Ha
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
SAG-AFTRA Video Game Voice Actors Authorize Strike (they're not striking yet)
- Thread starter Shard
- Start date
Ha
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Don't worry, fellas. We have a replacement for them all.
Nice.
P5 would be unaffected, unless Atlus USA made it a union production, as they did with Catherine. Even if they did, though, they would sooner delay the English release than release early with only Japanese audio. The general consensus I've heard across localization companies is that English voice tracks are a boon towards sales, even for niche games. Regardless of how you feel about the quality of Atlus' dubs, I don't see them limiting the potential sales of their flagship game.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
If I could thumb up a comment, it would be this one.
IdreamofHIME
Member
Who are the demands aimed at? Who are they striking against? The article makes it sound like the big publishers...but that seems really silly.
They're gonna mass strike against hundreds of companies? How the heck does that work, how do you even begin negoations? Who's representing EA, Acti, Ubi and the many others, do they have to negoatiate each one by itself?
They're gonna mass strike against hundreds of companies? How the heck does that work, how do you even begin negoations? Who's representing EA, Acti, Ubi and the many others, do they have to negoatiate each one by itself?
Great news. Some of the terms offered that caused this whole kerfuffle were totally unreasonable, so good to see the authorisation to strike had such overwhelming support
This should hopefully bring the big studios back to the table in a less batshit, more constructive manner.
Or maybe this will convince billion dollar multinationals to not push for totally unreasonable clauses extending to nonsense fines for vague offences, all the while denying and diminishing the talent required to be a VA and the stress it puts on VA's bodies to do the work.
This should hopefully bring the big studios back to the table in a less batshit, more constructive manner.
Or maybe this will convince billion dollar multinationals to not push for totally unreasonable clauses extending to nonsense fines for vague offences, all the while denying and diminishing the talent required to be a VA and the stress it puts on VA's bodies to do the work.
Something that very very badly needed to happen, for a multitude of reasons ranging from excellent to hilariously off-target.
edit: Important to note there's no strike yet, but it's been authorized, which means there's literally a big red button with the plastic cover open.
edit: Important to note there's no strike yet, but it's been authorized, which means there's literally a big red button with the plastic cover open.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I'll be a scab. I can do a pretty good David Hayter. "metal gear? Metal Gear!"
Alcoholikaust
Member
ShockingAlberto
Member
Is this your first experience with a union?
If you hire union actors, you abide by their negotiated rules.
RipperGrim
Member
I guess it will be done the same way when the writers in Hollywood went on strike. They also worked with many different production companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–08_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike
You do realize that the lack of new young blood in the industry is because of the crappy pay and work rights, right? If you aren't voicing 90% of every game, its a terrible career choice.Maybe this will allow developers to hire young blood that wants to give all they have for a chance being part of a game.
Not paying someone thousands for a half-assed performance for a few days worth of work.
Unionizing and fighting for their rights will allow for a much more diverse market with constant infusion of "new blood"
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Paraphrasing, but:
* fines up to $2,500 for ANYTHING that the employer feels is disruptive. Yes, actors need to bring their A-game, but this is worded so that the employer has the authority to define what is "disruptive".
* fining your agent a minimum of $50k and a maximum of $100k for not sending actors to "certain" auditions. Again, "certain" is completely vague and basically means that your agent HAS to send you to an audition if an employer wants you. This takes away any sort of meaning or authority an agent has. And if your agent does not send you on "enough" auditions? YOUR AGENT CAN GET FIRED.
Now, I don't like that SAG VAs might no longer be able to work on non-SAG projects anymore, but these draconian demands are draconian and cannot in any way shape or form pass.
Bloody hell, those demands. :/
Japanmanx3
Member
And here. We. Go.
1) Anyone who employs SAG-AFTRA union members (but mainly the big publishers).
2) The same.
3) Nothing silly about it.
4) Negotiations have so far been blocked by the big publishers, but generally this stuff goes through mediation.
5) This is to lay out a base contract when dealing with SAG-AFTRA union members. You employ one, you agree to the contract. This is pre-negotiation to come up with a general base-level agreement that any future employment would be based on.
RipperGrim
Member
Maybe if you added words like "some" or "a few" but you didn't so your first comment is just a generalization and yes ignorant unless you are telling me you know exactly how VA work is done and how much work goes into it.
