Voice actors want residuals for videogames?!!

The game series you have an extreme hard on for (GTA) pretty much made it mainstream to use Hollywood talent, so why not include the new GTA on your list? Surely you must hate it for ripping off movies like Scarface and Boyz in the Hood. I mean these two have much more of a story to them and use a lot of great voice talent so they must be worse than the older GTA games or even GTA III.if it used textboxes, that game series would be even more shitty than it is.
Click to expand...

And what does this have to do with voice acting? Nothing, just looking for a cheap flame. OMG you insulted GTA, I have to get you back now!!111!!!1 :roll: Either way, I would play and love GTA, or any game for that matter, without voice acting or cutscenes.

also just becase people like to be immersed in games and don't care for games with no real story or linearity does not make them shallow gamers.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but that's not what I said. Games can have a real story and linearity WITHOUT voice acting and cutscenes. Gamers who "NEED" luxuries like voice acting or cutscenes and won't play a game without them are shallow and should stick to renting movies.

Some of us like games with an objective.
Click to expand...

Um, you do realize that a game can't be a game without an objective right? I mean it's common sense. Whether its to have fun or to score the most points all games have objectives. Game objectives are not defined or came into being because of voice acting or cutscenes.
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']If you want to hear Solid Snake talk, Sit around and wait for Hollywood to make a Metal Gear Solid movie. You must realize though that while you are actually playing the game and running his ass around the level, Solid snake IS NOT TALKING!!! Are you going to dispute that? When a badass agent is trying to hide in a cardboard box and be all steatlhy-like, it helps for him not go off on a soliloquy about whether or not someone will find him.

Voice acting is not important to gameplay. Period. Voice acting is important to TV and movies where all you are doing is watching what's being presented. The game industry will not crumble without hollywood voice talent, because the industry is based on gameplay. EA sure as hell would be pissed because a shitload of their revenue is based on licenses, but if their current avenues become unavailable or TOO EXPENSIVE, they would most definitely eventually adapt their business model. And you know what?... They might actually start making some original titles not based on 30 year old movies, and maybe they might even make something great. Who knows? Weirder things have happened.

Now, if cut scenes are so fantastic and crucial to the gaming experience, why do you think developers make it so that you can skip through them and cut straight to the gameplaying action? Because they know a large part of their audience may prefer not to WATCH their games and would rather PLAY them. When was the last time a developer let you choose to skip through some boss battle by pushing the "X" button so you could just jump right ahead to the resulting cut scene?

I rest my case...[/QUOTE]

first off the cutscenes are important to the gameplay, just because snake does not talk during the mission does not mean that they are not. He doesn't talk because the cutscenes lay out the story and the foundation of the game. Splinter Cell uses a similar format but they do not stop the gameplay, but does use a mission based structure and has communication to set up the missions in between levels. If Metal Gear was more mission based, I bet that they would use a system like Splinter Cell. Both these games heavily rely on voice and have become the foundation for stealth games (there have been others, but most of those series have fallen by the wayside). With worlds and areas as big as these, using voice communication is important.

Second, EA does not want to adopt its business model, and the cheap shot at them is unwarranted. I may not like their business practices, but they published the most innovative multiplayer game this generation and have published and developed many other titles that have been original. And while these titles are some of their biggest sellers, their licensed titles are key to them as well, considering original games can be really big sellers or complete duds. No business wants to take this chance which is why licensed games are such a big part of the market and pretty much have an established built in fan base.

and you point out cutscenes being able to be skipped, but how many games really let you skip the cutscenes? Just about every game made makes you watch them at least once before you can move on, though most have the option to allow you to skip them if you lose to a boss. And just because you can skip them does not mean they are not crucial to the game or relevant in some key way. How many copies of Enter the Matrix were sold because they had 60 minutes of footage that helped flesh out the stories of the new movies?

Just because you find them important does not mean they are not. The top selling games of this generation sure as hell don't use text boxes or focus exclusively on gameplay because if they did, the amount of people who play games would shrink dramatically, and there is no way it would outdraw the box office reciepts of movies. To further prove my point, Nintendo games have some of the best gameplay and don't use voice actors for many of their games, and how many copies less have they sold less of this generation as opposed to last gnereation in their key franchises? The only one that has sold more would probably be SSBM.


and as far as taking a cheap shot at GTA, it was taken because you called all those Hollywood games shit, and yet did not look at the game that made it popular. I also recind what I said about it lacking an objective, it has one, just not one that I find enjoyable (when you have no more missions available to me and I got to collect a ton of cash to unlock the next mission by buying some crap, the game is over for me)
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']first off the cutscenes are important to the gameplay, just because snake does not talk during the mission does not mean that they are not. He doesn't talk because the cutscenes lay out the story and the foundation of the game. Splinter Cell uses a similar format but they do not stop the gameplay, but does use a mission based structure and has communication to set up the missions in between levels. If Metal Gear was more mission based, I bet that they would use a system like Splinter Cell. Both these games heavily rely on voice and have become the foundation for stealth games (there have been others, but most of those series have fallen by the wayside). With worlds and areas as big as these, using voice communication is important.

