There is a Reuters story in Wired News today about the settlement reached between SAG actors and video game producers.
SAN FRANCISCO — Hollywood actors unions have reached a contract deal with video game publishers, accepting higher pay instead of the profit-sharing they had demanded, the unions said Wednesday, removing the threat of a strike.
The three-and-a-half-year agreements with game companies came as the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists were preparing to announce the results of a strike vote.
Unions had sought to win profit-sharing, known as residual payments, from game publishers.
This may seem like stupid semantics on my part, but actors are so often misrepresented in the press, I feel it’s important to set the record straight here. Residual payments are not profit-sharing. Residual payments are reuse fees that producers pay to actors when they’ve re-used the actor’s performance a certain number of times.
For example, when an actor works on a TV show (commercials are a much more complicated beast, so I’ll stick with TV for this example) the initial fee that actor earns usually includes one or two re-airings by the producer. If the producer chooses to run the show again, a cycle begins, where the producer pays the actor a residual, or re-use fee, that slowly diminishes over time. The logic behind this is that if producers are re-running an old show, rather than creating a new one, actors have fewer opportunities to work. Also, if a show is re-run very often, the producer will continue to profit from advertising sales, while the actor gets over-exposed as one character, which can severely hurt that actor’s chances of being hired in different roles. I suppose one could make the argument that, in that case, it is profit-sharing, but I think that’s largely semantic as well. The point is, producers and actors have had this residual payment agreement for my entire career, and it’s not exactly a controversial issue.
Profit-sharing, on the other hand, is entirely different from residual payment. True profit-sharing, which is usually a percentage based on the amount of money a film earns, isn’t addressed by SAG contracts, which only set minimum wages and working conditions for actors. Profit-sharing has to be negotiated, and the only actors who can grab that brass ring are superstars like Tom Hanks or Julia Roberts.
As I understood the video game negotiations, SAG wasn’t asking for per-unit payments from video game producers. The proposal I read and supported asked for an additional session fee, after the game in question had sold a minimum of 50,000 copies and was profitable. Yeah, that sure seems unreasonable, doesn’t it? Especially since actors account for something like 2% of the average game’s budget.
Anyway, the gains we made are not that great, but they don’t completely suck, either:
- An immediate 25 percent increase in minimum wages from $556 to $695 for a four-hour session for up to three voices with increases in subsequent years, bringing the daily rate up to $759.
- Double time pay after six hours (previously ten hours) for three-voice performers.
- A 7.5 percent increase in contributions to the unions’ benefits plans, bringing the rate up to 14.3 percent.
I’m very happy about the increase in contributions to the benefits plans, and it’s great that 25% of the increase comes right away (usually it’s spread out over three years) but I really wish we’d gotten some sort of residual structure in place.
Before some readers freak out that I don’t think $695 for four hours is very good, let me put this into perspective: in those four hours, we usually do several hundred takes, often screaming and yelling. It’s hard work, and we deserve to be compensated for it. But the thing is, most voice actors are lucky to work three or four of these jobs a year, so when the year is up, most of us are looking at under 3,000 dollars earned from games that gross several million. That seems a little out of balance to me. Before this contract, SAG actors hadn’t had an increase in minimums in twelve years. Producers can afford to pay actors more, and they should.
And while I’m talking about things producers should do: I’m really sick and tired of employers and non-actors lecturing actors about how useless and replaceable we are. If it’s so easy to replace us with Dave from Human Resources, then go for it. Otherwise, show us just a tiny bit of respect for the craft we practice, and the value we provide to your movies, TV shows, commercials, and, yes, video games.
I recently reviewed Area 51 for The Onion AV Club, which meant that I played it for about 7000 hours in three days. The gameplay is great, and I enjoyed it . . . but the story made it more than just another shooter, and it was the reason I kept playing until the end. And guess what? If you watch the “making of” features, you’ll discover that just about everyone at the company thought it was important to hire actors who could bring “unique” voices to their characters, like Marilyn Manson, David Duchovny, and Powers Boothe. Maybe I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt that Kenny, the Hot Topic kid from the IT department, could bring the same energy and creepiness to the project as Marilyn Manson.
When I read Xeni’s story in Wired about the pending strike last week, I was really sad to discover that programmers and developers had largely taken an “us vs. them” attitude regarding the actors who bring their characters to life:
“I’ll back (the actors) when game programmers and artists get residuals first,” said Mark Long, co-CEO of independent game-development company Zombie Studios. “(They’re) nuts if they think they deserve residuals for a half-day of voice-over work,” said Long. “A development team (might) slave away for two years to produce a title.”
If a development team is “slaving away” for two years, and not getting properly compensated for it, what does that have to do with actors? It sounds to me like we’re both after the same thing: increased wages that reflect the value we bring to the title, which we all feel the most successful game producers can afford to pay. As Peter Babakitis said,
“When gamers think that actors are out of line for asking points, then you are also preventing programmers, writers, level artists and everyone else from asking for participation. When actors get points, then perhaps programmers, artists and writers might not be that far behind — and game production might suddenly become competitive internationally again.”
Again, I don’t believe we were asking for points, per se, but I appreciate and agree with the sentiment.
