Actors weigh strike over video game voices

[Kejoriv]

From Boston.com:

LOS ANGELES -- A button worn by picketing actors at last week's E3 video games trade show suggested they might pull the plug if they don't get a bigger share of the industry's huge profits. It read "Game Over."

ADVERTISEMENT

About 2,000 union actors give voice to characters such as Obi Wan Kenobi in the latest "Star Wars" game. One actor can provide the voice of several characters during a single recording session.

Talks between game publishers and the two main actors' unions broke earlier this month. Actors will decide over the next two weeks if the impasse is critical enough to call a strike.

Voice actors have worked under a contract with game publishers since 1993. But now that video games generate nearly as much revenue as domestic movie ticket sales, actors say they want a piece of every game sold rather than one-time up front fees.

"To deny working-class performers their fair share of the tremendous profits their labor helps to generate is illogical, unreasonable and unjust," John Connolly, president of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists said recently. "It is simply shortsighted to believe that consumers don't care about the artistic quality of the characters."

That's a risk game companies seem willing to take, especially in light of divisions among actors, some of whom feel a strike would lead to the complete loss of union protection on video game jobs.

"The union's demand for an equity stake, or residual structure, is unreasonable and not fair to the hundreds of people who often spend years developing a game," Howard Fabrick, an attorney representing publishers in the talks, said in a statement. "Voiceover work represents a small fraction of a video game's development and consumer enjoyment."

No more than 15 percent of all games are produced under union contract, the unions say. But that includes nine of the 10 top-sellers last year.

In some cases, celebrity voices and likeness are key to selling a game. Electronic Arts Inc. recently signed a deal with actors James Caan and Robert Duvall to reprise their roles in the game version of the Oscar-winning film "The Godfather."

But in most cases, anonymous actors lend their voices to game characters. And while professional voices lend reality to games, analysts say the voices are not the key to a game's ultimate success.

"They have no leverage," Yankee Group analyst Mike Goodman said of the voice actors.

"In 99 percent of all games, the voice actors are irrelevant," Goodman said. "You replace one voice actor with another nonunion actor and no one will know the difference."

The two actors' unions have sent ballots to their members working in video games asking for a strike authorization. The results are due in two weeks. If actors fail to support a strike by a significant margin, union officials will consider accepting the latest proposal from publishers or restarting talks.

Actors say the residual model is standard practice for TV shows and commercials as well as home video sales. They also say they have been flexible in talks, backing off an earlier demand for straight residuals and instead proposing that producers pay actors an additional session fee after the game sells 400,000 copies.

Fees would also be paid for every 100,000 copies sold after that.

Producers have countered with an offer of a 34.8 percent wage hike over three years, bringing the one-hour rate for union actors to $375 from $278.

Publishers have also proposed raising overtime payments, limiting the number of voices that actors would be required to perform and agreeing to pay extra when a publisher uses a voice recording in another game.


Heres the link: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/05/25/actors_weigh_strike_over_video_game_voices/

[Avatard]

People play milled out movie based gamess? Well I'll be.....

[Kejoriv]

People play milled out movie based gamess? Well I'll be.....

LOL If you can believe it.

[s1lence]

Oh know, rich people bitching because they arent getting more money. Oh the humanity, screw them. I'll do the voiceovers if they won't.

[zmweasel]

Oh know, rich people bitching because they arent getting more money. Oh the humanity, screw them. I'll do the voiceovers if they won't.

Most unionized voice actors are hardly "rich." The hourly fees are high, but the sessions themselves are usually quite short.

And as the article pointed out, nine out of last year's ten best-sellers used union VAs. Tie-ins are vital to the game biz.

Basically, this is yet another increased game-production cost that publishers and developers will pass along to consumers via $60-70 MSRPs.

-- Z.

[goatdan]

If I were the game industry, I would simply say that we will from now on be using non-unionized voice actors. Most of the voice acting in games is not exactly top notch, and substituting a programmer's voice for an actor's voice wouldn't make much of a difference.

If you're working on a licensed game, that's different... but that isn't the type of actors we're talking about anyway.