Second, EA does not want to adopt its business model, and the cheap shot at them is unwarranted. I may not like their business practices, but they published the most innovative multiplayer game this generation and have published and developed many other titles that have been original. And while these titles are some of their biggest sellers, their licensed titles are key to them as well, considering original games can be really big sellers or complete duds. No business wants to take this chance which is why licensed games are such a big part of the market and pretty much have an established built in fan base.

and you point out cutscenes being able to be skipped, but how many games really let you skip the cutscenes? Just about every game made makes you watch them at least once before you can move on, though most have the option to allow you to skip them if you lose to a boss. And just because you can skip them does not mean they are not crucial to the game or relevant in some key way. How many copies of Enter the Matrix were sold because they had 60 minutes of footage that helped flesh out the stories of the new movies?

Just because you find them important does not mean they are not. The top selling games of this generation sure as hell don't use text boxes or focus exclusively on gameplay because if they did, the amount of people who play games would shrink dramatically, and there is no way it would outdraw the box office reciepts of movies. To further prove my point, Nintendo games have some of the best gameplay and don't use voice actors for many of their games, and how many copies less have they sold less of this generation as opposed to last gnereation in their key franchises? The only one that has sold more would probably be SSBM.


and as far as taking a cheap shot at GTA, it was taken because you called all those Hollywood games shit, and yet did not look at the game that made it popular. I also recind what I said about it lacking an objective, it has one, just not one that I find enjoyable (when you have no more missions available to me and I got to collect a ton of cash to unlock the next mission by buying some crap, the game is over for me)[/QUOTE]

Okay Casey now you're just being silly, and you're also starting to confuse me and Scrubking into one person. I didn't say all hollywood games are shit, although Catwoman would be a fine example of that if I did. Oh, by the way, when worlds and areas get bigger, MAPS are important, not voice communication.

Of course EA doesn't want to change its business model. Because right now their business model makes them a ton of cash. However if like I said earlier this current model became unavailable or too expensive for them to keep generating the huge profits margins they like to present to their shareholders... they WILL change it. Also what's the most innovative multiplayer game that they created in this console generation that you mentioned? Cause if I had to pick one i'd say that that was Splinter Cell's co-op or it's Mercenaries VS Spies and that was published by UBIsoft... and guess what? There's no fucking voice-acting when you're playing multiplayer anyway!!!

As far as Nintendo goes what are you nuts? With three consoles in the hunt and Microsoft definitely being second place to Sony, that means Nintendo is third with the smallest installed user-base in the states. Unlike here at CAG, many households these days are 1 or maybe 2 console owners at the most and the gamecube is getting the shaft. The gamecube isn't selling as many titles period these days so how can you even come close to saying that any of that is due to lack of voice acting? That's like me saying since I woke up feeling sad today and then looked outside my window and saw that is was overcast, that I now have supreme power over nature and can determine the weather with my thoughts. Comparing Nintendo's profits with a lack of voice acting is this case is entirely you jumping to conclusions. Show me some marketing study that proves that if Nintendo had only adopted full scale voice-acting they'd would be leading in this current generation then I'll believe you, otherwise I'm calling :bs:

Oh and bringing up Enter the Matrix in a debate about games is kinda silly. That game got panned by every major reviewer out there as a streaming buggy pile of shit. But, you wanted to point out that millions of people bought the game to WATCH THE EXTRA 60 MINUTES WORTH OF MOVIE FOOTAGE?!!! Having a bunch of movie footage and cinematics didn't make it a great game now did it?

Also let's just assume for the sake of arguement that cut scenes are the absolute most important part of any game... Can't you still have cut scenes without voice acting? Just because you don't like to read doesn't mean that the story still can't be told. Did you walk out of Star Wars because you were offended that no one bothered to narrate the scrolling text that opened the movie? Did you not understand the story cause you had to read it? You get my point. Games had stories before voice acting and and they'll still have stories without it. Now if you don't want to play games because you have to read to understand the story, then that's a different arguement altogether.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Well, said. :applause:

The only people on the side of the voice actors are people who can't seem to grasp the fact that games without voice acting have always been successful and continue to be. Just look at the gameboy Advance, etc. Also these people, like I said, want to sit down and watch their games instead of play them, and I hate those types of shallow gamers.

And bad voice acting doesn't ruin a game, unless your a shallow gamer of course who wants a game to be a CGI Hollywood movie. These are the types of gamers who want more shit Hollywood games like Catwoman, Godfather, Scarface, The Warriors, Dirty Harry, Jaws and all the other shit coming down the pipeline.

