Post by: WindyMan on June 22, 2005, 07:14:41 AM
Eariler this month, the two unions and game publishers reached an agreement on increasing payments to voice actors featured in videogames. It was a reluctant agreement, however, since Hollywood was looking for the game industry to offer residual payments to actors who star in top-selling games.
It appears that one of the two unions have changed their mind on the matter and rejected the official contract. The Screen Actors' Guild believed the deal was "inadequate," even though the 1,900 voice actors who would have been included in the SAG part of the contract were in favor of the proposed increase.
For a current four-hour recording session, an actor would recieve at least $556 to lend his voice to a game. This figure will go up to $695 for AFTRA members starting on July 1, and will eventually reach $759 when the contract expires in 2008.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 22, 2005, 08:11:47 AM
Post by: vudu on June 22, 2005, 08:51:41 AM
QuoteDevelopers get paid the same whether a game sells 10 million copies or if it completely tanks. The publisher is the entity taking on all the risk, and therefore they're the ones who benefit when a game sells well.
Steven says: Something bothers me about a comment about publishers, quoted from the article:
...video game makers say that the actors play a small part in the success of the overall game-playing experience and that sharing profits would require them to do the same for game developers and others who contribute to a game's success.
If there are people who help to make a game successful, including the game's developer, why doesn't it make sense that they get a cut of the profit? Or do publishers think they should get all the money? That's what it sounds like to me.
The same thing happens for music concerts--bands usually demand upfront money for each show. Then they get paid the same amount whether 10,000 people or 100,000 people buy tickets. The concert promoter pays the upfront cash,and they're the ones who make money when a show sells well and lose money when a show sells poorly.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 22, 2005, 09:10:41 AM
Thank Goodness Nintendo doesn't do too much voice work. I still enjoy reading my games stories...it makes me feel like I am part of a book or interactive adventure.
Post by: nickmitch on June 22, 2005, 09:18:26 AM
Post by: Bartman3010 on June 22, 2005, 09:38:15 AM
In my opinion, whether your butt is on stage or not you shouldnt get paid a whole lot just to lend out your voice. A few thousand is all people need. Its not like any of Hollywood's actors act the way they're paid.
Post by: WindyMan on June 22, 2005, 10:09:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
In response to Steven's post:
Developers get paid the same whether a game sells 10 million copies or if it completely tanks. The publisher is the entity taking on all the risk, and therefore they're the ones who benefit when a game sells well.
The same thing happens for music concerts--bands usually demand upfront money for each show. Then they get paid the same amount whether 10,000 people or 100,000 people buy tickets. The concert promoter pays the upfront cash,and they're the ones who make money when a show sells well and lose money when a show sells poorly.
This is why the game industry is broken. The developer is going to get paid the same no matter how good or bad a game they make. Therefore, there is no incentive for a developer to make a good into a great game, or make a crap movie license title into something passable.
Don't you think that if the developer would get more money after a game has proven to be a success, they would make a better game to ensure that it will be a success? Wouldn't it also be smarter to give some developers a little less money up front and have the quality of the final product determine how much more money they'll get in the long run?
Post by: KDR_11k on June 22, 2005, 10:24:06 AM
I mean, if this was implemented, guess how long Treasure would last? Or Silicon Knights?
Post by: Bill Aurion on June 22, 2005, 10:33:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Thank Goodness Nintendo doesn't do too much voice work. I still enjoy reading my games stories...it makes me feel like I am part of a book or interactive adventure.
*raises glass*
Post by: Ian Sane on June 22, 2005, 11:18:26 AM
There's one problem with this: a successful game and a GOOD game are not always the same thing. This kind of model would really hurt innovation and creativity. Devs would stick to sequels and familiar genres to avoid having a commercial flop. If the risk passed to the developer then developers wouldn't take risks. I think devs should get a cut of revenue but they shouldn't have to RELY on revenue. There needs to be a balance so that devs can still feed their families if a great game flops but can make some sweet money if they think of a goldmine idea.
Ideally I think publishers and developers need to establish better relationships. Publishers shouldn't be forcing unrealistic deadlines or forcing the game design to cater to what the marketing departments wants. At the same time developers should strive to create great games while not going way overbudget or taking too long. This can't really be enforced. It's something that a few pubs and devs have to start doing to set an example for the rest of the industry. There needs to be a solid partnership with a common goal to benefit everyone involved.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 22, 2005, 02:06:49 PM
~~~~~
I don't see how screens have anything to do with voice actors. Microphone Actors Guild needed, perhaps?
Post by: WindyMan on June 22, 2005, 04:17:30 PM
Quote
There's one problem with this: a successful game and a GOOD game are not always the same thing. This kind of model would really hurt innovation and creativity. Devs would stick to sequels and familiar genres to avoid having a commercial flop. If the risk passed to the developer then developers wouldn't take risks. I think devs should get a cut of revenue but they shouldn't have to RELY on revenue. There needs to be a balance so that devs can still feed their families if a great game flops but can make some sweet money if they think of a goldmine idea.
Ideally I think publishers and developers need to establish better relationships. Publishers shouldn't be forcing unrealistic deadlines or forcing the game design to cater to what the marketing departments wants. At the same time developers should strive to create great games while not going way overbudget or taking too long. This can't really be enforced. It's something that a few pubs and devs have to start doing to set an example for the rest of the industry. There needs to be a solid partnership with a common goal to benefit everyone involved.