[Xexyz]

Just a bunch of jibberish to me. I hate voice acting. It does stink for the unknown voice actors who arent filthy rich movie stars, but who do you think started this whole proposed strike? Probably the rich guys...

[zmweasel]

If I were the game industry, I would simply say that we will from now on be using non-unionized voice actors. Most of the voice acting in games is not exactly top notch, and substituting a programmer's voice for an actor's voice wouldn't make much of a difference.

If you're working on a licensed game, that's different... but that isn't the type of actors we're talking about anyway.

Voice acting is better than ever, I'd argue, in large part because professionals are now involved. Point me to a recent American-developed game that had outright shitty VA.

Using a programmer or a tester instead of a real actor makes a HUGE, HUGE difference. Did you ever play Shining Force III for the Saturn? The amateur "acting" was abysmal, and ruined the game.

Videogames have long since reached the point where amateur VA is no longer acceptable. You have to come up with a workaround (Simlish), or drop VA entirely (SMT: Nocturne), or use pros.

-- Z.

[Neil Koch]

So do people like programmers get bonuses if a game sells over x units?

[GarrettCRW]

Given my (granted, layman's) familiarity with animation and voice-acting, I have no doubts that AFTRA (the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) and SAG (the Screen Actors Guild) are looking out for their members. Seriously-even voice acting "superstars" like Frank Welker, June Foray, and Michael Bell aren't filthy rich by Hollywood standards.

Most voice actors are day-to-day laborers who tax their vocal chords heavily, especially if they're doing multiple 4-hour recording sessions each day (which is usually the case for a steadily-employed VA). Expecting a performer to take a woefully small one-time payment on a game that may well rake in millions just ain't right, especially if the voice actor in question recorded in excess of 3 voices for the game, with at least one painful "voice breaker" (a character that is literally painful for the actor to play for extended periods of time because it's a strain on their vocal chords) in the mix.

The video game industry shouldn't even be trying to force this issue. Sign a contract, guys. And make sure that the voice-over artists are well-paid, because some of us do know the difference.

[goatdan]

Voice acting is better than ever, I'd argue, in large part because professionals are now involved. Point me to a recent American-developed game that had outright shitty VA.

Using a programmer or a tester instead of a real actor makes a HUGE, HUGE difference. Did you ever play Shining Force III for the Saturn? The amateur "acting" was abysmal, and ruined the game.

Videogames have long since reached the point where amateur VA is no longer acceptable. You have to come up with a workaround (Simlish), or drop VA entirely (SMT: Nocturne), or use pros.

I do think that voice acting is better than ever, but I also think that it just goes along with everything else that got better through time. I don't necessarily think that using more amatuer people would hurt most games.

Then again, I should really sit down and play through the games I have before stating anything else and thinking about it. When I was just trying to come up with an example in my head of games from today that rely almost nothing on voice acting, I couldn't come up with much of anything...

[JJNova]

I agree.

I make Condensor Coils that go inside of your Air Conditioners, and I feel that since it causes undo strain on my wrist and elbow, plus the near gauranteed acquirement of Carpal Tunnel, I feel that I should receive a percentage from the huge profits that manufacturing industry is pulling in each year.

Bitch please.

I'm not saying that voice actors aren't being screwed, because personally, I'm sure it greatly depends on the publisher on what a VA gets as income. Still, wanting a percentage is ridiculous. Especially considering I don't purchase a video game based on who is doing the voice acting. Even if I did, you still shouldn't recieve a percentage. The Voice Actor is providing a service to the employer. Shoot, the guy that puts each disc in the jewel case should get a percentage, becasue at least he is involved with each game that's sold.

[Avatard]

Voice acting is better than ever, I'd argue, in large part because professionals are now involved. Point me to a recent American-developed game that had outright shitty VA.

The Madden series, but thats for other reasons. More because he's extremly annoying than a bad voice actor. LOL

[Milk]

So do people like programmers get bonuses if a game sells over x units?

Ha! Yeah, games aren't movies quite yet. Programming matters more than having decent actors in the credits. They're just icing on the cake.


