Game voice actors demand better compensation

“Riddick” would maybe be an exception since they had the same actor in the game as in the movie, but otherwise?

Riddick had a silly huge pile of established talent that probably wouldn’t have been possible if it weren’t a Vivendi/Universal property. Michael Rooker, Xibit, Ron Perleman, Cole Hauser, and Vin Deisel, as well as some of the actors from the movie, and then a bunch of regular voiceover luminaries. Game developers want to be able to use that kind of talent, which is why they have to negotiate with the union.

Then there’s Halo 2, which is just silly with celebrities and, to my mind, all the better for it.

What’s funny to me is how rarely voiceover talent is trumpeted in game PR. If I had David Warner, for instance, in my game, jeeze, I’d want his name of the front of the box or something!

-Tom

That’s because they’re casting actors for their celebrity, not because they’re always right for the part. When it is right, like in the Grand Theft Auto games, it makes the games seem that much better.

Hollywood can’t always get the voice acting thing right. DreamWorks paid Brad Pitt a fortune to do Sinbad; does he really have that distinctive a voice? No, they got him for the marquee. And it didn’t really work.

Compare that approach to that of Pixar, which has cast Albert Brooks and Craig T. Nelson as the leads in its last two movies. Neither could get a “real” movie in the theaters nowadays, but they were the right voices.

You get the right voices, it makes your product better.

As Tom points out, there are lots of different issues at work here.

Film and television are considered performances, so each broadcast of that performance is considered an expression of the actor’s work, hence they get paid for every broadcast (or typically recieving a portion when the limited rights to broadcast are sold). It’s fairly easy to tell how often a film or television show is aired or sold. It’s not so easy to tell when a videogame is played or to what duration, so it is much harder to codify.

Film and television are clearly star-driven business where personalities have a direct correlation to revenue. It’s not so clear that voice over talent has the same correlation in video games. How many E3 previews did you read? How many of them mentioned high profile VO? Speaking personally, I can’t remember one.

Finally, this deal won’t happen for the simple reason that publishers do not even want to contemplate the domino effect of offering residuals on work provided. While talented VO actors undoubtedly contribute to a successful title, their contributions and the level of success pale in comparison to that of the lead programmer, art director, lead designer, etc. If a VO actor is given residuals, you can sure bet that the far more crucial contributors to a game’s success will be knocking on the door soon. That’s why when the union came back with an offer of “only on games that sold 400,000 units” it was irrelevant to publishers because they do not want to establish the precedent of residuals paid for what has always been upfront-only work. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is a seperate issue, but I can’t imagine any videogame publisher would ever agree to this deal.

How much of the gaming press gave free publicity to GTA SA because of Mr. Jackson’s work? Console mags and TV shows were falling all over themselves to give this game an award for the voice work and it’s mostly because of him.

I’m a professional and I’ll do it for half that rate. I’m sure the programmer’s can edit out all the “umms” and “coughs”.

I agree with all of your points, but the whole thing was a bit lengthy to post. So my question is (aside from the fact that the whole residual idea makes my head spin; it’s not like the actor’s delivering those lines every time someone buys a DVD!), how is it that VO work, which seems to have far less in common with other “acting” criteria you listed, ended up under the purview of “guild approved activities”. Basically, how did in-game VO’s end up as something regulated by the union? I assume if Mr. Jackson wanted to, say, go dig ditches as an off job, SAG could say squat about it, since it’s not at all related to their work. I see tenuous relations between VO work and acting, but I can think of a lot of reasons why it doesn’t work, either (primarily because of the tremendous end-weighting behind the scenes of games in terms of labor compared to even the most laborious of films or commercials).

Then again, maybe the real solution is just to accept games as another form of entertainment medium, and transition the rest of the industry to hollywood rules. Do really well known designers/programmers garner residuals/percentages automatically on their games? I suspect they do. So maybe it’s just a matter of the programmers needing to stand up for themselves and quit accepting less than what they’re worth. (Hey, we’d all pay $150/game for GTA with good programming and known voice actors, right? ;) )

But as recognizable as his voice is, do people really recognize him? I mean, he’s easily my favorite voice actor thanks to Ra’s Al Ghul in Batman, he’s recognizable from lots of games, and he’s been in tons of movies, but he’s the kind of guy that people go “Oh him? I didn’t know that was his name.” I realize it’s a chicken and egg sort of thing, but I can understand why PR doesn’t think to put him on the cover. “With the talents of David Warner!” doesn’t mean anything to anyone. Even a photo of him won’t do much for recognition, and “Special Guest Star Jon Irenicus!” wouldn’t fly.

