Video Game Voice Actors Vote In Favor of Strike

[Erttheking]

Snip

Why do you have to pick one or the other? Why can't you recognize that they have crappy working conditions and still recognize the problems that coders have to go through? This isn't a zero sum game.

And can I please get a source on that number?

Except for the fact that it kind of is. There's only a finite amount of money to go around, and if more goes in one direction, then less goes in another, and if you think the executives will be volunteering for a pay cut then you're mistaken. Best case scenario is that the voice actors get paid more, and something has to be scaled back to compensate for already ridiculous budgets of modern games. Either they simply have less voice acting, or less pay for others, or slightly lower graphics and animation, or more microtransactions and other shady bullshit. Something somewhere has to get cheaper and/or more profitable to compensate.

I don't really get why we should be ignoring the symptoms just because of how horrible the overall mess is. What should the actors be doing? Saying "Well our situation sucks, but video gaming work conditions are such a diseased ridden carcass we should just take our lumps?" Change has to start SOMEWHERE.

Not asking for back end payments would be a good start. I'd be far more supportive of them if that was left out. I've heard that it might simply be something they mean to put on the table just to be removed during negotiations, and if that's the case then I'm more or less okay with this.
The thing about royalties is, I can more or less understand giving them to the big name actors, since some people genuinely will be more likely to buy the game if it has big name voice actors. If they want royalties then they can negotiate them; if it prices them out of a job, then I guess they'll have to go else where. But the idea of every random nobody who voices a character getting royalties is just absurd. If they feel their payment isn't enough, or the working conditions are bad, then I'm okay with them demanding better, assuming the problem is severe enough to warrant it. But why should the pay of some third party with sporadic involvement in the game's development get paid more or less depending on how well the game sold?

Considering all the shit publishers pull on voice actors like this, demanding back end payments seems rather small by comparison. And yeah, that's usually how negotiations work.

Well big budget video games have had a Hollywood fetish for a good decade now, it seems a little hypocritical that publishers want to emulate hollywood without also paying the bills that come with it.

I dunno, I'm so tired of hearing of all the shit publishers keep pulling, part of me just wants people to lash out at them anyway they can.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Snip

Why do you have to pick one or the other? Why can't you recognize that they have crappy working conditions and still recognize the problems that coders have to go through? This isn't a zero sum game.

And can I please get a source on that number?

Except for the fact that it kind of is. There's only a finite amount of money to go around, and if more goes in one direction, then less goes in another, and if you think the executives will be volunteering for a pay cut then you're mistaken. Best case scenario is that the voice actors get paid more, and something has to be scaled back to compensate for already ridiculous budgets of modern games. Either they simply have less voice acting, or less pay for others, or slightly lower graphics and animation, or more microtransactions and other shady bullshit. Something somewhere has to get cheaper and/or more profitable to compensate.

I don't really get why we should be ignoring the symptoms just because of how horrible the overall mess is. What should the actors be doing? Saying "Well our situation sucks, but video gaming work conditions are such a diseased ridden carcass we should just take our lumps?" Change has to start SOMEWHERE.

Not asking for back end payments would be a good start. I'd be far more supportive of them if that was left out. I've heard that it might simply be something they mean to put on the table just to be removed during negotiations, and if that's the case then I'm more or less okay with this.
The thing about royalties is, I can more or less understand giving them to the big name actors, since some people genuinely will be more likely to buy the game if it has big name voice actors. If they want royalties then they can negotiate them; if it prices them out of a job, then I guess they'll have to go else where. But the idea of every random nobody who voices a character getting royalties is just absurd. If they feel their payment isn't enough, or the working conditions are bad, then I'm okay with them demanding better, assuming the problem is severe enough to warrant it. But why should the pay of some third party with sporadic involvement in the game's development get paid more or less depending on how well the game sold?

Considering all the shit publishers pull on voice actors like this, demanding back end payments seems rather small by comparison. And yeah, that's usually how negotiations work.