"The union's demand for an equity stake, or residual structure, is unreasonable and not fair to the hundreds of people who often spend years developing a game," Howard Fabrick, an attorney representing publishers in the talks, said in a statement. "Voiceover work represents a small fraction of a video game's development and consumer enjoyment."

No kidding. Just look at Resident Evil.

[tylerwillis]

I'm going to side for the VAs. In the extended story RPGs that I tend to play - a good VA can make/break the game.

Extremely well (ie, professional VA) done RPGs add the inclusive element of voice to the overall experience. I probably would have loved FFX, X-2, and Disgaea even if they weren't VAed, but some of my top memories from those games do include the voices of the characters - they are an integral part of the game and experience.

On the same hand, poorly done VA can make even a good game seem horribly horribly wrong - especially if there's no option to kill the voices... I think House of the Dead 2 for the DC... I laughed the first time... now, I just wince and hardly ever play the game because I don't like to listen to horrible VA.

US VA aren't like their Japanese counterparts - most of them are not rich/famous and have little hope of ever being such. As an anime fan, I personally think that VA (in all modes) should receive more recognition - these aren't random people pulled off the street who just talk into a microphone. Many of them have taken years of vocal training and theatre performances to perfect their art.

I guess the ultimate question is this - will games sell less if VA on the whole becomes less quality-driven? Some games, it probably doesn't matter - VA is just a side not. But for other games (particularly character driven), VA is an integral part of the game. I think if game companies want to produce AAA quality titles, then they might have bend to get the professional talent of VA - just as they have to get the professional talent of programmers, producers, etc.

[Nature Boy]

Videogames have long since reached the point where amateur VA is no longer acceptable. You have to come up with a workaround (Simlish), or drop VA entirely (SMT: Nocturne), or use pros.

I dunno. Seems to me that pro VA might get you a certain increase in sales (say y%, the number doesn't matter for my line of thinking). If they have to pay z% (a really, really tiny number I'd assume) towards the VA people, at some point that will exceed the $x that they'd pay as a flat rate today. Right? And if so, unless I'm mistaken, that means their overall profit goes down. So if you just use an amateur or whatever, you might have fewer sales overall, but make more profit because of your flat rate. Make sense?

I sorta wonder if something like this would also just force publishers away from creating the types of games that required VA.

[bargora]

This issue makes me wonder: When EA puts out a game and hypes the eXXXtrEEmE sountrack WITH TUNES FROM!!1! Offspring and Linkin Park and Smegma Hose, do those bands get paid a flat fee, a percentage, or both?

Just curious.

[Promophile]

If I'm playing a Japaneese game I would MUCH rather have the original JP Voiceacting. Hell in Japan they have schools just for voiceacting. I can't count the number of games that used english dubs where the games were pretty much ruined.

[Dahne]

You STEAL men's SOULS and make them your SLAAAVES!

[Promophile]

What is a man? A miserable pile of secrets!

[Neil Koch]

This issue makes me wonder: When EA puts out a game and hypes the eXXXtrEEmE sountrack WITH TUNES FROM!!1! Offspring and Linkin Park and Smegma Hose, do those bands get paid a flat fee, a percentage, or both?

I think it's just a flat fee -- I read some article about EA Sports and they said that record companies treat getting on their games (especially Madden) as excellet publicity for their acts and basically hand over the rights to use the songs for next to nothing.

I'm not sure at all how games like GTA work, where you're dealing with lesser-known artists and the fact that soundtracks are put out.

[Ed Oscuro]

Bad acting can ruin a game. I can think of a number of great games that would've been brought down a few notches with lame voice acting.

Some situations will call for low-budget acting, but it's not in the blockbuster hits you'll find on store shelves. Games offer an interesting opportunity for many actors/actresses (is it still PC to say actress?) to get jobs on the merit of their voice talents, even if their stage performance is deemed lacking.

[Yago]

Well, sorry to say this but I always thought the voice actors in the original Resident Evil on the PS1 were terrible. Hell, I wish I could complain about how much I get paid and go on strike to get more money! I am sure 100% of use that work full time wish they could do the same. In most cases we would get canned the second we brought it up. The same should go for these people. I would hold open audtitions and hire the best person. There are thousands of up and comming actors who would love the opportunity for a chance to do voice acting for a game, and not even question how much they get paid. These people are just high om themselves. They think they can't be replaced, but they can.

