Voice actors want residuals for videogames?!!

Game voice actors picket E3, vote on strike

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

Howard Fabrick, the lawyer representing the game publishers, says the union actors are asking for more than they deserve. According to Fabrick, the sessions to record voice acting in games are mere blips in the thousands of man-hours put into the development of games.

"[The voice actors] have no leverage," Yankee Group analyst Mike Goodman told the Associated Press. "In 99 percent of all games, the voice actors are irrelevant. You replace one voice actor with another nonunion actor, and no one will know the difference."

Earlier in the month, SAG national president Melissa Gilbert noted, "[Game] producers rejected even a modest proposal of a residual structure that would cost them less than 1 percent of the revenue generated on only the highest-grossing games. There is only one way to describe their position: completely unreasonable and lacking in any appreciation of the contributions made by actors to the enormous profits enjoyed by this industry. If producers want their games to maintain a professional quality, they need to offer an agreement that shows greater respect to the professional performers who make these games come alive."

Click to expand...

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 ing 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?

The very notion of voiceover actors for video/computer games commanding such payment makes me want to laugh (and laugh hard, at that.) The level of quality which the gaming industry has seen with regard to voiceovers has been embarassingly low, compared to that seen in holllywood films. Voice talents in games seem to have contributed so little to game sales, I can't think of any bargaining power such actors would have in demanding such compensation. A voice actor might as well sing a song in a game and then complain that he isn't awarded a similar portion of game revenue that a singer is paid for his album.

I have no market data to back up that claim, however. I'm just voicing an opinion; I *believe* that voice talents haven't contributed significantly to game sales. Why? Because it's never factored into my own purchases and I generously extend my own point of view onto the pubilc at large.

The guy who reads the car ad for a TV commercial might as well claim to have contributed significantly to sales for that model and demand a bigger slice of the pie.


[edit: yes, you've hit the nail right on the head! Well done, Trakan!]

You're surprised people like and want money?

I'm surprised that these people think that they DESERVE this money.

I'd be happier if we went back to the days of text boxes.

[quote name='Professor Oreo']I'm surprised that these people think that they DESERVE this money.[/QUOTE]

why? I think this has a lot more to do with games that are pretty much based completely on a star (like Scarface and the Godfather, where the actors involved add a ton to the game)

should Snoop Dogg not get residuals for games where they use him as an advertising tool (like they did in True Crime)?

games that use licenses probably have to pay residuals of some kind, so why not to stars where the game is pretty much being sold on their star power?

[quote name='evilmax17']I'd be happier if we went back to the days of text boxes.[/QUOTE]

Same here... for every game that has good VA's, there are at least five games that have the worst VA's known to man.

[quote name='CaseyRyback']why? I think this has a lot more to do with games that are pretty much based completely on a star (like Scarface and the Godfather, where the actors involved add a ton to the game)

should Snoop Dogg not get residuals for games where they use him as an advertising tool (like they did in True Crime)?

games that use licenses probably have to pay residuals of some kind, so why not to stars where the game is pretty much being sold on their star power?[/QUOTE]

That's not the point. Big name actors and stars will always get to make their own deals and the devlopers will pay whatever the cost (residuals possibly included) for the privilege to use their name/voice/persona in their product. That will always be the case, so this issue isn't about Al Paccino or Snoop Dogg making money. This is about the guy who played "Moaning Zombie #3" in Resident Evil 18 and how that guy will be getting checks for years for a couple hours worth of work. You think that guy DESERVES to keep making money more so than say the artist that created the 3D model of Moaning Zombie #3?

If you're someone who is in demand for your voice work, which job are you going to take? The one time hourly gig or the one with long term revenue potential?

The people we're talking about here aren't random community theater folks pulled into a studio for a few lines on some localization of a Japanese release. We're talking about recognizable names and voices with serious careers. If you want the same guy to voice Spike for a US release of a Cowboy Bebop game, then Steven Blum ( http://imdb.com/name/nm0089710/ ) wants the same compensation for the same work.

Some games can involve a hell of a lot of dialogue. Many of the actors fromt he original Star Trek cast were shocked at the sheer volume of material they had to record for a single game. The last two Final Fantasy entries are another example. John Dimaggio will see far more money from far less work in 'Clone Wars' or a single Futurama episode than his time spent on performing Wakka in FFX and FFX-2. http://imdb.com/name/nm0224007/

You want good voice actors, you gotta pay what they can get from the cartoon makers.

Wait, i'm confused.

The voice actors do work for the game and want to be paid from it.. and you guys think it's wrong for them to want a piece of the game's profit?

EDIT: , I missed my 10,000th post

[quote name='Professor Oreo']That's not the point. Big name actors and stars will always get to make their own deals and the devlopers will pay whatever the cost (residuals possibly included) for the privilege to use their name/voice/persona in their product. That will always be the case, so this issue isn't about Al Paccino or Snoop Dogg making money. This is about the guy who played "Moaning Zombie #3" in Resident Evil 18 and how that guy will be getting checks for years for a couple hours worth of work. You think that guy DESERVES to keep making money more so than say the artist that created the 3D model of Moaning Zombie #3?[/QUOTE]

Get serious. Those people would get residuals measured in pennies. I've known a few actors in that position. Everybody would recognize their face but nobody would recognize their name. Picking up a few bucks from sitcom reruns individually wouldn't buy lunch off the value menu but cumulatively it can make the difference between being able to afford seeing a dentist regularly or doing without.