Developers: We’re on the same side, guys, and by playing into “Actors vs. Developers,” you’ve let the game producers divide and conquer us. If you’re getting screwed, why not organize a union? I seriously doubt they could replace programmers, designers, and developers with Becky and Don from ad sales. You’ve got to believe in yourself, and not undervalue the importance of your contribution to the final product. We should be talking about the common goals we have, and how we can reach then, rather than arguing about who is more important.
Discover more from WIL WHEATON dot NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I actually posted about this when I heard about the strike – http://www.randyrants.com/2005/05/er_video_game_s.html – and from an outsiders point of view, I think it’s better to get the deal that was offered.
So by my thinking, for every madly successful game, there’s gotta be at least 50 that crash and burn. Rather than hold out for points on the gross (or net) I think that the 30%+ increase over the next 3.5 years would be more profitable for the guild. Sure, for the one breakaway hit it could sting, but that majority of the actors employed aren’t going to “have to worry” about that, IMHO.
Not to say that voice actors shouldn’t be given raises or that they aren’t entitled to it but two things stand out to me: Games are an ultra competative market with little margin to muck around with (aside from the breakout hit) and 30% is much higher than the increases being offered to many fields out there…
I’m glad it’s resolved either way – at least the union got something out of it.
I’m a SAG v/o actor who makes his LIVING at this, so I’ve been watching this closely.
At first, I was against striking. Yes, I’m weak, but the last thing I need is FEWER OPPORTUNITIES.
But, as I analyzed this issue and researched budget vs. profit, I changed my tune. The typical EA game budget is about $5,000,000. The amount of pure profit EA rakes in is in the BILLIONS.
Actors deserve more because they help elevate the games to a higher level.
Developers deserve MUCH more because without them, we’d be playing a WHOLLLLLE lot of Pong.
Wil is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT right. We are on the SAME SIDE of the programmers, art directors, level designers, etc. We are all part of the COLLECTIVE CREATIVE FORCE that *is* the game.
In fact, a few fellow actors and I were having this very same discussion at our agency yeaterday: We agreed that maybe *THIS* will be impetus that is needed for game designers to form a union.
I mean, if ACTORS strike, you get lousy voice-work in your game, but you STILL GET YOUR GAME.
*BUT* if every Torque-Engine developer went on strike?
Dude: NO GAME.
Don’t shake your finger at actors just because we’ve got a union/guild playing hardball. Instead, LEARN from this and unite.
Fight the power, and all that jazz.
If we ALL make more money, we’ll work that much harder at creating an Insanely Great ™ game. Everyone benefits.
And, for the record, this agreement is NOT good enough.
But it’s a start.
–AJ
Very good points, all in all. I’m not in the video game business right now, but I was in the past, so I can shed some insight. First is that conditions in the video game industry are appalling. You’ve probably read the stories about how some companies (including the largest of game companies) will overwork their teams and then discard them at the end, and those stories are pretty much dead-on. Of course, not all companies do that, but many of them do.
Second, there are no unified voices in Video Games. Actors, voice and otherwise, have a guild. The occasional writer is in a guild. Perhaps some of the musicians. Nobody else is. Therefore, there’s no mechanism for universal change that can happen with programmers or artists. That is frustrating to many-a-programmer.
Third, profit-sharing and residuals are a dream of many a game worker, and a generally unrealized dream. Getting any money after the paycheck is cashed is terribly unlikely, and it generates bitterness and resentment in some people to think that the dream may be realized by people who aren’t even “really in the games business”.
As you know, there was a time in recent memory (for some of us) that video games were the sole dominion of the Programmer. There was no musician, no artist, no writer, and certainly no voice talent. There was just the Programmer, his creativity, and his programming talent. So all of these new people who are cropping up into the business are hardly, to some people’s way of thinking, even really part of the legacy of video games. So there’s historical imperative, some believe, to giving programmers residuals or profit-sharing or what-have-you before anyone else would get them.
In any case, I’ve done some work with Mattel and Disney, and I’ve worked with SAG voice talent, and I can tell you that I never made, combined in all my years in video games, anywhere near the money that either Chris Anthony or Jim Cummings got for their respective works in my projects. That’s completely proper, of course, because those projects would have failed much sooner without Barbie or Winnie the Pooh than they would have had someone else been producing them.
Still, the video game industry has some growing up to do, and I hope they do it well. There’s just far too much pain involved in making games, and most of it’s completely unnecessary.
I’ve been working in the game industry for over seven years, now. In that time, I’ve worked on four shipped games, as artist, FX artist, Lead Artist, and Art Director.
I’ve never received a dime in royalties or profit sharing. I’ve gotten a paycheck- if I was lucky. A lot of companies go under.
A raise for voice acting? Fine. I’m all for that. As for residuals… well, shouldn’t the people who devote their lives to the development of the game be more assured of residuals than the actors who come in for four hour’s worth of recording, no matter how onerous?
What scared me, more than anything, about this whole situation was that the actors already have a union in place. This gives the actors tremendously more bargaining power than the developers. Should we organize? People have been saying that for years. The problem is that our main bargaining chip- a strike- would just lead to the company shutting down. Not every game company is an EA or Sony or whatever- most companies are small, and living on the knife-edge of financial ruin.