Well big budget video games have had a Hollywood fetish for a good decade now, it seems a little hypocritical that publishers want to emulate hollywood without also paying the bills that come with it.

I dunno, I'm so tired of hearing of all the shit publishers keep pulling, part of me just wants people to lash out at them anyway they can.

To be honest, I'm kind of hoping this whole ordeal helps them get over that Hollywood fetish. I like games with a good story, but even the best acting and animation in the world won't help shit writing. I'll take a well written story with bad or non-existent voice acting over a character so well voiced and so well animated that you almost believe you're in the room with this bland, generic character. If this does end up deterring publishers from waddling awkwardly along behind cinema then I guess it could be a good thing, but if not, it'll just end up adding to the already bloated budgets, which they'll probably try to make back through shitty business practices.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Looks like Jim Sterling's video on the subject was quite timely indeed.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

...video gaming work conditions are such a diseased ridden carcass we should just take our lumps?"...Working conditions are fucking pathetic, our priorities could be to get rid of it...

Ok, would someone explain to me why conditions for working on a video game are supposedly so terrible? I mean, no one here is spending 12 hours a day in a coal mine, or in a junkyard, or working on a fishing boat off the Alaskan coast, they work in an climated-controlled office or studio doing a not particularly dangerous job.

If you want to argue that they're under-compensated then, ok, I got that, but that's a different category than working conditions.

 

[Erttheking]

...video gaming work conditions are such a diseased ridden carcass we should just take our lumps?"...Working conditions are fucking pathetic, our priorities could be to get rid of it...

Ok, would someone explain to me why conditions for working on a video game are supposedly so terrible? I mean, no one here is spending 12 hours a day in a coal mine, or in a junkyard, or working on a fishing boat off the Alaskan coast, they work in an climated-controlled office or studio doing a not particularly dangerous job.

If you want to argue that they're under-compensated then, ok, I got that, but that's a different category than working conditions.

You know you can have crappy working conditions without being in a coal mine. And the video game industry has some pretty serious problems. Extra Credits did a good video on this

 

[Ihateregistering1]

...video gaming work conditions are such a diseased ridden carcass we should just take our lumps?"...Working conditions are fucking pathetic, our priorities could be to get rid of it...

Ok, would someone explain to me why conditions for working on a video game are supposedly so terrible? I mean, no one here is spending 12 hours a day in a coal mine, or in a junkyard, or working on a fishing boat off the Alaskan coast, they work in an climated-controlled office or studio doing a not particularly dangerous job.

If you want to argue that they're under-compensated then, ok, I got that, but that's a different category than working conditions.

You know you can have crappy working conditions without being in a coal mine. And the video game industry has some pretty serious problems. Extra Credits did a good video on this

So some companies have terrible managers and some don't? So it's basically like every other industry on the planet?

Nothing here is particularly shocking, no company (or industry) is flawlessly run. The only part that I would call somewhat fucked up is if your employer flat out told you that if you quit them you won't work in the industry again, but it's worth noting that if you attempt to get a new job, and they contact your old workplace and your old workplace straight up lies about you, you can sue your former employer.

Regardless, so you're working for a company you hate for an insane amount of hours (and I'm assuming not getting paid a ton for it) and you hate it? Then quit. You work for well-over $20 billion a year industry, other jobs exist.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Since when has something being widespread ever made it acceptable?

Yeah, you can sue your former employer if you have the money to hire a lawyer, which many people don't.

You do know that the job market is pretty tight right now, correct? And that a lot of game companies only hire people on for temporary jobs? How much money the industry makes overall is irrelevant. Wallmart makes ten times that. I think we all know how they treat their employees. And really, you're missing the point. Running away from problems doesn't solve anything. People like the ones in this strike want to fix the problems and not just ignore them. What's wrong with that?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Snip

Since when has something being widespread ever made it acceptable?

Yeah, you can sue your former employer if you have the money to hire a lawyer, which many people don't.