[Promophile]

There are thousands of up and comming actors who would love the opportunity for a chance to do voice acting for a game, and not even question how much they get paid

Yea and we call those horrible VAs. Just look at lots of the PSX games with voiceacting, you can tell they didn't get the cream of the crop. With voiceacting you get what you pay for. Yes believe it or not voiceacting actually requires talent and skill.

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, sorry to say this but I always thought the voice actors in the original Resident Evil on the PS1 were terrible. Hell, I wish I could complain about how much I get paid and go on strike to get more money!
Sure, but what sort of job do you have? Do you bring something irreplacable to your job, like a unique voice (and that does work both ways, you know)?

[zmweasel]

Well, sorry to say this but I always thought the voice actors in the original Resident Evil on the PS1 were terrible.

They were indeed terrible, but those recording sessions were done in Japan, and handled by writers and directors whose grasp of English was tenuous. They were also recorded nearly ten years ago, when voice acting was still a relative novelty. An awful lot has changed since then.

-- Z.

[Push Upstairs]

To be perfectly honest...i buy a game based upon if its good, not because so and so is doing the voice over.

[pragmatic insanester]

Siren's voice acting almost ruined the game. "SPOT OF TEA FOR YA, MY ZOMBIE-ESQUE LAD!?". the only people i give a damn about in the game industry, voice-wise, are lance henriksen and the dude who did the american mugetsu from the bouncer.

[Ed Oscuro]

To be perfectly honest...i buy a game based upon if its good, not because so and so is doing the voice over.
The US voice acting (not to mention the overall crummy storyline) in Silent Bomber is something that detracts from the enjoyment I have of the game (in spots). I'll pimp the game, but I also have to mention that blasted voice work. I'd rather not be as interested in killing the actors as I am in the game :p

[Push Upstairs]

And to think there was video games before voice acting. :roll:

[tylerwillis]

And to think there was video games before voice acting. :roll:

This is true, but there were also video games before 3D, before multi-button controllers, before millions of screen colors, etc. You have a point, and I don't mean to be sarcastic - I mean to say that VA in video games has become a norm (just like the other things I mentioned), especially for story-oriented games. I sincerely doubt that games will suddenly revert back to the days of 2600 graphics and sound (I'm not knocking the old school games, just noting that it's an era that probably won't suddenly come back).
Except for a few notable exceptions, VA will most likely be with video games for the future. Given that inevitability, I would much prefer to have professional VA in a game rather than reaching for the mute button everytime there's a dialogue scene.

[SoulBlazer]

While VA is'nt a make or break issue, it's a HUGE help for games and can help sell it. MOST games have good voice acting these days and you notice when a game DOES NOT cause you're spoiled to it.

I still recall being blown away by the acting and voices in Command and Conquer ten years ago, my first CD game for the PC. Except for a few clips here and there, that was the first game I had with full voices during it and I knew there was no turning back.

Now, about the VA Union....sure, I understand them wanting more money, as a lot of these people are small bit actors and need it, but strike a deal somewhere with them. Otherwise I'm sure we can go out and find some more.

Zach, maybe you can tell us about what you saw/heard during your days at WD on this matter. LOL

[Ed Oscuro]

And to think there was video games before voice acting. :roll:
Once upon a time people told stories around campfires, and didn't have little pixelated people to push around with joysticks!

That would just lead into a general rant about how games have become different. I'm not even sure I can say that they have, though, since story-based stuff has always been around (just look at the CPs for old arcade games, or read the boxes for Atari 2600 games), and we can just stuff more in the program now than we used to be able...in any case, doers of heroic deeds need a decent bard to sing their tale.

[JJNova]

They still don't deserve a percentage though. No one is saying that they don't deserve to be paid. No one is saying that they are (or are not) underpaid. I believe the argument was based upon the Union wanting the actors to receive a percentage of each copy sold.

