If there ever comes a day when the actors are more important than the game, we've failed as a community of game developers.

I mostly agree about the profit-sharing problems, but this bugs me -- it's like saying "if there ever comes a day when the actors are more important than the cinematography, we've failed as a community of filmmakers".

I'm in the middle of playing through Jade Empire right now, and I can honestly say that the story and characters in it are at least as important as anything else in it.

The RPG mechanics and fighting system are nice and all, but I fundamentally don't care much about them -- I care about the scenario the story has placed me in, and the voice acting is a big part of making that feel real.

I'm a developer myself (admittedly, not a game developer), so I certainly don't want to devalue the hard work of programming, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it's nuts and bolts. The developer is just part of the game team, and in some types of games there are other parts of the team just as important.

Posted by: Nat Lanza on June 11, 2005 07:39 PM

Agreed, Nat.

I mostly agree with you bowler. However, I do believe that skilled voice actors are an important part of an enjoyable video game experience. As much as we'd like to say it's the gameplay, how fun it is, and whether or not I'm enjoying my interactions, poor voice acting made by the developers themselves (as, a slightly related example, Lucas did with certain droid voices in the recent Star Wars due to SAG restrictions) can really take you out of the experience.

When I'm talking to NPCs, I do want them to have a believable inflection and personality. It makes my interaction with the game more fun and believable.

As games increase in complexity, we cannot dismiss the complaints from various section of the development system. Sure, programmers and designers take the brunt of the abuse and do the most work and probably get paid the least fairly. This is true and needs to be addressed in some way before the game industry crushes itself under its own weight. But actors and artists and everyone else involved with the making of the game should not be told they are unimportant simply because they aren't in the trenches 18 hours a day.

Voice actors may not drive sales for games. But they still deserve respect for adding believability and quality to the gamer's experience.

But otherwise, yeah, I agree completely.

Posted by: Mike on June 11, 2005 08:38 PM

Unlike Mike and Nat, I think that Bowler was completely on the ball. Yes, there may be grave injustices in the game industry, but they aren't those facing voice actors. Nat, you compare game developers to cinematographers, but I don't think that's a fair comparison. Film and theatre are driven by the actors because they are, by nature, non-interactive experiences. The audience observes the action from a distance, and good performances are the key to their enjoyment. Audiences can forgive continuity errors, wardrobe malfunctions and all sorts of other problems, as long as the acting is good.

Not so with a game, however, where good voice acting is an important detail - but that's all that it is, a detail. The game's focus is on the player, who is also the audience. The story is not driven by the game characters alone but by the overall interaction of the game world with the player. So while I'd argue that good voice acting is important, it's no more important than, say, good textures in level environments. If a game has a compelling story, excellent graphics and superior technology, most people are inclined to forgive poor voice acting. I certainly am. On the other hand, I won't enjoy a game with good acting and subpar graphics, period. Think of Bungie's Oni, for instance. The acting was decent, and the combat mechanics were good. But bland, uninspired level design and artwork were a huge handicap, and the game suffered for it. So comparing game designers to cinematographers is ridiculous. Game designers ARE the actors of the game industry. Voice actors are more akin to the grips, the prop people, the set dressers or maybe the caterers. We want them to be good, they definitely add to the game but they aren't central to the experience.

So Nat, sure the developer is part of a team. That, to me, is one reason why individual developers rarely achieve star status. A good developer should be an integral part of the game development team. But it's that team that's the star of the game they design, not whatever voice actor they hire to act out parts of their creation. I don't think of Kingdom Hearts as "Haley Joel Osment's Kingdom Hearts", even though his work was very good, and contributed to my enjoyment of the game. It's Squaresoft's game (Square Enix now, I guess), and that's the way it should be. So if anyone deserves royalties or whatnot on successful games, it's the designers and not the voice actors who should get them.

And since everyone is mentioning Area 51 as an example of big-name voice acting in a game, I think I should mention that I found Duchovny and Manson's work to be abysmal. I played the game despite the fact that I winced every time David sleepily mumbled his lines, which really illustrates my point. The voice acting was only a part - an important but minor part - of the experience, and the actors should be acknowledged and rewarded as such.

Posted by: Knightingale on June 11, 2005 09:40 PM

I know no one buys a game because of voice actor star power, but!

Most people don't buy games because of a particular programmer or artist either, your family and best friends possibly excluded. (If they didn't just leech off your comp copies that is...) Most developers are as replaceable, or more so, than any voice actor. And as far as I understand it, even those actors who aren't stars, those who don't drive a show, still get residuals. Residuals aren't star demands. That's royalties.