You do know that the job market is pretty tight right now, correct? And that a lot of game companies only hire people on for temporary jobs? How much money the industry makes overall is irrelevant. Wallmart makes ten times that. I think we all know how they treat their employees. And really, you're missing the point. Running away from problems doesn't solve anything. People like the ones in this strike want to fix the problems and not just ignore them. What's wrong with that?

Why is it unacceptable? Nothing these companies are doing is illegal, even if there are some asshole-ish elements to it. If you have that much of a problem with it, why not organize a boycott?

In theory, these people striking aren't Managers and Executives, thus aren't the ones actually crunching numbers and assessing the actual feasibility of paying the VAs more, or cutting down work hours, or whatever exactly is the problem that you seem to think has affected every portion of the games' industry. One can obviously argue if those managers and execs know what they are doing, but they certainly know more about the feasibility of those aforementioned ideas than I do.

Why does the games industry hire people on a temporary basis? Is that simply the nature of the business, or is the market over-saturated with people trying to get into the industry?

The current US unemployment rate is 5.5%, which is actually quite low. Just saying the "job market" doesn't really paint a good picture, because while some professions are saturated with potential hires, others can barely get enough qualified people. It's worth noting that Software and Information are both hiring quite a lot right now, which I can imagine would be a good fit for someone computer savvy enough to design video games.

And I mention how much the Industry makes to illustrate that it is a huge industry with 1000s of employees.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Why is it unacceptable? Why is treating employees like shit considered acceptable? And I'd happily do that, it's why I don't buy from EA anymore.

Executives seem to be the people who constantly fuck over the industry with season passes, microtransactions, the homogenization of games, the bloating of game budgets, milking franchises to death with sequels, awful PC ports, general dishonesty, and a bunch of other things. As such, I don't give a rat's ass what they think about the strike. They're more concerned with lining their pockets than the stability of the industry.

You say that like you're not entirely sure. Considering that AAA companies don't really give a shit about overall quality and focus more on making money and moving copies, I'm going to say that it's the

Yeah, but the thing is things are still tough over here. You need a degree and an internship if you want to get a well paid job. The middle class is freaking disappearing.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/26/middle-class/

And even though unemployment is lower, it's still much harder than it used to be to get a job, especially nowadays when less workers are expected to get through the same workload that a larger force was expected to ten years ago. And this is all assuming that when you find a job, the pay isn't shit. In sort, America's job market isn't doing too hot right now.

Yeah, that didn't really do the employees of Irrational Games much good when it closed down, due to there being no real alternative places to work in the nearby area. And like I said, this is all assuming that those game companies are hiring, and if they do, they may not keep you for very long. So tell me, why is trying to make your job better so bad?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Snip

Why is it unacceptable? Why is treating employees like shit considered acceptable? And I'd happily do that, it's why I don't buy from EA anymore.

Executives seem to be the people who constantly fuck over the industry with season passes, microtransactions, the homogenization of games, the bloating of game budgets, milking franchises to death with sequels, awful PC ports, general dishonesty, and a bunch of other things. As such, I don't give a rat's ass what they think about the strike. They're more concerned with lining their pockets than the stability of the industry.

You say that like you're not entirely sure. Considering that AAA companies don't really give a shit about overall quality and focus more on making money and moving copies, I'm going to say that it's the

Yeah, but the thing is things are still tough over here. You need a degree and an internship if you want to get a well paid job. The middle class is freaking disappearing.

http://billmoyers.com/2015/01/26/middle-class/

And even though unemployment is lower, it's still much harder than it used to be to get a job, especially nowadays when less workers are expected to get through the same workload that a larger force was expected to ten years ago. And this is all assuming that when you find a job, the pay isn't shit. In sort, America's job market isn't doing too hot right now.

Yeah, that didn't really do the employees of Irrational Games much good when it closed down, due to there being no real alternative places to work in the nearby area. And like I said, this is all assuming that those game companies are hiring, and if they do, they may not keep you for very long. So tell me, why is trying to make your job better so bad?

