown again.


"We will spend the next three-and-a-half years devoting resources to further organize this industry, and return to the bargaining table with renewed strength and vigor to establish a fair participation in the enormous profits generated by video games," SAG President Melissa Gilbert said.




Link to the article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050609/en_nm/media_videogames_strike_dc)

[Supertanker]

This isn't really about games. It's just posturing by SAG to make up for the fact that the union folded on DVD residuals. A lot of union members were pretty upset about that. I believe all this stuff about standing up to producers and threatening to strike is just bunk designed to make those union members feel like their union is doing something for them.

"We will spend the next three-and-a-half years devoting resources to further organize this industry, and return to the bargaining table with renewed strength and vigor to establish a fair participation in the enormous profits generated by video games," SAG President Melissa Gilbert said.


I'm sure management is ecstatic. Now that SAG has failed, it should be easy to keep those programmer snouts out of the trough, too.