There won't be a "video Game Actor's Union" created. The union he is referring to is SAG. SAG already has jurisdiction of this realm of media but because it's such a small market (up to now) they have not pursued more generous agreements or signatories in this market. Unlike the big media companies, I don't see that they have a way to stronghold the publishers and developers of games to sign with the unions. There's no clear advantage to them.
But there are countless non-union jobs in television, film and other production venues and SAG isn't interested in them. Film is different because of the visual component of an actor's job. But in video games, it's just the voice. There are a lot more outlets for talents non union voice actors that film just doesn't have for seasoned talent.
The thing that you outsiders to the "Talent" business don't understand about how actors and voice actors work is that when you work on a larger project and you have a fairly distinct voice, there maybe "no compete" clauses in the contract. An actor may go to 15-20 auditions before they get one job. When they get that job, they're not allowed to work for any other competing companies for a specified period of time (either while they're completing the current project or for a period of time following the release of a project.) This creates hardships on an actor which justifies their inflated pay.
So, whenever an actor gets a particular job, that category of work becomes "off-limits" for a period of time. They can go and do other kinds of work but remember 15-20 auditions just to get considered for a job. It can be difficult.
I understand Hollick's interest in getting a bigger piece of the pie as his film brothers and sisters do. But I disagree with his idea that he is driving sales of this game. I don't play a game because Keith Jackson's voice is on it. I play a game because the experience, the weapons, the graphics are better than the last game I played. I couldn't care less who speaks the words. I really don't care much about how the characters look (just in case the likeness of the actor is used.)
The companies who produce the games are really making a lot of money. In a perfect world, they'd share a little of their profits with the "work for hire" folks who made it all possible, but they don't. That's their right. I'll still keep buying the games. SAG will not have a leg to stand on in this fight because the market is just too small and voice actors have no "audience." You can't picket a video game successfully so this is purely useless whining that will never be resolved.
Slashdot Mirror
There won't be a "video Game Actor's Union" created. The union he is referring to is SAG. SAG already has jurisdiction of this realm of media but because it's such a small market (up to now) they have not pursued more generous agreements or signatories in this market. Unlike the big media companies, I don't see that they have a way to stronghold the publishers and developers of games to sign with the unions. There's no clear advantage to them. But there are countless non-union jobs in television, film and other production venues and SAG isn't interested in them. Film is different because of the visual component of an actor's job. But in video games, it's just the voice. There are a lot more outlets for talents non union voice actors that film just doesn't have for seasoned talent.
The thing that you outsiders to the "Talent" business don't understand about how actors and voice actors work is that when you work on a larger project and you have a fairly distinct voice, there maybe "no compete" clauses in the contract. An actor may go to 15-20 auditions before they get one job. When they get that job, they're not allowed to work for any other competing companies for a specified period of time (either while they're completing the current project or for a period of time following the release of a project.) This creates hardships on an actor which justifies their inflated pay. So, whenever an actor gets a particular job, that category of work becomes "off-limits" for a period of time. They can go and do other kinds of work but remember 15-20 auditions just to get considered for a job. It can be difficult. I understand Hollick's interest in getting a bigger piece of the pie as his film brothers and sisters do. But I disagree with his idea that he is driving sales of this game. I don't play a game because Keith Jackson's voice is on it. I play a game because the experience, the weapons, the graphics are better than the last game I played. I couldn't care less who speaks the words. I really don't care much about how the characters look (just in case the likeness of the actor is used.) The companies who produce the games are really making a lot of money. In a perfect world, they'd share a little of their profits with the "work for hire" folks who made it all possible, but they don't. That's their right. I'll still keep buying the games. SAG will not have a leg to stand on in this fight because the market is just too small and voice actors have no "audience." You can't picket a video game successfully so this is purely useless whining that will never be resolved.