"So tell me, why is trying to make your job better so bad?"
It depends. If your efforts to make your job "better" results in your job eventually getting phased out (or, at the very least, replaced by someone significantly cheaper) because they can no longer afford to hire you, then yes, it's quite bad.

"Executives seem to be the people who constantly fuck over the industry with season passes, microtransactions, the homogenization of games, the bloating of game budgets, milking franchises to death with sequels, awful PC ports, general dishonesty, and a bunch of other things."
I'm quite happy with the output of the industry now. Sure, it's not 100% perfect (what is?) but I don't even have the time to play all the games I'd like to, and if that's the worst thing I can say about something, that's doing pretty well.

"As such, I don't give a rat's ass what they think about the strike. They're more concerned with lining their pockets than the stability of the industry."
You've conducted interviews with every executive who works in an industry that has employment numbers probably well into the 10,000s? Rock on then dude.

"Yeah, but the thing is things are still tough over here. You need a degree and an internship if you want to get a well paid job."
We could argue economics all week, but I can tell you from personal experience that this simply isn't true. There's an enormous lack of skilled laborers right now in the US (Electricians, Pipe Fitters, Welders, etc.). Those guys make tons of money and have superb job security, and none of those aforementioned professions require a college degree. Are they tough, dirty jobs that have an element of danger? Sure, hence a big part of the reason they pay well, but just having a degree guarantees nothing unless it qualifies you for something companies are actually looking for. In fact, if anything, we're oversaturated with people with degrees that don't translate into any real world skills that companies are actually looking for (hence the insane student debt levels present).

And c'mon man, Bill Moyers? Wasn't he the guy who claimed firefighter tests were racist because they expected you to know what a chimney was? Anyhoo, here's some highly biased stuff to counter his highly biased stuff:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/12/24/the-case-that-the-middle-class-is-doing-better-than-we-think/
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288482/middle-class-shrinking-veronique-de-rugy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101556.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323468604578249723138161566

 

[weirdee]

Why does the games industry hire people on a temporary basis? Is that simply the nature of the business, or is the market over-saturated with people trying to get into the industry?

In their model of economic theory, it's more efficient to rent people than to pay long term benefits for those people, but the problem with that kind of practice, if we forget about the fact that these are human beings slaving away for our amusement and talk purely about the quality of the games, is that you end up with extra bits of inefficiency and increased error caused by assembling teams quickly and having them work on systems that they don't know well enough to avoid pitfalls, and these problems compound the issue when they're combined, which results in games like faceless horror assassin's creed. In addition, since these workers are considered somewhat disposable, this also encourages overworking employees to favor conserving assets over labor (to, say, make up for shortcomings caused by compounding issues from inefficiency and errors), which they think adds to their bottom line, but makes the situation even worse, because now everybody in charge of crucial game features is now functioning on a drunken level of consciousness (even if they aren't already drinking during overtime).

Of course, this is perfectly normal to the people in charge. Since they don't want to budge on that matter, most modern game industry practices focus on what they think is the largest issue...convincing potential buyers that paying more money for their churned out pile of trash has actually "increased the value of the experience" and to accept the status quo, while quietly adjusting standards for maximum profit at everybody else's cost. Why else would they continue to put increasingly ridiculous amounts of money into marketing, a practice that contributes almost no lasting value, if the primary goal isn't to shovel that crap down every open chimney? Did Destiny need a music video that had nothing to do with Destiny?

The 'nature of the business', if that is the phrase that people insist on using when they're about to disregard factors such as the meaning of human existence, is to exploit everybody in the supply and demand chain in the most technically economical way possible...which has almost zero regard for creating games that people will remember past half a year. To say that these games, industry practices, and the companies that have sold themselves to the cycle, have a place in the market (and by proxy, our minds and lives) is like saying that a toilet clog deserves unquestioned respect because it has been successful at lodging itself firmly in the plumbing, and that since it's very difficult and unpleasant to remove this fetid, choking mass that is preventing people from actually using the bathroom, we should instead consider the toilet flooding as "the nature of the business" and begin rationalizing it as an improvement.

