The voice actor strike. How do you feel about it?

As of today, the voice actor strike has been ongoing for 98 days. That makes it the second longest strike for the screen actors guild passing the 95-day mark from a strike in the 1980s. For those who haven't been paying attention, the SAG-ATRA strike started back on October 21st against what they are calling the video game companies and has been in full swing ever since. While deals were negotiated between the union and SAG-ATRA for 19 months they ultimately fell apart in the end.

Prominent voice actors like Jennifer Hale, David Hayter, and Elias Toufexis and others have sought out to strike against 11 video game companies. Some of these companies are big triple a companies like EA, Activision, Insomniac, Disney, and Warner Brothers. Why are they striking you ask? Well, one of the demands they are asking for is residuals for they games they work on. They want this because no matter how well a game sells they get no secondary compensation for it. What they are asking for is a performance bonus every time a game sells 2 million copies or downloads, or reaches 2 million unique subscribers, with a cap at 8 million. This is important for people who work on a freelance basis and go from job to job like voice actors do and the fact that voice acting is also very stressful on your vocal cords. Having to go out into a booth and scream and yell for four hours straight and basically perform a one-man can impact your performance on other jobs. Jennifer Hale even stated that a friend of hers was even going through vocal surgery because of the stressful work that voice acting brings. Many other voice actors also do work for commercials which are a big money maker for them said he had to cancel on a commercial shoot because they couldn't speak for a week losing out on that payday. Stunt coordinators are also wanted for when they have to do mo-cap for a character. While movies and tv may have them video games don't get this luxury and they believe it could help with learning how to perform better and making games more realistic overall. They also ant less transparency when it comes to what they are working on. Background of the character and what they are like would help in portraying that character.

On the side of the video game industry, they believe that voice actors only make up a tenth of one percent of the work that goes into making a video game. We know video games cost millions of dollars to make already so anytime they can save money the better. Another belief is that most video gamers don't care enough about the voice actors for them to receive a pay raise in any way. A statement that I personally don't believe in, but I understand I am an anomaly when it comes to how closely I follow video games. Nolan North even had some words for the voice actors who are on strike while he received his award at the video game awards. “Performance matters,” mimicking the hashtag the actors on strike use to promote the strike on twitter, “The performance of every designer, every programmer, of every hard working and talented person who works at that office. That performance is so important. Their performance matters more than mine. That’s important in this day and age, with all this talk going back and forth. Without their performance, my performance wouldn’t matter. It wouldn’t even exist.” Nolan North may have a different experience being he is the most recognizable name in video games today and he even acknowledged that in an interview with Polygon. Some of the big video game companies even called out the union for its lack of communication with the actors on what they are willing to negotiate, and forcing a strike in the first place.

This is a very interesting thing I wanted to look into and see how it affects the video game industry as a whole. With the fact that only 25% of video game companies use voice actors in the union in the first place I don't think this have a big impact on the industry at all. There are so many people who are inspiring voice actors who will do anything just to get a job performing for a game. How do you feel about the voice actor strike and who's side are you on in this? I personally side more with the video game industry, but that doesn't mean I dismiss the hard work voice actors put into games. Thank you for reading and have a wonderful day.

I am split between the two. I think the union has some valid points but I don't know that I agree with their stance on bonus compensation. I agree that they need limits in place to protect actors' voices. It's stressful work, look at the recent headlines about musicians who have had to have vocal surgery and you can see that using your voice for a living can be damaging.

On the industry side I can understand their resistance to performance bonuses based on game sales. This isn't like film where an actor can create box office draw on his own regardless of the film. Voice acting is important to games but I don't base my buying decision off of who is in the game, nor does anyone I know. I can enjoy a great game with bad voice acting, I can't enjoy a bad game with excellent voice acting. When so many rank and file employees at developers struggle to receive any kind of profit sharing or bonus payouts if the game does well I find it hard to advocate giving that to voice actors, especially if it makes it even harder for the guys in the trenches making the game to get theirs.