[quote name='Scorch']Wait, i'm confused.

The voice actors do work for the game and want to be paid from it.. and you guys think it's wrong for them to want a piece of the game's profit?

EDIT: , I missed my 10,000th post[/QUOTE]
You still look at post counts?

[quote name='Ugamer_X']You still look at post counts?[/QUOTE]

No, but i'd been waiting to see what i'd hit 10,000.

[quote name='epobirs']Get serious. Those people would get residuals measured in pennies. I've known a few actors in that position. Everybody would recognize their face but nobody would recognize their name. Picking up a few bucks from sitcom reruns individually wouldn't buy lunch off the value menu but cumulatively it can make the difference between being able to afford seeing a dentist regularly or doing without.[/QUOTE]

also the guy who makes the zombie sound probably makes a shit ton less than the guy making the character model. I read in the paper the other day, salaries for people working in position the other day were reaching and exceeding 100K a year. I doubt someone who makes a few bucks making a noise would even come close to that

[quote name='CaseyRyback']also the guy who makes the zombie sound probably makes a shit ton less than the guy making the character model. I read in the paper the other day, salaries for people working in position the other day were reaching and exceeding 100K a year. I doubt someone who makes a few bucks making a noise would even come close to that[/QUOTE]

Indeed. There is a reason production costs are rising. When you increase the detail artists are given to use the labor grows and the class of talent required grows as well.

By the same progression, the demand for higher quality in voice work has grown. Famous voices can be very appealing to the target audience. One part of the Oblivion demo vid that got a lot of attention was the Patrick Stewart narration. The cost of that voice has a payoff in attracting interest to the produt.

And in case anyone is wondering if the use of an actor's voice that was previously recorded for a film or TV episode counts, yes, it does. It falls under derivative works, much as the use of the actor's likeness (face) use in things like toys and other merchandising is covered.

And things can get sticky about screen credits and placement. Residual levels can be tied to how an actor is listed in the credits. Appearing in the title credits rather than only on the end credits or as a guest star after the titles have run, all of those matter. For instance, on the sitcom 'Wings' Tony Shalhoub was a regular part of the cast for years before they added him to the title credits. It kept the budget smaller and he didn't have the position to argue. Amber Benson didn't make the title credits in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' until the episide where her character was killed off. It was kind of like giving an extra large tip to a waittress you know will be laid off next week. They even went so far as to give her a title credit on the following episode although she only appeared as a corpse with her face out of view. Those two title credits will make her a lot more money from those Season 6 box set sales.

Nicely written OP.
You should clean it up a bit and send it off to SAG.
I don't think the people in it play many vid games or they would have realized the truth in your opnion and wouldn't have bothered to complain about it in the first place.
If anyone deserves residuals, its the programmers of the hit game.
I find the whole thing comical as well considering how god awful most of the voice acting is in the first place.

[quote name='Noodle Pirate!']Nicely written OP.
You should clean it up a bit and send it off to SAG.
I don't think the people in it play many vid games or they would have realized the truth in your opnion and wouldn't have bothered to complain about it in the first place.
If anyone deserves residuals, its the programmers of the hit game.
I find the whole thing comical as well considering how god awful most of the voice acting is in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Many highly valued programmers and designers do have royalty arrangements on sales of their games. Guess where the structure of their contracts was borrowed from and which industry their lawyers first specialized in serving?

I'm actually not suprised, with the number of actual familiar voices and real stars being used for voices in games they're bound to foster the idea in others that their contributions are as great as they would be for a movie or television show especially since games are quickly approaching the same level of cinematic presence.

If I do a voice for a 90 minute animated movie and get residuals based on it's DVD sales than so should the guy who did Solid Snake's voice in MGS. It's not like he did any less work.

There are plenty of people who do really shitty work who probably shouldnt get a dime though, howver maybe this will give voice directors incentive to improve their actor's performances in games.

[quote name='Scorch']Wait, i'm confused.
The voice actors do work for the game and want to be paid from it.. and you guys think it's wrong for them to want a piece of the game's profit?
[/QUOTE]

The voice actors are already being paid. They agreed to a sum of money to perform the task and that was the end of it. Now they are asking for money in addition to what they were already paid because they feel that their work was crucial to the success of the game and in most cases I cry "bullshit."

Big name actors with star quality/appeal are not what this discussion is about because they can, and will, set their own price to have their name attached to the project. Doing a Simpsons game? You'll pay through the nose to get Dan Castellaneta to do Homer because he will help sell your product. People reprising a role for some cartoon/game tie-in are not who we are talking about here, because if the game-makers want their shit to be "authentic" they will pay the price to get the original actors.

Now who played the voice of Astaroth in English dub of Soul Calibur 2?... Nobody knows, and moreover, nobody cares. He is name/talent is not selling this game, but that guy would now getting residuals on top of his salary. He may not make as much money as the guy who animated Astaroth, but SAG/AFTRA want you to believe that he was every bit as important to the quality/profits of that game. Do you believe that's true? Animator gets no residuals, guy who grunts does.

Now by the same token, I've worked in-house as a game tester for a major publisher and I've found several game-freezing bugs. My several months of work on a single title has definetly contributed to the overall quality of the finished game... do I deserve residuals? Cause the guy who actually fixed the bugs I reported doesn't get shit.