The reason why games haven't gotten better is because the people working on them can't build any meaningful experience when there is no concern for investing in quality, consistency, or the people themselves. Between having to relearn things for different systems when they transfer between companies, projects, and hardware, being paid on a short term basis with no job security or benefits, and picking up the slack from mismanagement with overreliance on "crunch time", the bottom line for these folks is that if they can't find a permanent position at a company, they're just going to end up burning out or getting fed up with being used, and moving to another career. Think about it, the industry is just churning through employees passing through a revolving door. Thousands of people to learn the same things that the people before them did, and then throwing those people out before they even get to make any difference. Staggeringly wasteful, and the only people who benefit in the end are the ones laughing all the way to the bank.

And it's not just "some companies have bad managers" when we're seeing this happening at the largest, most profitable organizations.

PS: The argument that something isn't illegal falls flat when laws are made on the basis of padding the right pockets, as evidenced by corporations having more rights than people, including recognition as people.

 

[Protocol95]

Why are people framing this as "those greedy VA's, wanting more than programmers/QA testers/etc, they don't deserve that" and not "VA's get treated like shit and deserve more from publishers. Also, programmers/QA testers/etc get treated like shit and deserve more from publishers"?

VA's and the dev teams aren't opposed here.

Likely better said than I could've. I wish to know why is it that people here because they don't like or can't name many VAs that they don't care. Just because I mightn't like a chef's food doesn't mean I don't think they didn't do a good job and/or put a lot of effort into it.

 

[Strazdas]

Here is what people don't get. Laura Bailey, Jennifer Hale, Troy Baker, these big names who you hear in everything are supporting this. Why? Because they're greedy?
No. Because as major members of the union their solidarity matters and lends weight to their argument.
This is not, ultimately, for Jenn Hale in those big title roles. This is for Cam Clarke, or Claudia Christian, or all those npcs who say one or two lines, but play three different characters.
Voice acting is a difficult profession for many, MANY actors. Most VAs audition for as many of those small roles as possible in order to make ends meet between their next well paying gig, and there are tons of complications.
And the fact that this doesn't help the programmers should not matter. There is little, if any, representation for most Gaming Industry professions. That needs to change if they are to improve THEIR quality of life. Maybe if this works it will inspire the first artist's union in gaming. Maybe not. But do not direct your rage at the Actors, who are still a part of the machine, no matter how large or small. Direct it at the corporate structure that led to them demanding an improvement.
They have a method to fight back that others don't. Should they then not fight so that all may suffer equally?

yes, because they are greedy. and the whole argument is based on greed. And yes, this includes those NPCs. Voice actors are not special or somehow critical to a games sucess. those people are called Programmers. it is absolute greed to ask that voice actors get paid more whne they are already paid more than people that do far more than VA could ever do. The demands provided are absolutely bonkers (make it illegal for VA outside of union to get work - 100% mafia move). This gives the bad name to unions, not inspire them.

Why are people framing this as "those greedy VA's, wanting more than programmers/QA testers/etc, they don't deserve that" and not "VA's get treated like shit and deserve more from publishers. Also, programmers/QA testers/etc get treated like shit and deserve more from publishers"?

VA's and the dev teams aren't opposed here.

because the first dscription is the correct one. Vas are greedy despite NOT being treated like shit.

Ok, snark aside, I think I support the VA on this one actually. They worked, they helped contribute to the success, only fair they get a portion of the success. While I would say the actual workhorses of the game creators should get the lion's share of that sort of profit sharing process, I don't see why the VA can't also get a little of that too.

they already get a larger portion than programmers do. Yet they want a even larger portion AND royalties for every sale.

sorry but your favorite va is on strike so we bring you some random bum off the street

Worked for Silent Hill 2.

