Video game voice actors push for standardized contracts

stobg2015

Discuss?

https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/05/videogame-voice-actors-push-for-standardized-contracts

Would this basically kill VO's in future STO episodes? (Budget, the bang-for-the-buck principle, etc)

And what about this, from our favorite ST alumni geek poster boy?

http://wilwheaton.net/2015/09/this-is-why-i-support-a-sag-aftra-strike-authorization-for-video-games-and-it-isnt-about-money/

Working conditions sounds like a reasonable complaint and Wil's scenario is completely believable. I get hoarse just after a day of conference calls, can't imagine what it would do to me to project my voice for eight hours.

I'm curious what the working conditions are like when STO does its' voiceovers...?

where2r1

Wow...union contracts for actors are confusing.
I am trying to understand what Wil Wheaton is trying to explain.

wombat140

What's a "residual"?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

marcusdkane

In general, I hate the notion of strikes, and tend to think 'If you're not happy with the [insert issue here] then get another job,' but I totally get what this is about, and completely support the actors in this. When an employer who is behaving unreasonably will not negotiate in good faith, then a worker's only option, they're only means of leverage, is to withdraw their labor.

I completely agree with what Wil is saying. The idea of fining people for being late, or 'inattentive', is disgusting. If someone isn't doing their job properly, they simply get fired. The notion of penalizing someone, and still expecting them to produce their best work, frankly, is ludicrous. I can understand why the producers don't want to fire or not re-use the actor on future work; They need their voice to give the end game the finish they want to achieve -- They want to be able to say 'We had Garrett Wang do the voice for Harry...' not get someone to do an impression of Garrett Wang's voice, so that means keeping the actor on, rather than firing. But to impose a fine, and to still expect to get good work out of an actor? Lunacy. No one does their best work after being disciplined... Sure someone might make the effort to correct the issue they were disciplined for, but there's still going to be some resentment, and that's going to creep into the work... So to be putting someone in the situation where' they're not going to produce their best work just because you can't fire them, is still not a positive outcome,

I'm saddened to hear that Rockstar doesn't pay ongoing royalties, because it's the voice actors who bring the characters to life. The character of Trevor Philips would have been totally different without Steven Ogg, and likely nowhere near as engaging or memorable. It's only right that he get an ongoing cut of the profit, because the game will keep selling, that people will keep enjoying it, and innthis age of social media, that people will contact him about his work as Trevor. The man cannot make a post on FB without someone either calling him, or referring to, Trevor... Just imagine being not fairly treated by a company, and then oblivious people constantly trying to talk to you about that work... It wouldn't feel too good...

On the flipside, I've been told (by an Australian actress) that the Australian film industry doesn't pay royalties either, profits go directly to the producers, not the actors... I think that that's wrong, so I think it's equally wrong for companies like Rockstar to not pay royalties to the actors who's skills and effort brings their characters to life. Without voice actors, what does a game have? A pixelated form 'gesturing and nodding' and 'addressing the camera' while subtitles provide the information... It's acceptable, but it's not as good as actually hearing the dialogue as well...

So yeah, to make their products as good as it can be, companies need voice actors, so they really shouldn't be dicking around creating hostile working environments with fines, or expecting them to spend hours on end screaming into a microphone, straining their voices, and then impacting their ability to get future work. As Wil said, if this is something they only do maybe once a month, then they need to be capable of auditioning for, and taking on, extra gigs. They can't do that if their voice is hoarse from screaming all day...

I hope Cryptic treats its voice actors better than the companies Wil named...

wombat140 wrote: »

What's a "residual"?

Residuals is another term for royalties paid... As an example, Wil probably gets paid X Amount each time an episode of TNG which he was on is aired. He (or any other actor) gets paid X Amount, because they have a speaking role. If they don't speak, then they only get W Amount (less than X) This is why, when someone brings a PADD to Picard, they don't say "The manifest report you requested, Sir..." or in Best of Both Worlds, when Riker gets knocked down, a science officer makes sure he's okay, but she doesn't actually say "Are you alright, Sir?". They're kept silent, to keep down the cost of their ongoing payments

stobg2015

marcusdkane, I think I agree with you on almost all points. Where we differ a bit is the issue of the fine.

Now I don't think that should apply to most professional voice actors and don't see why it should be necessary. They're professionals and you'd expect them to act like it.

I could, however, see a problem where some celebrity voice talent is concerned. The kind of people who've gotten so used to privilege that they don't act like professionals. You might need a fine as leverage to get them on site when they're supposed to be there. After all, the developer has to book studio time and it doesn't come cheap. Also, developers usually have tight deadlines to get the game launched on time. So the VO's may be time-sensitive. I don't think there would be a fine if it weren't a reaction to something that has actually happened more than once.

But those kinds of people are not likely to be working under standard contracts, I would think.

dalolorn

The fine could still be abused. (And, to be honest, by the time you really do need to use penalties like that, chances are you might as well drop the actor for all the good it'll do you.)

marcusdkane

stobg2015 wrote: »

marcusdkane, I think I agree with you on almost all points. Where we differ a bit is the issue of the fine.

Now I don't think that should apply to most professional voice actors and don't see why it should be necessary. They're professionals and you'd expect them to act like it.

I could, however, see a problem where some celebrity voice talent is concerned. The kind of people who've gotten so used to privilege that they don't act like professionals. You might need a fine as leverage to get them on site when they're supposed to be there. After all, the developer has to book studio time and it doesn't come cheap. Also, developers usually have tight deadlines to get the game launched on time. So the VO's may be time-sensitive. I don't think there would be a fine if it weren't a reaction to something that has actually happened more than once.

But those kinds of people are not likely to be working under standard contracts, I would think.

Apologies for the delay... I do see and agree with what you're saying, but I so agree with dalolorn's comment