:puke:voice acting and the shallow gamers who need it.[/QUOTE]

Wow , this is the teapot calling the kettle black.
You sir are the shallow gamer. It seems that anyone that enjoys voice acting in a game is shallow to you. I'm sorry but a lot of people like spoken words instead of mindless violence every 2 seconds. You have your mindset in "'if i don't like it its pure crap" mode. If you do not like voice acting personally thats fine. But having the attitude that people that enjoy voice acting are shallow is pure "elitist gamer" stupidity. I can't belive this crap. You hate other gamers because of a narrow minded opinion with no basis. I have been playing games since 1980, i lived with no voice acting and pong graphics. How long have you played junior? If someone has the right to bitch more its me. I have delt with beeps and square pixels that claim to be a "spaceship". The improvement in technology and the use of real voice actors has improved the experience. You seem to hate people that you think are posers in your "elite" realm. Your life seem sooooo fufilled.

Voice actors need the same residual rights in video games. They work just as hard and it is "acting". I have enjoyed many games because of their hard work. To not appreicate them is pure folly. Only a fool can think they do not deserve it.
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']Okay Casey now you're just being silly, and you're also starting to confuse me and Scrubking into one person. I didn't say all hollywood games are shit, although Catwoman would be a fine example of that if I did. Oh, by the way, when worlds and areas get bigger, MAPS are important, not voice communication.

Of course EA doesn't want to change its business model. Because right now their business model makes them a ton of cash. However if like I said earlier this current model became unavailable or too expensive for them to keep generating the huge profits margins they like to present to their shareholders... they WILL change it. Also what's the most innovative multiplayer game that they created in this console generation that you mentioned? Cause if I had to pick one i'd say that that was Splinter Cell's co-op or it's Mercenaries VS Spies and that was published by UBIsoft... and guess what? There's no fucking voice-acting when you're playing multiplayer anyway!!!

As far as Nintendo goes what are you nuts? With three consoles in the hunt and Microsoft definitely being second place to Sony, that means Nintendo is third with the smallest installed user-base in the states. Unlike here at CAG, many households these days are 1 or maybe 2 console owners at the most and the gamecube is getting the shaft. The gamecube isn't selling as many titles period these days so how can you even come close to saying that any of that is due to lack of voice acting? That's like me saying since I woke up feeling sad today and then looked outside my window and saw that is was overcast, that I now have supreme power over nature and can determine the weather with my thoughts. Comparing Nintendo's profits with a lack of voice acting is this case is entirely you jumping to conclusions. Show me some marketing study that proves that if Nintendo had only adopted full scale voice-acting they'd would be leading in this current generation then I'll believe you, otherwise I'm calling :bs:

Oh and bringing up Enter the Matrix in a debate about games is kinda silly. That game got panned by every major reviewer out there as a streaming buggy pile of shit. But, you wanted to point out that millions of people bought the game to WATCH THE EXTRA 60 MINUTES WORTH OF MOVIE FOOTAGE?!!! Having a bunch of movie footage and cinematics didn't make it a great game now did it?

Also let's just assume for the sake of arguement that cut scenes are the absolute most important part of any game... Can't you still have cut scenes without voice acting? Just because you don't like to read doesn't mean that the story still can't be told. Did you walk out of Star Wars because you were offended that no one bothered to narrate the scrolling text that opened the movie? Did you not understand the story cause you had to read it? You get my point. Games had stories before voice acting and and they'll still have stories without it. Now if you don't want to play games because you have to read to understand the story, then that's a different arguement altogether.[/QUOTE]

first I was not confusing anyone. I stuck the reply to scrubking at the end of my post, because I did not want to double post and did not want to quote him to make my post any longer.

and as far as innovative multiplayer, no game has been more influential and innovative this generation more than Battlefield 1942. Spies vs. Mercs does not even come close to how innovative Battlefield is.

citing Nintendo was done to show you that games with these older production techniques do not sell as well. They are definately in third because their games lack the flashy sense of style and story those other consoles can provide. It has nothing to do with things like a lack of internet access (since comparing user bases, the amount of online users is extremely small) or other features that the console cannot provide. If more people wanted to play games like these, don't you think system sales would be higher and the Gamecube would still be selling more than the Xbox?

Enter the Matrix sold like 5 or 6 million copies and the sales had nothing to do with the gameplay. Not all good games sell, so citing the fact that the gameplay was shitty weakens your point since that has nothing to do with sales. If it did sleeper hits would never show up. Revunues and sales drive this industry and without them good games cannot come out, but you need big sellers like this to allow you to take a chance on other titles. It is not in spite of these, but because of games like ETM that residuals are needed.

and the star wars crawl has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It sets the tone for the movies or games and is two paragraphs and not a novel like it would be if some games used textboxes.
 