I'm not insinuating that voice actors get paid too much or that they don't deserve what they get paid, but my belief is If you make more money than the average citizen, you shouldn't be allowed to be in a union; you are worth something over and above the rest and you should be able to ask for reasonable things commensurate with your value.

I really don't know much about the voice acting world. From my production experience, I know actors generally get paid well, it's more about getting the gig. Again, I have no clue about this subject. But we know about Team Bondi, Rockstar, Konami so I think working conditions need be examined across the board in the industry.

I just want it resolved either way. I can't really feel sorry for them since I make much less than the avarage salary and I have never been in a strike. But then why should the rich publishers get all the money from video games? I hope they can reach an agreement where everyone is happy.

I think the fact that the strike has gone this long with little to no effect on the industry (from a consumer point of view) is a good indication that perhaps the union should reexamine their position.

@werupenstein: the national average? The average for your state? The average of the industry?

I'm not sure why you want to prevent someone from being able to associate with another person and collectively bargain. Unions have been real important to workers, some well paid others not. They help establish safer work environments better pay and benefits.

It seems arbitrary to take away your right because your making more then somebody else. Should this punishment exist for non union too?

Theres no way to feel about it other than to stand in solidarity with the workers on strike. The gaming industry is notorious for bad working conditions.

i was hoping this would bring us back to an era where the developers did all the voices. :(

I'm fine with them striking. I wish our society was more pro-union (the only union that gets any mass public support is the police unions it seems).

That's all I'll write since I don't want to get political. It's been that kinda week.

If you want residuals, negotiate that into your contract. I don't see any reason why game companies should have to pay that as a blanket policy no matter who they hire. Also, the "I had to cancel my commercial shoot" line is hot garbage. Schedule your gigs so that it makes sense. If they aren't flexible then you might have to choose one over the other. Sorry, that's life. If voice acting is rough on you, make sure you're compensated accordingly. Again, write that into your contracts. No one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to be a voice actor for games.

Didn't we go through this same thing last year ? Or was it two years ago ? From what you're saying it seems to be a repeat of the same arguments made then. So, yes, they probably deserve better working conditions/more money for what they do, but what they're asking is so far beyond any realistic solution that it makes negotiations pointless. To me it just seems like a poor negotiation strategy to ask for too much over and over and hope they'll eventually cave (especially considering how little leverage they have). I would think they'd be much better off approaching it with a baby-step mindset.

@shorap: Believe me I've had my fair share of politics this past couple of months as well.

@tesla: I wonder what game could be the first to be delayed or affected by this. Because you're right, from a consumer point of view its business as usual.

@ares42: I feel this approach would be better as well. The only reason I side with the video game companies over the voice actors is because of the fact that programmers and developers don't get residual pay either. They are the ones putting in more work than them and have o deal with horrible crunch time hours. I love some of the voice actors work involved with the strike I just can't prioritize them over the people who make the game. As @meteora3255 said and I agree with him in that I can play a good game with bad voice acting, but I won't play a bad game with good voice acting. I hope an agreement can be reached soon and all parties can be happy.

I get the voice actor's position, but I can't think of any solid reason to support them on this issue.

On an unrelated note, I've always thought I had what it takes to be a voice actor and I work for cheap.

The average programmer, designer, artist, etc. should be paid residuals. But unless your name is Kojima, Bleszinski, or one of the other handful of high profile people you are 100% replaceable. This leads to impossible salary negotiations for average employees. If actors win this strike then there is a superior chance that this will trickle down to the average developer that they may win a residuals fight as a status quo. But if SAG looses the developers will never win that fight.

@jay_ray: Or it becomes harder as game companies will just pit the voice actors against the programmers etc. "We would love to negotiate residual payments with you but any budget we had for that went out the window when we were forced to pay them to the voice actors." It may not be true but with budgets continuing to rise the publishers aren't going to continue to give up money. There is a limited pool publishers will part with.

If certain voice actors are in high enough demand that they can ask for residuals and get them then good luck to them. If not, maybe they should be more realistic about how replaceable they are.

If they don't wanna work for the terms on offer then don't and go earn a living some other way, simple.

There's a strike?

