Video game actor strike

[I'm the Dude man]

I love it.

Do all the programmers that work on the game get residuals? If you want more money make the damn game yourself and you can keep all the profit and do all the voice acting.

I guess programmers suck at negotiating and/or having a union. Maybe they should look into that....those programers.

 

[Kurtis]

i also say screw the actors, i couldn't care less who is doing the talking in a game.

example: need for speed 2 underground with brooke burke - not needed. any cute girl would do just fine.

 

[El Nacho]

The James Bond series of games is a perfect example of how actors would NOT lend their likeness rights to the game...the first two were huge hits WITHOUT the actor...after the games hit huge, all of the sudden we have Peirce Brosnan in the last Bond game cashing in.

I hate to say it but I think if Hollywood wants anything to do with the game industry, do what Vin Diesel did...make your own game studio, make your own games (or have them made) that way you have some credibility in the industry.

The bond thing was the first thing I thought of when this whold things tarting coming up.

Also, what company did Vin Diesel start?

 

[Ryland]

i also say screw the actors, i couldn't care less who is doing the talking in a game.

example: need for speed 2 underground with brooke burke - not needed. any cute girl would do just fine.

Or at least a sexy sounding female...

 

[x_alex]

Hey!

Scab voice actor right here.

 

[cell_491]

Or at least a sexy sounding female...

or male...maybe...you never know its a crazy world out there...

 

[kronik8]

I think they're asking a bit much. Video games are not successful based on the silky voice of the actors, they're successful based on gameplay. It just so HAPPENS that good voice-acting aids an already good game in being that much better, but it doesn't entitle them to some ridiculous share of the profits either.

 

[glutto]

$278 a day and their bitching? I only make that a week!

That's their hourly rate.

I say let them strike. For decades. I'll happily scab their jobs. If I wasn't in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Kiggles]

Re-reading the article

But now that video games generate nearly as much revenue as domestic movie ticket sales, actors say they want a piece of every game sold rather than one-time up front fees.

How is this not fair, and how can it NOT benefit gamers? A) It costs publishers LESS upfront which = less risk, which equals more money aimed at developement. B) Voice actors are payed according to their "worth". If a game is extremely popular, well, this voice actor DID have a part to play, and they should be compensated proportionally. If it sucked ass, and barely sold 20K, oh well. Better luck next time.

They may make more, or less money from game to game, but this produces a more stable income for voice actors, and gives publishers a much less risky alternitive. I can't see how pubs didn't jump at the opportunity. "You mean we don't have to pay you NOW?!?"


From the looks of things, we're getting fucked. Pubs are taking the long and hard route by shelling out even more money upfront, sacrificing an even bigger share of the development funds with no guarantee it will have any returns. I believe we can all agree the publisher's greed (in this situation) will bite them in the ass. Revenue might be huge right now, turning out revision X of Y game, and of course they don't want that sliced up, but once the audience is uncompelled to upgrade to v 2009b, who will get fucked? Publishers. All because they didn't want to let anyone else in on the action. Oh yeah, we get fucked too, because this will translate into even LESS risky development methods.

Not the result of JUST actors, but rather the thinking behind it.

 

[cell_491]

Re-reading the article

How is this not fair, and how can it NOT benefit gamers? A) It costs publishers LESS upfront which = less risk, which equals more money aimed at developement. B) Voice actors are payed according to their "worth". If a game is extremely popular, well, this voice actor DID have a part to play, and they should be compensated proportionally. If it sucked ass, and barely sold 20K, oh well. Better luck next time.

They may make more, or less money from game to game, but this produces a more stable income for voice actors, and gives publishers a much less risky alternitive. I can't see how pubs didn't jump at the opportunity. "You mean we don't have to pay you NOW?!?"


From the looks of things, we're getting fucked. Pubs are taking the long and hard route by shelling out even more money upfront, sacrificing an even bigger share of the development funds with no guarantee it will have any returns. I believe we can all agree the publisher's greed (in this situation) will bite them in the ass. Revenue might be huge right now, turning out revision X of Y game, and of course they don't want that sliced up, but once the audience is uncompelled to upgrade to v 2009b, who will get fucked? Publishers. All because they didn't want to let anyone else in on the action. Oh yeah, we get fucked too, because this will translate into even LESS risky development methods.

Not the result of JUST actors, but rather the thinking behind it.

i dont like you

 

[I'm the Dude man]

I would say voice actors have a case when the game entertainment product is some giant game with a multimillion dollar budget, and multimillion dollar sales, AND the studio thinks that the name recognition is worth it. As usual, marketplace rules.