The top selling games of this generation sure as hell don't use text boxes or focus exclusively on gameplay because if they did, the amount of people who play games would shrink dramatically, and there is no way it would outdraw the box office reciepts of movies.
Click to expand...

Um, that's because the gaming industry is trying to appeal to NON-GAMERS, ie the Hollywood crowd. That is why games are saturated more and more everyday with voice acting and cutscenes. If they were appealing to gamers they wouldn't bother with such high production costs trying to turn games into movies. And all of those cutscenes and high paid voices don't make a good game let alone are a vital part of it as evidenced by just about every other game that hits store shelfs and suck even though they have tons of voice acting and cutscenes. Narc, Enter the matrix, catwoman, red ninja, etc, etc, etc.

How many copies of Enter the Matrix were sold because they had 60 minutes of footage that helped flesh out the stories of the new movies?
Click to expand...

The game sucked and the voice acting and cutscenes didn't do anything for it. So how vital where the voice actors and cutscenes in that game? Apparently they weren't worth spit since the game was horrible. So you prove how unimportant voice acting and cutscenes are to a game.

To further prove my point, Nintendo games have some of the best gameplay and don't use voice actors for many of their games, and how many copies less have they sold less of this generation as opposed to last gnereation in their key franchises?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that Ninty is losing this generations console war because they don't have voice acting and/or cutscenes?? I think you need to get your head checked if you are going to create insane connections like that. :rofl:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Um, that's because the gaming industry is trying to appeal to NON-GAMERS, ie the Hollywood crowd. That is why games are saturated more and more everyday with voice acting and cutscenes. If they were appealing to gamers they wouldn't bother with such high production costs trying to turn games into movies. And all of those cutscenes and high paid voices don't make a good game let alone are a vital part of it as evidenced by just about every other game that hits store shelfs and suck even though they have tons of voice acting and cutscenes. Narc, Enter the matrix, catwoman, red ninja, etc, etc, etc.



The game sucked and the voice acting and cutscenes didn't do anything for it. So how vital where the voice actors and cutscenes in that game? Apparently they weren't worth spit since the game was horrible. So you prove how unimportant voice acting and cutscenes are to a game.



So you're saying that Ninty is losing this generations console war because they don't have voice acting and/or cutscenes?? I think you need to get your head checked if you are going to create insane connections like that. :rofl:[/QUOTE]

the game did suck I never said it didn't, just that it sold a lot of copies and made whoever published it a shit ton of dough, and with a game like this that sells solely on the license, they sure as hell should get some residual checks since thier work was far more important than that of the developer. You guys are too focused on games being good instead of looking at this from a financial perspective. Games are a business and with a business you need to make money.

and yea I do believe things like old production techniques hindered sales of the gamecube. Its not just a lack of cutscenes and things such as that, but a combination of problems which have lead to loss of sales in the console market, but I do believe not producing games with the techniques of the day have hurt sales. It works great on the GBA for simplistic games, but people who play games on consoles demand more. You have to impress console gamers to get sales, and lately their games have not been one to impress, though that does not mean they do not have quality gameplay. Things like graphics and production techniques impress people like editors of magazines and game critics so that they write about the games and get people hyped up. This hype can translate into big sales and sell consoles. Look at something like Splinter Cell, which didn't have amazing gameplay but was beatiful and used all the latest production techniques to sell their games.

*note, this is not the full reason behind a lack of gamecubes selling, but rather a large contibuting factor*
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']Game voice actors picket E3, vote on strike

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/25/news_6126521.html



Although I cut up the Gamespot article a bit, the bottom line of the deal is that SAG and AFTRA (the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) are voting on whether or not to strike unless they can work out a deal with the game industry to provide residual payments for voice actors that on high volume selling games.

Having worked in the entertainment industry, I found this recent development to be quite comical. Flame me all you want, but it's my opinion that a large number of the Unions that govern the film and television industries have outgrown their initial purpose, (to protect the worker from unfair, unsafe, and unjust work practices) and are now out just for cash and see how much shit they can get away with. This is a prime example of just that. If the artists writers and programmers for video games aren't getting residuals (correct me if I'm wrong about that), why the hell should voice actors that generally contribute such a small piece to the overall product get a chunk of the back-end profits? Are they fucking insane? They just don't understand how minimal their contribution is in the overall game making process. So some random dude adding grunts groans and ten lines of victory dialog would get extra cash for every unit sold, while the animator that spent hundreds of hours refining the style and movements of that character (the part that people pay to experience) sees nothing? The unions just see an industry making big money like film and TV and figure that the same rules and conditions should carry over. That's just crazy talk.

My biggest problem with this is the precedent it might set. Are stunt men (a SAG union position) going to then ask for residuals for motion-capture work since their fellow union members are getting it also? This could spiral into a much bigger issue that makes game development an even more expensive/complicated process than it already is.