I have no doubt that if this did some how move ahead the residual would probably be defined by the level of perfomance. The Asteroth voice would likely get pennies compared to someone who narrates 2hours of voice.

It really hurts to think the guy who did "Jacky" (or ANY of the English speaking characters in Virtua Fighter) could get EVEN MORE money than whatever his salary was for the job...You can pay em a lil more when they admit how god-awful most of their performances are (an hopefully clean up their act). I mostly avoid the "voice on" mode (or switch it to other languages) unless it's MGS, Splinter Cell or some other (of the very few) games I know I could at least believe these voices represent who they're supposed to.

I don't even enjoy the "campiness" of the bad voice acting anymore...And as a side note, of the few "Judgement Day" (review show on G4) shows I've seen, I know I've heard that Tommy guy complain about lack of voice acting in a game MANY times. I am very used to playing RPG's by reading, but it seems now companies feel they have to hire people to ruin my enjoyment. No, I did not like FFX voices, so I may be the minority...

[quote name='evilmax17']I'd be happier if we went back to the days of text boxes.[/QUOTE]

That's why Zelda rules.

I'd like to do voice work for games. And I would be happy getting paid one time and having my name in the credits. Asking for a share of the profits is ridiculous.

Say what you will about the gameplay (I honestly dont give a ) Xenosaga is a much more enjoyable game compared to Xenogears mainly for the fact that it's 20 hours of voice acting is much less strenuous than 40 hours of reading text boxes.

I am glad this is happening. The gaming industry wanted to go Hollywood and now it has come back to bite them in the ass. I hope it turns out to be a total disaster which leads to voice actors going back to being no name nobodies.

I'm sick of high paid voice actors and the rising costs of production associated with their exorbitant prices. Games should STOP trying to be Hollywood movies and go back to being games!

[quote name='Professor Oreo']The voice actors are already being paid. They agreed to a sum of money to perform the task and that was the end of it. Now they are asking for money in addition to what they were already paid because they feel that their work was crucial to the success of the game and in most cases I cry "bullshit."

Big name actors with star quality/appeal are not what this discussion is about because they can, and will, set their own price to have their name attached to the project. Doing a Simpsons game? You'll pay through the nose to get Dan Castellaneta to do Homer because he will help sell your product. People reprising a role for some cartoon/game tie-in are not who we are talking about here, because if the game-makers want their shit to be "authentic" they will pay the price to get the original actors.

Now who played the voice of Astaroth in English dub of Soul Calibur 2?... Nobody knows, and moreover, nobody cares. He is name/talent is not selling this game, but that guy would now getting residuals on top of his salary. He may not make as much money as the guy who animated Astaroth, but SAG/AFTRA want you to believe that he was every bit as important to the quality/profits of that game. Do you believe that's true? Animator gets no residuals, guy who grunts does.

Now by the same token, I've worked in-house as a game tester for a major publisher and I've found several game-freezing bugs. My several months of work on a single title has definetly contributed to the overall quality of the finished game... do I deserve residuals? Cause the guy who actually fixed the bugs I reported doesn't get shit.[/QUOTE]

Voice cast of Soul Calibur 2
http://imdb.com/title/tt0368980/

That would be one J.S. Gilbert, who appears to have done quite a lot of game work. Likely not a SAG member if his credits are solely for games.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0974417/

Sounds like you've got a lot of jealousy going. I did game testing for most of three years. Game testers are much more easily replaced than quality voice actors.

And no, this is not about the likes of a Simpsons main cast member who is making more per epsiode than any of us make annually. This is about the people who depend on SAG for things like their health coverage and legal protection in situations where they could never afford a good attorney of their own. I have a lot of issues with what unions have become but there are reasons for their existence.

Do you know how small a percentage of SAG members make their living entirely from acting, even with residuals? If you're doing a lot of one-off work you can get recognized in public a lot but still be struggling to stay above the poverty line. If you aren't attached to a regular gig like a TV series or command film fees high enough to get you through the year, it can be a feast or famine life. Being available for roles that can come up on short notice can make it very difficult to hold a regular job. So many of these people pay a price for pursuing this field.

If you don't like the lot of the game tester, start a union. Just don't be surprised if you find yourselves all fired and replaced so quickly it causes no schedule delays. Having a voice that is in demand puts you in a far better position to make demands. People complain the game voices are awful but all too often it is because they chose not to hire professionals. That often applies to the dialogue writer as well. Horrible dialogue can make anyone sound like a fool.

The union issue applies as well tot he programmer. He is certainly less easily replaced than a tester but all too often they agree to wretched contracts and have only themselves to blame. Some companies love young programmers without families the best because they make up for their inexperience in professional with their inexperience in reading contracts.

Actors are not the real artists behind games. The programmers, 3D artists, Sound designers, etc....those guys are the real artists behind games.

I dont think this move by the Actors Guild will have much leverage.

Also you have the factor that games have a shorter lifespan than movies; There is no residuals to speak of (usually)

[quote name='Xevious']Actors are not the real artists behind games. The programmers, 3D artists, Sound designers, etc....those guys are the real artists behind games.

I dont think this move by the Actors Guild will have much leverage.