I had no idea and for this reason the people striking might want to think over how much they are really needed. I read up about them wanting more importance placed on them but while I may gripe when a voice actor is replaced, I'm never going to buy a game based on the voice actors.

@jimbo: I mean, that kind of just reinforces the power disparity between actors (or contractors, more generally) and the companies attempting to hire them. They aren't equally-footed negotiating partners, an actor is one person vs. a group of people. The function of a union is to give smaller players a more equal negotiating platform. The strike is effectively the union turning your statement back around on the companies: "if they don't want to [pay] the terms on offer then don't and go earn a living some other way."

It isn't okay for one party to have all the power in a negotiation; without organization, an actor choosing to not work is far more harmful to them than it is to the company in question.

I think what the union is asking is completely fair. I don't like the way the argument is going, though. The usage of the term "residuals", for example, sounds a bit misleading since what they're asking for is specifically bonuses for large successes. The companies trying to fight them off is also obviously trying to pit the ill-treated developers against the voice actors, to their own benefit. Their tactics just seem destructive for the industry.

But yeah, I'm also perversely looking forward to terrible voice acting by the CEOs' nephews and nieces and developers =P

Hoo boy, thoughts. Do I ever have thoughts on this strike, most of them not good.

Look, I'm not totally unsympathetic to what they're doing here, but this whole thing just stinks of poor planning and more than a little bit of group-think.

First, I think they are vastly overestimating just how much people, even gamers, care about voice acting. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the general public has no idea this strike is going on and even within the gaming sphere, I bet most people don't give a real toss. Like many others have said, I've never bought or passed on a game due to the voice acting, and while it's nice thing to have done well, it's not like it's a necessary thing to have for my enjoyment. It's a "plus," not a requirement, so if voice acting were to suddenly go in the toilet, guess what? I'm still playing games.

The second point combines with the first. It's not like there has been an immediate noticeable effect of this strike. Games are still getting made. A lot of those had the voice acting done prior to the strike, and those affected by it can push dev schedules around to accommodate it until the last minute, so the strike hasn't exactly succeeded in generating immediate attention the same way that happens when, say, the police or firefighters or teachers go on strike. If you're out of the public eye, your don't really have much negotiating leverage and this strike has definitely been out of the public eye.

Third, I think they asked for way too much, didn't pick their battles, and now a lot of legitimate issues are being lost because they're coming across as whiny assholes. They needed to do a better job of thinking about how they would come across if they tried to explain their issues to someone who has only the most basic idea of what voice acting is or entails. They would have been fine if they's just stuck to a few critical issues. For example, people understand safety as important, so saying you should have stunt coordinators when asked to do motion capture seems intuitively obvious. And the industry comes across as jerks for not having it. Same thing with knowing what game you're working on. Again, it's intuitively obvious. Of course actors should be able to know what they're working on. It can only help the product if they are able to prepare to the best of their ability by knowing the specifics of the role ahead of time.

But then they ask for a lot of things that just come across as unreasonable. Shorter sessions, for example. Now I know they have all this evidence of vocal cord injury and voice fatigue and all that. I don't dispute that's a serious and genuine problem if you're a voice actor, but the thing to remember is that it doesn't come across that way to the Average Joe. What the Average Joe hears them saying is "I talk all day and it's haaaarrrrrrd." How does talking all day make them any different from a million other professions? You don't hear school teachers going on strike because they're a little horse.

The pay issue is a big one too. If you don't really know about video games, getting paid that much for a 4 hour session seems like a sweet gig, so why are they complaining? If you pay attention to the industry, you probably think the actual game devs should have priority to royalty payments before voice actors. It also doesn't help that the industry put a little money on the table to begin with, and the union rejected it, so now the industry gets to claim the high ground on that one a little bit.

I dunno. Just seems like a clusterfuck to me. Which is unfortunate. They do have some really serious issues that they should be able to get solved, but they've kinda shot themselves in the foot with how they went about this.