Now don't get me wrong I don't hate the concept of unions, but I think that the entertainment unions have just gone too far with many of their bullshit rules and I'd hate to see that type of nonsense spread into the gaming industry. If anyone should be making big money off of royalties and residuals it should be the artists and programmers who devote years of their lives to developing a single product, not some asshole who comes in for a few days to open his mouth. Voice acting is an important component to games, but it's generally only the icing on the cake that is final product.

Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]


I didn't really read the whole of it... considering how hard it is to break into the SAG and similar unions and that without them you can't get a job in the entertainment industry but I think that royalties are royalties but considering that the majority of work is done by game designers and artists thats like saying the lion king or beauty and the beast should give residuals to the actors involved on those films just because they are "high grossing".. won't happen.. sorry.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']the game did suck I never said it didn't, just that it sold a lot of copies and made whoever published it a shit ton of dough, and with a game like this that sells solely on the license, they sure as hell should get some residual checks since thier work was far more important than that of the developer. You guys are too focused on games being good instead of looking at this from a financial perspective. Games are a business and with a business you need to make money.

and yea I do believe things like old production techniques hindered sales of the gamecube. Its not just a lack of cutscenes and things such as that, but a combination of problems which have lead to loss of sales in the console market, but I do believe not producing games with the techniques of the day have hurt sales. It works great on the GBA for simplistic games, but people who play games on consoles demand more. You have to impress console gamers to get sales, and lately their games have not been one to impress, though that does not mean they do not have quality gameplay. Things like graphics and production techniques impress people like editors of magazines and game critics so that they write about the games and get people hyped up. This hype can translate into big sales and sell consoles. Look at something like Splinter Cell, which didn't have amazing gameplay but was beatiful and used all the latest production techniques to sell their games.

*note, this is not the full reason behind a lack of gamecubes selling, but rather a large contibuting factor*[/QUOTE]


sorry.. but midway arcade treasures 2 sold a buttload of copies this past year and all of those games are "dated" and have terrible graphics. I'm sorry I don't judge games by the outside prettyness or how well the voice acting is.. I play games because i enjoy them. I play consoles and GBA I don't demand "any less" out of either of them. I've seen plenty a GC games look and play great. I think a larger problem is look at all the "casual" gamers (who don't go to this site) they sell more GC because of name recognition and thats what people want. the reason why gamecube doesn't have the marketplace that the other two systems has is because of online play and backward compatability. the games on the cube look just fine look at all the janky looking PS2 games there are. I'm no nintendo fanboy (i prefer my xbox myself).. but shit.. looks aren't everything.. and it isn't even factored in why the GC doesn't sell. its because its a terrible design and the library isn't as strong.
 
Okay Casey, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree... (Especiallly on the Battlefield 1942 thing, but that's neither here nor there since there's no voice acting during multiplayer anyway ;))

Enter the Matrix was pure marketing crap. Profitable crap yes, but still ultimately crap. It was successful for the same reason Spider-man pajamas are more successfull than plain pajamas. At the time, everyone wanted everything "Matrix" that they could get their hands on. EGM ran a cover story about how that game was gonna be so great, and quickly took it all back in when they reviewed it. Of those million of copies sold how many people do think were happy with their $50 purchase after actually playing the game? Sure it was profitable for the company, but did it help their reputation at all? Would the game industry be a better place if more games were like Enter the Matrix? Yes voice acting and cut scenes were the driving force of that game, but we all agree that it wasn't much of a game now was it.

I'm sorry if I'm too focused on wanting games to be good. I guess that's just a personal flaw of mine. I don't hate voice actors, and if a game does have great voice acting I do notice and appreciate it. But voiceacting isn't what makes me open up my wallet and pull out my cash. If tomorrow I woke up and heard that voice acting was outlawed in the videogame industry, I would be sad for about two seconds then go play me some Katamari Damacy. It is possible to make games without voice, and people will purchase them. You tell me a single game that would be UNPLAYABLE with text instead of voice acting, and I'll think twice about my stance.

Also, who in the hell are you to go on harshing on Nintendo anyway? do you have any solid stats to back up any of what you say about them or their current posistion in the industry? I can name a ton of factors (no real online, miniscule number of titles at launch, doesn't play CD's or DVD's, poor third party support, came out later than PS2 and not as powerful as the XBOX, Gamecube's reputation/perception as a kid's console, etc.) as to why the Gamecube is in third place in the console race, and a lack of voice acting in first party games would be dead last. But, since neither of us is citing any published studies on the matter, we're both just supposing now aren't we?

Okay, now you go out there and vote with your wallet and make sure you buy every game that comes out with great voice acting and pay full price for it so all those hard working actors can get all the residual money that you think they so desperately deserve. I'll wait for the reviews, and if the game is no fun to play, then they aren't getting my cash whether they've brought Marlon Brando back from the dead to read the script or not. You can play your games that are kinda like movies, and I'll play my games that are kinda like games.
 