Not even "disruptiveness" even faint inattentiveness, like being caught looking at your phone, could potentially hit you with the same fine.
ShockingAlberto
Member
It's so vaguely worded, they could say "That pink shirt is not conducive to your job today."
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Oh, make no mistake, that's exactly what it means.
No more looking at that pesky clock to see if your break is coming up.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
Uncharted is the only game that I can think of that would be ruined with a recast of the main role. I wish them luck though. Get what you can get.
Imbarkus
As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
I'll be curious to see how this industry intends to slowly replace them all with "reality TV contestants."
Guest streamers doing voicework for the online PVP games of the future, is my first guess.
Guest streamers doing voicework for the online PVP games of the future, is my first guess.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
My guess is any SAG VAs they have will stop working on their projects. And if the outcome of this strike means that they can no longer hire SAG VAs alongside their non-SAG VAs, that could pose a problem. Not a huge one but still a problem.
BabyFaceKillah
Member
I hope this means I won't hear troy baker everywhere.
From what I remember, the union isn't demanding a blanket increase in wages, but a variable increase based on the success of the game. So indies would not have to pay out as much because the voice actor's union appreciates that they don't have as much money to spend. The exception is for things that might be detrimental to the workers' health, things like that.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
The main issue being if they can continue working on non-SAG licensed games.
There's something in place to provide against that. The residuals would only kick in after a game earns 2 million sales, and moreover, this is all dependent upon the games actually using union actors, which would probably be out of their budgets, just for the initial payment. Unless you're crazy like Feep, an indie dev is more likely to cast through places like the Voice Acting Alliance or even through Tumblr, with the entirety of an actor's pay usually ranging from nothing to ~$200, tops.
chrominance
Member
I've always been curious about this side of the business. We know there are plenty of non-union gigs and predominantly non-union actors. Are they all ficore? And given SAG-AFTRA's stance towards ficore (which I assume, but do not know for sure, is a stance common to most unions), doesn't this lead to prejudicial hiring down the road even for ficore actors?
I ask because there seem to be a few well-known actors who split between non-union and union work--Laura Bailey is the most obvious example I can think of--and I always wonder how that works.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Don't worry, fellas. We have a replacement for them all.
Man, new Chie's sounding rough.
striferser
Huge Nickleback Fan
Good luck for them. At least some of their demands need to fulfilled by pub/dev
I wish them all the best and hopefully a strike doesn't actually happen. Last time SAG went on strike for a brief stint , game companies just got all their stuff dubbed outside of the US by actors in other unions or even non-union actors.
Reading into this whole debacle , it's easy to get clouded judgement because everyone wants more money here but the rest of the points presented by SAG-AFTRA are all valid I think. Not to say they don't deserve a better paycheque if a videogame is very successful but that shouldn't be a guarantee , it should be worked out the same way residual cheques happen in radio/commercial/tv/movies. It should also be based on profitability of the product itself rather than just sales success. Not every game that sells 2 million units is actually profitable. But having a stunt co-ordinator or safety consultant on set when doing extensive motion capture work to avoid injury ? that doesn't sound so bad. An actor having the chance to see a general synopsis of the product in question so they know if they object for moral or other reasons to the work ? That sounds reasonable. Also, the point about "vocally stressful" recording sessions (IE- screaming into the mic pretending to be injured)being limited to 2 hours instead of 4 sounds acceptable. Voice actors aren't just working on your game after all and screaming for 4 hours is basically the equivalent of going to a rock concert so they need to either limit the session or extend an offer of hazard pay. Likewise, the suggestions by game publishers are pretty absurd - fining an actor 50% of their pay (at the publishers discretion) for being inattentive or failing to preform adequately(again, in the eyes of the publisher) shouldn't be a thing. If you don't like a voice over actor, find out about that during the audition phase , not while in the booth. You've already agreed to a contract to pay this person, you shouldn't have the ability to not pay them if their performance failed to live up to the expectations you had during an audition. As well, the idea that a game publisher thinks they have a right to black list a casting agency if they don't forward all potential work to all of their clients is absolutely absurd.
So basically, if the big name game publishers rescind all of their idiotic offers and give in to the demands of everything outside of the pay increase , well I think that's basically just treating professional acting in a video game the same as it is almost everywhere else. That's a good thing.