Also you have the factor that games have a shorter lifespan than movies; There is no residuals to speak of (usually)[/QUOTE]

Recent FF titles feature a lot of SAG talent. Do you really think those are going to disappear from retail availability any time soon? They'll likely see revivals in the future that make upgrade the graphics but will retain the voice work since there would be little point in changing anything there.

TV commercials have far shorter lives than hit games but are a lucrative field when it comes to residuals.

Nobody is claiming the voice actors are the sole driving talent of the games anymore than that claim would be made for their animation work. But the contribution remains and with a strong union backing them game companies can find themselves at a loss if they want good voices in their games.

[quote name='Roufuss']Same here... for every game that has good VA's, there are at least five games that have the worst VA's known to man.[/QUOTE]


here here, besides, its kinda weird when ur grandma is in the last room and she mistakes a female character screaming for porn...so text boxes all the way

[quote name='epobirs']Voice cast of Soul Calibur 2
http://imdb.com/title/tt0368980/

That would be one J.S. Gilbert, who appears to have done quite a lot of game work. Likely not a SAG member if his credits are solely for games.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0974417/

Sounds like you've got a lot of jealousy going. I did game testing for most of three years. Game testers are much more easily replaced than quality voice actors.

And no, this is not about the likes of a Simpsons main cast member who is making more per epsiode than any of us make annually. This is about the people who depend on SAG for things like their health coverage and legal protection in situations where they could never afford a good attorney of their own. I have a lot of issues with what unions have become but there are reasons for their existence.

Do you know how small a percentage of SAG members make their living entirely from acting, even with residuals? If you're doing a lot of one-off work you can get recognized in public a lot but still be struggling to stay above the poverty line. If you aren't attached to a regular gig like a TV series or command film fees high enough to get you through the year, it can be a feast or famine life. Being available for roles that can come up on short notice can make it very difficult to hold a regular job. So many of these people pay a price for pursuing this field.

If you don't like the lot of the game tester, start a union. Just don't be surprised if you find yourselves all fired and replaced so quickly it causes no schedule delays. Having a voice that is in demand puts you in a far better position to make demands. People complain the game voices are awful but all too often it is because they chose not to hire professionals. That often applies to the dialogue writer as well. Horrible dialogue can make anyone sound like a fool.

The union issue applies as well tot he programmer. He is certainly less easily replaced than a tester but all too often they agree to wretched contracts and have only themselves to blame. Some companies love young programmers without families the best because they make up for their inexperience in professional with their inexperience in reading contracts.[/QUOTE]

Okay epobirs, I know you love to argue, and 9.5 times out of 10 you're usually correct. However, I'm not sure I see your point here. You think I'm jealous? About what? The fact that I didn't get residuals while working as a game tester?!! Of course I didn't get residuals nor did I deserve them... that's my point.

The hundreds of people that work on a major hit game all play important roles in making the finished product what it is. They can't pay EVERYONE residuals ontop of their salaries because then the process of game making would cease to be as attractive/profitable for the companies providing all of the MILLIONS in development cash. The television and movie industries work the same way. The company grips that rigged the sets don't get residuals, is their work unimportant? The costume supervisors, electricions, location managers, camera men, transportation drivers, etc. don't get residuals, are they being cheated? As important as all of their work is it's only a fraction of the finished product and in some cases is damn near invisible... important but invisible.

That's why you pointed out how asinine it would be for me to try and unionize game testers to get residuals. Because you and I both know that they could fire the entire game testing staff and have it replaced in a week with warm bodies eager to get their foot in the door. Even though these new people might not be as good as seasoned vets with years in the business, they will still get the job done and their work will still for the most part be invisible. Non-star voice actors have the same problem. they are so low on the totem pole of what it takes to make games that for the most part their work is invisble, and the world is flooded with people who want to be actors. As pointed out earlier in this thread, generally people do not buy games based on voice acting. It's not the gaming industry's fault that there are so many actors living at or just above the poverty line. That was hapening 15 years ago even before there was really any major voice work for games. The market is flooded with people who want to act and are willing to risk everything to follow their dreams (whether thay have talent or not). Anyone who can read can potentially be a voice actor. The gaming industry knows this, and since it's generally unimportant to the game making process (many successful games still don't use voice acting)... voice actors can, and will be replaced.

So SAG/AFTRA are going to leverage their big name talent (who we already established doesn't need their unions to help them make money) by striking to get residuals for the low men on the gaming totem pole while the more significant middle rung people in the gaming field (artists/programmers) do without. Let's say the unions vote to strike and it goes through. Who does this hurt? Does it hurt the guy who plays "Homer Simpson" or the guy who plays "Moaning Zombie #3"? The strike will probably go on for quite some time since for the most part, the industry can still make money without good voice talent, and the just-above-poverty-line guy now can't make a dime in the game industry because he'd be crossing union strike lines. Now let's say hypothetically the game industry caves due to pressure from EA (EA arbitrated the last SAG/AFTRA contract) cause they need to get Sean Connery to play James Bond in some fictional 007 sequel, and now the industry allows residuals for union voice actors. Now guess what?


Everyone hires non-union actors whenever possible in order to get out of paying residuals. Homer Simpson gets paid out the ass (he didn't need any more money to begin with) and Moaning Zombie Guy gets the shaft. Conversely, SAG/AFTRA may try to put in a clause that studios must hire union actors whenever possible. What happens to the guy who plays Astaroth, voice actor J.S. Gilbert, that we established is probably non-union? He either joins the union and pays the over $1100 worth of membership dues or he doesn't work. Now we've also established that residual payments for no-name lesser actors may very well me minimal at best. J.S. Gilbert may now be paying more in membership dues than he's making in residuals. So he could very well end up worse off then when he started.