OTOH, the argument that Wheaton put forward for residuals (that reruns/syndication/etc eats into new acting job opportunities) doesn't really wash for games, which usually have a short shelf life and then vanish. And then on the first hand, wouldn't it be great if the dev teams for classic games on their third or fourth re-release actually got paid residuals?

Posted by: ArC on June 11, 2005 11:04 PM

I agree with Bowler. While there are a few games where the voice acting might actually be important for the game all you have to do is watch people play to see that's not what the game is about as the majority of players SKIP THE CUTSCENES. And, even those players that might watch them once will skip them if asked to watch them again.

Should good voice actors be paid well? Yes! It is a talent and a skill and some people don't have that talent and skill so those that do should get well compensated.

But I agree with Bowler. People should get royalties not residuals and they should get them more in proportion to their contribution to the game. My grandfather played steel guitar in the movie "Blue Hawaii" and he gets royalties for that. It's like 0.00001% I don't remember how many zeros come after the decimal point but I do remember it was at least 3.

Most (all?) movies would not exist without actors but most games would exist just find without voices.

Posted by: greggman on June 11, 2005 11:12 PM

I'm not sure that Wheaton did get his numbers right. For example, an article in the LA Times puts the break number at 400,000 units, "which the unions say would affect fewer than 30 of the titles the industry produced last year." I find it very unlikely that the SAG/AFTRA would seriously demand a break point less than 100,000 units, since that's where they currently are for made-for-video productions. I haven't been able to find other information about what percentage of the original payment the residual would be, or if there would be any ceilings. There do appear to have been several different structures under review by SAG members, and the one Wheaton suggested may have been one of them. Also, although Wheaton wants to take issue with the term "profit-sharing" the language he mentions was actually parroted by the AP from the SAG/AFTRA press release.

The stance of SAG, AFTRA, WGA, and other guilds of artists is that the creative products of their members is not an unlimited resource, even though it is one that is fixed into a recording. It doesn't matter how essential the performance is. Residuals apply to all performers in all media. Of course, residuals are meant to only apply after a certain point, and that point is supposed to be pitched after the profitability point and just before the producer starts making mad crazy free money based on the original creative works.

Residuals are a compromise that are designed to let a product become fully profitable before the producer has to make any further payment to the performers. The development team may deserve to start getting a bonus share of the profits from the moment the game goes into the black, but the lowest actors don't. They are resources, and the producers need to be certain that they can exploit those resources to a preset amount. The point is that there is a limit to the exploitation, when and if that limit is reached, an additional payment is made. If it isn't, then there's no more loss.

And remember that these residuals refer to the minimum-wage performers. It's true that "voice actors don't drive sales", but if it ever becomes true, then the SAG pay scale won't apply much anymore, because those voice actors will start writing up their own contracts. I imagine that name actors who perform in video games do that now, regardless of whether their appearance drives sales of the game.

It's also been argued, above, that this shouldn't be an issue, because video games have a short shelf life. But television and film had short shelf lives too, before advances in technology made it possible to repurpose them for decades. And when one considers both the widespread trend toward backward-compatability and Nintendo's recent move to make decades-old content downloadable, the shelf life of games starts to look longer. And the guilds want to get contracts on these issues before they become necessary, so that they won't have works that get left out in the cold. They've been burned by technology changes before, and they know how difficult it is to try to back-negotiate a contract. So it's unsurprising that they're going to start fighting now, before it's an issue.

Posted by: Tablesaw on June 12, 2005 03:57 AM

when the actors are more important than the game, we've failed as a community of game developers

This is the best part of the whole post. Don't be peeved at SAG because it stands up for its members! They are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Not only that, but I bet a lot of these voice actors are not making as much money as programmers. If game programmers/artist/etc want more money, then maybe they should form a union. What an idea! And this is coming from a programmer (I am not in games but am a hard-core software developer).

Posted by: Joe Jans on June 12, 2005 09:22 PM

I think what is most insulting to me about the whole ordeal is that this is, in some senses, the Union's sales pitch to the games industry. This comes at a time where the industry is trying to decide if it could or should unionize. They are trying to demonstrate what a worker's orgization can do. Unfortunately they are also demonstrating their lack of understanding of the industry and insulting the actual developers at the same time. Very frustrating and misguided.

Posted by: Nathan on June 13, 2005 09:55 AM

I wish them the best of luck.

