Damask_Rose Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 I hope they can get this resolved quickly and amicably. As far as I am concerned the voice acting is the best part of this game http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a811847/video-game-voice-actor-union-strike/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno_Tarshil Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Since Steve Blum is apart of this, you know it's a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthDymond Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) The negotiations have been going on for the better part of two years - when KOTFE first came out I kind of wondered if the decision to make the "nostalgic" Alliance Alert conversations sans Player Character voices was some sort of shot across the bow in this whole drama. Silver lining from our point of view is that voice work for these usually gets done well in advance, so all the KotET dialogue is probably already recorded. Hope they get this resolved soon and the actors get a fair outcome. The fully-voiced nature of this game is one of my favorite parts of it (which is why the unvoiced conversations in KotFE was one of my biggest pet peeves since SWTOR launched) and definitely one the aspects that got me to drop my WoW sub to come over and has kept me subscribed for the past five years. Edited October 22, 2016 by DarthDymond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LyraineAlei Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 Since Steve Blum is apart of this, you know it's a big deal. Who will BW/EA get to voice 90% of the male NPCs out there?! Anyway, VA is an important part of video gaming these days and stuff, so I hope it does get worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrellma Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Eh. I can see both sides of this. I agree that the actors should get a better contract, since their contract was made in '94, and times have changed significantly since then. Nobody expected the gaming industry to become the behemoth that it has, especially not so quickly. However, I disagree with giving the Voice Actors residuals. Sure, some games are marketed based upon the quality of the voice acting, and some are even marketed based upon a specific voice actor, but the amount of work that they actually put into a game is pretty small. Until animators, coders, devs, and others who are actually involved with designing and building the game receive residuals, then I don't really think that the VA's have a leg to stand on. Of course, there's no union arguing on behalf of the devs, so they're likely to continue slaving away with little to no recognition outside of their office, and will continue to see no benefits from the product of their work being wildly successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthDymond Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 Eh. I can see both sides of this. I agree that the actors should get a better contract, since their contract was made in '94, and times have changed significantly since then. Nobody expected the gaming industry to become the behemoth that it has, especially not so quickly. However, I disagree with giving the Voice Actors residuals. Sure, some games are marketed based upon the quality of the voice acting, and some are even marketed based upon a specific voice actor, but the amount of work that they actually put into a game is pretty small. Until animators, coders, devs, and others who are actually involved with designing and building the game receive residuals, then I don't really think that the VA's have a leg to stand on. Of course, there's no union arguing on behalf of the devs, so they're likely to continue slaving away with little to no recognition outside of their office, and will continue to see no benefits from the product of their work being wildly successful. Thing is, residuals are pretty critical to voice acting work (and acting work in general). Actors can go for long stretches of time between gigs, and they rely on those residuals to have an income - that's how the industry as a whole works, it's just that video games in particular have up to now been able to avoid paying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerraShar Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 but the amount of work that they actually put into a game is pretty small. I disagree . Voices actors sometimes can be the reason why a game is good . They can carry a whole goddamn game on that voice alone . A good exemple , is Kotor 2 . The Lady who voiced Kreia pretty much breathed Life in the damn game , that the creators released half Butt done with cut content and such . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ornithopoda Posted October 23, 2016 Share Posted October 23, 2016 However, I disagree with giving the Voice Actors residuals. Sure, some games are marketed based upon the quality of the voice acting, and some are even marketed based upon a specific voice actor, but the amount of work that they actually put into a game is pretty small. Until animators, coders, devs, and others who are actually involved with designing and building the game receive residuals, then I don't really think that the VA's have a leg to stand on. Of course, there's no union arguing on behalf of the devs, so they're likely to continue slaving away with little to no recognition outside of their office, and will continue to see no benefits from the product of their work being wildly successful. The people that do the CGI effects in big budget movies don't get residuals for it, but the actors who star in them do. Why should a fully voice acted game be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_mike Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 The people that do the CGI effects in big budget movies don't get residuals for it, but the actors who star in them do. Why should a fully voice acted game be any different? The CGI folks are getting a regular wage for their work and the bigger houses are probably always busy. The actors are getting a one time payment set to scale. Jennifer Hale did an interview for NPR on the subject - http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/10/22/498954253/voice-actors-strike-against-video-game-companies Having said that, it must be nice getting $825 for only four hours of work. It is kind of concerning though as to what "lines" she's been asked to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolodome Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 The CGI folks are getting a regular wage for their work and the bigger houses are probably always busy. The actors are getting a one time payment set to scale. Jennifer Hale did an interview for NPR on the subject - http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/10/22/498954253/voice-actors-strike-against-video-game-companies Having said that, it must be nice getting $825 for