This issue has implications to start a huge snowball effect, and I'd hate to see what some of the unions try and get away with should this attempt be successful. Although, I'm pretty sure it has no chance in hell. I'm not out for pissing on the little guy. But in this case the little guy needs to understand that he's the little guy, and that there are others that are far more deserving of profit sharing in this industry before he even thinks of putting out his hand for freebies.

[quote name='evilmax17']I'd be happier if we went back to the days of text boxes.[/QUOTE]

That's also how I feel. When I was younger I enjoyed using my imagination to decide how characters might sound. Text boxes were/are also better because you are often given the ability to rename characters in games that use them(especially RPGs).

Voice acting is not a "driving talent" at all - period. If you're buying a game because of someone's voice then you have serious problems.

Videogames have sold well with text boxes and no-name voices since forever and they will continue to do so. Hell, games still sell GREAT with not so much as a word of dialog(gameboy's pokemon, etc).

I think the gaming industry and gamers would gain from ditching Hollywood voice actors and their greedy paws. Production costs have gone up and for what? The voice of some famous actor? I play PC fan missions and mods where the voices are done by gamers - yes gamers, and they are great. A lot of times there is no voice and I couldn't care less.

Voice acting has zero to do with how good a game is, and all those shallow idiots who think games should be Hollywood cgi movies and can't enjoy a game because the voice acting isn't the best then I feel sorry for you and I hope you die so that only gamers who appreciate what really makes a game great will influence the industry.

[quote name='Alpha2']There are plenty of people who do really shitty work who probably shouldnt get a dime though, howver maybe this will give voice directors incentive to improve their actor's performances in games.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Even now, 99% of game voice acting can barely be called acting [Witness: The Punisher Game]. Move video game acting to the level of feature film acting and we'll talk.

Bad voice does hurt a game. With video game sales equal or beating theater releases, don't we deserve better?

So if I contract someone to build me a home and then sell if for a profit, the carpenters who built the home are entitled to a certain percentage of the profit? Of course not, so why would actors think they are entitled to a percentage of sales? They have no risk when it comes to videogame sales - they make money whether the games sells one or a million copies. If these actors wanted just a percentage of the sales in lieu of a salary, that's one thing. But these guys want both - a salary AND a percentage of sales. How arrogant to think that their contribution makes any difference in video game sales.

Let them strike and see if anyone misses them.

I gaurentee people will complain alot more about crappy voiceovers if they do.

The fact is they are called voice acting talent for a reason. Is soulcalibur a movie? no but Splinter Cell is a lot closer, and it'd be a lot harder to enjoy the game if they got some smuck from the cafeteria to do the voice unless maybe he actually has some ... TALENT for voice acting.

When games were so simple that you could get through 90% of them without reading or hearing a thing that was one thing but as games become more and more like movies and Television there's going to people who demand to be treated differently for their contributions and there's very little reason why some of these people shouldnt be eligable, especially when you;re getting so many of them from an industry where this is already standard practice.

Simple exercise: Take any major character from animation that doesn't perform entirely in mime and try to imagine where that character would be without the voice associated with it. If the animation industry regularly resorted to talentless hacks as often as games WHOSE DESIGNERS WANTED VOICES AS PART OF THE GAME do, there would be little or no animation out there.

Recall how horrible the dubs on anime translation were for so long because they were basically recruiting anybody who could memorize a few sentences for longer enough to make a recording? The original Japanese with subtitles was preferred because the voice talent issue was taken seriously there. (Although there have been some original Japanese voice casts that were awful but that was usually reflected in the rest of the production as well.) In recent years, when it was decided that anime was worth serious money the budgets for the English dubs went up and the quality improved immensely.

The same has happened to games. When CD-ROM made wide use of voice overs viable most game companies had no one inhouse who had a clue about how cast voice talent and run a recording session. Eventually they caught on and began hiring producers from the animation industry. The same happened with the 'interactive movie' phase where endless wretched scenes were shot using community theater amateurs and wannabes performing horrible scripts to make gamers wonder why they bought this CD-ROM kit for their console or PC. The entire concept was flawed but a few good games did emerge that involved people who knew how to design games working with people who knew how to write good dialogue and performed by people who knew how to act. The quality could be shocking to anyone who'd suffered through so much of what had passed before.

There is a reason why certain types of talent works for relatively low pay up front with residuals to follow. It isn't just having a strong union. It is them making an investment in their contribution to the production. They're making a bet that their efforts will be matched by everyone else to produce something that gets a lot of sales to generate income. Remember, the residuals only come in for successful products. If the production is a big success they are rewarded. If they gave a great performance but the production sold for shit they get nothing.

Many people here complained of this driving up cost but the opposite is true. Reviewers will never fail to mention bad voiceovers in games but they will frequently also mention when a well regarde voice like Michael Ironside is there to add to the game's atmosphere. Compared to film work the fees paid upfront for voice overs are miniscule but the payoff is in the success of the product leading to residual payments. They only make money when the production makes money. Lacking that, quality voices will simply charged a much higher flat rate or seek more lucrative work on union gigs.

