Consider this a job interviewjohnx61 said:
You don't get paid until we know you can produce the goods.
Game Voice Actors Reject Contract Due to Low Pay
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
You don't get paid until we know you can produce the goods.
Given I'm not standing on the other side of the screen shouting "More Action" George Lucas style, I think you're getting off lightly.
I mean, Billy Mayes job was pretty unskilled, Beckham just kicks a pigskin around a field and Marlon Brando just sat there, glowered and mumbled. There's a difference in between it looking easy and being easy I think.
I mean, Billy Mayes job was pretty unskilled, Beckham just kicks a pigskin around a field and Marlon Brando just sat there, glowered and mumbled. There's a difference in between it looking easy and being easy I think.
How many games have had good actors who have done little more than phone their lines in? The 1 person who does 20 different people often do a better job. If the SAG players want better wages then they have to agree to deliver the same level in performances that they deliver on the big screens.
ah hah! another Union vs non-Union debate! XD
but good for SAG for standing up for their ppls. Really too bad this is probably a losing battle.
Also note, just because they are SAG members does not automatically mean they are better voice actors <.<
but good for SAG for standing up for their ppls. Really too bad this is probably a losing battle.
Also note, just because they are SAG members does not automatically mean they are better voice actors <.<
I wish someone was offering me $200 an hour. The greedy f###ers should take the money and run with it, as far as I'm concerned!
At $200 an hour, I think these voice actors should be happy. How many of us make $200 an hour? Oh, sure, that's small change to a professional actor, but that's only because actors wages are ridiculously high.
And as a singer, let me just say, this bullshit about "damaging your voice" is overrated. Yes, you can damage your voice, but you don't do it by saying lines for 4 hours. You damage your voice by yelling, screaming, smoking, and drinking for excessive periods.
I think the Screen Actor's Guild needs to come down off of it's high horse and join the rest of us in the recession. Settle for a half-million dollar mansion and buy a Porsche instead of a Lamborghini. These are tough times.
And as a singer, let me just say, this bullshit about "damaging your voice" is overrated. Yes, you can damage your voice, but you don't do it by saying lines for 4 hours. You damage your voice by yelling, screaming, smoking, and drinking for excessive periods.
I think the Screen Actor's Guild needs to come down off of it's high horse and join the rest of us in the recession. Settle for a half-million dollar mansion and buy a Porsche instead of a Lamborghini. These are tough times.
Agreed, saying 'The 4 hours at 200.00$/hour is maybe the only gig they will get in the whole month' means those actors must be the laziest people to ever exist. My partners does seminars for companies on weekends and he's paid 125$/hour for four hours once or twice a month. He has also a full time job and teaches night classes twice a week too. If he heard their plight he would reach up to his check with right fist, put it under his eye and shake it gently for them.danpascooch said:
I dunno really how I feel. I just respect voice actors who stick with their characters (in terms of series) and is why David Haytor (Snake from MGS) has so much of my respect.
I know if I was a voice actor, I would prefer to keep my characters if they returned in something. Even in english when we read aloud, I was the same character every time (even got upset when someone took my role BECAUSE they knew I prefered the continuity). But I also think they deserve credit for it in terms of pay. But there is a different between fairness and snobbyness.
I know if I was a voice actor, I would prefer to keep my characters if they returned in something. Even in english when we read aloud, I was the same character every time (even got upset when someone took my role BECAUSE they knew I prefered the continuity). But I also think they deserve credit for it in terms of pay. But there is a different between fairness and snobbyness.
THANK YOU! Why don't people realize that since they can only get 4 hours a month of VOICE ACTING work that they shouldn't just throw in the damn towel, park their ass on the couch for the next 30 or so days, and then complain that they don't get enough pay!?Orekoya said:
I see two sides to the argument:
1. $200/hr to read out loud is overly generous. Salary price fixing is no more moral than commodity price fixing. Supply and demand should dictate price.
2. Many of the most renowned painters where impoverished in their time. How many other people of similar talent throughout time were unwilling to impoverish themselves to develop their talent and express it. If there was something in place that artificially supported more artists than there would be otherwise some of them will become very talented and we will all be richer.
Problem is, with 2 you have to pay up front with no guarantee of a return on your investment. Maybe if we paid voice actors $400/hr there would be an increase in quality. I think if the game companies want quality voice acting they will pay for it without SAG having to get involved. But if it isn't a priority of the game design, then they will get the best person who is willing to do it for what they are willing to pay. I think the SAG contract would ultimately reduce the amount of low end voice acting. Those developers will just stick with text. But in my opinion it will not increase the overall amount of quality voice work.
1. $200/hr to read out loud is overly generous. Salary price fixing is no more moral than commodity price fixing. Supply and demand should dictate price.