First of all the idea that the game industry somehow fundamentally cannot handle a residuals structure is absurd. The stuff is SAG is asking for is stuff that already exists for other mediums, mediums that aren't terribly different in terms of production costs. The variables may end up being different but the residuals model certainly could be tacked onto game development.

Secondly, why are game developers bitter at the idea that other folks are actually using organization to get better treatment from publishers? What's with all the backstabbing and bitterness? Personally I'd say that voice actors have become an important part of game development exactly because we as game developers have done our job. It is only because we have already mastered a lot of the technological hurdles that game development has moved on to using live actors and using other such techniques to create more immersive gameplay experiences. Now if they aren't getting paid well for that that (and let's face it, we're all just pundits here with very little appreciation for how good or bad things are for voice actors, so unless you have credentials what use is there in assuming one way or another?), and they fight for more, and get something, then what's so bad about that? And if we want a share of the pot then let us organize and go out and grab that. If we're going to sit around paralyzed in fear at the notion of unions then we don't deserve more than we get and it's going to be our fate to watch other unions get stuff done while our work conditions continue to slide.

Posted by: StGabe on June 13, 2005 11:04 AM

I see no reason why the voice actors should get an "additional session fee," when nobody else on the entire game gets that.

Did you read the rest? If anyone is to get it... well, someone would have to be the first. And it just so happened that voice actors happened to be in a well-enough organized bargaining position to actually, reasonably ask for it.

What I'm interested in, is that if this concept is to be considered "fair" or "reasonable," we need to apply it to everyone on the project.

Not necessarily. Many (most?) of the people working on a game are in salaried positions, or something resembling a full-time job -- at the end of the day, after the game ships, they still have a job (excluding certain instances of vengeful management). Voice actors are freelance, and get paid per job. This combination of up-front and residual payment is what has proven effective for them, and they were trying to apply this system also to the video games -- where, under any sort of measure, they were being woefully underpaid.

The trick with video games is that their production and sales is not as nicely discretized as television -- where, if something is rerunned, it's rerunned, period. Nonetheless, games are often ported, repackaged, reissued, etc -- all of which does seem like an analog for TV reruns. It may be an ill-fit, overall, but reasoning is clear.

How you consider this to not be profit-sharing (as it's obviously money taken from the profits) is a bit boggling, but I'm not even interested in arguing that point.

Profit-sharing would be, essentially, "[once this breaks even, then] $.50 for every game sold goes directly into my pocket." That's a far cry from, "If you're going to go and sell this same old game yet again, at least give me something for it" -- with diminishing returns.

Obviously, the bonuses won't be paid out 'till the title reaches 15 million, so what was previously 5 million dollars in profit now must be earmarked and sat on (i.e. not reported as profit and spent or invested) untill such time as the profits surpassed 15 million. A royalty based payment structure would have allowed the fair percentage of that 5 million to be paid out quarterly as soon as the title became profitable (the first dollar over the 10 million dollar budget).

The residual system was invented for situations were "rerunning" would be active decision -- and instead of being simply a license to print money for the production company or network, it would be an informed decision that by doing rerun they would make enough revenue to cover the costs of paying residuals -- residuals which, again, experience a diminishing return that scales down reasonably to allow multiple reruns not to suddenly turn into losses.

As I mentioned above, it's ridiculous to suggest that half of a game's production budget would be tied into residual payments, but even if we ignore that, you're misunderstanding the sort of deal that was being suggested. It was not simply "retroactively double my pay the instant it is profitable", the idea (as I understand it) was more along the lines of, "once you've sold plenty of copies and made a tidy profit, if you decide to go ahead and sell more, you include residual payments in your budgeting of that". If a game is any sort of big success, the residuals should not have a significant impact on the profitability of such figurative reruns.

Posted by: Westacular on June 13, 2005 02:06 PM

I see no reason why the voice actors should get an "additional session fee," when nobody else on the entire game gets that.
Did you read the rest? If anyone is to get it... well, someone would have to be the first. And it just so happened that voice actors happened to be in a well-enough organized bargaining position to actually, reasonably ask for it.

Oh yeah, I read the rest. But my point still remains. The idea that a voice actor, someone who put in four hours worth of time on the game is somehow in a position to be paid out a residual before anyone else on the team is flat out rediculous. My point was "get thee behind me." I didn't say they didn't deserve any money. They deserve their money after the team gets its royalties, and they deserve a royalty, not a residual. I believe I made that perfectly clear.

What I'm interested in, is that if this concept is to be considered "fair" or "reasonable," we need to apply it to everyone on the project.