Imagine if more people in game production worked on that basis. How many programmers have stayed on horrible games that should have been canceled because they go to get paid on their last milestone regardless of whether the game failed at retail. Just think of how much better the average game would be if more of the people involved had more riding on the success of the project, instead of being able to just move on to another project. Too many bad designers and bad programmers have extended their careers by casting blame on others. If you've ever wondered how disastrously bad games managed to be published, this is part of the reason. The same happens in every group creative effort such as films but the effects can often be reduced if more of the participants feel their involvement runs deeper than a flat fee.

[quote name='epobirs']Simple exercise: Take any major character from animation that doesn't perform entirely in mime and try to imagine where that character would be without the voice associated with it. If the animation industry regularly resorted to talentless hacks as often as games WHOSE DESIGNERS WANTED VOICES AS PART OF THE GAME do, there would be little or no animation out there.[/QUOTE]

That's the big difference between games and movies/TV that you don't seem to understand. For every ten minutes of Micheal Ironside delivering his wonderful voicework, there's three hours of me staring at Sam Fisher's ass where he doesn't say shit. So if you cut out that ten minutes every few hours, in the overall scheme of things, my experience with the game won't really change that significantly. It'd be a bummer, and I might not connect with the character as much, but for the most part while I'm playing the game he's not talking anyway. If I was watching a movie for three hours and the characters in it only talked for a total of ten minutes it wouldn't be anywhere near as acceptable. During a movie in a theater your'e either watching and listening... or watching and listening... that's it. In a game you're either watching and listening, or you're PLAYING THE GAME. Movies and TV are a purely non-interactive experiences, and that's where they differ from games.

Let's take a game like Grand Turismo for example. A player could easily drop 100+ hours into a game like that that sells millions of units where nobody says a goddamn word. You think I could make a 100+ hour movie or TV series about cars without a single word of dialog, and still have people tune in? Why is that? interactive format VS. non-interactive format. Voice actors have power and are incredibly valueable in a non-interactive format. However, in the game industry, where game makers can distract the audience with hours on end of GAMEPLAY, voice actors are second-class citizens. Game publishers realize this, SAG and AFTRA do not.

[quote name='epobirs']
There is a reason why certain types of talent works for relatively low pay up front with residuals to follow. It isn't just having a strong union. It is them making an investment in their contribution to the production. They're making a bet that their efforts will be matched by everyone else to produce something that gets a lot of sales to generate income. Remember, the residuals only come in for successful products. If the production is a big success they are rewarded. If they gave a great performance but the production sold for shit they get nothing.

[/QUOTE]

that! People should take pride in their work and do a solid job whether they have back-end deals or not! If you're not going to give it your all, move aside and let someone who has a decent work ethic take over and take your check. Secondly, if you want to talk about matching efforts with voiceactors and the rest of a game's production staff, then those motherers need to start devoting several years and thousands of manhours of their lives to a single game, and then they can talk about equal efforts. But you may argue that they may only need a voice actor to come in for a few days and deliver his ten pages of dialog. I'm sure he'd love to he come in and work a thousand manhours. The reason he doesn't work that much is because THEY DON'T NEED HIM TO. Therefore voice actors in the game industry will never be equal to designers/programmer/artists.


Here's a simple exercise for you:



Can I make a game without programmers? Nope. Without programmers I have no code, and the game no worky on my system without code.

k Hmmmm... Can I make a game without artists? Nope. No artists = big blank screen. Well, I guess we could technically make a game, but we all played that one 20 years ago when it was called "Zork" and I don't see a text-adventure selling well with the youngins these days on their fancy PS2's and Xboxeseses...

Well can we make a game without voice actors? Hmmm... It might take away from the immersive quality of the interactive experience we're trying to convey, but... yes! Yes we can! People might complain about our lack of good voiceovers, but we can still produce a functioning game that will be playable and if our gameplay is solid it can still potentially sell millions despite the lack of voiceovers!


Moral of the Story: no residuals for Voice actors


This has been a production of Professor Oreo's Playhouse™ © 2005. You may not quote, reproduce, mention, or think about this post in all present day mediums and even those not yet invented without the artist's expressed permission and without paying all royalties and residuals due within in perpetuity throughout the known universe, ergo, concordantly visa-vie... etc so on and so forth...

Simple exercise: Take any major character from animation that doesn't perform entirely in mime and try to imagine where that character would be without the voice associated with it.

Click to expand...

That is a horrible example since you are dealing in a voice that we are already familiar with and have associated with that character.

The fact is that if you take a new game that we haven't played and put joe blow's voice behind it it wouldn't make an ounce of difference.

And I find it very sad how attached some of you people seem to be to a voice over. It's a ing game people not a movie. Games have had text for the longest time and still have text and they were great games. Yeah, voices are nice, but they are hardly vital and will not kill game sales. The only people who wil complain are the people who don't matter cause they think that games should be 3 hour CGI movies with more cutscenes than gameplay.

I say em. They got their checks. Now it's time to move the hell on. Go ahead and strike. Many games have been succesful without "professional" voice acting. *cough* Resident Evil *cough* Once they realize that many people would gladly voice act for free (like I have) these "actors" will shut the hell up and be happy with what they are able to negotiate.

[quote name='Scrubking']That is a horrible example since you are dealing in a voice that we are already familiar with and have associated with that character.

