Video Game Voice Actors Vote In Favor of Strike

[Ihateregistering1]

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.

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.

Well sure, well-known people like Nolan North or Jennifer Hale might have that kind of sway, but they represent a tiny fraction of overall voice actors.

Comparing them to actors appearing on the big screen is a little disingenuous. For starters is the obvious fact that actors need to maintain certain looks (and occasionally change those looks) while voice actors don't. You're not going to find random people on the street who are built like Dwayne Johnson, or as attractive as Jennifer Lawrence, and that's before you even get into their acting ability. Second is the fact that the vast majority of people can recognize a famous actor both from their voice and from their appearance, not so for voice actors. 3rd is that actors are often required to travel long distances, live in oddball environments (depending what movie they are shooting) for extended periods of time, and perhaps even rough it a little bit, while VAs record all their lines in a studio. That being said, you are partially correct that evidence is flimsy over how much having a big-name actor actually affects the profit of a movie.

Following up on that, I've heard plenty of times when people have said that a certain actor/actress being in a movie has increased their desire to see the movie, but I've yet to hear, even once, "oh man, Nolan North is in this game, now I really want to buy it!". Anecdotal? Sure, but it's been my experience.

As for how hard voice acting is? I'm not one so I can't say, and it's something of an arbitrary idea regardless. Some actors have said that they have put their heart and soul into their roles, while others have joked that acting is basically a joke.

Anyway, remains to be seen what happens if they actually go through with the strike.

 

[Kaimax]

Following up on that, I've heard plenty of times when people have said that a certain actor/actress being in a movie has increased their desire to see the movie, but I've yet to hear, even once, "oh man, Nolan North is in this game, now I really want to buy it!". Anecdotal? Sure, but it's been my experience.

QFT, in case of the NA Voice acting industry.
IMHO, Until they have the same prestige and quality building as the Japanese Voice Industry, this Strike seems overblown out of proportion.

 

[shirkbot]

The demands provided are absolutely bonkers (make it illegal for VA outside of union to get work - 100% mafia move).

May I ask why this is bonkers? The union is trying to ensure that there is incentive to join the union so they can maintain their power. The same power which is essential for keeping industry conditions good. At this stage there is no telling what the new terms will actually be, and it's entirely possible some of their terms are there just so they can remove them later. Both parties are just flexing their muscles to prove they're more important/in control. All I can say is that if programmers and developers had a union, they'd do the same thing and I'd say more power to them.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

WHOOO SILENT PROTAGONISTS!!! can't wait

No please bring back stuff like "Blood, this looks like Chris's blood"

 

[Ihateregistering1]

The demands provided are absolutely bonkers (make it illegal for VA outside of union to get work - 100% mafia move).

May I ask why this is bonkers? The union is trying to ensure that there is incentive to join the union so they can maintain their power. The same power which is essential for keeping industry conditions good. At this stage there is no telling what the new terms will actually be, and it's entirely possible some of their terms are there just so they can remove them later. Both parties are just flexing their muscles to prove they're more important/in control. All I can say is that if programmers and developers had a union, they'd do the same thing and I'd say more power to them.

If a Union says "you have to join our union and pay dues, whether you like it or not, or you won't be able to work", that's not really an incentive to join, that's basically extortion.

It's largely predicated on the idea that "well if we (the union) didn't exist, you'd be making way less money/get way less benefits/be getting abused by your employer" etc. etc. The issue is that not everyone agrees with this idea, but whether they do or not, too bad, gotta join the union (and pay your dues).