Not necessarily. Many (most?) of the people working on a game are in salaried positions, or something resembling a full-time job -- at the end of the day, after the game ships, they still have a job (excluding certain instances of vengeful management). Voice actors are freelance, and get paid per job. This combination of up-front and residual payment is what has proven effective for them, and they were trying to apply this system also to the video games -- where, under any sort of measure, they were being woefully underpaid.

Think about what you just said. Someone who comes in and does 4 hours worth of work makes roughly $556/session. Even the easy math says that's $125/hr. Okay, so they're freelance. The idea that they only get 4 of these gigs a year is nobody's problem but their own. They need to diversify. Get jobs in other areas such as commercial v/o or animation voice acting. It's not the videogame industry's responsibility to make sure they earn a living off of 4 v/o sessions. I've got motion capture talent who come in to work for me less than 4 times per year who are actor/models for their day job. They've never complained about how much they get paid, or residuals, and they get paid less than these poor, starving voice actors.

Look, I want these guys to make as much money as possible and is fair. I'd even be up for doubling their hourly/daily rate. But come on. I'd like to live in a universe where I am paid $756 for 4 hours work and consider that underpaid.

On a side note, as you mentioned, the problem is that a "residual" as defined by the TV/Movie industry just doesn't translate well to video-games. Games are hardly ever "re-released." We consider a release on multiple platforms a single release, and that money goes into one pot with the game's name on it. I could see a residual paid out for things like Namco's or Midway's Greatest Hits type games, which are true re-releases in the very sense of the terminology. But the language in the contract was for the original release of the game (# of sold units and profitability margin), thereby creating a semantics and legal and political nightmare.

Posted by: bowler on June 13, 2005 03:24 PM

The residuals proposal for game VAs might have been an additional session fee, but that doesn't mean extending the concept across the board means a wage doubling for everyone. The peons in commercials actually often earn more from residuals than their original fee, but series actors in TV earn maybe 30% of their income in residuals, or what would be an effective 50% in their original salary. (I assume that's only for shows successful enough for substantial reruns/syndication/etc.) Game developers would IMO be more analogous to those who work on series TV or movies, and clearly wouldn't be set to receive as much residuals, percentage-wise, as those who were paid pittances in the beginning.

As Westacular said, game companies are already in the business of re-releasing and repurposing games (those many Atari classic re-releases, cellphone games, etc) and SAG might as well get a foot up in setting a precedent for residuals now.

My point was "get thee behind me."

Behind you? Are you actually in line? I don't mean, "are you deserving?", but rather "do you have a realistic chance of getting this request seriously considered?"

As a union, SAG had the bargaining power to get a seat at the table. If you have that much clout yourself, by all means, go for it. Someone has to open the door, and I doubt it's going to be an individual programmer or artist.

Posted by: ArC on June 13, 2005 10:01 PM

As a union, SAG had the bargaining power to get a seat at the table. If you have that much clout yourself, by all means, go for it. Someone has to open the door, and I doubt it's going to be an individual programmer or artist.

Exactly. If we bitch and moan about SAG doing this we're really only complaining that we don't have the balls to put ourselves in a powerful bargaining position and negotiate for our cut of the action. That SAG exists and does its job is great, for them and is only our lack of a union and angst at pursuing such a notion that prevents us from taking "our place in line." As the people who actually make the games we could be at the head of the line but we have no one to blame but ourselves if we don't take action to get there.

All the rest is just random hyperbole and ranting about Hollywood put out there so as to obfuscate and ignore the fact that SAG is just doing what a good union should do for it's members. The talk of whether their current salaries are justified or not is silly. The fact is that VA's do represent a skilled profession, one that hadn't had an increase in pay for a while, one that could ask for a significant raise and, with collective bargaining, did obtain one (if not getting everything they wanted). Where is any of this bad? It's a bunch of people in a free market banding together for their collective good and asking to be paid what, apparently, they are worth. It's capitalism in action. Get involved or be resigned to reciving the short end of the stick.

Posted by: StGabe on June 14, 2005 10:36 AM

"It's a bunch of people in a free
market banding together for their collective good and asking to be paid
what, apparently, they are worth. It's capitalism in action. Get
involved or be resigned to reciving the short end of the stick."

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. Unionization is, by definition, communist. Not an insult, or anything, just pointing out that the Communist party was who strived to found them. So, not capitalist, so much.

http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/cpproject/grijalva.htm

And not that Civilization (the game) is any indicator of history (well, it is, in game form), but I seem to recall getting the wonder "worker's union" after you developed communism, not capitalism. The concept that a union is "free market" is actually the opposite from being true, as they are designed to exclude the rest of the market.