The fact is that if you take a new game that we haven't played and put joe blow's voice behind it it wouldn't make an ounce of difference.

And I find it very sad how attached some of you people seem to be to a voice over. It's a ing game people not a movie. Games have had text for the longest time and still have text and they were great games. Yeah, voices are nice, but they are hardly vital and will not kill game sales. The only people who wil complain are the people who don't matter cause they think that games should be 3 hour CGI movies with more cutscenes than gameplay.[/QUOTE]

No, it is a perfect example. Where would Warner Bros. have been without Mel Blanc? The Simpsons with Joe Blow on voice work? Spongebob without Tom Kenny? Rocko and the Taco Bell dog without Carlos Alazraqui? Making those characters go from drawing to a semblence of life took a major contribution from a voice artist working with the creator.

In some rare instances the creator can play both role. Seth McFarlane is one of those, doing three of the main characters on 'Family Guy' as well as many recurring characters. Joe Ranft, who did Heinlich the Caterpillar in 'A Bug's Life' and several other Pixar voices since then, was originally just recording some ideas for how he wanted the character he designed to sound but everyone thought he was perfect and should just do it. The same happened with 'Incredibles' director/writer Brad Bird on the Edna Mode character. Some people can shine in more than one area. That doesn't change the fact that when it came to filling out the rest of the cast they didn't go interviewing guys in the animation department. They went looking for pros

Get a grip. We're obviously not talking about evey possible game. We're talking about games with significant speaking roles on current and future systems well capable of using voice in a way that enhances games by giving greater depth to characters. If you're doing an RPG the use of good voice work can make a huge difference in establishing the persona but bad voice work drags down the whole experience by jarring the player out of the setting. So, if you want something done right, you hire professionals. Funny thing, pros tend to form organizations to establish standards of practive and protect their interests. This also serves to protect the clients as the members are bound by those standards, too.

I read tons of fiction. Thousands of pages a month but that doesn't mean I want text in every instance. Many types of presentation are much better with professionals performing the material and bringing a substance to the character in tune with the creator's intent. This is especially true when the medium is highly visual depictions of people and good voice becomes conspicuous by its absence. Not everyone liked the FF X voice cast but it played a role in making that game a hit instead of just another somewhat prettier FF. It marked a change in the series that brought attention from people who took interest in those more fully fleshed characters.

[quote name='epobirs']No, it is a perfect example. Where would Warner Bros. have been without Mel Blanc? The Simpsons with Joe Blow on voice work? Spongebob without Tom Kenny? Rocko and the Taco Bell dog without Carlos Alazraqui? Making those characters go from drawing to a semblence of life took a major contribution from a voice artist working with the creator.

In some rare instances the creator can play both role. Seth McFarlane is one of those, doing three of the main characters on 'Family Guy' as well as many recurring characters. Joe Ranft, who did Heinlich the Caterpillar in 'A Bug's Life' and several other Pixar voices since then, was originally just recording some ideas for how he wanted the character he designed to sound but everyone thought he was perfect and should just do it. The same happened with 'Incredibles' director/writer Brad Bird on the Edna Mode character. Some people can shine in more than one area. That doesn't change the fact that when it came to filling out the rest of the cast they didn't go interviewing guys in the animation department. They went looking for pros

Get a grip. We're obviously not talking about evey possible game. We're talking about games with significant speaking roles on current and future systems well capable of using voice in a way that enhances games by giving greater depth to characters. If you're doing an RPG the use of good voice work can make a huge difference in establishing the persona but bad voice work drags down the whole experience by jarring the player out of the setting. So, if you want something done right, you hire professionals. Funny thing, pros tend to form organizations to establish standards of practive and protect their interests. This also serves to protect the clients as the members are bound by those standards, too.

I read tons of fiction. Thousands of pages a month but that doesn't mean I want text in every instance. Many types of presentation are much better with professionals performing the material and bringing a substance to the character in tune with the creator's intent. This is especially true when the medium is highly visual depictions of people and good voice becomes conspicuous by its absence. Not everyone liked the FF X voice cast but it played a role in making that game a hit instead of just another somewhat prettier FF. It marked a change in the series that brought attention from people who took interest in those more fully fleshed characters.[/QUOTE]

Whatever.

The gaming industry has never and will never NEED voice actors, therefore they have no leverage. The most important part of any game is the gameplay... no one can argue with that. When you are physically manipulating the controller and PLAYING the damn game, 99% of the time your character isn't saying a ing thing. You are staring at his ass and shooting at shit, or jumping through hoops, or summoning some dark unicorn to obliterate the universe, all the while the your in-game avatar is damn near silent. Precisely when your character really does open his mouth and deliver some well spoken voice acting, is precisely the same moment you stop PLAYING the game, and you start WATCHING it. People buy games to PLAY them not to WATCH them. So as daphatty so eloquently stated a few posts ago in reference to voice actors... " em"

You're wrong. Accept it and move on.

[quote name='Professor Oreo']Whatever.