2. Many of the most renowned painters where impoverished in their time. How many other people of similar talent throughout time were unwilling to impoverish themselves to develop their talent and express it. If there was something in place that artificially supported more artists than there would be otherwise some of them will become very talented and we will all be richer.
Problem is, with 2 you have to pay up front with no guarantee of a return on your investment. Maybe if we paid voice actors $400/hr there would be an increase in quality. I think if the game companies want quality voice acting they will pay for it without SAG having to get involved. But if it isn't a priority of the game design, then they will get the best person who is willing to do it for what they are willing to pay. I think the SAG contract would ultimately reduce the amount of low end voice acting. Those developers will just stick with text. But in my opinion it will not increase the overall amount of quality voice work.
Video games are NOT expensive compared to movies or even TV shows.j0frenzy said:
And video game rake in HUGE amounts of money from how each unit sells for $60 while Movie tickets cost $10 and DVDs are cheap as hell now.
Video games depend so much on good voice acting as is borne out in how many voice actors are known mainly for their performances in games like David Hayter. If we want our video games to have personality and rise to their true potential and not be "Just toys" then they NEED voice actors and good ones too.
Good voice actors cost money, lots of money, but are worth every penny.
An industry where only 20% of the products released turn a profit is not one that needs to think up ways to make development costs go up, no matter how necessary the thing in question is (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=202401).Treblaine said:
Also, a lot more people watch movies than play video games.
Tried to be a soldier too, got that mixed up one time when I was a paramedic.bjj hero said:
It was kinda funny, one little mistake, I really think the police over reacted, I only shot like 19 people.
BULLSHITj0frenzy said:
Name me TEN games, from say 2008, that failed to even break even. And don't go naming some Wii shovel ware I'm talking real games that actually cost money to make. It is easy to name bad games that don't break even.
I already had this LONG and tiring conversation before in the comments section of an article by Christian Ward... I found OVER FORTY titles that just in 2008 broke even, many of them earning over 10 times what they cost to make which should make the publishers much more willing to take a chance.
And Newsflash: Most TV shows and Hollywood movies don't break even either and have been doing so since the 1970's yet movies and TV shows are getting more and more expensive and the industry is not going anywhere... WHY? Because the PRODUCTION COMPANIES like the Game Publishers usually record huge profits overall due to the big winners and wher they spend the MOST money they at least break even.
So you are AGAIN talking out of your arse if you repeat the ludicrous claim that games selling for $60 each should be made for minuscule amounts of money.
You are HIDEOUSLY oversimplifying things to just look at the numbers that turn a profit.
Have you never heard of the phrase "90% of everything is shit".
EDIT: Here it is, Sturgeon's Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law
"Ninety percent of everything is crud."
It's true. Millions of books are published every year, 90% of them are not worth the paper they are printed on and they deserve to not turn a profit and that is NOT, I REPEAT, NOT because they are too expensive to print but BECAUSE THEY ARE SHITE!!!!
The same thing goes for games, movies, tv shows, small businesses, inventions, the overwhelming majority fail because they are just. not. good.
Every game should not turn a profit just because it is a game. If it if good selling at $60 per game it will easily turn a profit even if development cost is $30 million but if it is bad then it should not turn a profit and if you don't like that I suggest you bugger off to North Korea or some other communist state as this is simple free market economics we are talking about. People vote with their wallets to support the good games and the bad ones die off.
Go on metacritic and look at all the incredibly lowly rated games in 2008... games like "George of the Jungle and the Search for the Secret".
Hell, many online critics have made a LIVING out of making fun of the thousands upon thousands of bad and obscure games, like the Angry Video Game Nerd who mostly focuses on classic 8-bit or 16-bit games.
Do THEY deserve to turn a profit? I don't think they do and most shite games like that don't even end up reviewed on metacritic, they barely get noticed yet prick-head "analysts" will see all these games failing and proclaim the sky is falling and all us gamers should pay $100 per game and settle for N64 graphics and absolutely no creative talent involved at all just to resolve this frivolous figure.
These analyst are a WASTE OF FU*KING TIME!
EDIT: This explains even better why this "only 20% of games turn a profit" is no reason for alarm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
Publishers find 80% of your money from only 20% of your games.
Remember kids, if you suck at business and can't make it in the real business world you could always become a market analyst. You'd get more insight asking some random guy in a pub.
See, this is part of the problem. Anyone with functioning vocal cords who thinks they can do better than what's out there in gaming can probably be talked into working for cheap. When supply vastly outstrips demand, price falls. Econ 101.Carlston said:
And adding my own two cents, I'm one of those people! If some video game company called me and said "want to be a voice in our new game?", especially if it was a company like Bethesda or any other studio whose games I actually play, I'd be like "Train fare, lodging, and a per diem for meals. Do that, you got yourself a deal."