Slashdot Mirror
SAG To Reconsider Industry Offer
GameInformer has details on a special meeting of the board that the Screen Actor's Guild is putting together. From the article: "When the NEC rejected the tentative contract earlier this week, we said we'd explore all our remaining options...Since then, we have received feedback from enough of our membership to conclude that this matter must be brought before the full board for its consideration."
I rtfa'd but i still don't get it, whats this all actually mean? what deal with nec are they referring too
Look sally! Look at zonk die; die zonk die!
Let them make their own games. They have have the big name voices, let them produce the games and outsource the programming, art, design and everything else that goes into it.
Any "game company" that enters into an agreement like this is on exactly the same footing as a movie company that pays $20million for a bankable star and $2million for the movie.
t
Maybe this article on the rejection will help...?
/ 1453242&tid=10
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/22
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
I prefer the Film Actors Guild, they're more animated.
it's a sig, wtf?
I find the whole thing rather absurd except in very special cases (like Vin Diesel in Chronicles of Riddick). And in those special cases the actor has enough clout that they'll probably walk away with a deal they're happy with. The hubris of these negotiations makes me gnash my teeth. Any star that thinks that for a few hours of work they deserve a chunk of the profitability of such a massive group effort needs therapy to deflate an out of control ego.
Fortunately, I think they are overestimating their importance. If this passes then my best guess is that game companies will just use other actors.
Game producers should just tell Hollywood to shove off.
Method of processing duck feet
If the gaming industry is even vaugly in touch with its consumer base, they are laughing their asses off as SAG attempts to dictate terms. Players really don't give a shit. Is good voice acting nice? Sure. Does rate ANYWHERE near good graphics, sound, game play, lack of bugs, content, exc exc? Hell no. If a voice actor thinks he/she is worth even one half way decent programer then said voice actor is very sadly mistaken. Voice acting rests exactly last on my criteria of things to look for in a game. Yes, I mean it, last. I can't think of anything else less important in a game.
I would rather video game makers simply higher non-union voice actors. There are plenty of young folks in or just out of college drama degrees that would be more then happy to work for a reasonable wage for a few hours worth of work. What SAG doesn't seem to realize is that unlike the movie industry, there are no other unions to threaten the gaming industry with. If the voice actors walk out (for the two days they work in a three year long project), no one else is walking with them. If a game has no union voice actors, it isn't going to be noted by anyone other then perhaps a foot note in a review stating that the game was awesome, but the voice acting was lacking. Voice actors a footnote in game, not a life or death component.
There are plenty of people out there with great voices that are willing to work and make money.
Who really cares if Joe Pantaleone (sp) does a great job voicing a game, or someone else does a great job voicing a game? As long as its good, I dont give a rat's ass.
Actors, and now voice actors it seems, have always thought they were important and worth all the money they make. In the case of voice actors, they can be replaced.
How many games prominently display Starring David Hayter on the front of the case? I know they include him in the movie-like opening credits, but that is not advertising like when you see SANDLER... ROCK... The Longest Yard on a commercial, movie poster, or dvd case.
Theyre selling the actors and then the product. Games havent fallen down that pitfall yet, so its not too late to snub the SAG and get some new voice actors. Sure it would suck to have a different-sounding Solid Snake, but I dont think it would disrupt my life enough to actually matter.
I find the whole thing rather absurd except in very special cases (like Vin Diesel in Chronicles of Riddick). And in those special cases the actor has enough clout that they'll probably walk away with a deal they're happy with.
FWIW, I *think* he started a game company and they did this title. Tigon Studios?
WHO are they negotiating with? These articles make it sound liek they're negotiating with the game industry, but the game industry is made up of hundreds of companies which don't work together with any centra governing body. So who the hell is negotiatiting these rates for the enire industry and who gave them the authority to do so?
I thought Ron Gilbert "debunked" all this madness rather throughly in his SAGalicious article.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Use the people you've already got in the game, a la the Guardian in Ultima 7...
I DON'T THINK SO! Short version: A couple weeks of work on a game that takes many other people 1 to 3 years spending thousands of man-hours to put together does NOT entitle the voice actor to royalties. The programmers, artists, etc. don't get any royalties for the thousands of man-hours (and I'm sure much more passion and talent) put into the game. Most of the profit, if not all, goes back into paying salaries and development costs. The rest? Well that goes into the next project the Publisher wants. Longer version: I'll be completely honest; I like voice acting in some games. I will be honest again; I'll be absolutely appalled if the SAG gets to set terms in games and companies actually USE it. Voice acting is the last thing gamers care about in a game. However, there are a couple exceptions for the exceptional voice actors, like Patrick Stewart, who started as Stage Actors and are whom I consider REAL actors. Actors like that know how to put certain inflections in their voice to hint that they are hiding sadness or something of the like and you can feel it rather than see it. That is talent and credit should be given where credit is due. But, (big but) it is still voice acting and in a video game, that comes last. Game companies shouldn't rely on actors to MAKE their characters anyway. They are supposed to be creating somebody new, special, somebody we all love and adore (or hate and respect) and have never seen before. If game companies start using actors too often, especially well known ones, it is going to take away from the gaming experience because you will recognize the voice and it will pull you out of the illusion. We want to feel the experience, be immersed in it. Voice acting can help that happen, I understand this, but it is most definitely not needed. No matter how much voice actors THINK they are important to a game, they are not. ALL games can do without voice acting (save for cases like Chronicles of Riddick), which can in fact have no voice acting, just text boxes or sub-titles on the bottom. Games like that definitely deserve credit where credit is due; big name actors like Vin Diesel have enough clout to get the deal they want without some guild trying to get deals for them. Like I said, a couple weeks of voice acting deserves absolutely NO royalties. If anyone deserves royalties, it's the programmers, artists, etc. that put thousands of man-hours, blood, sweat, tears and heart into a game.
GAME OR DIE!!