As I pointed out in another thread related to labor stuff, Unions can be an ass-pain for new hires as well. For example, I used to work for a Unionized company. If you were a new hire, you HAD to take the Union's healthcare plan, whether you wanted it or not. So in other words, let's say your spouse had an awesome health plan that covered your entire family that you wanted to stick with: too damn bad, you have to pay for the union health plan, whether you use it or not. Likewise, the plan covered your entire family, so it didn't matter if you were single or married with 5 kids; you had to pay for the union plan, even if there was a cheaper, better plan available that you wanted to get for yourself,

Likewise, up until about 2012 with the passage of the RAISE act, it was commonplace for unions to actually put limits on how much their members could earn in the name of 'fairness'. In other words, if you were a union member, but you kicked ass at your job and worked your butt off and were easily the best worker, it was possible they would actually stop you from getting raises. After all, if you were a kick ass employee and were making progress and lots of money without the help of your Union, then other employees might think "hey, maybe we don't need a Union after all?", and the bosses won't tolerate that kind of thinking.

WHOOO SILENT PROTAGONISTS!!! can't wait

No please bring back stuff like "Blood, this looks like Chris's blood"

I would kill to hear a variation of "Jill, here's a lockpick. It might be handy if you, the master of unlocking, take it with you."

 

[Tsun Tzu]

The demands provided are absolutely bonkers (make it illegal for VA outside of union to get work - 100% mafia move).

May I ask why this is bonkers? The union is trying to ensure that there is incentive to join the union so they can maintain their power. The same power which is essential for keeping industry conditions good. At this stage there is no telling what the new terms will actually be, and it's entirely possible some of their terms are there just so they can remove them later. Both parties are just flexing their muscles to prove they're more important/in control. All I can say is that if programmers and developers had a union, they'd do the same thing and I'd say more power to them.

...

Wat?

Yes. They're doing it to maintain or increase their power and bargaining potential. Why are you trying to spin this into a purely positive thing when it clearly isn't?

Hell, one of the new rules they're attempting to force through is that, if you hire any union talent, you MUST staff the rest of any VA positions with other union talent or none of them may participate. Additionally, developers will not be allowed to pull staffers or other devs from in house to voice characters, more than a few times total/ever for an individual, without said individual being forced into signing up with the union.

Another fun thing: You must take a 30 minute lunch. It is mandatory. If you take a 29 minute lunch then knock off back to work and the union finds out about it? Fired from the project and you've potentially lost your membership.

It's why "just don't tell the union" has become something of a mantra for VAs.

It's strong-arming at its finest and, sincerely, makes them look like bigger controlling dicks than the companies they're claiming to be standing up to.

Also, dues.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

In principle, I have no problem with the strike. I certainly have no stake in defending corporations against their workers. However,

1) How many of you are willing to pay more for a game OR to have more of the game chopped out and sold as DLC? Given the usual gamer reaction to either move, I'd say "Very few". Everybody always talks a lot about how much people should be paid but, when it comes to raising the prices to cover greater labor costs, very few are willing to back that sentiment up with action/money.

2) Leading from that, I have a weird quirk where I will actually read the VA credits on each game. I like to see if I recognize names such as Kim Mai Guest.

Most do not.

As such, I see a VA strike ending in the same way that a Walmart strike ends.

Edit: I think the problem with the two big demands (Residuals and needing to hire SAG actors) is that they're applying it to ALL of the voice actors. From what I can tell, this includes all the background actors. In fact, one of the demands is that a game company not be allowed to use their own employees for the bit roles (A demand that would have killed Working Designs a lot sooner than it actually took for them to die off).

Using Borderlands 2 as an example, I can see where you could argue that Colleen Clinkenbeard could qualify for the residuals as she plays both Lilith and Patricia Tannis (my one true love) and is an integral VA in the game.

But then you get into Chris Burnett whose sole role in the game is the Marauder Killer. He doesn't even play all of the Marauders. Just one type of Marauder. Does that role really need SAG-Approved actors? Does his voice really move enough games to qualify for a residual? Really? More to the point, are any of you as gamers willing to pay more for every single atmospheric/background voice to be an SAG member collecting residuals?

I think trying to get it to apply to ALL voice actors and not just lead roles is the SAG overplaying their hand.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Oh God I hope a strike doesnt happen if/when Telltale is making Walking Dead season 3...