I haven't read up on it extensively, but from my limited point of view I am completely behind the voice actors. Health and safety issues, when you do strenuous physical work on a contract basis, are paramount. The idea that anyone would suggest that a healthy and safe work environment is "asking too much" baffles me. Beyond that, the only argument I've heard against the incredibly meager residuals being requested only on extremely successful games is that, well, developers don't get that? It's pitch-perfect corporate counter-programming, instead of everyone banding together and demanding better conditions from the corporations raking in the profits they're convinced to turn on each other so no one's situation improves except the company's bottom line. It's gross.

I don't like well known voice actors. Not personally, mind. I have the same issue with screen actors. The moment I hear or see someone I know, I lose all interest in that character, because I no longer believe they aren't that character. They are an actor. It's Hale. It's De Niro. It's someone reading a script.

But I also obviously don't want people to go without work. So, it's a tough position...

Edit: Actually, I suppose it's not tough at all. Me having my immersion broken in a video game vs. these people having a job they love? The latter wins. I'll complain a little and criticise the art, but they've a right to their jobs.

Hard to put a lot of thought into it in the current national context, but unions and labor rights in general have seen so many set backs in the USA that I hope the best for them just so the labor left can get at least one win this year.

The entire video game industry should follow their example and go on strike. The conditions of basically every single worker in the industry are disgusting and companies have spent way too long getting rich off what is sometimes just straight up free labour.

They have my support 1000%. Labor action is a ride that raises all ships.

If there are any VA's or developers that use the site and read this please speak up and clarify anything that I might have said which is incorrect, misinformed, or if there is something that hasn't been said which might help others better understand what is going on. My understanding of all this is based on what has been put up on SAG-AFTRA's site, the publishers now defunct site, and the twitter commentary by VA's, all of which has been very scattered so the issue itself isn't very clear to those looking at it from the outside. I wrote all this over several hours with breaks in between so hopefully everything remains coherent for anyone who reads it.

To start things off here is a link to a comparison of what was last asked for and what was last offered by both parties. The spreadsheet is from a writer at Desctructoid that received copies of the last session of changes made before the strike began, both of which can be found here and here. At the time, Destructoid was the only outlet I came across that had published the documents or covered it for more than a few articles in a way that wasn't just addressing the press releases at the time. Most other outlets just gave the cursory explanation and that was about it.

I paid fairly close attention to this when it began in October to see what the level of discourse was and came away with the distinct feeling that the negotiations will go nowhere until SAG-AFTRA can get the developers in the studios they are striking with on their side. They just don't have the leverage they think they do otherwise. The general feeling I got from VA's is that they'd love for developers to unionize, but they should do it themselves and that it's not SAG-AFTRA's place or problem. This in turn is why there has been little to no support from the development community. If SAG-AFTRA uses their experience and history of running a union to their advantage they could very well use what seemingly little momentum they have in tandem with that of the developers themselves to force the hand of the Publishers. The one knock against this that I've seen is that any developers that would strike would find themselves out of a job and replaced with the ever increasing horde of fresh faces looking to break into the industry (of whom I am one of those fresh faces). As it stands it's generally considered risky to bring up talk of unionization or striking because of the fear that it could harm the future of ones career. This path would undoubtedly be a long and difficult one, but it is the only one I can see being successful. As it is the IGDA is already in a position to be the institution in the industry to handle the formation and facilitation of union activities so that may be where it all needs to start. As it is there are many other practices and parts of the industry that would benefit the individual developers if a union were to be formed, primarily crunch and post release layoffs come to mind. The difficulty is also in how spread out the industry is, even with hubs like the bay area, LA, Seattle etc. SAG-AFTRA has it much easier when it comes to mobilizing it's members because the film and VA recording parts are almost entirely focused in the LA area.

I do have some nit-picky things to say about the VA's who have been speaking out on twitter. The first of which is stop conflating the Publishers with whom they are striking against with the developers. I've seen the two words used interchangeably and they aren't the same. This is part of what has led to the hostility or lack of interest on the parts of developers who feel like they are being attacked for something they have no role in deciding internally. Another is the hard-line commitment to post release compensation as a means to combat job insecurity, particularly pointing out that it's how things are done in the film industry. You aren't working in the film industry, your working in games so that precedent has no historical meaning and isn't an argument that holds any water to those with whom your negotiating. The last problem is expressed very well by friend of the site Dave Lang in this tweet. Anyone who has done freelance work or operates a client based business in any industry that isn't unionized knows that it's up to you to keep the train rolling and your career path viable.