only four hours of work. It is kind of concerning though as to what "lines" she's been asked to give. I can't speak for all contract jobs, but I'm reasonably certain that contract work usually averages out to higher hourly wages than your typical full-employment, simply because of things like benefits and insurance coverage. As in, contract tends to be higher because they aren't getting any of the benefits of full employment, so they have to make up the loss somewhere and the company has a little bit more to give out in cold hard cash because they aren't having to pay for those other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_mike Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 I can't speak for all contract jobs, but I'm reasonably certain that contract work usually averages out to higher hourly wages than your typical full-employment, simply because of things like benefits and insurance coverage Oh heck yes. My own consulting rate is $75-85/hour when out of network. I'm sure she's also paying union fees against that. Plus her manager's slice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightSaberAddiCt Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 (edited) Sorry, but I disagree with VA's getting risiduals. I mean that is like saying when a carpenter builds a house, whenever it sells he should get a percentage. It is up to them to maintain work by being in demand, from a good reputation. They are paid extremely well for the work, that most of the time they can do from home if they have even a decent studio. Not to mention, that union doesnt even represent 25% of the active voice actors. Edited October 24, 2016 by lightSaberAddiCt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveTheCynic Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Voices actors sometimes can be the reason why a game is good . They can carry a whole gosh darn game on that voice alone . Correct, but that doesn't mean they did a *lot* of work compared to, say, the programmers or the in-game asset artists, just that their work is very valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TX_Angel Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 The people that do the CGI effects in big budget movies don't get residuals for it, but the actors who star in them do. Why should a fully voice acted game be any different? Simple, because actors are visible and voice actors are not... It is also supply and demand, you can't make aTom Cruise movie without Tom Cruise, so he gets $30 million a movie plus 3% of the box office. There are way too many voice actors to have anything like that level of power. These voice actors can stay on strike forever, there are non-Union voice actors who will replace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthDymond Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Simple, because actors are visible and voice actors are not... It is also supply and demand, you can't make aTom Cruise movie without Tom Cruise, so he gets $30 million a movie plus 3% of the box office. There are way too many voice actors to have anything like that level of power. These voice actors can stay on strike forever, there are non-Union voice actors who will replace them. Except voice actors do already get residuals for most of their voice work. They're not trying to make the video game companies give them Tom Cruise-level deals, they're trying to make the video game companies give them the same type of deals they already get for the cartoon series / anime dub / animated movie work they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kajuratus Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Doesn't this strike only apply to games that started development after February 2015? So SWTOR should be safe in regards to getting old companions back, and having story content with the player characters VA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SerraShar Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Correct, but that doesn't mean they did a *lot* of work compared to, say, the programmers or the in-game asset artists, just that their work is very valuable. It's still work . And no one work should be compared by quantity but quality . Otherwise it become a *****torm . considering how much a game can bring in money , there should be no reason to be greedy . It be put on the shelf and bring in that monopoly money almost forever . Heck , it will outlive the voices actors . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 I can't speak for all contract jobs, but I'm reasonably certain that contract work usually averages out to higher hourly wages than your typical full-employment, simply because of things like benefits and insurance coverage. As in, contract tends to be higher because they aren't getting any of the benefits of full employment, so they have to make up the loss somewhere and the company has a little bit more to give out in cold hard cash because they aren't having to pay for those other things. Except you then have those jobs other people have that work just as little (or more) and don't get covered for not paying medical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeweledleah Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 The CGI folks are getting a regular wage for their work and the bigger houses are probably always busy. The actors are getting a one time payment set to scale. Jennifer Hale did an interview for NPR on the subject - http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/10/22/498954253/voice-actors-strike-against-video-game-companies Having said that, it must be nice getting $825 for only four hours of work. It is kind of concerning though as to what "lines" she's been asked to give. its not 4 hour of work and that's it >_> its weeks of going to auditions for free and then not being able to work for days afterwards because if you don't rest your voice, you may damage it permanently. ever wonder why Adele and a few other singers had to stop performing and get surgeries? not resting their voice. when you consider that voice actors have to audition. every day. continuously. and they don't get paid for going to auditions they only get paid for the time in a studio. that 825 could be your weekly pay. and that's one of the better possibility. it could also be your monthly pay. and since voice actors are independent contractors - you get no 401k, no medical, nothing though your jobs - you have to pay for all of the above 100% yourself. this is part of the reason some of the better known voice actors have such ridiculously long IMDB pages. aside from being good at what they do, they have to work THAT much just to make a living. not to get rich, to make a living. there are trade offs. voice actors can usually enjoy the kind of anonymity that non actors take for granted and on screen actors only dream about. you can actualy go about your daily life without being hounded by paparazzi. but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to