Not every game is a GTA:San Andreas. Most game companies are tiny, and composed of a small, very devoted team who have dreams of making it big. A team that says, “We’re going to strike until we’re assured of royalties,” will be saying “Would you like fries with that?” before too long.
If actors and developers are on the same side, why isn’t SAG trying to get EVERYONE residuals? By negotiating for residuals for just the actors, SAG is effectively screwing over the developers. We’re not on the same side- we’re only POTENTIALLY on the same side.
Brian–
You’re exactly right: the video game industry is VERY similiar to the old days of Hollywood: before SAG. You had greedy producers making millions while their actors were locked into contracts of small salaries (perspectively), and were prohibited from working with other studios. And even though the actors brought these wonderful stories to life, they saw not dime-one after their salary while the producers continued to rake in mad duckets.
Now, in video games, you have CEOs, corporate execs, producers and distributors all making a killing off the back of the creative team.
I’m not saying they SHOULDN’T make money: they should. Distribution and marketing is certainly important.
But you need to have a THING to market and sell. Developers make the thing.
Game developers (inclusive: programmers, artists, designers, sound engineers, everybody) need to unite. There’s no way around it. The GDG (Game Developers Guild) needs to be founded.
How can we help? Wil?
–AJ
One of the most frustrating things about working in IT is the notion that “we’re professionals, so we can’t unionize”. I hear it all the time from programmers in all segments of the industry, not just from game developers.
What really needs to happen is for someone like the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (it happens to be the second largest union at Boeing, after the Machinists) to recognize that if they were to organize the software shops, they would become one of the most powerful & listened-to groups in labor within the U.S.
Starting from scratch probably won’t work. It will need to start with an existing organization who has the knowledge on how to organize individuals and negotiate on their behalf.
I can see difficulty unionizing(especially at the big companies) because there are so many kids being churned out of these “schools” who are hungry for any kind of work. If the programmers at, say, EA decided to strike, EA would be able to snatch up all kinds of talent who are just eager to get their foot in the door. What’s even more important, is these kids wouldn’t care that were scabs, cutting any kind of union talk off at the knees.
How do you get past that kind of stuff to form an effective union?
This is not a BIG deal, but I’ll say it anyway.
“Maybe I’m wrong, but I seriously doubt that Kenny, the Hot Topic kid from the IT department, could bring the same energy and creepiness to the project as Marilyn Manson.”
I feel this to be an incorrect statement.
It’s because Marilyn Manson was lucky enough to GET the brass ring that you can’t see anyone else but he doing that job.
Truth is, Kenny might be WONDERFUL, BETTER than Mansen, but we’ll never know. Because Kenny is a nobody and Mansen is a somebody.
You of all people should respect the fact that millions can’t get jobs because someone else with a bigger name is going to do it.
Also, it’s a bit unfair that because of fame, Mansen, and other music talent, get to do jobs that aren’t in their main area simply because of their name.
Mansen, a singer, is taking a job away from Kenny, a voice over actor.
Kenny then doesn’t even get that $695 than Mansen uses to light the fireplace with.
You understand where I’m coming from?
If the shop is in a “union” state, they wouldn’t have the option of hiring non-union employees to cover a strike period, once their employees were organized. It is one of the protections that being a part of a recognized union provides. That is one of the reasons why trying to start a new union is so difficult. Getting the recognition from the National Labor Relations Board as a legitimate union is very difficult.
How do you get past that kind of stuff to form an effective union?
Because the quality of talent and level of professionalism of someone just out of college won’t be the same as a seasoned vet.
Sure, there will be SOME quality folks. But there’s a lot more to creating a game than just being handy with C#.
Besides, those nooBs of real quality will quickly see that they’re on the wrong side of the issue.
–AJ
(sorry to keep shooting my mouth, but besides being a voice-guy, I’m also a hobbyist game developer via 3d Game Studio [rawk]. So I’m passionate, damn it!)
Hmm… something else I’ve just thought of. In the past, I’ve done voice acting on games- because we couldn’t afford to hire a “name” to do it. What would happen in that situation? I mean, not all companies even bother trying to get a “name” for their voices… in a “union” state, would they be required to?
I think that’s the problem Beth, you’ve got all these people scared for their jobs. I mean if the company gets wind of unionization, they could just terminate a few of the key organizers to get everyone else back in line. If there’s no union, there’s no protection. Starting a union is dangerous, and not gauranteed. It’s a right big quandry…
I have so little to say compared to others. I’m just a poor lowly stage actor and hardly that. Glad you hear you like some of the changes. I understand some, but not all. Perhaps I will have to learn eventually though. Later.
Is being a voice actor really any different from being a level designer?
An actor (say a certain starship ensign) might be typecast, because people know what he looks like and what he sounds like, but would a voice actor? Apparently Mark Hamill did the voice of The Joker on the Batman cartoon, who knew? I would never know that our illustrious host was Aqualad if he hadn’t said so. I wouldn’t stay that typecasting is really an issue for voice actors.