Let’s not delude ourselves; if your situation came true, the programmers would be key grips…

None that I know of. First of all, there are very few well-known desingers or programmers at all (also a seperate issue). Second, most additional compensation usually comes as a bonus, at least according to GameDeveloper’s most recent industry salary survey. There may be some very high profile indivuduals (e.g. Tony Hawk) who get royalties based on units sold, but I have never heard of anyone associated with the actual production of a game getting a residual, whether it’s the motion capture actor, the voice actor or the lead programmer.

Here’s a tip if you’re making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won’t have to pay any actors any money and you’d actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.

–Dave

Word.

I firmly believe that quality VO can make a big difference in the experience (HL2 comes to mind). If SAG comes in with guns drawn and says “Fuck you, we’re powerful, you’re doing it THIS way”, hey, alright, I’m almost fine with that.

What I don’t like are these insulting rationales that are foisted off by the Melissa Gilberts of the world that try to paint the VO actors in some kind of exploited light, i.e. “They don’t work that many hours” and “This is how it works everywhere else we do things!”

Shit, I hardly work ANY hours these days, maybe I should get eleventy billion dollars for the three hours I do a month to make up for my slack ass? Yeah, that would be pretty cool…who do I send the invoice to?

P.S. Steve: I wasn’t saying that VO actors aren’t talented, I was annoyed by the use of “the talent”, with the implication that it’s singularly the domain of the actors.

It’s also not so clear it always works in movies either.

Some of the biggest recent movies aren’t star-driven, they’re IP driven. Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Star Wars… these are the stars, not the actors. Tom Cruise may be needed to get a few million people to see something called Collateral, but would he have added anything to Lord of the Rings?

How many E3 previews did you read? How many of them mentioned high profile VO? Speaking personally, I can’t remember one.

But as I’m sure you know, the game press doesn’t really care, unless it’s a porn actress they can interview.

But hiring a name voice actor is a way you can get Entertainment Weekly, Time, and Newsweek to cover your game, or how it might get mentioned on The Daily Show or Letterman.

Or to think of it another way, what about sports games? If the designers, programmers, and art directors are most critical to a game’s success, I guess you don’t need the athletes or league license to create a top-selling football game, right? And why pay Madden and Al Michaels to announce?

Since we’re at a point where games can’t just sell to gamers, you need a way to get millions of people to know about your game. Having name actors is one way to get there.

If a VO actor is given residuals, you can sure bet that the far more crucial contributors to a game’s success will be knocking on the door soon.

The bigger question is why they haven’t busted down the door already.

So there should be no RPGs or adventure games, just puzzle games?

And maybe that tutorial would be more effective if someone told you how to play in addition to showing you what to do.

Even if every game just becomes a giant sandbox simulation, you’re going to have to create Mute World if you don’t plan on anyone saying anything.

Come to think of it, outside of something like Lumines, what doesn’t have any voice acting?

You know if they sucked less they might make more.

We can all play Spore forever.

Well, we’re about to find out, thanks to EA. Of course, I expect you’re right, and Madden will sell millions while the competitors languish on the shelves with their imaginary leagues.

The problem may not be that VAs don’t “deserve” the kind of benefits they’re after, but that games just aren’t there yet in terms of the way the industry works. Seems to me that they might be at more of an advantage if they tried this shortly after the beginning of the next gen, when the whole “games are becoming cinematic experiences” card can be played on a much more believable level than it can right now. I mean, when you look at something like Gears of War, you certainly don’t want to hear something like a Working Designs voice cast coming out of your speakers.

Here’s a tip if you’re making a game. Drop all the story crap and focus on the game part of things. Then you won’t have to pay any actors any money and you’d actually be focusing on the part of the entertainment form that people should care about most.

Sure…why not just pull the amazing Simon [tm] from out of the closet and paste “Dance Dance Revolution 9” on it. Pure game, right there.

–scharmers

Not just that, but pure awesome.

Several reasons. Yay, I get to use the list tag!
[ul]
[li] it is much easier to stay organized than to get organized. If SAG did not exist today, the odds of it ever existing would be low. It’s very hard to become unionized in this day and age, but it’s pretty easy to stay unionized due to inertia.
[/li][li] developers are still dealing with a combination inferiority complex and general happiness to be working in games, period. EA’s attitude is “You can be replaced”, and developers believe that.
[/li][li] Developers are used to stability and a steady income, and if something threatens that (and, indirectly, the livelihood of their homes, families, and sports cars), they get very panicky.
[/li][/ul]