 

[El Nacho]

i also say screw the actors, i couldn't care less who is doing the talking in a game.

example: need for speed 2 underground with brooke burke - not needed. any cute girl would do just fine.

and the worst part is, that she sucked as a voice actor for that game.

 

[Jabroni31169]

let em strike and bring in the scabs!!

 

[El Nacho]

Re-reading the article

How is this not fair, and how can it NOT benefit gamers? A) It costs publishers LESS upfront which = less risk, which equals more money aimed at developement. B) Voice actors are payed according to their "worth". If a game is extremely popular, well, this voice actor DID have a part to play, and they should be compensated proportionally. If it sucked ass, and barely sold 20K, oh well. Better luck next time.

They may make more, or less money from game to game, but this produces a more stable income for voice actors, and gives publishers a much less risky alternitive. I can't see how pubs didn't jump at the opportunity. "You mean we don't have to pay you NOW?!?"


From the looks of things, we're getting fucked. Pubs are taking the long and hard route by shelling out even more money upfront, sacrificing an even bigger share of the development funds with no guarantee it will have any returns. I believe we can all agree the publisher's greed (in this situation) will bite them in the ass. Revenue might be huge right now, turning out revision X of Y game, and of course they don't want that sliced up, but once the audience is uncompelled to upgrade to v 2009b, who will get fucked? Publishers. All because they didn't want to let anyone else in on the action. Oh yeah, we get fucked too, because this will translate into even LESS risky development methods.

Not the result of JUST actors, but rather the thinking behind it.

I think you are missing what they (actors want). They want more money upfront plus a cut of the sales. I'm all for them ONLY getting paid on how well the game sells. Infact I think all movies/music/actors/etc should get paid this well.

 

[WhyYouLoveMe]

These "actors" should be paid like everyone else...

You get paid for your job on the wage you agreed to when you started.

A.K.A. - The contract they all AGREED to in 1994. Apparently, the only way to re-negotiate a union contract is to strike? I'm confused...

 

[Strikemaster]

Thumbs down, with an obscene gesture thrown in for emphasis.

Too damned much money being thrown at "famous", far too much. Let 'em strike.

If they want to set up picket lines, give 'em a reason to recall what their true worth REALLY is; while they're lined up and whining, tag 'em with a paintball rifle. Headshots only to those wearing enough makeup to qualify as "masked"...

Any schlub off the street would love $270+ an hour to scream like a little girl in the next UT/CS/whatever FPS. Hell, I'll do it. Two hours will pay for Southwest to fly me out there and back, three hours gets me fed as well.

 

[obs]

That's their hourly rate.

I say let them strike. For decades. I'll happily scab their jobs. If I wasn't in the middle of nowhere.

You forget, these guys aren't working 40 hours/week at those rates. I would imagine that much of their work is also done on their own time (going over scripts, practicing lines, etc).

 

[HRslammR]

meh, let em strike. the game'll still suck even if brad pitt or j-lo's voices are in it. sounds like a generic voice anyways. they're just trying to get the namesake

 

[jon_k]

Ok, first off, I would like to say that I am a theatre actor (trying to work my way into film), so maybe I can shed some light on this situation.


First off, 278 /hour sounds like a lot, but they don't work 40 hour weeks. They might spend a few hours in the recording studio per week and that's it. Most voiceover actors have to get a second part time job to support themselves.

Second, I dont' know where they pulled that 278/h number from, but that is nowhere near the union minimum wage. Maybe there is a different union for video game voice overs, but I know for a fact in film and theatre very few people make that much per hour.

Third, most video games aren't union productions, which means that they can basically pay the voice actors whatever they want. If the actor dosen't like it, he gets replaced. To be honest, it would be an idiot business move on the video game producers part to get the actors union involved in their game. The only way I could see a game becomming a union production would be if a big name like Pierce Brosnan wouldn't sign to do 007 Nightfire unless they made it a union production.

Personally, I think what they currently get paid is plenty especially considering how shitty most of the voice acting in video games is. I have never once been remotly impressed with any acting in any videogames whatsoever. Any actor worth his salt would is going to stick to theatre, film, or TV anyway. Acting is a tough business and I think it needs to stay that way to weed out the people who have no talent. If you aren't good enough so that the producer isn't convinced that you are the only one for the role, then you have no right to demand your own wages. That's my 2 cents, and this is comming from an actor.