Everything else about residuals really applies to Joe Leveldesigner. If the game does well and sells lots of copies, he won’t be in as much demand for new work, etc.
I’m really anti-union, but I think if there was ever a place that unions belonged, it is the video game industry. The power and profits are so far too much with the money men. Video game development talent is too easily replaced by kids fresh out of school, or naive people who just love the business too much to think about it from a practical viewpoint. There are tons of parallels between the video game industry and the film industry. I think the film industry is a bit sick, but the news headlines show that life at EA is far worse.
In the end though, I hope the voice actors get good treatment. If they didn’t, I’m sure the money would just go up, not across to developers, artists, etc.
Time and again, what companies have discovered is that if they treat their employees well and with respect, the employees do not feel the need to organize and demand collective bargaining agreements. It is only when shops refuse to respect their employees and deal with them fairly as individuals has it become necessary for the employees to organize.
I think the entire IT industry, of which game development is a sub-set, is ripe for organization, much the same way that discount stores and mall workers are. In all cases, the employees are being treated with a supreme lack of respect and fairness that will eventually lead to employees finding another way to deal with their employers.
I think programmers and developers are getting screwed over the worst of everyone, and the over-all response seems to be, “So?!? Get a union!”
I grew up in South Bend, Indiana, home of Studebaker. That car company from the olden times. The company that was profitable until the unions kept nibbling here, there and everywhere. The breaking point for Studebaker wasn’t a higher wage, nor was it a demand for medical benefits. No, it was a union demand for 15 minutes of paid clean-up time at the end of the day. Everyone would stop working at 3:45pm and get paid to wash up before they drove their heavily discounted Studebakers back to their wives and 2.5 children.
The company had suffered enough. They pulled the trigger on the crippled company and shut down.
Until the mid 1990’s, the UAW paid for the last few remaining work-aged former Studebaker employees to sit in front of the half collapsed plants with signs protesting unfair business practices.
That’s the flaw with the concept of the union: It doesn’t know where to stop. What seems like a grand and noble idea rapidly degenerates into a feeding frenzy that leaves a dessicated carcass behind.
I hope the actors, developers and programmers get a fair shake, sure. I just think though that they’ll eventually get far less should they let the union camel poke it’s nose into the tent of the video game industry.
Hooray! Wil is back! Well, not that he was gone. I enjoy the Book-Writing, Poker-Playing, ACME-Acting, Step-Parenting, Pet-Owning Wil a lot. I’m just happy to see the return of Cock-Punching Wil! Woo-hoo!
As for the topic, why not have some kind of profit-sharing setup? Some games don’t sell squat, but the ones that make a kajillion dollars should share the wealth instead of just giving it to the suits. It is the same beef I have with most all of corporate america. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have anything against capitalism, I would just prefer to see more profits going back into the companies instead of the pockets of the executives.
Sumo: As for the topic, why not have some kind of profit-sharing setup?
Sounds great, Sumo.
But the game companies aren’t just going to share the wealth on their own. Why would they? I wouldn’t.
They need to be forced to share.
I first heard about this story on Fark a couple weeks ago and did my own rant on the ridiculous way people treat actors as expendable. I’m a theater actor in Seattle and it irks me no end when people think acting is easy and that actors are expendable and irrelevent. Here’s a quick clip from my blog.
Mike Goodman is an Analyst with Yankee Group, he’s also the prick who has said in reference to voice over actors in video games:
“In 99 percent of all games, the voice actors are irrelevant,” Goodman said. “You replace one voice actor with another nonunion actor and no one will know the difference.”
This has all come about because nearly 2000 union actors believe they should be getting a bigger cut of the video game profits on projects they work on.
Mike Goodman seems to think these actors are irrelevant and replacable. Oh, just like you Mike. There are thousands of analysts out there and you can easily be replaced, any skill you offer is of no use or worth because there are others who can do your exact same job.
—End Clip—
This attitude is prevalent in more then just the SAG, it is a widespread belief that actor’s jobs are easy and that anyone could do it.
That is simply not true. It takes years to become a good actor, alot of hard work and a thick skin. I am very pleased with SAG.
I’m not by any means an actor. I’ve done some singing gigs, years ago before too much smoking took it’s payment. When I was younger I was one of those people who thought actors were overpaid. However, one day I was asked at my place of employment to supervise a film crew for a B movie that wanted to use the place for filming after hours. The director put me in the movie as an extra since I had to hang around anyway. It was excrutiating! It was my first and LAST experience with being in front of a movie camera and I was just an extra! 8 hours a night for quite some time for 5 minutes of actual useable footage a night! I talked to the actors, (won’t name the movie but you can figure it out by this), and Rene Z and Matt M were both cool and told me they enjoyed it and hoped to make it big. I wished them luck and told them I would never again think acting was an “easy” job, nor would I ever again want to be even an extra in a movie. Having to do the same thing over and over and over because someone is sweating their makeup off, or a car goes by, or the air conditioner kicks on, etc. SUCKS!
More power to all the Actors out there! Give them the money they so richly deserve. I’ll stick to sitting on my couch playing PS2 and watching television, thank you. If I want a work-out I’ll go to the gym. I’m glad there are talented actors out there to entertain me and I’m all for paying them to do it!