 

[FFHAuthor]

Well, good luck with that...I don't think that the Voice actors realize that they're not an integral part of games making.

Yes, I know that there's going to be a snarky and condescending series of posts to me on that one so I'll expand a little;

Striking as factory workers causes a factory to completely shut down. Striking as public services workers (trash collection, transit employees, school teachers.) works because then those fields completely shut down. You damn well notice when the garbage men aren't collecting trash or the school teachers aren't on the job. You notice when an entire factory shuts down and produces nothing.

This is more akin to the receptionist/ accountant at the factory going on strike, or the school's office staff going on strike, or the janitorial staff going on strike. Is it an important area that needs to be staffed for the entire operation to run efficiently? Oh yes.

But is it a department whose lack will cause the entire business or operation to utterly grind to a halt?

No.

Voice acting is something that can be done at the very end of the game, it can be done in small portions throughout, it can be done by less talented people, primarily because the kinds of games who need voice acting for total immersion (RPG's...and I think just RPG's...) aren't the lions share of the industry. Can you honestly tell me that bad voice actors would take away from Call of Duty or Battlefield? The current titan genre a video gaming?

Now, a PROGRAMMER strike would bring the industry to it's knees. That's a highly technical skill that requires talent and creativity, and it's not a skill which can be easily replaced with comparable quality. Programmers, or Artists, or any of the more technically demanding talents in game creation going on strike would be devastating.

Voice actors and the SAG have drastically overplayed their hand and they're going to be the ones who pay for it, because now the publishers whose only love in life is money and the bottom line are going to be empowered to cut out even more aspects of games to make an even bigger profit margin.

 

[Strazdas]

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."

So i guess you would support a company CEO going on a strike because it thought its 1 million bonus is too little and he should get 2 million because the company was profitable? Oh and lets not forget that same CEO wants to make it illegal for the company to hire another CEO to replace him.

The demands provided are absolutely bonkers (make it illegal for VA outside of union to get work - 100% mafia move).

May I ask why this is bonkers? The union is trying to ensure that there is incentive to join the union so they can maintain their power. The same power which is essential for keeping industry conditions good. At this stage there is no telling what the new terms will actually be, and it's entirely possible some of their terms are there just so they can remove them later. Both parties are just flexing their muscles to prove they're more important/in control. All I can say is that if programmers and developers had a union, they'd do the same thing and I'd say more power to them.

So you dont think it is crazy to remove actors choice to get work unless he belongs and pays to a organization? how is this different from the "protection money" mafia extorts? the mafia keeps the block safe, after all.

 

[chikusho]

These terrible voice actors still think they deserve better pay than the developers who devote all of their time, and often their own savings, into the game. A VA will put in 4 hours? Sometimes up to 20. A developer can put in over 1000. At the end of the day VAs get paid more for less work. This strike is ridiculous and absolutely selfish. The people who made the game don't get these kinds of bonuses. Why are you trying to claim more money? The claim that execs get too much money is fine, but claiming a third party deserves that money is absurd.

So.. somehow, in your mind, it's the fault of voice actors that developers don't organize and demand better salaries and better working conditions?

 

[MatParker116]

These terrible voice actors still think they deserve better pay than the developers who devote all of their time, and often their own savings, into the game. A VA will put in 4 hours? Sometimes up to 20. A developer can put in over 1000. At the end of the day VAs get paid more for less work. This strike is ridiculous and absolutely selfish. The people who made the game don't get these kinds of bonuses. Why are you trying to claim more money? The claim that execs get too much money is fine, but claiming a third party deserves that money is absurd.

So.. somehow, in your mind, it's the fault of voice actors that developers don't organize and demand better salaries and better working conditions?

They can't because universities around the world are churning out thousands of programmers/game designers a year, all of whom need work.