The gaming industry has never and will never NEED voice actors, therefore they have no leverage. The most important part of any game is the gameplay... no one can argue with that. When you are physically manipulating the controller and PLAYING the damn game, 99% of the time your character isn't saying a ing thing. You are staring at his ass and shooting at shit, or jumping through hoops, or summoning some dark unicorn to obliterate the universe, all the while the your in-game avatar is damn near silent. Precisely when your character really does open his mouth and deliver some well spoken voice acting, is precisely the same moment you stop PLAYING the game, and you start WATCHING it. People buy games to PLAY them not to WATCH them. So as daphatty so eloquently stated a few posts ago in reference to voice actors... " em"

You're wrong. Accept it and move on.[/QUOTE]

thats your opinion. I know that me wanting to play Metal Gear Solid has a lot to do with the voice work and the presentations through cut scenes. Same thing with games like Max Payne and Shenmue (many people prefer Shenmue II with the Japanese voice actors, but I like the English version because I like to hear the dialogue I can understand). For many games the voice work may not matter but as consoles continue to evolve, voice work becomes more important because the games are becoming more cinematic in approach. I don't want to have to read any of these types of games because it ruins the atmosphere, and by the time I get done reading all the text, the game will have taken twice as long

and were talking about 1 percent in an industry that outsold the box office draws of movies. These unions know that video games are beginning to and going to eat into their box office draws and they want a deal where their members are able to maximize their return as far as their work.

Also it is video game makers own fault for putting themselves in this position because they have no united board to fight for their causes industry wide. They are going to crack as they are the ones that hold no leverage as they got themselves in a great position. A lot of these people have money, and when you have money, you can wait it out. Games like the Godfather and Scarface are going to sit there and get published with horrible voice actors that ruin the game completely or the game is going to get shelved at a huge cost to the developer. Same thing with a lot of licensed games that feature a person prominently.

and no he is not wrong. You accept it and move on.

Only voice actor that I'd pay more to is the guy that does Kain's voice from blood omen. Other than that, they can go to hell. I've heard tons more garbage voice acting wise than good so far this generation. I like the text box anyways, except for cinematics. Hearing a characters voice sometimes ruins the feel of how I thought they should sound.

Most (video game)voice actors don't deserve to be paid at all, in my opinion. I agree that quality acting is worth paying for, but there are awful games that sell well and there are amazing games that sell poorly. Should actors who did poor work on the crappy game that sold well get more than the actors who did excellent work on the amazing game that didn't sell? I think that is very unfair.

I enjoy high quality voice acting very much, but only when the game itself is high quality. A horrible game with great VA isn't going to cut it. The best VA I've ever experienced is *still* Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem for gamecube. The voices were so good and the delivery was spot on, yet the game sold horribly.

Those actors most definitely deserved as much money as they could get, still not as much as artists, designers, writers or programmers, but they deserved great pay for their outstanding job. Unfortunately, the game didn't sell that well, so they wouldn't have gotten a residual anyway. I don't think it is fair for actors to demand larger cuts when they do so little work compared to the other aspects of a game. I don't think hollywood actors deserve the kind of cash they pull in either, but talent should be paid for; that is not in question. However, until the day that talent equals success, voice actors should not expect residuals, as it wouldn't be fair to superior actors that were a part of a game that didn't sell.

Just my 2 cents on the matter.

[quote name='Professor Oreo']Whatever.

The gaming industry has never and will never NEED voice actors, therefore they have no leverage. The most important part of any game is the gameplay... no one can argue with that. When you are physically manipulating the controller and PLAYING the damn game, 99% of the time your character isn't saying a ing thing. You are staring at his ass and shooting at shit, or jumping through hoops, or summoning some dark unicorn to obliterate the universe, all the while the your in-game avatar is damn near silent. Precisely when your character really does open his mouth and deliver some well spoken voice acting, is precisely the same moment you stop PLAYING the game, and you start WATCHING it. People buy games to PLAY them not to WATCH them. So as daphatty so eloquently stated a few posts ago in reference to voice actors... " em"[/QUOTE]

Well, said.

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.

voice acting and the shallow gamers who need it.

[quote name='Scrubking']Well, said.

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.

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

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. Imagine the changes in missions that would have to be made to compensate for this.

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. Some of us like games with an objective.

Okay, pay the good voice actors, but the ones that suck, like the cast of the original Resident Evil, that soundl like a bad movie, should be executed. Live by the acting, die by the acting.

[quote name='CaseyRyback']thats your opinion. I know that me wanting to play Metal Gear Solid has a lot to do with the voice work and the presentations through cut scenes. Same thing with games like Max Payne and Shenmue (many people prefer Shenmue II with the Japanese voice actors, but I like the English version because I like to hear the dialogue I can understand). For many games the voice work may not matter but as consoles continue to evolve, voice work becomes more important because the games are becoming more cinematic in approach. I don't want to have to read any of these types of games because it ruins the atmosphere, and by the time I get done reading all the text, the game will have taken twice as long

and were talking about 1 percent in an industry that outsold the box office draws of movies. These unions know that video games are beginning to and going to eat into their box office draws and they want a deal where their members are able to maximize their return as far as their work.

Also it is video game makers own fault for putting themselves in this position because they have no united board to fight for their causes industry wide. They are going to crack as they are the ones that hold no leverage as they got themselves in a great position. A lot of these people have money, and when you have money, you can wait it out. Games like the Godfather and Scarface are going to sit there and get published with horrible voice actors that ruin the game completely or the game is going to get shelved at a huge cost to the developer. Same thing with a lot of licensed games that feature a person prominently.

and no he is not wrong. You accept it and move on.[/QUOTE]

If you want to put your controller down and listen to 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...