While it's true a good game doesn't always mean success (BG&E comes to mind), more than likely a good game will be successful. Do a Game Rankings search for the top 200 PS2 games available right now (using the market leader for the best example), which is about every game that averages an 80% score or better. Just by glancing at it, I saw only 10-15 games that should have sold better. The rest sold enough to be a success, which is the vast majority. Considering the majority of games now are average or worse, having a system where people who make good games being rewarded makes sense to everyone tired of games that are average or worse.
I totally agree with you on the publisher-developer relationship, as I am familiar with it first-hand. (It's my day job.) One of the key points in the dev-pub relationship, however, is money. Don't you think it's strange that the publisher reaps all of the benefits of a developer's hard work, and all the developer gets in return is a flat fee?
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on June 22, 2005, 04:50:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
They still don't get it, eh? There are no residuals in the game development industry! If you want residuals you're free to decline any videogame gigs and only work with movie producers. Oh, wait there aren't many jobs offered by the movie industry to low end voice actors? Well, looks like you should be glad you have the videogame industry. Now stop demanding money they can't pay before they slash voice acting completely from their budget. Games are expensive enough as is, do you think demanding more money will result in more jobs?
Uh, actually, a significant majority of video game voice acting is not contract work. I think that was mentioned in an earlier story, at least on GameSpot. This melodrama really only APPLIES to high-end movie talent...the guys that already make lots off movies. I'd rather see the Publishers hold onto that money than hand it to actors who don't even need the money.
Post by: Spak-Spang on June 22, 2005, 07:09:24 PM
Post by: Dryden on June 22, 2005, 10:55:44 PM
How do I know? I'm a voice actor.
Par example - ACTRA (Canadian) has agreements for recording sessions to be paid $228 for the first hour, and $63 every hour after. Meanwhile, a smaller union muscling in on the action represents a smaller group that's getting hosed for a mere $154 for the first hour, $38 every hour after. People who have no union affiliation - which the video game industry uses - are paid even less.
Think the current $556 / 4 hours is a good deal? Not if it's your career. Unless you're an actor in Xenosaga, forget supporting yourself. My biggest break was doing Ewan McGregor's voice in the newest batch of Star Wars games. But that only pays for my unemployed time.
Post by: D-Mac Double on June 23, 2005, 12:50:53 AM
Dryden, you've made me afraid to continue pursuing a voice acting career. I think I've wasted a year of my life. ;_;
Heck, I've been told I can't even get into ACTRA yet, for some reason I don't even remember.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 23, 2005, 06:12:40 AM
WindyMan:
Don't you think it's strange that the publisher reaps all of the benefits of a developer's hard work, and all the developer gets in return is a flat fee?
Well, it's a no risk affair, they get the flat fee even if the game never sells a copy. They get the flat fee if the game sells millions. What they get is financial security, they know they will have enough money to go on even if their game flops. Usually the studio will turn in a profit and having a good track record will allow them to negoiate their contracts more aggressively. Though I'm pretty sure the studio itself gets a cut from the sales, just the employees don't.
Post by: vudu on June 23, 2005, 08:53:35 AM
QuoteLet's see, if you worked 40 hours a week, you'd be getting $289,120 per year. Yeah, I think that's pretty good. Oh wait, what's that you say? You don't work 40 hours a week? Then do you really expect to get any sympathy from the majority of the public?
Think the current $556 / 4 hours is a good deal? Not if it's your career. Unless you're an actor in Xenosaga, forget supporting yourself. My biggest break was doing Ewan McGregor's voice in the newest batch of Star Wars games. But that only pays for my unemployed time.
Post by: KirbySStar on June 23, 2005, 10:40:30 AM
Quote
Let's see, if you worked 40 hours a week, you'd be getting $289,120 per year. Yeah, I think that's pretty good. Oh wait, what's that you say? You don't work 40 hours a week? Then do you really expect to get any sympathy from the majority of the public?
You asshat. Do you know how hard it is to land a voice acting job? You are constantly going around selling your voice. Imagine that steady office job but now take the same work and have it so you have to keep applying for the same job at different places every couple of weeks. Then maybe you'd understand.
Post by: vudu on June 23, 2005, 12:26:22 PM
$556 for 4 hours worth of "work"? I know doctors who don't make that much money. I know college graduates who don't make a quarter of that. (Hell, I'm one of them.) If you can't make a living doing it, get a second job.
QuoteAgain, not to be an asshat, but Someone Is Projecting
Do you know how hard it is to land a voice acting job? You are constantly going around selling your voice. Imagine that steady office job but now take the same work and have it so you have to keep applying for the same job at different places every couple of weeks. Then maybe you'd understand.
Post by: KirbySStar on June 23, 2005, 03:18:55 PM
And how can you say it's not hard? Have you done it before? Do you even know what goes on during professional voice acting sessions? You think studio availability and scheduling for other voice actors might affect the number of work hours? I heard somewhere that ignorance puts bread on the table. Can you sign me up, boss?
Post by: KDR_11k on June 23, 2005, 11:35:20 PM
Seriously, hard or not, you're not defusing bombs, working in a war zone or otherwise risking your life. That's what deserves a LOT of money.
There are MANY jobs that require no qualification you can take instead, nobody forces you to work exclusively as a voice actor. If VA doesn't pay the bills learn to flip burgers. Better payment, better treatment, better job stability. Low job security and payment is what you get for taking a highly competitive job like that.
Post by: vudu on June 24, 2005, 08:46:38 AM
I think we're just going to have to learn to disagree. Personally, I don't think voice acting is worth much more than $25 an hour. Hey, if someone asked me to do a voiceover for a video game, I'd jump at the chance to earn an extra hundred bucks.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 24, 2005, 11:38:49 AM
.
