It's no different. They get paid to do a certain amount of work - if the work is demanding, then they need to be protected, even if that means spending more money on more studio time. I'm ok with that.

But expecting the games industry to augment their income on top of that is a no-go, not until the people who devote a large chunk of their lives to making the game are rewarded in the same manner. Then we can talk about residual payments to VO artists.

In fact, a lawyer representing the publishers is making that exact argument. If VO actors get paid residuals, then it leaves the gate open for all the other staff who work on the game to demand the same obligations - guaranteed royalty payments on top of their salary. I'm in two minds about this - it'll either be a good thing, or publishers really will move to the movie studios model and lower the base rate of all the skilled staff to offset it against royalty pay-outs.

 

Hopefully, this gets resolved quickly. Video game voice actors are ridiculously underrated (especially if they do motion capture too). Just look at how much Nolan North was able to convey in Uncharted 4, and how he brought one of the best action heroes in years to life.

 

I'm sorry but I don't think that's the best direction the video game industry needs to take. That may be Nintendo's thing but just because they make it work doesn't mean it'll work for other companies. Like how trying to make every character in the DCCU dark doesn't work. There's also the fact that we DO have video games that have voice acting that aren't "interactive movies" and most of them are actually memorable because of how the voice acting enhances the game as a whole. Taking that way would not be the same and can end up damaging it in the long run. That may be ok for you but not for everyone else.

They're games yes but that doesn't mean every game needs to have the same features and gameplay and if people didn't try to do the new things over the years that they've done to impress people and give them more reason to see VG in a different light the industry would be under if not outright dead long ago for not trying things different.

I hope this issue gets worked out in the end. If there has to be compromises fine then. These people really made sure to give it their best and it needs to be acknowledged and if the video game kicks them out entirely and resorts back to text words that won't be any better.

 

Nolan North and Troy Baker will just fill in the empty spots.

 

Unless they strike as well?

 

I'd argue that no, they aren't as important, but that's not the point. You said it yourself: Just as important. Not more. They don't deserve better pay than the programmers and designers, because they aren't filling a bigger part of the picture.

And have you ever tried coding a video game? Making the models? Designing the textures? Debugging?

 

I was under the impression that at least North was opposed to that sort of thing.

 

But this isn't for more flat out, is it? They're part of the game and when a game gets fucking huge and everyone but them gets some bonus or something it's about that.

I dunno, I feel like it's saying if a writer makes writes a comic and it gets huge, the artist doesn't get an extra penny because they're replaceable/anyone could have drawn it- it's wrong.

 

All the more reason for the programmers and testers to organize as well. Actors, at least the pros who've worked within the film and television unions, have been able to rely on the representation and strength that said organizations provide, and frankly, there are no end of horror stories about the treatment of said programmers. The crew of film and television productions are organized, why not programmers and testers? Why they, along with voice actors, be able to secure better working conditions in an increasingly influential and renumerative industry?

To be blunt, the video game voice actors ARE effectively 'interactive movie stars', at least as much as voice actors in television and film are 'non-interactive movie stars'. In many cases its the same people.

Many voice actors want better working conditions in video games (to the point that some have avoided the industry for longer and longer due to the comparisons in conditions with working in traditional media) that align with film and television, higher wages, shorter recording sessions, assurances of payment in the event the studio is unprepared when they show up, etc. Which leads me to the next comment...

What I've heard from numerous voice actors is that video games, especially action games, can be extremely hard sessions. A lot of screaming, a lot of takes, and because of the interactive nature of video games, a lot of scenarios that require different dialogue or voice effects. Think about games as a series of branching paths rather than a single linear one, as in film, each of those branches may require different takes from the voice actor. Imagine sitting in the studio and the director says "Okay I need you to scream like you've just been shot to death", then "Okay, now like you've been stabbed to death", "okay now like your legs have been shatter by ice magic", "okay, its a chainsaw this time", etc. etc. It can be very long and hard sessions, especially when they aren't dictated by the same time or break limitations that are in place in film and television to help voice actors rest and protect their voices. And as video games get more complex, with richer assets and more depth, they're going to demand more and more from their actors (compare, say, Quake to Fallout 4).

If video games want to be a creative medium, then I have no sympathy for the industry if it doesn't want to be subject to the same or similar developments in working conditions that other mediums like film, television, and music have gone through.

Union participation is still an ongoing concern within the animation industry, and something we've seen drive the resulting production direction (and in some cases, quality) of animated work, I see no reason why video games wouldn't be part of the same issue.

 

Tara Strong is on strike, so I'm with the voice actors.

 

Damn straight.

 

This! Totally this!

This. All this!

 

I'll be honest I never bought a game because a certain voice actor was in it. I would even go as far to say most people would not buy one just because of it.

I wouldn't even support The Last of Us even if it's been on the bargain for years now. If I found it used maybe. It was a good free movie on YouTube. Kinda like those HBO movie type series.

Unlike movies of course, I've seen all Mila Kunis movies before her pregnancy. That last one I'm not too sure.