It was excrutiating!
You said it Shane.
There’s that 0.1% of SAG actors who are big stars and haven’t a care in the world; making zillions of dollars.
Then there’s the 99.9% of us who are just trying to make a [not very lucrative] living because we dig the collective creativity of it.
I read with people every day that you’d recognize from television and film. They’re not stars, but they are working actors whom you’d know at first sight.
And yet, here they are, auditioning as “Man 1” in some lousy Maryland Lottery commercial for radio that if you actually BOOKED it would pay you about $500 gross. After taxes and agent commission, you’ll grab about $250.
They have to do it because they are still in that 99.9%. Acting is NOT easy work, it’s a SHITTY industry, and it mostly doesn’t pay well at all.
But you know me, I can’t complain. 😉
And while I’m talking about things producers should do: I’m really sick and tired of employers and non-actors lecturing actors about how useless and replaceable we are. If it’s so easy to replace us with Dave from Human Resources, then go for it. Otherwise, show us just a tiny bit of respect for the craft we practice, and the value we provide to your movies, TV shows, commercials, and, yes, video games.
Wow, I must say I am a little offended by this. Let me explain why. I certainly am happy that you are making the money you are worth as actors working on games. However, and I understand some people feel actors are replaceable, but was the HR comment really necessary? After all, I work in HR AND theatre. I am a stage manager for a small non-profit theatre which does great work with great actors … all of whom work for corporations in HR, accounting, the Social Security Administration, banks, all over. So, maybe “Dave in Human Resources” has more going for him than a suit and the ability to quote employment law at will. Maybe you should think about giving those guys in HR a little credit and respect for the hard work they do every day. You at least get some time off
I think it would have been nice if video game actors got some kind of residual. However I do also agree withn the person that the argument about overexposure does not apply to video games. Also the argument about getting less work because of repeats does not apply. I just think if a particular game really takes off and makes tons of money the people who worked on it should share in the profits (although I don’t know why it should only be actors).
I do have to take issue with the part about the usefulness of actors. I think acting is like any other job. If you prove useful to the company (help them continue to make money) then you work, if not you don’t. I work in the finance dept of a television station owned by a major studio. Everyone bends over backwards for the talent, while the rest of us are expected to give 110% at all times for know reward other than our paychecks. And in this competitive industry the paychecks are not that big.
I do think, however, that anyone who complains about the salaries only a select few celebrities make should not be a consumer for their products.
In Washington state there’s Wash Tech. Unfortunately, Microsoft
hates workers. If MS unionized, there wouldn’t be a need for contractors anymore, but when ever I bring up WashTech with any friends or coworkers they are always conviced organizing would just make things worse. I really don’t see any possiblities for IT unions since most of us are just too scared to stand up for ourselves.
If IT was to start unionizing, the games industry would be the last to feel the effect. IT in the games industry is just that competitive.
People who don’t act (or write) think that anyone can do it with minimal training.
Nope. Or, at least, not to professional standards. Sure, it may seem easy, but to do it well requires many years of practice and working with patient teachers — leaving out the handful of prodigies who show up every generation and fuel the idea that luck is more important than hard, hard work.
[b]Funfairiegirl:[/b] I think “Dave from HR” was not meant to single out HR workers, but was picked as a single example. It could just as easily have been “Dave from the mail room” or “Dave from the steno pool,” and I don’t think Wil would have meant anything negative about mail room workers or stenographers … he just needed an example, that’s all.
Brothers In Arms: Wouldn’t be as good if they didn’t have anyone to say the lines. Would it?
My husband and I just disagreed about our position on this. He’s on the programmer’s side, being a administrative assistant and having done programming. He says “thousands upon thousands of hours vs. ‘I can make my voice sound like this…’.” He believes that if they didn’t agree with the pay, they should have signed up for the job. I did try to explain that in that market, you take what you get. Didn’t work. Me, I’m on the voice actor’s side, being someone that had the leads in all the school plays because I was the best actor there (i know, i know, school plays are small potato’s, but when you are tortured EVERYDAY about your looks, your teeth, your hair, the fact that your legs are long and skinny or the fact that your family is DIRT POOR and can’t afford a car whose doors will stay shut when you go around a corner…being recognized, by even the popular kids, as the best actor in the entire school was a BIG DEAL TO ME!!). I agree that if a game makes millons upon billons of dollars, yeah. The actor that caught your attention and kept it should get a little more than $695 for his/her work.
