Video Game Voice Actors voting on strike action over pay and conditions.
polycounter lvl 3
http://www.develop-online.net/news/video-game-voice-actors-threaten-strike-action/0211568
"The union for video game voice actors, SAG-AFTRA, is currently voting on strike action after reaching a deadlock in negotiations over a new pay deal with publishers."
FYI incase anyone doesn't understand:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/05/despite-video-games-success-voice-actors-reap-little-reward-from-medium/
Voice actors receive no guaranteed royalty/bonus' at present. I am in agreement with them in that they should and I hope they are successful in negotiating something.
However this could raise concern if they manage to negotiate a significantly better deal than game developers currently get (or even worse if the deal ends up with companies reducing game developers end take-home).
Whilst considering the potential for vocal strain and injury voice actors can suffer: I am certain that most of us have in the past or currently are working hours extra on end (unpaid) as part of the crunch culture, to the detriment of our own health and well-being. So I think we have to be honest (and rightly upset) if this impacts us instead of the companies profit margins.
To be honest, having heard through and continuing to hear of countless stories from developers regarding exploitative business hours and treatment (including some certainly illegal things regarding employee treatment and harassment) I've slowly become so jaded to our industry that I am looking to move out of it.
One of the main reasons I hear from employees telling me about their experiences and why they don't take action is that they "fear it will effect their future employment or nothing will be done and they will be punished for it".
This is the work ethic/culture we are introducing as 'expected or normal' to new-starters and quite often some of the more high-horse types tend to use the words 'deal with it, if you don't like it then quit' as some sort of rejection that this is a problem.
The point is by telling people this it perpetuates the systemic exploitation of developers and their lives in the future. you tell someone new that 'this is the way it is' and they will accept it, considering how difficult it is to get your foot in the door in the first place (which is another problem of some companies taking the attitude that they can just replace anyone with someone cheaper that doesn't complain, to an extent that is true but it just perpetuates the problem).
So back to the topic at hand (that's enough rambling);
I personally think we should support the voice actors, whilst also using this as a time to look at our own conditions and a platform for our own discussion on that, as well as if anyone thinks we should/could do anything about our own issues.
as a pre-emptive response, I reject any claim that because for us our job "is better than many others" we should let our health and well-being suffer as a result. Also just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I respect that there are many decent companies out there but quite frankly there are also many on the other-side of that coin.
My experiences could be the polar opposite to someone else, which is why any effort for change (if there was one) would have to be consistent with the current state of the industry. That said I have read many threads on this forum with people airing concerns and horror.
"The union for video game voice actors, SAG-AFTRA, is currently voting on strike action after reaching a deadlock in negotiations over a new pay deal with publishers."
FYI incase anyone doesn't understand:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/05/despite-video-games-success-voice-actors-reap-little-reward-from-medium/
Voice actors receive no guaranteed royalty/bonus' at present. I am in agreement with them in that they should and I hope they are successful in negotiating something.
However this could raise concern if they manage to negotiate a significantly better deal than game developers currently get (or even worse if the deal ends up with companies reducing game developers end take-home).
Whilst considering the potential for vocal strain and injury voice actors can suffer: I am certain that most of us have in the past or currently are working hours extra on end (unpaid) as part of the crunch culture, to the detriment of our own health and well-being. So I think we have to be honest (and rightly upset) if this impacts us instead of the companies profit margins.
To be honest, having heard through and continuing to hear of countless stories from developers regarding exploitative business hours and treatment (including some certainly illegal things regarding employee treatment and harassment) I've slowly become so jaded to our industry that I am looking to move out of it.
One of the main reasons I hear from employees telling me about their experiences and why they don't take action is that they "fear it will effect their future employment or nothing will be done and they will be punished for it".
This is the work ethic/culture we are introducing as 'expected or normal' to new-starters and quite often some of the more high-horse types tend to use the words 'deal with it, if you don't like it then quit' as some sort of rejection that this is a problem.
The point is by telling people this it perpetuates the systemic exploitation of developers and their lives in the future. you tell someone new that 'this is the way it is' and they will accept it, considering how difficult it is to get your foot in the door in the first place (which is another problem of some companies taking the attitude that they can just replace anyone with someone cheaper that doesn't complain, to an extent that is true but it just perpetuates the problem).