Even the residual based payment is something that could be smoothed over. Give an actor a choice - take scale pay for the work in question (whatever that happens to be worth) and get a 1 time lump sum bonus upon the shipment of the finished game based on total number of lines recorded/characters used in the final product and pre-order totals OR get the same scale pay with no lump sum bonus but a residual amount per copy sold based on how much of the game relies upon your performance. For example - if you're Nolan North and the game is Uncharted - and perhaps there are 1.5 million pre-orders you get to choose between a 1 time 15,000$ payment (based on 2 hours of utilized performance capture, facial capture and a 300 page script with 900 lines of recorded dialog and 200 quips , 100 reaction noises) OR you can opt in to a quarterly residual payment where for the lifetime(where lifetime is deemed a period not exceeding 60 months) of that version of the product every physical or digital copy sold earns you a tiny amount of money. In this scenario , I think it would be fair that the lump sum payment is worth 2-3 times as much per copy as the residuals. But for certain games the residual payment might give someone a steady source of income for a longer period of time. Take 15,000$ up front for 1.5 million pre-orders in a game you did a lot for as an actor (1 cent per copy pre-sold) OR 1 cent for every 3 copies sold in residuals. So the first 3 months , maybe 2.5 million copies sell - great you get an 8000$ residual cheque in the mail. The next 3 months only 500,000 copies sell, hey that's still 2000$. 3 more months go by and 100,000 copies sell, okay so you get a 300$ cheque. Draw this out over 4 more years and 3 months , a total of 17 cheques that might amount to another 1000$. Obviously this scenario of mine is hypothetical but I don't see residuals being very high per copy sold even if actors do get them and in most cases, unlike tv/movies - there isn't as much of a market after a couple years so simply paying them more money in the first place would probably be a better option. I also think that voice over work that's simply just the recording with no mo-cap or facial capture isn't worth as much money and might not even be eligible for a deal like this.
Really, the only game where residual payments might give you a decent bit of money is something like grand theft auto 5. 50 million copies sold, let's say you've got yourself even just 1 cent per copy sold from 2013 through to 2018 on all platforms- that's 500,000$ extra money! , even if it was just a third of a cent per copy sold you'd still have around 150K extra but how many games sell like GTA ? None. It's really not worth fighting for a big industry standard like residuals when only 1 game every 5 years will give an actor any kind of real money for it. And at that, only if they were a main character.
For those wondering- residuals work great for TV, especially when something hits syndication because you then get paid anytime your performance is witnessed anywhere on tv. I once heard a story about the voice actress for Wilma Flinstone , every other cast member on that show set up a residual agreement but she took a lump sum payment to sign those rights away. A few years after the show finished airing , it was massively syndicated which meant that all the voice actors kept getting a steady stream of income from the show but she got nothing. It's a gamble though because these kinds of contracts are usually set up very early on , if the show in question doesn't make syndication ? well it probably won't be seen after it's initial run but that's the gamble- a choice that an actor is afforded. So really with games , it's currently a choice they don't have so I suppose at least offering something would be better than nothing if only to say "hey here's what you could get IF the game is hugely successful".
Reading into this whole debacle , it's easy to get clouded judgement because everyone wants more money here but the rest of the points presented by SAG-AFTRA are all valid I think. Not to say they don't deserve a better paycheque if a videogame is very successful but that shouldn't be a guarantee , it should be worked out the same way residual cheques happen in radio/commercial/tv/movies. It should also be based on profitability of the product itself rather than just sales success. Not every game that sells 2 million units is actually profitable. But having a stunt co-ordinator or safety consultant on set when doing extensive motion capture work to avoid injury ? that doesn't sound so bad. An actor having the chance to see a general synopsis of the product in question so they know if they object for moral or other reasons to the work ? That sounds reasonable. Also, the point about "vocally stressful" recording sessions (IE- screaming into the mic pretending to be injured)being limited to 2 hours instead of 4 sounds acceptable. Voice actors aren't just working on your game after all and screaming for 4 hours is basically the equivalent of going to a rock concert so they need to either limit the session or extend an offer of hazard pay. Likewise, the suggestions by game publishers are pretty absurd - fining an actor 50% of their pay (at the publishers discretion) for being inattentive or failing to preform adequately(again, in the eyes of the publisher) shouldn't be a thing. If you don't like a voice over actor, find out about that during the audition phase , not while in the booth. You've already agreed to a contract to pay this person, you shouldn't have the ability to not pay them if their performance failed to live up to the expectations you had during an audition. As well, the idea that a game publisher thinks they have a right to black list a casting agency if they don't forward all potential work to all of their clients is absolutely absurd.