 

[cell_491]

Ok, first off, I would like to say that I am a theatre actor (trying to work my way into film), so maybe I can shed some light on this situation.


First off, 278 /hour sounds like a lot, but they don't work 40 hour weeks. They might spend a few hours in the recording studio per week and that's it. Most voiceover actors have to get a second part time job to support themselves.

Second, I dont' know where they pulled that 278/h number from, but that is nowhere near the union minimum wage. Maybe there is a different union for video game voice overs, but I know for a fact in film and theatre very few people make that much per hour.

Third, most video games aren't union productions, which means that they can basically pay the voice actors whatever they want. If the actor dosen't like it, he gets replaced. To be honest, it would be an idiot business move on the video game producers part to get the actors union involved in their game. The only way I could see a game becomming a union production would be if a big name like Pierce Brosnan wouldn't sign to do 007 Nightfire unless they made it a union production.

Personally, I think what they currently get paid is plenty especially considering how shitty most of the voice acting in video games is. I have never once been remotly impressed with any acting in any videogames whatsoever. Any actor worth his salt would is going to stick to theatre, film, or TV anyway. Acting is a tough business and I think it needs to stay that way to weed out the people who have no talent. If you aren't good enough so that the producer isn't convinced that you are the only one for the role, then you have no right to demand your own wages. That's my 2 cents, and this is comming from an actor.

There not talking about regular voice actors there talking about movie actors that are used as voice actors but want significantly more money for their voice versus a regular voice actor's voice because they think that they are really special and important...which they are not

 

[Optimus]

Let them go on strike.

When games suddenly get twice as fun with 4 times as much content (due to the increased funds), they'll never be hired by the video game industry again. Oh wait, then they'll sue and have 400 witnesses of character go before the jury...

Half-life 2 did great, and how many big name actors were in it? Then again, it was kinda short. Half-Life was awesome and at the time, none of the voice actors were known at all.

The sound engineers are the people that make the voices sound good. They're the people that deserve that pay.

 

[God_Of_Death]

i have never bought a game for the voices the game uses. for example in the new splinter cell game, i would never have guessed that Fisher's voice was from the dude from total recall. would i have bought this game sooner if i knew he was acting in this game? hell no. i could care less.

infact.......i didn't know actors worked in games

really, i don't think a voice from a well know actor will sell a game. for all we know it could discourage ppl from buying that game. would i want to buy a game that uses the voice from J' Lo'........no _fooking_ way

 

[El Nacho]

as for 278/hr not being that much because the dont work 40hrs a week....There are plenty of people work over 40hrs a week and not making that much.

 

[jon_k]

There not talking about regular voice actors there talking about movie actors that are used as voice actors but want significantly more money for their voice versus a regular voice actor's voice because they think that they are really special and important...which they are not

Here is the business end of it. Take the Pierce Brosnan case when he did 007 Nightfire. The producers of the game were thinking "you know, if we get Pierce Brosnan to do this, more people are going to buy the game becasue he has a very large fanbase." And I'm willing to bet that they paid Mr Brosnan a very large sum of money to be in that game. From what I heard the game made a lot of money. Why? Becasue it was hyped to be like a "Jame's Bond Movie Experience" since it had Pierce Brosnan doing the VO. Do I like this or agree with this? No, but that's the business end of acting. The one who can sell the product has the power, and that's the way it is.

Personally I didn't really like 007 Nightfire.

 

[Ryland]

Here is the business end of it. Take the Pierce Brosnan case when he did 007 Nightfire. The producers of the game were thinking "you know, if we get Pierce Brosnan to do this, more people are going to buy the game becasue he has a very large fanbase." And I'm willing to bet that they paid Mr Brosnan a very large sum of money to be in that game. From what I heard the game made a lot of money. Why? Becasue it was hyped to be like a "Jame's Bond Movie Experience" since it had Pierce Brosnan doing the VO. Do I like this or agree with this? No, but that's the business end of acting. The one who can sell the product has the power, and that's the way it is.

Personally I didn't really like 007 Nightfire.

If the game utternly sucked but it had Pierce Brosnan's voice do you think it would have sold well? The reviewers would have killed it. If the game was awesome but didn't have Pierce Brosnan's voice I think it would have still sold well but MIGHT have missed out on a few sales due to the lack of Pierce Brosnan. I doubt he made THAT big of an impact on it.

