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.