You guys also couldn't be more wrong by saying that SAG was first at the table. I work for a company who pays royalties to its employees who work on their games. They've been doing that since they started making games over 15 years ago. Therefore, when I say "get thee behind me," I DO in fact have a place in line, and a right to say "you get paid, but after me." I don't need to get involved. I don't need a union to get my royalties. I don't need a union. Period.

How many more times do I have to point that out?

Posted by: bowler on June 14, 2005 11:53 AM

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong.

You've summed up my reply to you. Your proof that labor unions are communist is that you have an article that mentions labor unions and communism in the same paragraph? (I'll leave the Civilization reference alone)

Never mind that unions existed prior to Communism (in actual implementation).

A union is itself no less "free" as in part of the free market as a corporation is. A corporation (definition: A group of people combined into or acting as one body) is simply a collection of agents/investors/etc. acting together as a concerted force in the market for their shared interest (i.e. profit). By incorporating you achieve a certain legal and market status that is valuable. Among other things it allows you to centralize your bargaining and the power that your goods have on the market. Wow, that's EXACTLY the description union, only for investors and not workers. Unions are necessary for workers to be able to obtain the same footing as the corporations they work for.

So no, unions are not communist. That's why we have labor unions in the US, as part of our free market, and yet are not living under communism. The idea that unions are communist/liberal plots and are somehow at odds with the free market is really nothing but the result of a lot of slander (that well, no surprise, rather benefits investors). Unions have played a very important role in the development of our country (even though we've never been a communist nation). Look a bit back through our history and the deplorable labor conditions that used to predominate (i.e. do more than just google for "communism labor unions" and post the first hit you get as conclusive evidence that labor unions are communism).

You guys also couldn't be more wrong by saying that SAG was first at the table.

No one ever claimed this but thank you for inventing a claim, attaching it to us, and blaming us for being wrong about it. Your arguments are all about absolutes. For example, you think that the fact that ONE COMPANY gave royalties of sorts to its employees means that, apparently, all employees are somehow treated fairly and the act of a union obtaining rights for AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF WORKERS is marginalized? Uh, no. No one here has claimed that unions are the only way that employees have ever received rights. Rather we claim that Unions have garnered workers lots and lots of rights, have consistently bettered our market, and the recent actions of SAG are a very good indication of what unions can do for their members (even if they failed to get everything they wanted and ONLY got a 25% raise).

Posted by: StGabe on June 14, 2005 01:32 PM

An interesting link I found while surfing "unions" and "free market".

Why Republicans Should Love Unions:
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2059

And they should! Because, to those who truly want a Free Market and not just a Good Market For Big Companies, unions promote a healthy, equal relationship between laborers and owners which is necessary for this Free Market thing to really work half as well as Adam Smith would have liked it to. How it is restrictive to let groups of workers come together, talk about the conditions of their work and consider different bargaining strategies (including striking which is represents a CHOICE of workers to not offer their labor on the market but also including advocacy, negotiation and other acts) is beyond me. Oh no, the workers might exercise their free will to do something other than simply working for whatever wage is offered. How ... err, communist? Sounds pretty darn FREE to me.

Posted by: StGabe on June 14, 2005 01:56 PM

You guys also couldn't be more wrong by saying that SAG was first at
the table.

No one ever claimed this but thank you for inventing a claim, attaching
it to us, and blaming us for being wrong about it. Your arguments are
all about absolutes.

From Arc: "As a union, SAG had the bargaining power to get a seat at the table. If you have that much clout yourself, by all means, go for it. Someone has to open the door, and I doubt it's going to be an individual programmer or artist."

So if someone's going to "open a door", that door would have been closed previously, no? Thus if the door was closed, SAG got there first, and opened it.

I may speak in absolutes but at least I'm not arguing semantics.

You like to use the fact that my "anecdotal" evidence of "one company" (mine) means no one else offers royalties.

I know Epic offers royalties. So does Sony. So does EA. I have no doubt that many others do that I have no personal knowledge of. It's an assumption on my part, sure. But that's now at least FOUR that offer royalties. I know, I know, four is such an absolute number. I'm just kind of Sith that way.

Posted by: bowler on June 14, 2005 02:12 PM

Bowler:
"I know Epic offers royalties. So does Sony. So does EA. I have no doubt that many others do that I have no personal knowledge of. It's an assumption on my part, sure. But that's now at least FOUR that offer royalties."

Eh.

I've worked at a few game companies at this point, and I have friends at quite a few more.