I also wan't to address a few things others have said in this thread.

Anyone but the top performers aren't able to negotiate for much more other than the time and terms of how the work is done for a particular job because they lack the leverage. Most VA's have to stick to the payment terms of the union contract or risk losing the gig. That's why the negotiations happened and the strike began. They need to agree upon a minimum baseline that benefits everyone not just the group that does the hiring.

Great compensation is only a luxury of the sought after talent for key roles (Nolan North, Jennifer Hale, etc..) those who voice the ambient dialogue or secondary roles often only get paid the contract minimum. The number that was thrown around a lot is $500 per day of recording. People who ignored that the work isn't a full time job extrapolated that out to mean that VA's are wealthy and or get paid too much. Knowing that it isn't a full time position where you get work 5 days a week puts that number into perspective. Then you have to factor in union dues which covers assistance finding more work, training, healthcare etc. On the whole people who work freelance typically get paid what seems like a lot for a job, but that is to ensure you can take care of expenses during the time when you don't have a gig as well. I do agree that the industry as a whole needs to step up and stand up for itself against the many self-destructive practices it employees.

That's why they're striking, the VA's were negotiating their contract and it's done collectively because they're a union. The only talent that has the ability to try and negotiate as an individual are those who are highly sought after. Everyone else has to start with the union negotiated contract and hope the can get anything else. You can't apply directly the negotiation expectations you might have in any other line of work because the nature of the work is a huge factor in determining how and what can be negotiated.

Your probably recalling their announcement of intent to strike if an agreement couldn't be reached. What is happening as of October 21st, 2016 is the actual strike. The perception of too much or what is enough will have two different views depending on who is asking for what from whom, so what is viewed as realistic or unrealistic will also change. What they are asking for isn't unreasonable, rather how it is being asked for and the reason's behind it are.

The strike only affects games that went into production starting February 15th 2015, so anything that comes out in the next year will likely have been affected. Here and here are lists of projects that SAG-AFTRA provided for their union members to know what is affected and what is not respectively. Most of them are still code-names, but games like Mass Effect Andromeda (listed as Mass Effect 4) aren't.

I'm glad you said this because early on in the strike VA's took to twitter to get fans invested in the strike as a means of leverage and that has all but failed to do anything. On top of that many of the more well known VA's had asked their fans to make collages or share the names of the characters they loved. Many of those characters were for tv shows, and few were for games. This I feel is just a byproduct of the poor communication the surrounds the whole thing.

I'm sad that the strike has lasted as long as it has and I hope the publishers/developers come to the bargaining table soon with a proposal the union can agree to. As game developer I wish collective bargaining was more widespread in the industry, but regardless of that I'm rooting for the success of SAG-AFTRA.

Hooray for the race to the bottom! Literally everybody is replaceable. Do you need proof? People grow old and die and yet society carries on without them. It's amazing how eager people are to slap the bowl out of the hands of the person next to them instead of demanding their own.

Studios and producers seem like absolute slave drivers. So I do side on the voice actors for improving their working conditions. About the amount of money they make though... I do agree that it is kind of hard to justify supporting them for that, but in this case, it seems fair that everyone involved in the whole process gets their fair amount with how much the game ends up making.

People who work in union shops make more money than average because they are unionized. They didn't somehow decide that they should unionize when they realized they were already being well paid. Do you envision the typical union meeting as being a bunch of posh patrician types mocking the common rabble inside of a country club? Unions are just about the least elitist form of social organization in existence.

Here's a fact that may shock you: fewer than ten people control as much wealth as half of this planet's entire population. You may also be surprised when I tell you that employers generally prefer to offer as little compensation as possible for as much work as possible and that employees generally take what they can get because they, as individuals have almost no power.