make a living off their skills. it should give people a pause that they are no striking against ALL publishers, only select ones. its a problem with specific large publishers... who incidentally apparently get afford to pay screen actors MUCH larger rates for often inferior performances (and they rarely if ever do their own pain sounds), but cannot afford $3-4 thousand dollars in residuals per actor >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 its not 4 hour of work and that's it >_> its weeks of going to auditions for free and then not being able to work for days afterwards because if you don't rest your voice, you may damage it permanently. ever wonder why Adele and a few other singers had to stop performing and get surgeries? not resting their voice. when you consider that voice actors have to audition. every day. continuously. and they don't get paid for going to auditions they only get paid for the time in a studio. that 825 could be your weekly pay. and that's one of the better possibility. it could also be your monthly pay. and since voice actors are independent contractors - you get no 401k, no medical, nothing though your jobs - you have to pay for all of the above 100% yourself. this is part of the reason some of the better known voice actors have such ridiculously long IMDB pages. aside from being good at what they do, they have to work THAT much just to make a living. not to get rich, to make a living. there are trade offs. voice actors can usually enjoy the kind of anonymity that non actors take for granted and on screen actors only dream about. you can actualy go about your daily life without being hounded by paparazzi. but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to make a living off their skills. it should give people a pause that they are no striking against ALL publishers, only select ones. its a problem with specific large publishers... who incidentally apparently get afford to pay screen actors MUCH larger rates for often inferior performances (and they rarely if ever do their own pain sounds), but cannot afford $3-4 thousand dollars in residuals per actor >_> Because it's the large publishers with more money or possibly able to sell the 2million copies. Must be nice to work so little and make as much as the hard working Mickey D's worker and have the same 401k and health benefits. The health issues? They know those issues going into the business. It's as bad as the bartenders who complained about working in bars with smoking. They knew the bar was a smoking bar to begin with, apply to work there and then complain and get it shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthDymond Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 (edited) Must be nice to work so little and make as much as the hard working Mickey D's worker and have the same 401k and health benefits. As the person you quoted was pointing out, the pay is so high per-hour because they only get paid for the hours recording, but that's not the actual lion's share of the work they do. They don't get paid anything for the hours they worked to get to that point - auditioning, rehearsing, preparing and updating portfolios, etc. The amount they get paid for the recording time has to cover the hours and hour they worked but didn't get paid for. That's why the issue of residuals is such a sticking point, because weeks or months can go by between recording sessions where they are still working full weeks (auditioning, recording demos, rehearsing, etc) but not getting paid at all for that work - residuals coming in during those non-paid stretches are how they can make ends meet. Most voice actors are making a middle-class income by the time all is said and done, not living in mansions. Yeah, they're making more than a Micky D's worker, but they're also professionals in a skilled trade. Edited November 6, 2016 by DarthDymond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theeko Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Since Steve Blum is apart of this, you know it's a big deal. If Jennifer Hale is apart of it, good bye gaming voices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeweledleah Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 (edited) As the person you quoted was pointing out, the pay is so high per-hour because they only get paid for the hours recording, but that's not the actual lion's share of the work they do. They don't get paid anything for the hours they worked to get to that point - auditioning, rehearsing, preparing and updating portfolios, etc. The amount they get paid for the recording time has to cover the hours and hour they worked but didn't get paid for. That's why the issue of residuals is such a sticking point, because weeks or months can go by between recording sessions where they are still working full weeks (auditioning, recording demos, rehearsing, etc) but not getting paid at all for that work - residuals coming in during those non-paid stretches are how they can make ends meet. Most voice actors are making a middle-class income by the time all is said and done, not living in mansions. Yeah, they're making more than a Micky D's worker, but they're also professionals in a skilled trade. this this THIS. except most voice actors make part time income and have to have other jobs in order to help make ends meet. its something that I keep dealing with as a freelancer, when people only consider work that specific time spent directly on a specific project. forgetting all the hours that led up to finalizing design (do you think those back and forth e-mails with all the answers just instantly materialized?), the logistics of getting supplies, mailing the damn thing, dealing with paperwork, hell just sheer time and effort it took to get GOOD at something. and as for "they are going after bigger publishers" notice.. not every big publisher. only the ones notorious for poor working conditions and crap pay. If Jennifer Hale is apart of it, good bye gaming voices she is one of the primary representatives/negotiators. so - yep. Edited November 6, 2016 by Jeweledleah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theeko Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Wait this is only for EA not anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthDymond Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Wait this is only for EA not anything else? EA's one of 11 companies the strike is against: "As of 12:01 a.m. PT, Oct. 21, 2016, SAG-AFTRA is on strike against the following video game employers with regard to all games that went into production after Feb. 17, 2015: Activision Publishing, Inc. Blindlight, LLC Corps of Discovery Films Disney Character Voices, Inc. Electronic Arts Productions, Inc. Formosa Interactive, LLC Insomniac Games, Inc. Interactive Associates, Inc. Take 2 Interactive Software VoiceWorks Productions, Inc. WB Games, Inc." -link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts