Voice actor's strike, coders want some more money too.

[Romier S]

Some of you may have read about videogame voice actors wanting to bigger share of the profits the industry makes off of the games they star in. A strike was authorized by the union and it looks like certain game developers want in on the cash as well. The article covers some of the previously mentoned long work hours game makers have to go through to get a game done. It also discusses the hourly rate voice actors usually take in and some quotes from Wil Wheaton (who has done voice work for VG's) concerning the hourly rate and thier frequency of work. It's worth a read:

 

http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,67707,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

 

Another element in the present conflict between game publishers and Hollywood talent unions is that of hourly pay rates for voice-over artists. Currently, the standard fee is $275 per hour for voice sessions; SAG and AFTRA want more.

 

Those numbers may sound unfair to game-industry developers expected to work long hours under extreme pressure conditions to crank out code.

 

But voice-over artists don't have it easy, counter working actors like Wil Wheaton, who has voiced characters in games including Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the forthcoming Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six title.

 

"Yeah -- $275 an hour would be a huge amount if actors did that kind of work several times a week," said Wheaton, "but the average, working-class actor is lucky to get four of those jobs a year."

[Dan B.]

That's crazy. Some of the programmers are working 80 hours a week with no paid overtime & the actors want residuals in addition to their $275 an hour?

 

Note to self: become an actor this year.

[Anthony G]

That's crazy. Some of the programmers are working 80 hours a week with no paid overtime & the actors want residuals in addition to their $275 an hour?

 

I agree, does voice acting make a game? I don't think so.

[Eldorado]

Maybe, maybe not. But it will be more prevalent and therefore important in the years to come. And I'd rather not return to "Jill, the master of unlocking" type acting from RE1. Extreme case yes, but if you're only working a few hours a week(due to job availability, not laziness) that doesn't add up to all that much money.

 

Sean

[secretvampire]

That's crazy. Some of the programmers are working 80 hours a week with no paid overtime & the actors want residuals in addition to their $275 an hour?

 

Well, honestly, the same thing could be said about big studio feature films. The actors make all the dough and get the residuals, the people slaving away on the costumes and special effects work long hours and for much less pay. But the catch is...the actors have a unique talent and are the primary draw.

 

Let's be frank, coders are for the most part easily replaceable and a dime-a-dozen (yes, I'm a programmer, and I admit this). Good actors are well...not. The specialized workers will almost always command a premium for their unique skills in pretty much any industry.

 

We all know what bad voice actors sound like...it's not an easy skill to learn or master. Even actors who have lots of film and TV experience sometimes make terrible voice actors.

[dogbert]

Let's be frank, coders are for the most part easily replaceable and a dime-a-dozen (yes, I'm a programmer, and I admit this). Good actors are well...not. The specialized workers will almost always command a premium for their unique skills in pretty much any industry.

 

Without the programmers, the artists & the designers, who are the people who make the games you play, there would be no job for the voice over people.

 

Do those people who frequenly rack up years of their life on the games deserve royalties? Sometimes they get them - most often they don't.

 

"Yeah -- $275 an hour would be a huge amount if actors did that kind of work several times a week," said Wheaton, "but the average, working-class actor is lucky to get four of those jobs a year."

 

Absolutely. That's the way the acting industry works - anyone getting into knows this, just as anyone getting into the games industry knows the pay & working conditions.

 

 

I find it pretty sad that people are arguing that the voice actor deserves long term rewards for their minimal work on a project, and the people who thought it up, implemented it, tweaked it, slaved over it, don't.

[Graeme]

But the catch is...the actors have a unique talent and are the primary draw.

 

And there is the main difference. Good voice work can help the overall presentation of a game, and using some well known names might help draw some attention to it, but I can't think of a single game where it is the main draw, or even really A draw.

 

People base their movie choices on the actors a lot. Walk around a video store and you'll hear "Let's see the new Tom Hanks movie" or "Looks good, but... I don't like Jim Carrey" far too often. I've never heard anyone say they would or wouldn't buy a game because of the voice acting in it.

[secretvampire]

Without the programmers, the artists & the designers, who are the people who make the games you play, there would be no job for the voice over people.

 

Do those people who frequenly rack up years of their life on the games deserve royalties? Sometimes they get them - most often they don't.

 

Trust me, I understand the point behind that completely, and I think the people that actually make the games deserve more. But the sad reality is also that we have countries of several billion people (India, China, Russia) full of college-educated coders who are capable of doing an equally good job. I'm not saying this is right or proper, just stating the facts, and I know I've had to deal with these facts in my career at points.

 

Maybe the day will come where the option of having voiceover work outsourced to India, but it's not here yet. And if coders aren't careful, they will price themselves right out of the job (very similar to the way the American autoworkers' and pilots' unions have been steadily doing over the past 25 years).

 

I find it pretty sad that people are arguing that the voice actor deserves long term rewards for their minimal work on a project, and the people who thought it up, implemented it, tweaked it, slaved over it, don't.

 

Please understand that is not my arguement AT ALL. I'm not talking about who deserves or is entitled to what. I simply believe that the voice actors have the leverage to acheive what they are going after, and sadly the coders don't.

[Graeme]

I simply believe that the voice actors have the leverage to acheive what they are going after, and sadly the coders don't.

 

I wonder if the voice actors actually have enough leverage though. Besides the fact that voice actors are really not a draw, they aren't really even necessary. Unlike an animated movie or TV show, voices aren't actually a requirement for a game to be successful, or even made.

 

One of the biggest games coming out this year will have little to no real voice acting, just like in the past... and I'm speaking of Zelda of course. I've always thought that voice acting would enhance Zelda games, but I'm certainly fine with the games without.

 

And if voice is needed, big name talent, or even someone who is a member of SAG isn't required. Again, it can help, but some of the biggest games have had no name actors... and even some of the best loved animated characters of late have been voiced by the animators and directors themselves.

 

It'll certainly be interesting to see if the games industry just gives in, or plays hardball.

[secretvampire]

No, you are right, it isn't necessary at all. But it's become expected in the big budget games...and on a project like that, with the budget running in the millions, a few extra bucks for the voiceover work probably isn't going to make them wince. Upping the pay on every programmer though would probably make them balk as the total number of programming hours on the project would be significantly higher than the voice work. But who knows?

[Covak]

This thread prompted me to look into some of my favorite video game voice actors. Some interesting quotes towards the end of Merle Dandridge's (Alyx from HL2) Project's page...

 

According to Valve's Lombardi, as game production becomes more and more professional, game actors will need to be as good as actors in any other medium.

 

"I'm expecting to see more voice talent in games rather than less," he says. "From our point of view, it's a quality issue, not a marketing or promotional issue."

 

And while it may increase game production budgets even further, Lombardi describes the cost as insignificant compared to the quality it can instill in a game.

 

"If you spend all this time developing great digital actors and then the minute they open their mouths, the whole illusion falls apart," he says, "using excellent voice talent is a no-brainer."

 

I guess Valve, at least, won't be playing hardball. I bet Bungie would say the similar things, too, based on all the great voice acting in Halo 2 (which added a lot to the single-player). And who knows what big adventures like KotOR or Jade Empire or Outcast might have been like without oodles and oodles of decent voice acting.

 

I don't see the game industry putting up much of a fight.

[Whooter]

I just saw the Open Season trailer at apple.com.

 

Sounds like Brian's got his own voice acting gig, now...

[Angry the Clown]

The strike has been averted and surprisingly the unions have agreed to actually drop their demand for residual payments from every copy of a game sold, however they have won rights to a pay rise:

 

“ The new deal is a 3 and a half year agreement which includes a 36 per cent pay rise for voice acting work - with a 25 per cent rise applicable immediately - and a number of smaller concessions such as higher contributions such as a 7.5 per cent rise in contributions to union benefit plans and a decrease in the payment window from 30 to 12 days.”

 

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9414

 

 

I find it pretty sad that people are arguing that the voice actor deserves long term rewards for their minimal work on a project, and the people who thought it up, implemented it, tweaked it, slaved over it, don't.

 

Same in the film world really on average to high budget pictures. Actors will often take home more than the writer or director would on any single project, despite the fact for an actor a film is four or five months of their life. For a director or writer, it can be years dedicated to one project.

 

Nothing shocks me with the often shameful bullying tactics of actors unions anymore, be it demands for payment of audio commentaries now, video games, DVD sales and so on.

 

Daniel

[dogbert]

GameGirl Advance has a really really good commentary on this issue from a game developer point of view, summing up the issue from an industry perspective very nicely.

[bickle]

That article makes the same flaw that most commentaries have made: that the actors in question are the "big name" actors. Quote:

Kids don't go buy Area51 because David Duchovny or Marilyn Manson are in it.

This is true, however David D and Marilyn M aren't the ones looking for a raise. It's the near-unknown, but highly talented actors that are the most affected by this. The big names will be able to negotiate the pay that they want.

 

Consider a game like Final Fantasy X. That had a *lot* of voice acting, and would've been severely impacted if they used actors of the calibur of "the master of unlocking". Instead, they used quality voice actors such as Tara Strong. Not a household name, but an experienced actor that added to the production.

 

It may be a quirk, but I like to read the credits. I see the same voice actors pop up repeatedly. Do they deserve residuals? Dunno, probably not. Do they deserve a higher session fee? Sure.

[dogbert]

This is true, however David D and Marilyn M aren't the ones looking for a raise. It's the near-unknown, but highly talented actors that are the most affected by this. The big names will be able to negotiate the pay that they want.

 

Blame Wil Wheaton for this - the GameGirl commentary is in response to his postings about it, and he's used those names as examples of premier names attracting sales. Anyone who has played it would probably agree it's a terrible example of voicework in games - Duchovny puts in a terrible performance.

[Angry the Clown]

Blame Wil Wheaton for this

 

Gordie Lachance was always the whiney wimp of the group anyway.

 

Daniel

[bickle]

That wasn't the only article to cite big names though. Even so, they fail to note the sales impact of good voice-overs.

[dogbert]

Even so, they fail to note the sales impact of good voice-overs.

 

Which are? Which games get bought because of the voice overs? Would Halo 2 & GTA:VC have sold less without the 'big names' attached?

[JFo]

Do they deserve residuals? Dunno, probably not. Do they deserve a higher session fee? Sure.

 

No, they don't "deserve" anything. I could go into work tomorrow and tell my boss that I deserve an immediate 25% raise. She will then laugh at my demand and perhaps tell me to go away. Sadly, I'm not going to get a big raise unless I move into a position at company I work for which has a greater impact on its profitability.

 

The same holds true for voice actors. Unless they can somehow prove that their talents can directly lead to better selling games, they don't have much of a bargaining chip, in my opinion.

 

Now, that's not to say that I don't appreciate good voice acting in a game. I've been enjoying both Psychonauts and Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas a great deal these past two weeks, both of which feature some outstanding voice acting. But like many others, the quality of the voice acting doesn't affect my decision to purchase a game. If it did, I would have never bothered with the original Silent Hill or any of the old Resident Evils. It's great when it's there, but it's never been a deal buster for me. I'm certain the same can be said for pretty much every other hardcore and casual gamer out there.

[Covak]

I could see things changing, and quickly, if publishers realize how much some of us value really good voice acting in games. I mean, "Featuring the voice of Robert Culp" (who played Breen in HL2) would sure raise my interest in a game. Same for some of the great actors used in Halo 2. Nevermind all of the voice actors who made certain big adventure games so much better.

 

The actors could become part of the draw for me. Not that I really expect to see actors' names on game boxes any time soon

[Josh]

I could see things changing' date=' and quickly, if publishers realize how much some of us value really good voice acting in games. I mean, "Featuring the voice of Robert Culp" (who played Breen in HL2) would sure raise my interest in a game. Same for some of the great actors used in Halo 2. Nevermind all of the voice actors who made certain big adventure games so much better.

 

The actors could become part of the draw for me. Not that I really expect to see actors' names on game boxes any time soon [/quote']

 

Meh, I disagree. Videogames are one of the few entertainment bastions in which I don't have to deal with TOM CRUISE IN A STEVEN SPIELBERG PRODUCTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH DREAMSWORKS PICTURES PRESENTS A XX STUDIO FILM... War Of The Worlds." I hate that stuff, and would loathe it in games.

 

Just give a crap about the writing and voice acting and get some no-names who NEED the work to do it.

[Robot Monkey]

Just give a crap about the writing and voice acting and get some no-names who NEED the work to do it.

 

I agree, with the caveat of my Walken Rule. Anything he's in is a pemissible draw, especially a voice-acting gig.

 

As the Master Chief: "You. Told-me-there. Wouldn't be! Any cameras."

 

As HK-47: "Can ... I break. His neck! Now master? It's been. A-long-time fantasy of mine."

[Josh]

Well yeah. Walken is a draw. Elfman doing the soundtrack is a draw. IGN hating the game is a draw.

 

We all have our idiosyncracies and needs.

 

But Will Wheaton a primadonna of voice acting? C'mon, Wesley. You're a wuss and always will be.

[dogbert]

SAG reject the deal.

 

That tentative agreement would have covered the next three-and-a-half years, and included a 36 percent increase in minimum pay over the term as well as increases in benefit contributions. However, the producers refused the unions? demands for implementation of a residual model that would allow actors to share in the enormous revenues generated by the video games they perform in.

 

It's all about the residuals, it seems. I think they'll have a fight on their hands - in this case, they need the industry more than the industry needs them.