"Ask for reasonable things commensurate with your value" you say? Almost nobody gets what they deserve. How can they when there are people in the world with more money than they could possibly spend in a hundred lifetimes? Unions literally exist as a mechanism for people to have the leverage to ask for things commensurate with their value. Read a little bit of history and I think you'll find that pretty much any protections that workers have today were earned with the blood of labor unions. And what do you know? Now that unions have been under a sustained assault for the past several decades and enjoy historically low membership levels, we're seeing working conditions worsen for not only workers in formerly unionized industries, but also for the people immediately below and above them on the economic ladder.

Before you start dreaming up ways to kneecap labor unions, why don't you wait for them to literally cause any problems besides making you jealous that they live ever-so-slightly better than people who don't have unions.

Here's the thing, game developers can work in any industry and make more money. If they really hate the conditions, then take a job at some other type of business or start your own company. In all industries there are going to be times when you have to work 12/14/16 hours for days and sometimes weeks at a time; it sucks, but it's a fact of life. I've had to work super long hours because of some bug/issue or a problematic project, and you know what, I love it.

Also, there are very few "disgusting companies" making money hands over fist. In fact, most video game companies are gone now or are barely making a profit. Of course you have a couple exceptions like Blizzard and Valve, but those companies treat their employees really well.

On one hand, I understand their demands and hope they get them (or something in-between). On the other, I've worked my fingers to the bone for $10/hr before and don't feel any real sympathy for the work of voice acting.

Overall I don't really care TBH :/

Developers should have a union. The fact that they don't have a Nation-wide (USA) one right now is ridiculous. This is my biggest take-away from all of this. If there was a Developer Union going on strike for the same reasons and demands I wonder how different people's opinions would be. I know there are big risks to being the first to unionize, that this is an ever evolving field full of young people eager to take jobs and positions left open if developers went on strike, but it's also a highly technical field that demands experts and people who know their shit. How many publishers would risk putting out a buggy AAA game with zero to horrible voice-acting? How many companies in general (beyond videogames) would publish material that was lack-luster and/or full of security holes and buggy exploits? There exists serious grounds for better working conditions and better pay for developers who literally allow the modern world to run the way it does. The threat of "I can get my nephew to do this for free" should exist as just a threat by a cheap-skate. I don't think it's a coincidence that blue collared jobs that were unionized were seen as "salt-of-the-earth" people who didn't take "No" for an answer. That was very much a part of the movement to get workers unionized, that the image that these honest people weren't going to go down without a fight was highlighted as publicity to get public sympathy for the every day Joe that kept the lights on. If developers were to somehow get across the message to the common people that "Hey, we allow you to connect with Aunt Stacey three states over" or "Hey, we're the people who get you laid" I believe they could unionize in a big way. In fact, considering the fear everybody has about cyber-security I believe they could unionize even quicker than those before.

I am extremely biased in this topic, almost weirdly so, because one of my favorite games was only my favorite because of the awesome voice acting. I'm talking about Metal Gear Solid. I was sold on that game since the first 8 times I played the Pizza Hut demo-disc. It was the first game I played that had a serious plot and interesting characters that I got invested in. This is in no small part because of the amazing voice-acting. I will fondly remember and replay that game just for the amazing acting and direction that game took. I am certain that if that game was delivered entirely in text, like Final Fantasy VII, I would think of it as "okay" and that's it. This was, of course, a developmental time for me, as I was only in 6th Grade at the time (around 11-12 years old, stupidly young for a Mature rated game) so I know I was easily impressed, but at the time I still hadn't come across as something that gripped me or made me as invested in the story that MGS did. Books, movies, television, nothing in any of those categories had me as emotionally invested as I was in Solid Snake and his crew. I can guarantee that I only have those great memories and love those same scenes because the acting in it was on point. Acting counts. The main weird thing about this personal anecdote, which might be counter to my argument, is the fact that all of the acting was done without the union's approval. Everyone used a pseudonym. As far as I can tell, there were certain guidelines in place to keep members of SAG from officially voice-acting in videogames at that time. All of that gorgeous work was done without approval from the main body at large. It's hard to say that we would've gotten the same quality if it was approved, or if appropriate conditions were set in stone for workers to function without problems and with proper liability.

