Following yesterday’s news that the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists (AFTRA) had endorsed a tentative deal with videogame publishers that would see voice actors receive a raise, word comes today that the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) has rejected a similar contract.
SAG’s board had approved the agreement and passed it on to its four member caucuses, which shot it down. Variety reports that a provision designed to allow a single actor to perform multiple parts (up to 20 voices, with up to 300 words each) in turn for a daily base rate was the reason for the rejection.
Word also comes down that not only did AFTRA—which according to Variety receives the “lion’s share” of videogame-related work—endorse their deal, but they did so in “an overwhelming and strong” manner.
The two sides will apparently now return to the bargaining table.
Comments
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
These people are always trying to get a disproportionate amount of money out of video games. They don't deserve the raises they ask for because they're not an important part of the game development process.
When you have a dramatic movie, basically 95% of it is showing the work of actors. If you remove them... well you'd have nothing. Nobody would see a movie with the actors just cut out of it- there's little to nothing left. They make huge assloads of money because they're damned important.
When you have a video game, actors are basically an extra sound effect, even less important than gunshots or footsteps in many cases. You only hear them occasionally to sparsely, depending on the game, and if you removed them, you'd have exactly the same game only with awkwardly silent characters. Few would prefer that but anyone could get over it- games only started to regularly have voice acting 15 years ago.
And these people want a cut? I've listened to Steve Downes, the voice of Master Chief, talk about how he wants voice actors to get a percentage of the profits, like how some movie deals work. That's insane! Not even the lead designers, artists, programmers, testers, the really important people, get a cut of the profits. Everyone else is salaried. Why should actors get millions?
It's tantamount to the actors in corporate advertisements asking for 10-15% of corporate revenues, i mean, they're the ACTORS IN THE COMMERCIALS for god's sake. Oh, here's 15 million dollars for you.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
Disproportionate? These people get paid worse then the janitor. Very few voice actors can even make a living doing it, and the work is very erratic. The only ones who make buttloads of money are there for the marquee value and are not covered by these contracts anyway since they generally have thier own legal teams and set terms on a project by project basis.
Oh, and if you use outside assets like artwork, it is not unusual for the art house to get a cut of the royalties, so this is not unusual when you are working with IP providors. Same applies to many 3rd party libraries or even development tools. It is not unusual to buy assets and pay back on a per-unit basis.
An example would be any game that uses mp3 technology. It used to be something like '15 cents per copy produced or $15,000 per product' or something like that. Art packs and sound banks worked the same way.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
How long does it take to do voice acting for games? Depending on how many lines the character you're doing it for it could be as short as a one day session. It's just that kind of work. How much they get paid seems proportionate to me. They aren't working 40+ hour weeks for 2 years like the programmers and artists, something which also often requires a college degree to do.
http://www.eliteownage.com/nice
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
I'm getting the distinct impression that you're pulling most of what you're saying out of thin air. I mean, you don't really know about how this stuff works, do you? I'm just guessing, but still.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
Erm... 'bags' means 'gets'. Surely that's the opposite of what the writer means.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
Perhaps they meant 'sacks'?
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
If we must have Mother Goose headlines, then "SAG Gags on Videogame Voice Deal" would have been a better choice, IMO.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
IMO they need to quit their whining. They are getting paid to talk into a microphone. Yeah, it takes skill to do it well, but there are a lot of people who can. The worst is when they think they should get royalties, especially when you consider the vast amount of effort that goes into the other roles of game creation by programmers and artists who typically get none.
http://www.eliteownage.com/nice
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
"They are getting paid to talk into a microphone."
Yeah, right. The skill of acting doesn't play any role. And as a picture framer I get paid to put a few sticks and a piece of glass over a picture - that's all there is to it - no skill, no craft. But even if it were just that simple, so what?
Since when was it against the rules of capitalism that workers shouldn't try to get more money? That's the essence of the free market.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
Since when is it against the rules of the constitution for him to voice his opinion on the regard?
That's the essence of free speech.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
Who said he couldn't voice his opinion? The poster merely voiced a counter-opinion. That, too and if not more so, is the essence of free speech.
Re: SAG Bags Videogame Voice Acting Deal
I dont even care about the article.
Where the hell is that hilarious picture from?
EDIT: Nevermind, it's fake, i found the big version.