While you're technically correct that many companies "offer" royalties, and while that does sound quite exciting to many people before they've shipped their first game, it's been my experience that an awful lot of game companies / publishers will absolutely cook the books, lie through their teeth, and basically dick around with the budget numbers once the game has shipped to prove that little profit was really made and thus there aren't much in the way of royalties to share. In many cases, too, there are lots of nasty stipulations from the company for the employee to even recieve those benefits (including continued employment for very extended time periods, and signficiant brown-nosing, as it's often a project lead or company director who has complete jurisdiction over how much money goes to whom). Maybe those aren't your experiences whereever you are. Maybe you're treated great.

But at the scores of places that know they can get away with making promises to young employees who don't know better, there seems to be absolutely no accountability, no repurcussions, and no hint of change.

I'm not arguing for a union, specifically, but there are serious issues with this industry and how money is handled and where all the power resides.

Posted by: Nathan McKenzie on June 14, 2005 10:02 PM

I just hope SAG argued the case better than Wil; there wasn't a single memorable point in his blog entry that I agree with.

Bowler's right - just because they get only a small number of gigs a year, doesn't mean they should get paid substantially more. If their current roles do not pay well enough over the course of a year, they should diversify. John Dimaggio (sp?) (Futurama, FF10) seems to manage it just fine... Sure, they deserve more than five bucks an hour to compensate for the short assignments, but to even hint at the idea of getting paid 3 months salary for four hours work is ludicrous, not to mention insulting to the masses.

Having to risk their voices (their only tool) is a fair concern, but then that's just about the nature of any job. A programmer, for example, has many many more hours sat behind a computer, risking their eyes and hands - their tools - but without getting paid such a premium. Sports stars have always expressed similar concerns, with the 'what would I do if I injured myself badly?' question. My answer: Work in a burger bar or an office like the rest of us.

Yes, VAs can certainly help make a game better, especially through making it more emmersive, and this really stands out in cases where the VAs have done a poor job. But VAs are not irreplaceable. I'm not suggesting you get Tony from PR to do it, but there are plenty of skilled and experienced VAs who are happy to settle for more reasonable wages, especially if they can fit it alongside a day job and treat it as an occasional bonus. I think that a $556 MINIMUM is more than reasonable - and as has been said already, the people who are worth more will always be able to get a deal that better reflects their position. Again, it's not our fault that Wil's not the best VA in the wrold...

I think the bit that got me most was Wil's comments on developers making 'BILLIONS' from games. This sounds so far flung it makes me wonder if the man even knows the meaning of the word... Even if a game does sell well (which is pretty rare even amongst the games that make it to market), the sheer profit is pretty obviously just a fraction of 'BILLIONS'.

And even then, out of the money that is left after the supply chain, the marketers, the investors and the risk-takers take their cut, the largest share should be going to the people who post most effort into it; the company owners (especially in newer companies) who have invested their own money into it, the programmers and designers who have actually worked on the project 40+ hours per week - more towards the deadline - for however many months, and then the artists.

I think one thing the artists (all artists) need to remember is that, unlike so many people, they are doing that which they love to do. If it pays the bills (not the excessive bills that they've grown accustomed to), they should be happy.

Not that I think they were wrong to fight for a better deal - screw whoever you can for every penny, I say. I just don't think they should have won.

Posted by: Zild on June 15, 2005 04:55 AM

Nathan makes a good point. In H'wood (as I vaguely understand it, as an amateur fan), those who have the clout to get royalties get royalty points on the gross, not net. (Not that (real) residuals are royalties.) The studio behind "Sleepless in Seattle" (grossed over $250M) at one point -- after grossing that much -- told the director it was in the black by about a mere $3 million. Royalties after profits are for suckers. But hey, maybe game publishers aren't as sleazy as that.

Posted by: ArC on June 15, 2005 10:45 AM

I hate to say it, but the industry has numbers that prove that voice actors don't drive sales. They just don't. And these numbers are what they used to make their decision on this deal.

Care to share those numbers with the rest of the class? Because I've never seen them. In this age where video games get closer to cinema in virtually every possible way, professional voice acting is something which will undoubtably become more of a commodity, not less. If the development team is underpaid and overworked, they should be focusing their attention on the producers and publishers. The voice actors will push for whatever the market will provide for them.