So basically, if the big name game publishers rescind all of their idiotic offers and give in to the demands of everything outside of the pay increase , well I think that's basically just treating professional acting in a video game the same as it is almost everywhere else. That's a good thing.
Even the residual based payment is something that could be smoothed over. Give an actor a choice - take scale pay for the work in question (whatever that happens to be worth) and get a 1 time lump sum bonus upon the shipment of the finished game based on total number of lines recorded/characters used in the final product and pre-order totals OR get the same scale pay with no lump sum bonus but a residual amount per copy sold based on how much of the game relies upon your performance. For example - if you're Nolan North and the game is Uncharted - and perhaps there are 1.5 million pre-orders you get to choose between a 1 time 15,000$ payment (based on 2 hours of utilized performance capture, facial capture and a 300 page script with 900 lines of recorded dialog and 200 quips , 100 reaction noises) OR you can opt in to a quarterly residual payment where for the lifetime(where lifetime is deemed a period not exceeding 60 months) of that version of the product every physical or digital copy sold earns you a tiny amount of money. In this scenario , I think it would be fair that the lump sum payment is worth 2-3 times as much per copy as the residuals. But for certain games the residual payment might give someone a steady source of income for a longer period of time. Take 15,000$ up front for 1.5 million pre-orders in a game you did a lot for as an actor (1 cent per copy pre-sold) OR 1 cent for every 3 copies sold in residuals. So the first 3 months , maybe 2.5 million copies sell - great you get an 8000$ residual cheque in the mail. The next 3 months only 500,000 copies sell, hey that's still 2000$. 3 more months go by and 100,000 copies sell, okay so you get a 300$ cheque. Draw this out over 4 more years and 3 months , a total of 17 cheques that might amount to another 1000$. Obviously this scenario of mine is hypothetical but I don't see residuals being very high per copy sold even if actors do get them and in most cases, unlike tv/movies - there isn't as much of a market after a couple years so simply paying them more money in the first place would probably be a better option. I also think that voice over work that's simply just the recording with no mo-cap or facial capture isn't worth as much money and might not even be eligible for a deal like this.
Really, the only game where residual payments might give you a decent bit of money is something like grand theft auto 5. 50 million copies sold, let's say you've got yourself even just 1 cent per copy sold from 2013 through to 2018 on all platforms- that's 500,000$ extra money! , even if it was just a third of a cent per copy sold you'd still have around 150K extra but how many games sell like GTA ? None. It's really not worth fighting for a big industry standard like residuals when only 1 game every 5 years will give an actor any kind of real money for it. And at that, only if they were a main character.
For those wondering- residuals work great for TV, especially when something hits syndication because you then get paid anytime your performance is witnessed anywhere on tv. I once heard a story about the voice actress for Wilma Flinstone , every other cast member on that show set up a residual agreement but she took a lump sum payment to sign those rights away. A few years after the show finished airing , it was massively syndicated which meant that all the voice actors kept getting a steady stream of income from the show but she got nothing. It's a gamble though because these kinds of contracts are usually set up very early on , if the show in question doesn't make syndication ? well it probably won't be seen after it's initial run but that's the gamble- a choice that an actor is afforded. So really with games , it's currently a choice they don't have so I suppose at least offering something would be better than nothing if only to say "hey here's what you could get IF the game is hugely successful".
Transistor
Banned
Anyone at all who says that voice actors are easy to replace need to watch "I Know That Voice". It's on Netflix.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Such a good film.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
He's giving Thrall he's got
SpikedGunner
Member
while I'm worried how this will effect future games (not the AAA ones, but smaller, non-SAG projects), I do agree that a number of the demands from SAG are reasonable, while some of the Publisher demands are outright bonkers or at least need to better clarified to be even remotely reasonable.
Best of luck in finding a good agreement between both sides quick.
Best of luck in finding a good agreement between both sides quick.