[Oobgarm]

I think it should be on a per-person basis. If the VA is content with an upfront sum, that's their perogative. If the person wants a percentage cut, then the game company can decide which route they want to go. I'm sure that large-scale releases can afford that kind of stuff, but small releases like Atlus RPGs can't.

One way or the other, something's gonna break. VA has become too common in games just to cut out completely. Remember, it makes average John Q. Gamer happy to hear his game talking to him.

[zmweasel]

Zach, maybe you can tell us about what you saw/heard during your days at WD on this matter. LOL

I can't talk about stuff that happened during my WD stint--Victor's acolytes invariably report to him when I post anything WD-related--but it was noted in the liner notes of Growlanser Generations that Victor had to farm out VA work for the first time, which indicates the extent to which VA is a part of modern gaming.

-- Z.

[Push Upstairs]

Voice actors don't really deserve a % of the games overall profits.

If anything, the makers of the game deserve this more than whatever celeb lends thier voice.

You can have a game without a voice over, you cannot have a game without a graphic artist or programmer.

[Promophile]

Siren's voice acting almost ruined the game. "SPOT OF TEA FOR YA, MY ZOMBIE-ESQUE LAD!?". the only people i give a damn about in the game industry, voice-wise, are lance henriksen and the dude who did the american mugetsu from the bouncer.

I would say that the voice acting in Siren was the main reason it wasn't a hit. I found everything else in the game ot be totally awesome. Sony execs must have had the same opinions of voiceacting that lots of the people here have, and look what happened, a great game was ruined.

"Prowwwwwwwwfessssaaaaaa, I'm Scaaaaaaaaaaaed

[zmweasel]

Voice actors don't really deserve a % of the games overall profits.

If anything, the makers of the game deserve this more than whatever celeb lends thier voice.

You can have a game without a voice over, you cannot have a game without a graphic artist or programmer.

Of course you can have a video game without VAs, but they're practically required for any modern title with storytelling elements. A "gibberish" substitute works for cutesy E-rated stuff -- Animal Crossing, The Sims, Sid Meier's Pirates!, Katamari Damacy -- but nothing T-rated, and certainly nothing M-rated.

As for tie-ins, I think Blitz Games' Chicken Run and The Mummy Returns were VA-less, but I can't come up with any other recent examples.

-- Z.

[calthaer]

This is true, but there were also video games before 3D, before multi-button controllers, before millions of screen colors, etc.

Who says that games got better with any or all of those things in place? A notable thing that has occurred with 3D, a bajillion controller buttons, etc. has been a marked decrease in accessibility for games to the average John Q. Old Atari commercials showed the family (including gramps) getting into gaming. Why not today? VA, along with any of the aforementioned characteristics, doesn't make or break a good game. Much Final Fantasy dialogue is still text-only. Sure, sometimes it can add something, but it's by no means a necessity.

Just get talented nobodies and forget the money-grubbing divas. I agree that they have no leverage.

[tylerwillis]

This is true, but there were also video games before 3D, before multi-button controllers, before millions of screen colors, etc.

Who says that games got better with any or all of those things in place? A notable thing that has occurred with 3D, a bajillion controller buttons, etc. has been a marked decrease in accessibility for games to the average John Q. Old Atari commercials showed the family (including gramps) getting into gaming. Why not today? VA, along with any of the aforementioned characteristics, doesn't make or break a good game. Much Final Fantasy dialogue is still text-only. Sure, sometimes it can add something, but it's by no means a necessity.

Just get talented nobodies and forget the money-grubbing divas. I agree that they have no leverage.

My point was not to say that games have gotten better because of these differences... it was to point out that, for better or worse, gaming has evolved and we can't simply point back to the old days and say "make a game like that because it was good back then" and expect publishers to comply.

As far as the accessibility - which I don't think has anything to with VA - I can see your point to a degree, but I would ask: why does the vg industry keep increasing and gathering even larger revenues? If games have been made so complex so as to discourage the average consumer, then would the average consumer not cease to buy games?

I will agree that VA is not a necessity - some very good games have been published in recent years without VA (Skies of Arcadia and SMT: Nocturne come to mind), but these are few and far in between - more games are going to have VA than not, the technology has progressed to the point where that is a reality.