In short: I agree.
i’ve worked in the video game biz on the production side for five years. you have to look at the big picture to understand why no producer wants to fork up more money for voice talent.
nine out of ten games lose money. for the vast majority of publishers, profit margins are slim. EA is an exception, not a rule — and even they had a bad quarter. take 2 isn’t in sunny weather, despite the performance of the GTA franchise. everyone is outsourcing overseas, or opening foreign branches — like EA. if big companies aren’t even paying overtime to their core — artists, coders — do you expect the little guy to? just like in the film biz, there are only a few big fish, and everyone else gets eaten alive.
re: unionizing the game biz? LOL. do you know the average salary for a mainland chinese engineer is about $2000 a year? it doesn’t take english or u.s. citizenship to make and sell a AAA game in the u.s. in hollywood, you need u.s. actors, u.s. settings. in gamerwood, you need renderware,3d studio max and c++.
artists, coders, voice actors — they are on the same side, yes. however, they are competing for a finite pool of re$ources. a producer’s job is to get a game out within budget, on time, making the most money. looking at things realistically, we all know decent voice acting is nice. however, “decent” voice acting can be found among non-SAG talent. star talent commands premier salaries — but now your capital is really going into marketing. producers bring in tera patrick or jean reno into their game not because of voice acting ability. they bring in stars for the same reasons they buy rights to NBA franchises: name recognition, which they hope will equate to sales.
What do The Sims, Diablo II, Everquest, Halo 2, GTA 3, Metroid Prime, Pokemon, Halflife 2, Battlefield 1942, Gran Turismo 4, Pacman, Super Mario Bros., Tetris, and World of Warcraft all have in common? They’re all AAA titles where voice acting made little to no difference whatsoever. That’s video game reality.
Yay for an agreement. As a former actor (ok, let’s say “lapsed-actor-who-hasn’t-done-a-damned-thing-since he-left-school-but-wants-to-do-voiceovers-someday”), I always get a little bit of the warm fuzzies when good things happen to my fellow thespians. In this case, I hope it will help you out a great deal, Wil. Of course, I also hope it’ll help me should I ever get back into acting. And while I’m dreaming, I’d like a pony.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say, I think, is “w00t.”
Thanks for the education, Wil!
Does not the fact that they (Video Game Producers) did settle with SAG speak to the fact that they do value professional talent? If I was a programmer, (I’m not) I would look to that settlement as hope for more equitiable distribution of the profit. Even a producer should welcome that way of wage payment because it eliminates any need for higher wages on a hourly level. Higher levels of compensation would only paid upon the gaming public’s acceptance of a game.
As an IT worker myself (system administration, primarily, on-call 24×7), it’s hard to figure exactly how a union agreement would work. Sometimes, putting in long hours is just a fact of the job. It’s kind of a running joke at my office — “Sure, I get paid overtime… it’s just that the hourly rate keeps going down.”
If developers are being hired on a contract basis for a certain project (similar to the actors), then building some sort of profit-sharing into the agreement makes sense: I do good work, the game succeeds, I get some extra rewards. As Lightnin’ pointed out, many games are developed by small studios (although they might later be picked up by a big distributor). Profit-sharing rather than additional up-front benefits might allow these companies to stay in business long enough to finish the game and actually reap some of those benefits.
But that doesn’t explain what to do with us salaried types.
When actors (and writers) decide to be actors they’re taking a great risk. Instead of working consistently for a specified amount of money, they take the risk of not ever working, or occaisionally working, for a specified amount of money.
Every time a producer hires an actor (or writer), they benefit from the risk this artist took to put their talent out there. That risk should be compensated because often most of us only work a few times a year, and the fact that we take this BIG risk is what makes our talents available to support the project.
Every time someone says to me “Gee, working at home as a writer would be fun, I should do that” I urgently wish they would. The work, when we can get it, is great, but the risk to be able to do the work is very high.
Alicia, you make extremely good points! So does Wil.
Look, I’m a writer and a producer (not of games, so I can’t speak for that milieu). But, when I produce a presentation, I go for a talented professional to do the voice-over. Why? Because they have what it takes to make the words work. I have NO problem with the union’s fees because of all the reasons that Wil and other actors have rightfully pointed out: the skill, the craft, and the professionalism comes at a price. If you dont’ want skill, craft, and professionalism, then you get what you pay for.
The same should be true of the programmers and writers. As a scriptwriter (and writer of other things), I’ve heard it said too damned many times: “Oh, anybody can write.” as a justification for hiring the low-cost equivalent of “dave from HR” or “somebody’s girlfriend/boyfriend who works cheap” on a project (Not taking potshots at HR or girlfriends/boyfriends.) But you get what you pay for. IF you want the low-priced spread, then you’re going to get it — and not the trained, skilled professional your project needs.
THe issue, as many here have pointed out, is respect for ALL professionalism, skill, and craft. The fact that the actors have negotiated that should not deter the others from asking for their share of the respect and money as well.
Guys, I value actors. A well-trained voice
My father was a “card carrying Reagan Republican,” and my mother is very nearly a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
Me? I’m a Dem and completely in favor of Unions. Without unions no one in this country would have so much as the opportunity for a living wage.
I know the nomadic style of programmers would make creating such a union difficult. But it absolutely would be worth the efforts for all those involved.
A friend of mine had a good point- name ONE game that succeeded on the basis of voice talent. I can only think of a few games that were hits that had big-name voice talent- and few of those were AAA(A) titles. Did the voice talent in, say, San Andreas help the game become an even bigger hit? (Yes, I know who worked on it.)
I guess what I’m trying to say is, do games NEED voice talent? I mean, sure, bad acting can ruin a game… but can good acting MAKE a game? When I play a game, it’s to Play the Game. I never pick up a game based on who did the voices for it.
“7000 hours in three days”.