Posted by: RegularX on June 16, 2005 06:49 AM

Uh, RegularX, you've got to be kidding me. Do you seriously even need industry numbers to realize professional voice acting does not drive video game sales? Have you ever heard anyone say "Did you hear about this new game coming out? It's got that kid that used to be on Star Trek doing the voice acting! I've got to get it!" Or do you think anyone looks at the credits and thinks "Hmmm, I've never heard of any of these guys. This game must be crap!" No one does that! It doesn't take industry numbers to understand it. Yes, good voice acting is important to creating seamless game play. But it's not going to be why someone buys the game and it certainly doesn't take a Hollywood branded, A-list name to deliver good voice acting. Especially when Joe Janitor can kick Will Wheaton's ass any day.

Posted by: phireVurm on June 16, 2005 11:19 AM

So much of this conversation is red herrings and misplaced angst. Bitching about whether VA's are worth the price they ask? Obviously they are or they wouldn't have just gotten a 25% raise. Bitching about minutiae between royalties and residuals? Residuals are a form of pay that actors are comfortable with, one that could have worked here (it was a pretty modest proposal as far as residuals go), but they didn't get. No big deal there. This business of royalties and whether game developers currently get them? Is it really that important? No. Certainly royalties are not a big a source of income. I know no one who is really excited to be a game developer and get royalties. If these exists however and actually ever get paid, then what's the point of the whole "get in line" comment? Apparently it is already VA's place in line if developers are already getting royalties -- so make up your mind on what you are trying to argue!

Who cares though? Certainly not myself. Like I said, it's all so much pissing and moaning about the wrong stuff. The point is that yes, game developers aren't getting a lot of respect (ask EA_Spouse how great those anecdotal royalties are for her husband who literally lives at work). And the point is that VA's felt they weren't either, and had a union that was able to do something about it (while, apparently all we as game developers are able to do is find specious arguments for bitching at the VA's for actually doing something). A 25% raise is still a pretty significant thing. Instead of wasting internet space arguing about stupid stuff like whether Wil Wheaton's voice is driving video game sales (clearly VA's are increasingly important if still certainly not THE driving force behind sales) let's just notice that, hmm, a union actually got some significant stuff done for its members.

I mean can't we all just agree that the big publishers in the game industry rate fairly high on the evil meter? (taking an average value anyway, let's not stereotype) If not then I'd like to know what some of you are smoking. And having granted that, shouldn't it be pretty easy for us to get behind any group of people who has managed to wrestle a little bit of respect (or at the very least, money) out of them?

Posted by: StGabe on June 16, 2005 02:42 PM

Uh, RegularX, you've got to be kidding me. Do you seriously even need industry numbers to realize professional voice acting does not drive video game sales?

Of course I'm not kidding. You're telling me you've never read a review which has panned a game for bad voice acting? You saying that if every piece of dialogue sounded like it went through a cheese grater you wouldn't notice?

Sure, we like to champion gameplay as the king of all things and everything else is inconsequential ... but it's just ain't true and especially not in this industry. The voice of the Master Chief, who is a DJ in Chicago, is a major part of Halo. I remember the days when complete nobodys did the voice work on games, and it wasn't pretty. Is voice acting THE driving force of sales? No ... but if you think gameplay is THE driving force of sales, you need to get out more. Voice acting is a serious part of the art production and the art production is a serious driving force of sales.

But more to the point, I just get annoyed when someone points to numbers that probably don't exist.

Posted by: RegularX on June 16, 2005 03:28 PM

But more to the point, I just get annoyed when someone points to numbers that probably don't exist.

I also get annoyed when people insinuate I'm a liar, or attempt to impeach my credibility because I'm not hotlinking every god-damned fact. Sorry, I just don't have that kind of time. I actually assume that sometimes people who read this forum have an established understanding of the industry in question.

That data, the data I have not personally seen nor held in my hands, costs thousands of dollars, and is compiled by agencies who exist merely to ask people questionaire style interviews.

I know it exists because I've tried to buy those data reports before, and when the dollar amount climbed into the multiple zeros after the primary digit, I said "fuck it" and let it slide. If you think this data doesn't exist, please, I welcome you to join the rest of us in the real world.

The company who is notorious for monopolizing this data is The NPD group: http://www.npd.com/

I found them (again) after two whole google searches. How about you do some legwork next time before implying someone's lying to you?

Posted by: bowler on June 16, 2005 03:53 PM

You're referring to data you've never read and complaining I'm not doing my legwork? Hey, I'm not blaming you for being cheap ... I'm blaming you for pointing to numbers you just admitted you haven't seen. So fine, here's some legwork for you:

The best-selling game of 2004, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, featured the voices of actors like Samuel L. Jackson and Peter Fonda. Just behind it on the sales charts was Halo 2 with the voices of Miguel Ferrer and Keith David

http://blogs.utiligeek.com/stevensblog.php/2005/06/09/voice_actors_win_bigger_check

Hey, that was one whole google search. Maybe your established understanding isn't as good as you think it is. Companies paid for A-list talent and they saw sales. If you think that any joe could have filled in for them, maybe you should e-mail Rockstar. Probably could have saved them some cash.