So back to the topic at hand (that's enough rambling);
I personally think we should support the voice actors, whilst also using this as a time to look at our own conditions and a platform for our own discussion on that, as well as if anyone thinks we should/could do anything about our own issues.
as a pre-emptive response, I reject any claim that because for us our job "is better than many others" we should let our health and well-being suffer as a result. Also just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I respect that there are many decent companies out there but quite frankly there are also many on the other-side of that coin.
My experiences could be the polar opposite to someone else, which is why any effort for change (if there was one) would have to be consistent with the current state of the industry. That said I have read many threads on this forum with people airing concerns and horror.
Replies
Games are not movies or TV. Acting is not central to games. It would be very interesting to see what happens if a strike is approved. I don't see game publishers caving on this, they don't need SAG-AFTRA.
Back to dialog text box!
Sure, or just using non SAG actors. The point is, there are options for games that didn't exist for TV and film. SAG does not have the games industry by the balls.
It will be interesting to see a strike. I am not sure what kind of leverage SAG has over game production to force their demands to be taken seriously. It will be interesting to see.
This.
I think the best outcome from their success would be allowing in-house developers to then receive larger bonuses, or bonuses at all, based on a comparison of labor toward the product.
I think the best outcome from their failure would be games with less dialog. /sickburn
Whoever was at the top from a leadership standpoint dropped the ball in terms of research and education of the group members.
Why can't I just pay you for your time and the rights to your voice? Why do I have to license it by the week, by the country the ad runs, but the number of spots, but the number of people watching, and so on! I was told it was impossible to get broadcast rights in perpetuity. However we could run it online as much as we wanted for a small fee.
That's what the unions made. Ridiculously confusing pricing structures that don't really even make that much sense.
I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more games like Vagrant Story.
Rather than arguing over who needs this more, I think people should be questioning why developers are not unionized as well.
Of course people are going to just walk all over you if you let them.
At my day job, people get fired just for talking about a union. And I technically get paid less than minimum wage because we have an hour-long unpaid mandatory "break" each day. Among other problems.
What leverage do game developers have over the means of production to have a get union taken seriously? Look at the history of the labor movement with a fresh pair of eyes, and ask yourself if you are willing to make the same type of sacrifices that were made over 100 years ago.
Companies can just use Hollywood Accounting to make sure the game always shows a loss and therefore, not have to pay out royalties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
Now if you all could just rally behind shady accounting practices, then that might be a cause to fight for.
And their union isn't going to amount to a hill of beans in the games industry, primarily because they haven't learned the differences between today's electronic entertainment industry and the industrial revolution. Getting a union to truly be recognized, not just on paper, but taken seriously as entity with real power, is no small feat.
Once again, if you are serious about unionization you need to study how unions got off the ground in the first place and ask yourself what are you willing to risk to force the employer to recognize your union.
Personally I don't think the games industry will ever get unions. As bad as the conditions are perceived to be, they are not bad enough to motivate people to put it all on the line and force change.
Yeah. Even for high profile actors doing characters in long running franchises the tendancy is to re-cast and go with sound-alikes rather than comply with their demands, even when it might seem justified. Don't think it will amount to much in the end.
No sympathy about royalties. Nobody really gets royalties in games.
It feels a bit (and I hate to use that word) entitled. After all, the people in the trenches get no royalties and often struggle to receive bonuses. I realize it is not a concern of theirs and as a union they ought to look out for themselves, but it strikes me as very tone-deaf.
Not just that, but this is coming on the heels of big-name Hollywood/TV actors coming into gaming and giving subpar performances. I'm sure there are plenty of little guys who would benefit from it (especially those who perform smaller roles), yet I can't help but feel that the ones who will benefit the most are people who are already being paid disproportionately more than everyone else.
Then again, who knows. Maybe if they win it will serve as an impulse for others to unionize. Though I doubt it.
In plainer english, that means if an actor decides not to audition for a game gig, the publishers want the power to ensure that that actor can no longer accept any acting role. Just because they don't like being told "no, a strenuous eight-hour VO session is not so much what I got into this business to do".
So it sounds like there's reasons beyond 'oh boo hoo hoo the spoiled actors want royalties for videogame work' that might be contributing to the decision to strike.
I suggest you read the proposed changes to the contract yourself, and not just take someones interpretation of it at face value. Such a situation as described in the SAG email is clearly illegal, unenforceable and wouldn't even come close to standing up in court. I am doubtful that the proposed modification to section 9.b.5 is anything more than a demand that the agents that represent the actors respect the contract.
