Voice Actors Vote on VG Strike

The Screen Actor's Guild and the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists will vote today on whether or not to strike against publishers in the video game industry. The actors claim they are not getting a fair piece of the pie in the ever increasingly lucrative industry. From the article: "Voice actors say they are not sharing in the riches of the $10-billion-a-year industry. But game publishers say voice actors are just part of a increasingly costly and complex development process in which a typical game costs $5 million or more and several times that for blockbusters."

Comments

What about....

[flink]

...the artists, coders, and designers whose work makes up the game? Why do they deserve royalties any less than a voice actor?

Re:What about....

[Dark Paladin]

Because they're not willing to quit en masse and tell the publisher "pay us more or else no game"?

"Then the publishers will hire scabs!"

Yes - and how long will it take for the "scabs" to get up to snuff and be able to handle all of the tasks of the former programers/artists/testers? What if every employee at EA and Ubisoft all left the same day and said "We'll come back when we're offered a 40 hour work week with overtime of 1.5x an hour over 40 hours and 2x every hour past 60 hours, with paid vacation time between games and a independent mediator for disputes", and the publishers were left looking at their bankroll and deciding if just going scabs are worth it?

The voice actors deserve it not because they're better, but because they're willing to fight and sacrifice what they want *now* for a better deal *later*. It's the way the entertainment industry rose up with the screen actor's guild and the like - and I think the game industry is about to get hit with it big time, and they won't like it.

Re:What about....

[badasscat]

...the artists, coders, and designers whose work makes up the game? Why do they deserve royalties any less than a voice actor?

Because they're salaried employees, not contract talent. Their salary is their royalty.

You could say the same about every industry. Why don't GM employees get a cut of the profits for every car sold? Why don't textile workers get a cut of every shirt sold? Why don't McDonalds employees get a penny for every burger they sell?

The fact is they do. It's called a weekly paycheck - where do you think payroll money comes from? Voice actors, like other project-based talent, are instead paid based on a work-for-hire contract - as it stands now, they're paid only once, regardless of whether a game sells a million copies or a thousand. (This in contrast to a salaried employee, who - theoretically - would see a raise or other increase in benefits if the company is doing well.)

Royalties are intended to fairly compensate non-salaried employees for work they have done, in proportion to the amount of sales their work is bringing in.

You can argue whether or not voice actors deserve this (my opinion is they don't - nobody buys a game because Samuel L. Jackson does one of the voices, they buy the game because it's fun), but you should at least understand the differences between the concept of contract royalties vs. the concept of continuous employment.

I would honestly hope that if voice actors make good on their strike threat, that game developers will simply go back to making good games that aren't so reliant on "Hollywood production values". Pac-Man didn't have Tom Cruise doing the voice acting and that game has endured for more than 25 years. More recently, a game like Katamari Damacy had no big name actors at all (in fact, it had no understandable language in it whatsoever) and it was one of the biggest hits of last year. The game industry is the game industry - it is not the film industry, and it would actually be nice if everybody involved would learn the difference between the two mediums at some point.

Pong

[RasendeRutje]

I was a voice actor on the first Pong game. You think I've ever received a penny? Nah...

For those who would say "Let 'em go!"

[Dark Paladin]

I know there will be those who simply say "Well, them let them go - they get overpaid for their $300 an hour work anyway", or "Voice acting in games sucks!" or "It's a free market!"

To which I would respond "Yes, it's a free market - and they are free not to work unless they get the pay they demand."

Electronic Arts makes multiple billions of dollars of profit (not revenue - profit) every year, while they treat programmer like dirt. Their response to the voice actors request is something like "But - we don't pay the programmers this much - what's your problem?"

To which the voice actors, which come from a history of which using a guild (or a union, really) has gotten them what they want: pay for their work, and residuals for using their talents to promote someone else's product. As I wrote in a column not too long ago, it's a system that's served Hollywood well.

And yes, with all of the unions about, Hollywood still makes a lot of money. A *ton* of money.

Maybe this is the wakeup call that the game industry needs. Maybe EA and other publishers (sorry to pick on EA, but they're the most egregious example I know), if the voice actors get their way, will be faced with developers saying "Holy fucking shit - where's my piece of the pie then?.

Maybe the big publishing houses will have to break up, or deal with lower profits - or maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Who knows. Personally, I'm rooting for the voice actors. Overpaid hams? Sure - but they're overpaid hams who know the value of their dollar, and are willing to sacrifice profits now to do better in the future. Maybe they'll lose. But it won't be because they just bend over a desk when the guy with the paycheck wants to ram it up their ass.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Re:For those who would say "Let 'em go!"

[Cthefuture]

Not just the programmers, the game artists are in the same position. They sometimes get paid less than even the programmers. Without the game content there wouldn't be much of a game.

However artists, much like voice actors, are a dime a dozen. The problem is that typically the end user doesn't give a crap how technically good the art and voice acting is, just as long as it's good enough. Pretty much anyone can tell if art or voice acting is good enough.

On the other hand a programmer is a lot like an artist except it's not so easy to spot good talent (for one thing talent is less obvious when evaluating a programmer) and there are many crappy programmers out there because it's complex work and people rarely devote the time to practicing like other artists do. It's also rare to find someone that has the passion about their programming that traditional artists have about their art.

Dear Big Game House,

[dbretton]

I am not an experienced voice actor. However, I am fluent in English and have been speaking it my entire life.

I have been recently made aware that you are having difficulty with the voice actors you have hired, and you may be in the market for prospective new talent.

I am willing to work for one third the going hourly rate performing voice acting work, which I understand is $300/hr. Please reply.

Kindest Regards,
NonUnion Voice Actor

Re:NO

[eht]

And yet Blizzard who seems to constantly produce high quality games (or at least massively selling ones) uses no professional voice talent, Bill Roper, one of their Senior Producers did a lot of voice acting for them.

They commonly use their "programmers or the programmers' friends" and do so quite well.

Where's my piece of the Pie? Customer Strike!

[Alzheimers]

Look, I do my duty as a good customer. I pay for your games. I honor brand loyalty over bad reviews. I'm willing to forgive the odd dropped feature now and then. In short, I do everything you've asked of me.

And yet, I'm not getting the same value for my dollar any more. Oh, sure, the visuals are prettier, and the sound is amazing. But the games you're putting out these days, frankly, don't have any soul. It's as if you used the same voice actor for every character, and asked them to just grunt a little more for the guys voices and suck helium for the girls voices.

Until I as a consumer get my fair share, I'm striking. No more broken and buggy games. No more repetitive and bland gameplay. And I want royalties, too -- free or inexpensive content for years after the release of your product.

I do my part. It's time for the industry to meet me half way.

Re:Oh No!

[Dark Paladin]

Unions are outdated. People who join unions are spineless whiners who cannot take a stand for themselves (at least in the US).

Programmers who work for EA are spineless slaves.

I'll be trolled down, but I don't care.

If you don't like your freaking pay or your work conditions, STOP WORKING THERE!

I'm not sure if you realize how odd those two statements are together.

Think about the idea of a union: it's sole purpose is to say "We, the people who provide a service, will not do any work as a group until our demands our met." It's about saying "We don't like our work conditions, so we refuse to work here."

Only instead of just Bob one cubicle down quitting, which just means that Jane is hired instead at the same wage while Bob kicks the pavement and starves, it's Bob and Bill and Mary and Sally and Jane who doesn't even work there saying all at once "We don't like our work conditions, so we refuse to work here, and we're going to sit here outside and tell our fellow professionals not to work for you either until you meet our requests for a work condition."

I'm trying to see how that's "not taking a stand for yourself". I don't state that all unions are good (often, like any other organization, they become grossly inefficient and corrupt), but as opposed to working 80 hours a week without overtime, hardly any vacation and the threat of "Don't like it? Then quit!", then a union can be a very effective means of telling your employer "I don't like the working conditions, so I quit."

Re:F*ck The Voice Actors!

[HarvardFrankenstein]

These jokers remind me of those annoying liberal arts majors in college who constantly complained to their engineering friends about how hard their majors were. "Oh my God! You have no idea how difficult English Lit really is! Look at this book! It's got like a hundred pages, and I have to read them all! Ooh, and in Introductory Algebra, oh my God, the teacher started writing all these letters on the board instead of numbers, and I was all like 'Oh my God!'"

Meanwhile, I was busy with three lab reports and studying for an exam, all on the same night, which, oh yeah, happened to be the same night that I was turning 21.

Engineers > Actors -- Get in line, theater major.

Re:Why do actors deserve special treatment?

[neonfrog]

Because they have a union (darn, can't link to Wikipedia as it is undergoing maintenance). Devs and designers might want to consider forming their own.

I'm not necessarily pro-union, but SAG et al were started to protect those types of workers from slimeballs. As such, they get to wield muscle in these types of things. Every worker deserves protections or "special treatment", but in this unfair world they often don't get it unless they band together and demand it. Actors do not deserve it more than game devs, but the actors are organized enough to actually try to get some respect.

In the professional TV/Film/Theatre industry many of the folk involved have their own union or are a part of IATSE. Game devs might someday get fed up enough and form their own.