Don't get all bitchy just because I asked for facts that you elude to, but apparently can't reproduce. Instead of floating something as an opinion, you wrote like a fact. If it is, just back it up. That's really not asking much. I'm not smearing your good name, but if you aren't willing to back up what you write in public, well don't write it in public.

Posted by: RegularX on June 16, 2005 04:17 PM

The best-selling game of 2004, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, featured the voices of actors like Samuel L. Jackson and Peter Fonda. Just behind it on the sales charts was Halo 2 with the voices of Miguel Ferrer and Keith David

I'm sure they sold based on voice talent alone, and didn't stand on the fact that both were sequels to amazingly well selling franchises.

And let's be clear, you said "But more to the point, I just get annoyed when someone points to numbers that probably don't exist."

They exist. I've seen the sales data per quarter, but not the ancillary data that said that those numbers weren't driven by voice talent. I even pointed you to the website where they exist. I can't really do much more than that for you.

"Don't get all bitchy just because I asked for facts that you elude to, but apparently can't reproduce. Instead of floating something as an opinion, you wrote like a fact. If it is, just back it up. That's really not asking much."

If it's not asking much, then YOU buy the data. Yeah, you just asked for data that costs thousands of dollars. How reasonable of you. It's not my fault neither of us can afford it.

Besides, data that costs that much per copy comes with an NDA. I couldn't even quote it here if I wanted to, which believe me, I'd love to.

Posted by: bowler on June 16, 2005 04:28 PM

I'm sure they sold based on voice talent alone, and didn't stand on the fact that both were sequels to amazingly well selling franchises.

I never said they sold based on voice talent alone. Nobody ever has. But the voice talent helped drive sales. No, they didn't stand on the fact that they were both sequels - they both spent a lot on art production and other things and both reaped awards. You want to dismiss the dollar value of voice actors, but you don't have any facts to back that up.

If it's not asking much, then YOU buy the data. Yeah, you just asked for data that costs thousands of dollars. How reasonable of you. It's not my fault neither of us can afford it.

Excuse me? You want me to buy data to back up your statements? I didn't make the statements. I never said these numbers exist, you did ... who is being unreasonable here?

Quality voice acting can help sales, as some top sellers show. How about license titles? You don't think a buyer of a game based on a movie wants to hear the voices from that movie? You sidelined voice acting based on numbers. Either back up those numbers or back off.

Posted by: RegularX on June 16, 2005 04:43 PM

I never said they sold based on voice talent alone. Nobody ever has.

Then just what the hell are you arguing? I never said that voice talent wasn't valuable. I said it came second in importance after gameplay and design. If you're arguing with this point, you're arguing that it's at least equal, or better.

You want to dismiss the dollar value of voice actors, but you don't have any facts to back that up.

Since I obviously can't access the hard data that backs it up, please enjoy this laundry list of games that didn't sell a single unit based on voice talent.

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker
Mario Brothers Sunshine
Mario Party 4-7
Resident Evil (with the worst voice talent of all time, Barry)
Metal Gear Solid (take your pick)
Grand Theft Auto III
Halo
Doom (take your pick)
Quake (see also, take your pick)
Unreal Tournament (any edition)
Half Life.
Half Life 2.
Counterstrike
Battlefield 1942
Medal of Honor
Mortal Kombat (I, II, III, V, VI)
any Street Fighter
any Final Fantasy
God of War
Devil May Cry
Gran Turismo (any)
Ninja Gaiden
Soul Calibur (any)
Dead or Alive (any)
World of Warcraft
Warcraft (any)
Driver

Quality voice acting can help sales, as some top sellers show. How about license titles? You don't think a buyer of a game based on a movie wants to hear the voices from that movie?

The fact that you're arguing this point is just driving home the feeling for me that you don't even understand the concept of game design. Movie license titles come with the major voice actors. It wouldn't be much of a license without them.

I'm tired of arguing in this thread, just like the last one. If you folks want to continue debating this, feel free to email each other. This has become entirely unproductive, and I'm just going to lock the comments so we can continue on with more productive discussions on gaming.

I think it's obvious that we're all going to just have to agree to disagree here.

Posted by: bowler on June 16, 2005 07:36 PM