Just wanted to point out 1 thing.

The VA's want these perks because that's what VA's get in the movie industry.

I see a lot of posts pitting VA's against the coders and developers of the game when really they aren't in competition here, they are both being wronged.

no. VAs should not get these perks. Neither in games nor in movies. its just that the mafia guilds manage to strong-arm extortion for their people are apparently not satiated with being one of the most well paid professions.

Why is it people who actually want better working conditions are always looked on with scorn or indifference? It doesn't say a lot of good things about this world.

Well, I hope this works for them.

Probably because those who demand better conditions in this case already have conditions far better than most people in the industry.

When there being paid tens of thousands of dollars a day in some cases yes.

Key word here being some. I'm pretty sure the majority weren't. And according to somewhere else in this thread, publishers like to fine the actors where they can and take that money away from them. Not to mention ten thousand dollars in one day sounds good, but if you can't get a steady stream of work after that, you're going to be in trouble.

False. If they are members of the guilt it ensures that they are being paid MINIMUM 1600 dollars for an 8 hour day. So yes, they are ALL being paid thousands of dollars a day. If you cant get work in profession this well paid perhaps its time to start looking for a different job?

Extra Credits did a good video

this sentence is an oxymoron.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

It's not like the VAs don't have a leg to stand on. I mean, look at how batshit people got over the possibility of David Bateson being replaced in Hitman Absolution? Or David Hayter in Metal Gear Solid? Most Hollywood talent is also part of this same guild if they've done any voice work at all. Plus, voice actors often promote games they're in, whether it be at cons or just by being in the trailer and other advertisements.

Personally, I can't do games without voice-overs anymore. Bravely Default may have had an awesome story but it's rather dull presentation would have bored me to tears had their not at least been voice acting to keep me entertained. I'd like to hear some new voice talent (I love Troy Baker's range, but he seriously phoned it in for Ocelot in MGSV) but this strike wouldn't really help with that either. Hopefully there will be some kind of resolution.

BUT... I still think the devs, ya know, the people that actually MAKE the games, deserve some kind of bonus as well. It's funny how every time voice actors get pissy about bonuses they forget about the people who actually make their work possible. Granted I'll admit to ignorance in that area - perhaps they do get some kind of bonus depending on a game's success, but I've not heard of it happening.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Extra Credits did a good video

this sentence is an oxymoron.

You. I like you.

Also, I'm not 100% familiar with Extra Credits, but is that the narrator's real voice, or does he ingest a giant balloon's worth of helium before each video? He sounds like he represents the Lollipop Guild.

 

[CaitSeith]

Snip

Since when has something being widespread ever made it acceptable?

Yeah, you can sue your former employer if you have the money to hire a lawyer, which many people don't.

You do know that the job market is pretty tight right now, correct? And that a lot of game companies only hire people on for temporary jobs? How much money the industry makes overall is irrelevant. Wallmart makes ten times that. I think we all know how they treat their employees. And really, you're missing the point. Running away from problems doesn't solve anything. People like the ones in this strike want to fix the problems and not just ignore them. What's wrong with that?

Why is it unacceptable? Nothing these companies are doing is illegal, even if there are some asshole-ish elements to it. If you have that much of a problem with it, why not organize a boycott?

Like the one the voice actors are planning?

 

[Varis]

I don't understand why everyone is antagonizing these people for wanting more money off their work, especially since the terms are "pay us more, after our contribution along with others' involved brought us these good returns from which to pay us from."

It isn't like they're going on strike and their terms are "pay us and take that money away from everyone else."