 

[chikusho]

So.. somehow, in your mind, it's the fault of voice actors that developers don't organize and demand better salaries and better working conditions?

They can't because universities around the world are churning out thousands of programmers/game designers a year, all of whom need work.

OK, so there's no problem then! If programmers and game designers are less valuable than voice actors, it seems perfectly fair that voice actors get paid more. Great, I'm glad that's settled.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Look forward to stuff like this in the near future!

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

Someone recently said to me on this very board that people would rather justify why a poor person didn't deserve a dollar than open their wallet. This is the sort of impression I get from this whole ordeal. While your argument is compelling, positive and humanising, I am imagining it will fall on deaf ears.

It's amazing, though. I remember when everybody and their brother wanted voiceovers in games. Now, it's like "what, they want more money? Screw 'em."

 

[Animyr]

I want to add to this that part of the reason that many of the top voice actors (Nolan North and so forth) are so prolific is because they're cheap, and remained fairly cheap even after making it big.

Make of that what you will.

 

[cikame]

I work my ass off for the company i work for and am rewarded with a bonus of around £200, so this seems fair.
I understand voice acting isn't a full time job and work isn't guaranteed, but i can't help but feel for workers everywhere who could only dream of such deals.

 

[Drathnoxis]

They want more money because Hollywood pays more, but you know who makes entirely too much money? Movie stars. It's frankly absurd that you can become a multimillionaire just by faffing about in front of a camera, when the people who actually keep society running can work their fingers to the bone and barely make enough to scrape by. The entertainment industry as a whole is like some big cancerous mass that just keeps sucking up more and more wealth and is completely useless if not detrimental to society as a whole. I can only imagine what the world would be like if everybody who worked in television, film, games, music, books, etc. had a real job. We could probably end world hunger, or if all the money that went into entertainment instead was put into space travel we could have a colony on the moon by now.

Really, I'd like to see voice acting disappear from games. It adds little and has a great detriment to the amount of dialogue that can be added. Not to mention I am so sick of hearing the same couple of voice actors in every game I play.

 

[Fox12]

I can only imagine what the world would be like if everybody who worked in television, film, games, music, books, etc. had a real job. We could probably end world hunger, or if all the money that went into entertainment instead was put into space travel we could have a colony on the moon by now.

I don't really get this mind set. The entertainment industry creates jobs, stimulating the economy and generating wealth. Would the world really be a better place if Shakespeare worked as a stable boy? Somehow, I don't think so. I always felt like this was a way to tear down people who were in a place that others envy. The thing is, it's driven by the free market, so the only way these people can achieve success is by creating a product that others enjoy, and voluntarily spend money on.

Besides, what's a real job? An occupation that makes them as miserable as everyone else? If a person can make money doing something they enjoy, let them. Entertainment is a real job. It pays real money and everything.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I can only imagine what the world would be like if everybody who worked in television, film, games, music, books, etc. had a real job. We could probably end world hunger, or if all the money that went into entertainment instead was put into space travel we could have a colony on the moon by now.

I don't really get this mind set. The entertainment industry creates jobs, stimulating the economy and generating wealth. Would the world really be a better place if Shakespeare worked as a stable boy? Somehow, I don't think so. I always felt like this was a way to tear down people who were in a place that others envy. The thing is, it's driven by the free market, so the only way these people can achieve success is by creating a product that others enjoy, and voluntarily spend money on.

Besides, what's a real job? An occupation that makes them as miserable as everyone else? If a person can make money doing something they enjoy, let them. Entertainment is a real job. It pays real money and everything.

It's not about how much they enjoy their work, people can enjoy jobs that are much more useful to civilization. I would say a real job is one that provides tangible benefit to the survival and advancement of mankind. The entertainment industry is more like feeding into a bad habit, the better they are at their jobs, the less productive the rest of society becomes. It encourages people to just sit around, getting fat, rather than to develop other useful skills or to be more productive in their lives.