Wow, so with the new wages, you’re pulling in like 1.2 Million for that article, right? Sweet! 🙂
On a more serious note – why do non-actors and employers think of actors as so replacable? Is it just self-consolation that “they’re not really worth that much…”, or do they have some honest belief that the entertainment industry could prosper without the entertainers?
In any case, thanks for doing what you do.
Chris
Though I strongly disagree with some of the opinions expressed here, I just wanted to take a moment and thank everyone for sharing them. Reasonable, considered dialogue is always a great thing.
While I agree that it’s a great thing that the actors are getting more money, I still have to point out one thing: 4 hours, $759. $189.75 an hour. That’s a whole lotta kablingy! And yeah, you don’t get that money for the whole year. Maybe you only get 4 of those a year. I’m assuming you’re doing something else on top of that, and not expecting it to pay your yearly bills? I don’t really know where I’m going with this, but almost $190 an hour is a hell of a lot more than the coding grunts make, and they are working 70 hour weeks with no overtime.
And you want to unionize the developers?? Good luck. There are a TON of people out there who are out there training themselves to design excellent maps, create excellent art, code excellent code just for the sheer JOY of it, and while they may not have the experience in a real-game environment, believe you me that there are many of them that are just as good, and half as jaded, as the ones working on our favourite games. Remember Counterstrike? Yeah, that was made by a bunch of guys purely for the hell of it, because they loved games that much. Now they work in the industry. There are hundreds of guys JUST LIKE those guys who will cross that picket line in a second. It sucks, but it’s reality. And jobs are scarce enough in the IT field as it is, people have mouths to feed and bills to pay – the last thing we want to do is drive more jobs overseas. And that’s exactly what the companies will do, and people will still buy the games because your average 14 year old gamer doesn’t give a flying shit whether his game was made by union workers or not. Hell, your average *24* year old gamer doesn’t care either, I’m willing to bet.
Wow… that was way longer than I intended it to be. I just get a might het up when it comes to people talking about unionizing my field – it’s hard enough to get a job, without throwing a union into the mix!
I still have to point out one thing: 4 hours, $759. $189.75 an hour. That’s a whole lotta kablingy!
BAH!
$189.75 per hour for the session. Sure, that’s what it SEEMS like.
You have to audition A LOT (in the voice-over world) to make a living. Auditioning means driving (LA) or subways/cabs (NY). Which takes MONEY.
Auditioning also takes TIME. You have to read and read and read tons of copy before you hit.
Factor all of *that* time in and you’ll see that per hour earnings come wayyyyyyyy down.
Thank you Wil for explaining the situation so that someone like myself could understand. I was wondering what all the fuss was about and now I know.
I’m glad you’re feeling better too.
Now, I gotta run…I can’t find my purse and it’s driving me crazy!
To be quite frank, I feel actors are highly overpaid and overrated. I’m sorry if this offends. I feel production crew and the rest of the backstage people should be paid more. Yes, actors are important to the show, but without the people in the back, you’re nothing.
Not to mention people who work in hospitals, firefighters, police, etc.
At the end of the day, actors are only one piece of the machine.
I work for a video game developer. I’m in a position to see the financials. The previous comments regarding this issue have been rather insightful, but I’d like to add a couple things.
First, the typical developer sits on a royalty rate that is less than favorable if they are receiving their development as an advancement on royalties. Self-funding developers or self-publishing developers are a little different. The average game developer, after paying costs, is fortunate to make a profit; the vast majority of games make no money, even if they sell > 50k units due to the rising cost of hitting the moving target of technology. The consumer wants flashier, prettier — much like the movie business, and that costs money. Would Lord of the Rings have been the same movie on a 5m budget?
There are publishers that rake in the cash, the VUGs and EAs of the world, but many of these developers dedicate years of their lives to the success of these titles — the elements that make them successful: their gameplay, story arc, persistence where applicable, art, and feature sets.
I mean no disrespect to the people who work very hard at their craft as voice actors, but I can’t advocate giving points to someone who contributes one day, two days, or one week to the development process — regardless of what they do. Not when I can give those points to someone who worked hard on the project for years — an artist, a programmer, or a game designer, or even the receptionist.
With regard to unions, the reason most people feel it’s fruitless is the same reason that the developers at EA are going to find their jobs outsourced — there are many *capable* people who can do those jobs, and will do them without complaint. A side-effect of globalization and the shrinking planet, I suppose.
We have to remain competetive, do we not? Or can we afford to stand on principle and find our jobs and livelihoods shipped to Malaysia, Indonesia, and China?
As an aside, I’ve lurked here for years and never posted — sorry to be long winded the first time out of the gate.
I feel actors are highly overpaid and overrated.
People should be paid what the market bears.
Sure, cops and teachers should be paid more, but the market doesn’t provide for it.
And, conversely, there are a MILLION corporate CEOs who make TONS more money than the average actor (or even the average Major League Baseball Player)… are they overly compensated, too?
I say yes. But someone thinks they are worth the money (stockholders, directors, etc)
I think how much money Oprah makes is DISGUSTING. But you know what, the market shows that she is WORTH it (somehow).
If there wasn’t a demand for Oprah, she wouldn’t make that kind of money.