 

[eggrock]

Go figure. I'd rather see actors go on strike than game developers getting an even smaller cut of profits than they do now.

 

[aBSoLuT_0]

I dont know if this has been mentioned but the only voice actor who should amek that much should be David Hayter the voice of solid snake He probably makes more than that tho,

If MGS4 came out and he wasnt the voice.... there would be a riot

I'm gonna have to go ahead and QFT this.

 

[Kiggles]

I think you are missing what they (actors want). They want more money upfront plus a cut of the sales. I'm all for them ONLY getting paid on how well the game sells. Infact I think all movies/music/actors/etc should get paid this well.

Maybe there was something more in the later portion of the article, but if you read my quote -

But now that video games generate nearly as much revenue as domestic movie ticket sales, actors say they want a piece of every game sold rather than one-time up front fees.

you will notice that they do not want both.

Anyway, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to be a voice actor, regardless of how this strike pans out. 278 bucks an hour? And you don't have to work 40 hours weeks? For fuck's sake, that sounds right about the coolest job in the world! I don't know how any of you can claim is hurts they don't have 40 hour work weeks. Jesus, I don't WANT to work that much. 1300 or so every couple of weeks? Hot damn. Find myself 12 projects or so and I'll be set for the year. I'll tell you what the problem with these actors are. They want to have families! If they didn't have such bogus plans they could live like kings!!

 

[ByteDown[H]ard]

Let these overpaid, underworked, self absorbed D%@#wads go on strike. Their so called voice talent can be replaced by people that are not only every bit as qualified, if not more so, but by people that actually enjoy doing it for the sake of being in a game and not to get rich. So called voice talent has absolutly no effect on my decision to buy a game. Let em screw themselves out of voice work, good riddence, we don't need you, we won't miss you! To bad, so sad bye bye ass clowns! GAME OVER! YOU LOOSE!

 

[drizzt81]

If they really think they're important, they should go the "Tom Cruise" route. He doesn't take up-front salaries anymore- he works solely for a residual of the movie. Like or hate his work, you gotta respect a move like that.

Just an opinion...

Most people cannot afford that though. Tom Cruise does it, because he has LOADS of money and therefore it pays off for him to take a larger part of the risk that the movie he makes will tank. Be aware that his profits if the movie does well are likely higher than any up-front fee he would get. Or maybe, he is just doing it for fun, since he has enough money (though I doubt that).

Your Joe Schmoe Voice actor (JSVA), on the other hand, needs the money up front, since he/she do not have the amount of financial security that a Tom C. has. If you asked them to carry the risk that the game does not sell well, they might be a 'starving artist' literally. I think that the fact that most of these people work only very few hours a week/ month requires them to charge quite a chunk of money (hence the >$200/ hr fee).

The major risk that JSVA holds is that of not finding enough work, i.e. there not being sufficient games. Sicne he holds that risk, he requries that the games that he does work on will compensate him so that he does not switch to a different job.

Now, let's stop with the economics and go over to what I 'think/ feel'. In my oppinion, the voice acting in PC games is virtually irrelevant. Even when playing HL2, I never though "oh what a nice voice this or that character has..", since I was too busy staring at the chick's Butt or the beautiful graphics.

[edit] bottom line: fire them all and pass the savings on to the consumer

 

[$illy]

It really looks to me like video games don't need the actors as much as the actors want the money. I think actors should get paid for the value they add to a game. This can negotiated and if they don't like it they don't have to do the work. I don't think they need to make a great deal of money because they just aren't as important as they think they are. Do the game developers make more money if a game is successful? Do they get checks when sales reach certain milestones, salary increase, stock options? Maybe the actors could be hired on as temp employees and practice their lines, etc. in house and get paid for a 40+hr work week like the rest of the people contributing to the game. This would cut down on sleeping in and coffee shop time though.

If a job doesn't pay enough, find a different one and/or improve your skills... you know, like most people in the world. Nobody is forcing them into the profession. Don't get me wrong, I think acting is cool and if you can get paid big go for it. Just don't think being an actor qualifies you as some kind of special person who deserves more than others. Anyone working at a software companies knows what kind of work employess put out to deliver a good product. Game actors have a very easy role in the process and pay should reflect this because it's not their voices or likeness that make a game successful.

 

[fromage]

Pierce Brosnan didn't do the VO in 007 Nightfire. And that game was thrash.

However, if say for Splinter Cell, voice acting does indeed carry a large enough weight in that game. The voice acting is really good.

 

[Kiggles]

Now, let's stop with the economics and go over to what I 'think/ feel'. In my oppinion, the voice acting in PC games is virtually irrelevant. Even when playing HL2, I never though "oh what a nice voice this or that character has..", since I was too busy staring at the chick's Butt or the beautiful graphics.

This is more important than you realize. If the acting had been decidable terrible, how much would it have detracted from the overall game experience. I am not saying it was the best thing since ass, but having decent voice acting can be the difference between "HA HA HA HA!! WTF am I playing?!" and "Mmmm, damn those jeans are tight."

 

[IceWindus]

Pierce Brosnan didn't do the VO in 007 Nightfire. And that game was thrash.

However, if say for Splinter Cell, voice acting does indeed carry a large enough weight in that game. The voice acting is really good.

I must kill you now......

 

[cell_491]

Here is the business end of it. Take the Pierce Brosnan case when he did 007 Nightfire. The producers of the game were thinking "you know, if we get Pierce Brosnan to do this, more people are going to buy the game becasue he has a very large fanbase." And I'm willing to bet that they paid Mr Brosnan a very large sum of money to be in that game. From what I heard the game made a lot of money. Why? Becasue it was hyped to be like a "Jame's Bond Movie Experience" since it had Pierce Brosnan doing the VO. Do I like this or agree with this? No, but that's the business end of acting. The one who can sell the product has the power, and that's the way it is.

Personally I didn't really like 007 Nightfire.

why didnt you like night fire was it because pierce brosnan was in the game or was it because the gameplay SUCKED? If you logic is correct then good games that happen to have actors in them are good because of that, not because of the actual gameplay. In your world actors will allways deserve the credit for doing something right but should never be held accountable if the game sucked because thats the developers fault right...

 

[184oz caffine a day]

They use live actors? I always assumed computer generated voices

But really, to heck with the actors, I say kill two birds with one stone -- just round up the game programmers for a day or two of recording sessions. It gets the VO work done and would likely be a good stress relief for the programmers to screw arround in a recording studio for a few hours. Heck, we would probably end up with a few audio "easter eggs" to boot.

 

[jon_k]

Most people cannot afford that though. Tom Cruise does it, because he has LOADS of money and therefore it pays off for him to take a larger part of the risk that the movie he makes will tank. Be aware that his profits if the movie does well are likely higher than any up-front fee he would get. Or maybe, he is just doing it for fun, since he has enough money (though I doubt that).

Your Joe Schmoe Voice actor (JSVA), on the other hand, needs the money up front, since he/she do not have the amount of financial security that a Tom C. has. If you asked them to carry the risk that the game does not sell well, they might be a 'starving artist' literally. I think that the fact that most of these people work only very few hours a week/ month requires them to charge quite a chunk of money (hence the >$200/ hr fee).

The major risk that JSVA holds is that of not finding enough work, i.e. there not being sufficient games. Sicne he holds that risk, he requries that the games that he does work on will compensate him so that he does not switch to a different job.

Now, let's stop with the economics and go over to what I 'think/ feel'. In my oppinion, the voice acting in PC games is virtually irrelevant. Even when playing HL2, I never though "oh what a nice voice this or that character has..", since I was too busy staring at the chick's Butt or the beautiful graphics.

[edit] bottom line: fire them all and pass the savings on to the consumer

No Tom Cruise does it on a % basis becasue he makes more money that way. You know he made 75 million for MI2 due to the profits it made? Actually I kinda like the idea - becasue he puts his money where his mouth is.

 

[Royal]

Why should we pay them more. Yes I said "we"and not the game companies, becuase you know if the voice actors win the strike then the game companies are just going to stick it to us poor guys that just want to play the game.

On a side note to the game companies I can read, so use subtitles or if you are desperate to have a voice in there I will be more then happy to do the work at a reasonable rate

 

[AceGoober]

It doesn't matter who is doing the voice-over for any character in any game. What does matter is if the voice fits the character being portrayed. If not, then the storyline won't come across as immersive as many game developers strive for.

If they want to go on strike, well, that is their perogative. The results of their greediness will hit hard once they realize the gaming studios will hire other actors to fill the void they left behind.

 

[Wenthral]

The only game I ever recognized a persons voice in was Half-life 2. (Robert Guillaume) It was then that I started looking in IMDB and noticing how many actors there were in games. But in my opinion they can all go on strike, not a big fan of any union. There are plenty of people that would jump at the chance to lend a voice here or there.