I would certainly look up The Last of Us VAs to see if I can find another one of their work in YT but actually buy the game. Nope.

 

I understand what you're saying but it's not really the point. It's not so much that you go and buy a game based on a voice actor being a part of it, it's that they've put the work in too, and as explained in other posts, it can be a tough job.
Acting with just your voice is hard, watch any video of someone recording lines and you can see how animated they have to be to do it, add on top the different takes, thousands more lines... Imagine GTA 5 without the voice cast- they brought those 3 characters to life, they acted together and alone, and imagine how much work they had to do on recording.

 

Everyone works hard.

Are they really being treated unfairly? More so than and above their co-workers who are actually building the game?

Did any of you did not enjoy MGS despite the bad 90's voice actors? Especially back then.

These are contracts as well. Don't like it? Why sign it?

Yes, kaijuguy does have point that there are games where at least decent voice acting helps the game mechanics and overall story. Catherine comes to mind. The wife loved it. We both enjoyed and I'll admit it took the game to another level just because I was playing with her at the time.

Given a chance I would have just fucking mashed the skip story button so fast I could have finished that game on hard mode in record time.

GTA was always fun. Even on the PS1. Good voice actor can help sell a game. But bad voice actors doesn't affect the game. People will buy it regardless as long as it's fun.

 

The Video Game Creator Strike — Reforming Compensation

Here's the another side of the story. I hate to say this but I'd would inclined to pay more with a well developed game rather than just voice acting.

Check out the holes. these are game devs. Not just some voice actor. Game devs!

 

Y'know, i was going to stay out of this. But trying to say voice acting is more, or even as important as programming in a game? Fuck no. By that logic, games without voice acting are guaranteed to be failure, right? Like Pokemon. No voice work at ALL. NONE. Successful? YES. Undertale? Same thing. FNAF 1 only had the game's producer (also the programmer) do a few lines as phone guy, with no other acting, and it spawned an entire, highly pervasive fandom.

Now let's find a successful game with no programming OH WAIT THAT'S NOT A GAME THAT'S A VOICE CLIP. Wait. Sorry, I'm wrong. That's not even a voice clip because you need PROGRAMMING IN ORDER FOR IT TO EVEN PLAY THE CLIP.

And another thing: voice actors may need to do multiple takes of a line, or so forth. A programmer has to work for hours and hours typing up code. If a VA screws up, then they do another take. Maybe a few minutes of time. Programmer screws up? On a smaller game, a few guys have to look through hundreds and thousands of lines of code and figure out what went wrong. On a larger one, you have to figure which section made the screw up, and then go through the aforementioned hours long process. One missed semicolon can ruin the game, while a few poorly acted lines are a mere blemish.

 

The industry isn't perfect - at least working in Germany, I'm legally covered by maximum working hours in a day, compulsory break times and requirements to have at least 10 days of consecutive leave (covered by my vacation allowance of 30 paid days) per year. I have all sorts of protection designed to look after my welfare that my employer will get jumped on for violating.

But if you're in the U.S. or the U.K, you're not so fortunate. And don't get me started on bonuses - I've only ever gotten one bonus in my entire career. And I remember the studio owner telling the team at one place I worked that were weren't getting our completion bonus - the same day he picked up his new Ferrari and drove it to work.

So why do it? The pay isn't great - as a programmer, I could easily earn twice as much doing Java or C# development for big business or finance. The hours would be better and the work would be a walk in the park. I dare anybody working in software development big business to boast as an impressive set of technical skills, and problem solving ability as any core tech or game programmer, especially those working on console.

I get where the union is coming from on looking after the well being of their members - I'm totally with that. These people need to have their prime asset, their voice, looked after so they can keep on giving great performances. But to say that the games would not be as great without them, is just plain insulting to all the people who invest 1000's of hours of their lives - and who invested 10,000 hours or more to become experts in their craft. The VO artists, in asking for residuals, are justifying it by saying that they should be given special treatment, and they they are more important than people like me - that their contribution is worth more than mine.

Well, I disagree. They say "performance matters" and I agree on that - but a good game can get along with bad voice acting - can a bad game become good with great voice acting? Nope.

 

Right where the money is with that last line.

Although it can propel a standard game to new heights. That's the love and hate I have with The Last of Us.

Anyone of you think M#9 can be saved by great voice acting? Raise your hands peeps.

 

I think I should point out that I don't have a particular dislike for VO artists - it might seem that way from my posts on here. I really don't.

I value the work that VO artists do. I guess what's killing me right now is that the union is making a "them and us" argument out of this, and crapping over the development staff in the process. I get why they're doing it - they're trying to get the best deal for their members, but do they have to do it this way? Is it really necessary to create this kind of divide - to intentionally introduce tribalism into the mix?

Because aside from a few VO/live action producers, the 1000's of men and women who work on development don't seem to be on their side. At least not with the approach they're taking. Perhaps if SAG get residuals and better terms, it might leave the door open for development staff to demand the same treatment, rewards and security. But given how fragmented worker protection is in places like the U.S. that could have unintended results.