Whether we like it or not, SOMEHOW there is a demand for Lindsay Lohan.
Don’t blame actors because the average American cares more about Bradd Pitt than they do about the salaries of firefighters.
I must admit that I’m a bit conflicted about unions in general. Back in “the day” (i.e. in the days when huge companies like standard oil forced their employees to work for next-to-nothing in exchange for a crappy shantytown to live in, and you considered that a treat compared to what some folks were getting), there’s no doubt that unions were absolutely needed. The power that the workers gained by uniting and forcing their employers to treat them like “real people” is one of the most significant societal steps forward in our country – when the upper echelon of income earners and company owners/managers were required to start treating every person in their company as an actual human being.
There’s no doubt that in today’s world, there are times and places where unionization is useful and needed. You can always find cases where dumbass management is trying to take advantage of workers, necessitating that they use their collective power to keep that crappy-@$$ management in check. I must say, however, that in addition, the immense power repesented by thousands of an industry’s workers banding together has been and continues to be abused by those in power in many unions.
The power represented by the unionization of workers is very substantial, and that power needs to be treated with respect and only utilized when necessary. This doesn’t mean that the union’s leaders need to try to make sure that they can squeeze every nickel out of management that they can during any negotiation, not realizing that they’re bullying the company into bankruptcy. Too many unions in recent years have followed this tactic, and many American businesses have suffered as a result. Not only that, but many of the union leaders have, both now and in the past, become as arrogant and corrupt as the supposedly “arrogant and corrupt management” they’re “fighting against.”
The mistrust generated on both sides of the table in the labor world in so many industries has also led to a general decline in labor-management relations and to a state where one side really does usually view the other as “evil.” That is truly unfortunate, and does the parties at both sides of the table a disservice. You can’t negotiate in good faith (and not try to take advantage of the other side) when you’re negotiating with the devil.
This isn’t “pie in the sky” idealism or a wishful view of the world. It’s merely my observation and opinion of the state that we’re in.
Now, for an on-topic comment… 🙂 I understand Wil’s point, and I support the argument he just made for SAG/AFTRA. One of the things that stands out to me most is the fact that the minimum wage hadn’t changed in 12 years. That’s always a sign that your minimum is in need of consideration for an increase (and usually long before 12 years are up).
I’m not in a union now (I’m I/T, where unions are rare), but I have been in the past (non-IT job), and quite honestly I don’t like being caught up in the “us vs. them” mentality that many unions create. It’s true that mgmt can be to blame for causing some such sitations by being stupid, acting in bad faith, and trying to take advantage of their employees, but a union’s leaders can do all of those things, as well (and, sometimes, they do).
Ok, enough long-winded rambling. To sum up: I’m with Wil in this case, and I support the concept of unions, but I don’t support what many unions have become. (Man I could have saved myself a lot of typing just by writing that. 🙂 )
You know one of the stupidest arguments I’m seeing here is that voice acting doesn’t “make” a game, so who needs it. What a joke.
Lots of things don’t “make” a game. Realistic hair rendering doesn’t “make” a game, so hey why bother with all that? Sourced lighting doesn’t “make” a game, so hey why screw around there? Music doesn’t “make” a game, why screw around with soundtracks, who needs those? 3D models don’t “make” a game, we were just fine before all these fancy polygons. Sound effects don’t “make” a game, just throw in some generic beeps and boops and it’ll be fine.
You know what you have then? FUCKING PONG. FOREVER.
No one thing “makes” a game, lots and lots of disparate elements come together to create a complete experience. Voiced characters are becoming a part of the experience, and the people whose job it is to ensure the quality of that part of the game deserve adequate compensation for their contribution.
And come on people, is anyone here going to argue that Warcraft would have been half as fun without the peasants chirping “For the King”? I loved that shit and so did you.
People should be paid what the market bears.
Sure, cops and teachers should be paid more, but the market doesn’t provide for it.
Exactly. And the market bears what it does right now. The Union is arguing completely against your own point. They don’t want what the market bears. They want more.
Exactly. And the market bears what it does right now. The Union is arguing completely against your own point. They don’t want what the market bears. They want more.
Um, negotion is sort of a part of the market. “What the market bears” =/= “What EA Games decides you’re allowed to have”.
The problem with the programmer’s attitude is that if they are “slaving away” for two years on a project, they are also GETTING PAID for that two years. In fact, they are getting paid for every day they are working. The fact that they have steady jobs amounts to much more than residuals because they have steady, relatively large income. In other words, they are making huge amounts of money on any given title as opposed to the actors, who basically get a one-shot deal. It’s comparing apples with oranges.
The anti-union sentiment I’m seeing in some of these posts is based on lies and propaganda. Businesses that have failed that happen to have been unionized didn’t fail because of the unions. They failed mainly because they had a poor business model and failed to change with the times. Plenty of non-union businesses fail as well. The arguments are similar to that of the insurance industry, who are the biggest liars of all. They claim not to be making a profit, when the truth is that they are making huge profits, but the few at the top are taking the lion’s share and making everybody else suffer. There are so many loopholes and ways to hide the profit in the books that they can get away with it.