[quote name='urzishra14']I didn't really read the whole of it... considering how hard it is to break into the SAG and similar unions and that without them you can't get a job in the entertainment industry but I think that royalties are royalties but considering that the majority of work is done by game designers and artists thats like saying the lion king or beauty and the beast should give residuals to the actors involved on those films just because they are "high grossing".. won't happen.. sorry.[/QUOTE]

Are you brain damaged? Disney has been a union shop on voice talent for decades. Much of the rules regarding this stuff was created specifically in relation to them. I guarantee you the voice talent on Lion King has made major residuals on the ongoing sales of that movie. The production cost of that project would have been sky high if they had to make flat fee payment to the lineup of voices in that movie. A standard residuals contract makes things much easier as the big profits for the actors are in direct proportion to the revenue generated and thus nobody had to be paid more than they were worth for contributing to a turkey.

Jonathan Taylor Thomas has probably made enough in 'Lion King' residuals to pay his college tuition and other expenses a few times over. (As can be said for his on going payoff from the syndication of 'Home Improvement,' a gold mine.) OTOH, the voice cast for Disney's later 'Atlantis: The Lost Empire' have made little beyond their base fees because the final product did far, far, less business for Disney. Everybody knew that going in and gave it their best shot.

Generally, for actors who have good demand for their services in film and television, voice over work only pays well if the product is a huge success but that is in relation to how much better the other stuff pays up front. For an actor who really works for a living rather than drawing enough from one role to keep them in the top tax bracket for another year, it's a good hourly wage for a short job with the promise of later payoff if the project is a hit. By and large the voices that are household name celebrities work vastly cheaper for voice work, often for the novelty or for the rare chance to be in something their kids can see before they're in high school. Some of them will work for scale and channel their residuals to a favorite charity. That's great for people who are already very wealthy and are just there for the fun of performing. It makes for great PR. (Bruce Willis has done this sort of thing a lot as well as appearing in low budget movies for scale after collecting a big paycheck from a megabudget action movie.)

For others, it can be a lifesaver. Good voices can be valuable long after onscreen appearances have dwindled due to an actor's age. Or due to medical problems. Michael J. Fox's condition has made his popular voice his sole conduit to continue working and assure ongoing income after his condition advances to take away even that. He is a big enough name to negotiate his own deals but the same cannot be said for others in his position.
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']Okay Casey, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree... (Especiallly on the Battlefield 1942 thing, but that's neither here nor there since there's no voice acting during multiplayer anyway ;))

Enter the Matrix was pure marketing crap. Profitable crap yes, but still ultimately crap. It was successful for the same reason Spider-man pajamas are more successfull than plain pajamas. At the time, everyone wanted everything "Matrix" that they could get their hands on. EGM ran a cover story about how that game was gonna be so great, and quickly took it all back in when they reviewed it. Of those million of copies sold how many people do think were happy with their $50 purchase after actually playing the game? Sure it was profitable for the company, but did it help their reputation at all? Would the game industry be a better place if more games were like Enter the Matrix? Yes voice acting and cut scenes were the driving force of that game, but we all agree that it wasn't much of a game now was it.

I'm sorry if I'm too focused on wanting games to be good. I guess that's just a personal flaw of mine. I don't hate voice actors, and if a game does have great voice acting I do notice and appreciate it. But voiceacting isn't what makes me open up my wallet and pull out my cash. If tomorrow I woke up and heard that voice acting was outlawed in the videogame industry, I would be sad for about two seconds then go play me some Katamari Damacy. It is possible to make games without voice, and people will purchase them. You tell me a single game that would be UNPLAYABLE with text instead of voice acting, and I'll think twice about my stance.

Also, who in the hell are you to go on harshing on Nintendo anyway? do you have any solid stats to back up any of what you say about them or their current posistion in the industry? I can name a ton of factors (no real online, miniscule number of titles at launch, doesn't play CD's or DVD's, poor third party support, came out later than PS2 and not as powerful as the XBOX, Gamecube's reputation/perception as a kid's console, etc.) as to why the Gamecube is in third place in the console race, and a lack of voice acting in first party games would be dead last. But, since neither of us is citing any published studies on the matter, we're both just supposing now aren't we?

Okay, now you go out there and vote with your wallet and make sure you buy every game that comes out with great voice acting and pay full price for it so all those hard working actors can get all the residual money that you think they so desperately deserve. I'll wait for the reviews, and if the game is no fun to play, then they aren't getting my cash whether they've brought Marlon Brando back from the dead to read the script or not. You can play your games that are kinda like movies, and I'll play my games that are kinda like games.[/QUOTE]

First off, BF 1942 is clearly the MP game of this generation. If you can tell me a title that did more than 1942 to redefine the multiplayer experience I would love to know what it is.