Most developers, people writing code, are "day laborers". they get paid a salary for making the game. Most of the cost for hiring personnel is an investment. Everyone is getting paid one way or the other, if not then people start suing. But, the point here is, that if the game sells big figures, the people that were part of it's development naturally want extra, and why shouldn't they? There is from which to pay now that the game sold good.
That is truest when you think of a big studio, let's say EA, or Activision, making a killing and of course the studio gets rich; but do the "day laborers"? The people actually working on these big titles? There isn't that many millionaires among your average environment artist or narrative designer, QA people nor gameplay designer. Neither is there multimillionaire VO actors.

What I think is, people in the industry should support this strike and use that as a stepping stone for a more equal pay for their own jobs' as well, not accuse others willing to make something happen for a better pay of robbing them, since that isn't the case.

Now, one could argue that this is detrimental to indie studios? Ones' with little money to start with?
To reiterate, they still were only asking for a bonus if the game sells well. They're not being unreasonable; if you can pay a bonus, why shouldn't you?
The only thing you should be complaining about is that why doesn't everyone else rise up and demand the same thing for their work.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I don't understand why everyone is antagonizing these people for wanting more money off their work, especially since the terms are "pay us more, after our contribution along with others' involved brought us these good returns from which to pay us from."

It isn't like they're going on strike and their terms are "pay us and take that money away from everyone else."

Well they sort of are. I mean, there's a finite amount of money that a company has available, if one group starts getting paid more then the cash has to come from somewhere.

But anyway, I'm not antagonizing them for going on strike, it's their right. I just don't think it's going to end well for them. As I said before, I've never heard anyone say they bought a game specifically for good voice acting, or specifically because a certain individual was one of the voice actors, and reading lines into a microphone is not something that takes years of training to do (unlike learning how to program), so the simple fact is that they don't have much leverage here.

 

[Varis]

Spoiler

I don't understand why everyone is antagonizing these people for wanting more money off their work, especially since the terms are "pay us more, after our contribution along with others' involved brought us these good returns from which to pay us from."

It isn't like they're going on strike and their terms are "pay us and take that money away from everyone else."

Well they sort of are. I mean, there's a finite amount of money that a company has available, if one group starts getting paid more then the cash has to come from somewhere.

But anyway, I'm not antagonizing them for going on strike, it's their right. I just don't think it's going to end well for them. As I said before, I've never heard anyone say they bought a game specifically for good voice acting, or specifically because a certain individual was one of the voice actors, and reading lines into a microphone is not something that takes years of training to do (unlike learning how to program), so the simple fact is that they don't have much leverage here.

So, you'd also say that any of the most bankable actors you see in the movies could very well be replaced by any random person from the street? Acting is an art, and people get better at it the more they do it. Voice acting doesn't differ from it, you might even say that since you cannot use gestures to convey emotions it might be partly even harder to do. Talent plays a big part, but if you don't nurture that talent and practice, you won't get far. Same goes for programming. And basically anything that is worth doing.

And I'd say that they have plenty of leverage, given that anybody can learn how to do programming. You don't need any special talent to memorize lines that in a certain engine make things happen. You can have vision, and be creative in the ways you utilize your memory of the engine, but you can learn how to code by being able to read. But when it comes to voice acting, besides having to act to become better at it, you also need to have a voice that fits whatever a game studio might desire. And that can't be taught.

You have probably noticed how certain voice actors seem to be in almost every other game that's come in these past few years since VO in games became a thing? How Peter Dinklage's VO got booted from Destiny? Replaced by career voice actor Nolan North? If that doesn't prove my point of voice acting being as much a talent as it is a result of hard work and years of training, I don't know what would.
So, if you are in big demand, but feeling like you're not getting a salary befitting of your contribution, contribution which quite clearly affects the end product, I think you're well deserving of a cut.

And as I stated earlier in my other post, that is what the industry at large should wake up to as well, and all demand a pay fitting of their contribution to the games across the board, as well as pleasant working conditions.

PS. Regarding the finite amount of money companies have at their use, you're right and that would be the case if they were demanding a straight up raise. But they were only demanding a bonus -if- the game makes good returns. Thus everyone gets all that they would in the first place and no one would get any less than the other because of it.