A couple of people have mentioned this being about celebs and divas - it's not. This union isn't going to represent the big names - it's not Madden or Pierce Brosnon or anyone like that. Those kind of people have their own leverage and often make an agreement with whatever movie the game is tied into anyway. With a few notable exceptions (Samuel L. Jackson in San Andreas, Nemoy in Seaman, etc) - games are not VA by celebs. Type most games that aren't movie-affiliated into IMDB and you'll get a list of VA that most people haven't heard of. If we got a list of people in this union, I'm fairly certain that most of us would have no idea who any of the people are - they're not divas. They don't make a whole lot of money. I once seriously looked into becoming a VA and did a whole lot of research on it. The fact is that most of them don't support themselves solely on VA income - most are also theatre actors or regard VA as merely a step to tv/movies, if they don't have some other "non-industry" job to keep themselves afloat.

Whether or not they deserve a slice of the whole pie is debateable, but they should get more recognition than they do now.

As for the hiring of talented nobodies - why in the world would anyone do VA work if they knew that they never had a shot at supporting themselves or making more money? If they knew they would simply be fired if they asked for a raise - it would eventually lead to nobody, talented or otherwise, seeking such a position. VA would be reduced to the bottom of the barrel.

[Push Upstairs]

I'm fine with VA getting more money. But to act like thier contribution to the game is somehow vital enough for them to earn a % of the profits, something i'm not even sure the actual makers of the game get, seems silly.

[Neil Koch]

I'm fine with VA getting more money. But to act like thier contribution to the game is somehow vital enough for them to earn a % of the profits, something i'm not even sure the actual makers of the game get, seems silly.

Yeah, if anyone should get percentages, it's the programmers who work 80 hour weeks, not some actor who comes in for a day or two. Quality VA does add to a game, but they're coming off like prima donnas.

[GarrettCRW]

Note to everyone bitching about VAs begging for a percentage: they aren't. The union is asking for residuals.

[LAGO]

The VA's are making $278 an hour work a couple hours a day for 5 days and you bring in $2,780 for the week. I think that pay is adequate.

[Aussie2B]

When they can produce voice acting that don't make me feel embarrassed to listen to, THEN maybe I'd be more sympathetic to their cause. I can't claim to play many American-developed games, but English dubbing for Japanese games is still woefully poor and I honestly don't think they deserve more for such lousy work. In fact, I don't know if I can honestly say they deserve what they're even getting at the moment. If I was in charge of voice acting, I'd kick a lot of these "actors" to the curb and not include voice acting at all unless I could find people who can produce voices of a higher quality. (And no, it's not a "Japanese > English" thing, considering I think a lot of Japanese actors are poor voice actors as well.)

Maybe it's just me, but I almost take a bit of offense from this situation. As a student working on a degree in programming, I'm bothered that some actors would think that they deserve an equal share of the profits as I would get. Their few hours/days of voice acting is NOT equal to my years of programming.

[tylerwillis]

The VA's are making $278 an hour work a couple hours a day for 5 days and you bring in $2,780 for the week. I think that pay is adequate.

edited... misread post. :embarrassed:

[JJNova]

Note to everyone bitching about VAs begging for a percentage: they aren't. The union is asking for residuals.


Voice actors have worked under a contract with game publishers since 1993. But now that video games generate nearly as much revenue as domestic movie ticket sales, actors say they want a piece of every game sold rather than one-time up front fees.




Residuals - A payment made to a performer, writer, or director for each repeat showing of a recorded television show or commercial. Often used in the plural.

If they wanted residuals, how do you pay on repeat showings of a video game? Sounds more like they are asking for a percentage of every game sold.

[Rogmeister]

Here is a link to a story about this. There will apparently be no strike as the actors have reluctantly agreed to a new contract...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=599&e=1&u=/nm/20050609/media_nm/actors_dc

[GarrettCRW]

Staving off the residuals will likely be only temporary, though, since the unions reached a majority of voting members, but not enough for the strike threshold. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with residuals after 400,000 copies sold, especially since I doubt that all of the games that hit that plateau had VOs (most of those that did likely employed recognizable actors, though).