And why do you keep bringing up the aspect of voices in Multiplayer games? I know I want to be hearing what the other guy on my team is saying and not something random said by a character. You are trying way too hard to convince someone when you use no voices in multiplayer to try and make your point.


On Nintendo:

I pointed out the voice actors to show that over time their production techiniques had not changed. When people buy a new system they do not want to play a game so similar to ones from the previous generation that it feels like an extension. Lack of other features are a problem yes, but when you can pretty much make the same game on the GCN that you could have on the N64, their in lies their major problem.

They were pointed out to show that these techniques do not sell as well. I never ragged on Nintendo (I have probably bought more Nintendo stuff this generation that anyone in the past), only pointed out that these games do not sell as well. And don't tell me it is because of a limited user base, because the Gamecube has sold near as many systems as the Xbox until last year and it does not even have a title that can touch something like Halo 2 in terms of sales (and again this game completely sucks, but it has high production values, looks great, and got a ton of press because it used high quality voice actors)

and I never said that I wanted all my games to be cinematic and buy games completely on this feature. You try and put words in my mouth to suit your point of view. I am merely stating they make games more enjoyable, and that they should be compensated for their work. By going back to textboxes the market is going to shrink dramatically and sales are going to back to levels the industry does not want.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']First off, BF 1942 is clearly the MP game of this generation. If you can tell me a title that did more than 1942 to redefine the multiplayer experience I would love to know what it is.[/QUOTE]

Counterstrike. 'nuff said.

And why do you keep bringing up the aspect of voices in Multiplayer games? I know I want to be hearing what the other guy on my team is saying and not something random said by a character. You are trying way too hard to convince someone when you use no voices in multiplayer to try and make your point.
Click to expand...

My point is you don't need voice acting in multiplayer games and that the game industry can still be highly succesful by publishing these types of games that don't require actors. We are talking about whether or not the game industry can survive a SAG/AFTRA stike aren't we? You brought up multiplayer in your defense of EA, not me.


On Nintendo:

I pointed out the voice actors to show that over time their production techiniques had not changed. When people buy a new system they do not want to play a game so similar to ones from the previous generation that it feels like an extension. Lack of other features are a problem yes, but when you can pretty much make the same game on the GCN that you could have on the N64, their in lies their major problem.

They were pointed out to show that these techniques do not sell as well. I never ragged on Nintendo (I have probably bought more Nintendo stuff this generation that anyone in the past), only pointed out that these games do not sell as well. And don't tell me it is because of a limited user base, because the Gamecube has sold near as many systems as the Xbox until last year and it does not even have a title that can touch something like Halo 2 in terms of sales (and again this game completely sucks, but it has high production values, looks great, and got a ton of press because it used high quality voice actors)
Click to expand...

The only company in this console generation that relies almost solely on the sales revenue of first party titles is Nintendo. Their games always will sell well. The best sellers on Sony's system are for the most part 3rd party titles. So why aren't those 3rd party titles coming to the gamecube, Or better yet, when they are published not selling as well as the other two console versions? Is it because Nintendo doesn't use voice acting when it makes it's own games? Riddle me that one.

Yes, Microsoft sold so many copies of Halo 2 because the success of Halo 1. Halo sold almost 1 to 1 with the consoles so most xbox owners (since they already liked halo) were interested in halo 2. The gameplay is virtually the same as the first one (we can argue about whether or not the gameplay sucks in a different thread). You want to know why so many people are still playing Halo 2?... Multiplayer. And we don't want to talk about multiplayer cause it has nothing to do with voice acting. And since when did anyone in the press generate hype saying Halo 2 was going to be soooo fantastic because of it's amazing voice actors?

and I never said that I wanted all my games to be cinematic and buy games completely on this feature. You try and put words in my mouth to suit your point of view. I am merely stating they make games more enjoyable, and that they should be compensated for their work. By going back to textboxes the market is going to shrink dramatically and sales are going to back to levels the industry does not want.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm also not making up facts either. Where the hell is your proof that the gaming industry will shrink DRAMATICALLY without voice acting?!! Are you personally going to stop buying games cause they don't use voice acting? How can you possibly tell what the affect is going to be on the industry at large? Please tell me where you obtained these masterful powers of foresight so that I too may be an oracle of the future!!!:pray:

Secondly voice acting won't disappear with a SAG/AFTRA strike, only big-name UNION voice acting. All those non-union guys won't be going anywhere, and infact they might even get more work trying to sound like all those high paid residual-seeking folks. If they can't get Arnold to voice The Terminator, they'll hire some dude who can imitate Arnold and probably be pretty close. Actors are already being compensated for their work and I'm not saying they they should work for free. I'm just saying that they don't deserve a cut of the profits in an industry that can easily exist without them.
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']When you watch a cartoon or a movie all you are doing is "watching". When you play a game..... The majority of voice work is done for cut scenes. You are not "PLAYING" the game during a cutscene, you're "WATCHING" it.[/quote]


Yeah I know, but even if an actor's voice only shows up for 60 minutes (like the man playing goofy in Kingdom Hearts), he still deserves to get paid for his work.