SAG-AFTRA is negotiating with parties they have very little leverage over, they need the highest possible vote for a strike they can muster. So in order to motivate the union membership they are going to paint an extreme picture of the oppositions proposals. It is not unreasonable to assume that what happens with the interactive media contract could affect the contracts in other media.
Ah, I had not considered that, that makes sense.
Lastly, it's - just - games. The "secrets" are absurd. Sure, copyrighted material needs to be protected but we're not exactly thwarting terrorism.
The problem with unions is that you basically can't do anything without the unions approval once you're in one, and it actually makes it much more difficult for the employee and employer to do anything without going through tons of redtape. Unions were created during a time period when we had practically 0 labor laws, and all they do nowadays is cause more companies to run overseas.
It's not like voice actors don't have agents to negotiate for better terms with the company. Keep it individual.
"The group then cites the seven-digit figures that executives from Activision and EA earned last year as bonuses to contrast the lack thereof for performers." -from Polygon
Honestly, this whole thing sounds like it's only for the people who already get paid an enormous sum of money for voice over work to be comparing what they want to someone's pay that makes the decisions at a freaking global corporation. No shit a ceo/coo is going to get a 7-figure bonus, he/she's in charge of operating a multi-billion dollar company (EA is valued at $14.1 billion and Activision $18.9 billion after a quick google search) A voice actor is usually a freelancer so they can just jump ship to another project and not even worry about whether or not a game sells enough copies.
I guess that's why I'm not onboard with the whole royalities for voice actor strike, it seems to be only for voice actors that already get paid alot more than an artist or developer. Now if it was even across the board that would be different. This isn't film or television where the actor's work is the main component of why someone would keep coming back to a piece of work.
It also isn't a form of media like television where broadcasters keep getting paid by advertisements inbetween airing the movies or a subscription like netflix. Games are bought one time at a set price that lowers quickly with time, hence royalties don't really make sense to me unless it's across the board for everyone who worked on the game.
I hope that they don't get royalties. If they get royalties, then next artist and coders will be asking for royalties, and no one will want to hire anyone anymore.
I'm all for fighting for your rights and stuff, but asking for royalties is just being selfish.
I've spent more time researching this than I should have. Their argument is this: Actors get royalties in movies and TV, therefore actors should get them in games, especially since the games industry makes more money than Hollywood films. The games industry can afford to pay actors royalties because corporate executives in the games industry have gotten large bonuses.
It's a bizarre line of reasoning. The only valid claim I see coming from SAG-AFTA is the request to have stunt coordinators at mocap sessions. That will most likely increase the safety and quality of mocap. It's a win win for everyone.
The other claims about work conditions are not supported by evidence. These Actors get guaranteed minimum rates, overtime in their contracts, mandated breaks tied to hours worked, clear definitions of what counts as billable work and what doesn't. Looking at the previous contract, I am not exactly sure what voice actors are so upset about.
But lets face it, for a game good (voice)acting is just a nice to have.
Of course it's nice, but there are so much more important things to consider.
I'm totally for good working conditions, but I don't see the reason why a voice actor, who gets an amount of lines to do for a certain salary would deserve royalties, especially if the developers get none.
For me it sounds a bit like a farmer who sells an egg to a fancy restaurant, where a world class cook uses his long learned skills and creativity along with a bunch of other ingredients to create an expensive meal, and then the farmer wants royalties from that...
Just my opinion tho, if I missed something or got something wrong, feel free to correct me
Not that I entirely agree. I'd prefer it just be an upfront cost of business. Pay them an extra grand or two to get to use their voice forever.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that spoken dialogue can be an impediment to a game's enjoyment, especially when I can read subtitles much faster and I'd rather skip dialogue altogether on the second playthrough.
If the voice actor's guild/union does win, then it will further push the development of speech synthesis technology to a higher priority so as to minimize the need for hiring expensive voice talent.
Definitely, but those conditions are really mad, not sure whats going on with the AAA. Theres also really bad stuff going on for the movie CGI studios.
I can't wait for the day when voice quality, and acting ability are decoupled. I'm rather tired of poor acting polluting otherwise great products, just because the actor sounded a certain way.
You could also be more sure that the actors in a game really 'get' what's happening in the game world, because you wouldn't have to keep an entire cast up to speed.