He would get paid playing Goofy in a cartoon (and residuals).

Likewise, he deserves to get paid, including residuals, for playing Goofy in Kingdom Hearts. The amount will be less, but he should still get paid.

troy
 
If it wasn't in their original contract, then they shoulden't get shit.
Beside's, most of the "Voice Talent", need's to be punished for the work they have done, not rewarded.The writer's too. ( Only you, the master of unlocking......barf. ) You work these thing's out before you do the work, not after you find out if the game is going to be a success.
 
[quote name='Ebraum']If it wasn't in their original contract, then they shoulden't get shit.
Beside's, most of the "Voice Talent", need's to be punished for the work they have done, not rewarded.The writer's too. ( Only you, the master of unlocking......barf. ) You work these thing's out before you do the work, not after you find out if the game is going to be a success.[/QUOTE]

Quite so. If actors want to get residuals INSTEAD of their normal salary that's a different story, and I'm sure they might be able to work that out. But the fact that they want residuals on top of what they were already paid just because the game they worked on for a few days was successful, is pretty much a slap in the face to all the people (designers/artists/programmers) who poured years of their heart and soul into that project to really make it that much of a success.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Yeah I know, but even if an actor's voice only shows up for 60 minutes (like the man playing goofy in Kingdom Hearts), he still deserves to get paid for his work.

He would get paid playing Goofy in a cartoon (and residuals).

Likewise, he deserves to get paid, including residuals, for playing Goofy in Kingdom Hearts. The amount will be less, but he should still get paid.

troy[/QUOTE]

He WAS paid for his work and probably quite well. But why pay the official Goofy actor a shit load of money plus residuals, if you can get away with paying a sound-alike much less without the general populace even noticing the switch? That's why this issue is such a tough sell for the actors. If the game makers can still make plenty of money without paying a ton of cash for actors, why would start now?
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']He WAS paid for his work and probably quite well. But why pay the official Goofy actor a shit load of money plus residuals, if you can get away with paying a sound-alike much less without the general populace even noticing the switch? [/QUOTE]


Yeah. So? Even the "fake Goofy actor" should get paid residuals. He gets residuals for cartoon voicing, and he should get residuals for his game voicing.

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Yeah. So? Even the "fake Goofy actor" should get paid residuals. He gets residuals for cartoon voicing, and he should get residuals for his game voicing.

troy[/QUOTE]

Have you read thru this thread at all? Do you understand that most programmers artists and designers that make these games don't get residuals? Shouldn't they get some extra cash before fake-Goofy considering that they are the ones that actually do 99% of the work? Making games and making Movies/TV are 2 entirely different animals, and just beacuse certain rules and conditions apply to one industry do not mean that they should carry over to the other.
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']Have you read thru this thread at all? Do you understand that most programmers artists and designers that make these games don't get residuals? [/QUOTE]


The artists and designers and cameramen behind the movies don't get residuals either. Only the writer & the actor.

So it IS a similar situation to game design.

Next.



troy
 
Excuse me? Directors get residuals. Executive Producers, and even some lower ranking producers, get residuals. Don't talk to me like you know the entertainment industry payroll system better than I do. I've worked in entertainment accounting for the past 4 years paying those actors, writers, directors, and producers their salaries + residuals for quite some time now. I know who gets what, and who is more important in the overall scheme of things.

This is NOT a similar situation at all. Just because each industry employs actors doesn't mean that they are the identical. Some games do not use voice actors at all. You tell me the last time you saw a movie or TV show that didn't have any people talking in it? You can make a game without actors and still have it sell well, the same cannot be said for movies and TV. Everyone can't get residuals because that would make the cost of producing a movie/TV project too prohibitive to guarantee a profit for the studios supplying the funding. Now, why don't Production Assistants (PA's) get residuals for TV and film work? It's the same reason why no-name actors in video games aren't getting them either. Because the are the low man on the totem pole in the industry, and they are easliy replaced.

Please read this thread before you post in it again, so you can be caught up as to what has already been discussed.
 
[quote name='Professor Oreo']Some games do not use voice actors at all. You tell me the last time you saw a movie or TV show that didn't have any people talking in it? You can make a game without actors and still have it sell well, the same cannot be said for movies and TV. [/QUOTE]

Good point. If actors start demanding too much money, games will just stop using them. The actors would screw themselves.



I *did* read the entire thread. I just disagreed.

troy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top