I'm just seriously wondering how much of the negativity people hold towards the SAG-AFTRA strike is directed towards the actors because of an unconscious negative view on performing arts. I don't want to put that on everyone, I'm positive people have legit economical reasons against the strike, but I also still wonder how many people think voice acting isn't really acting or that acting deserves less than physical labor. I really want to hope that the majority of people opposed to the strike don't think to themselves, "Oh, anyone can be a voice actor. You just read the lines." Hearing developers use their own voices for games is really charming, and reminds me a lot of how some behind-the-scenes crew in movies manage to have screen-time in major motion pictures. But there is serious skill devoted to the job, in regards to the strike. As much as I hate that I can recognize Steve Blum's voice, I'm glad that he has range and the ability to take direction and bring life to a character (even if it's written poorly). It's a skill that enhances storylines and gets me involved in the plot of videogames. If I can get into the mindset "Okay, this is a character that I can picture as being real in this universe" then I enjoy the game a whole lot more than "Okay, this is definitely a developer or friend of the developer voicing this character," and suddenly I'm taken out of the game and I'm just a shmuck on the couch. There's a reason why talkies took off after silent films. People crave that audio connection. If you want to go back to the "good old days" of text-based adventure games go ahead, there are dozens of great indie games made every year with nothing but a good soundtrack and some awesome reading. But if you want a AAA game to be text-based only, you're going to have to contend with the majority of people who want audio dialogue in their games. ]

I feel like I just wrote a dumb essay about this topic, but it's such a polarizing topic for no reason. Voice actors deserve better conditions and pay. Developers also deserve better conditions and pay. To say that one doesn't deserve it because the other doesn't have it doesn't make sense. They both should have the benefits. It's not the actors' fault because the developers didn't do it sooner.

If the artists, designers and programmers aren't getting royalties i don't see why they should.

This right here just swayed me to side with the voice actors. You're correct in that saying one can't have better pay because another doesn't have it is faulty logic. I was guilty of this earlier and reading made me realize how nonsensical it was. Developers and voice actors should both have unions so they could get better working conditions.

Has anybody listened to the Achievement Oriented podcast from The Ringer network? A few months ago they had Jennifer Hale talk about the strike. https://soundcloud.com/channel33/ep-209-explaining-the-strike-and-a-facelift-for-e-sports

The entire industry needs to be reworked but it won't ever happen because publishers are too big to ever change. If the actors go on strike then the industry will find those who are willing to work, much like game developers. I'm still on the side that developers should get priority over the actors to have royalties from sales but I also don't begrudge actors the right to fight for it.

Hm, yeah. I'm not sure where I stand. I don't go to movies that have my favorite actors in them if I'm not interested in the premise of the movie. I do think certain voice actors deliver a premium to games that make me like it a lot. At the same time, you're probably right that their specific voice acting has little to do with the actual sales of a game. This strike probably won't mean anything but bad in the long run for these voice actors because publishers will just accept they can't get them and look for anyone else. You need a voice in your game, not a personality like in movies. You can get pretty much anyone who is capable.

There is more to fight for than just money. What if these voice actors get paid more than the average citizen but part of that deal involves them destroying their vocal cords? Or it involves them not being able to accept other work?

Not to mention, if a project made 100 million dollars and you get 1% of that, that would be vast amounts more than the average person. What if you did 20% of the work though? What if you did half? You're not allowed to ask for more?

I don't think people should be wanting every little thing if they are in an advantageous position, but saying they shouldn't be allowed to anything is too much.

I'm absolutely not saying this; I just think that the individual needs to ask for it and it shouldn't just be some predetermined number that you get by default whether you are worth it or not.

Like most strikes they have valid complaints and then not so valid complaints. I think when voice actors try to act like they deserve more compensation than the people who actually spent hundreds of thousands of man hours actually making the game it gets weird...especially when most of the time 90% of the people consuming your game don't care about the VO or know who the performers are.

this is some really unbelievably bad arguing against unions and you should honestly be ashamed of yourself. go read marx dude

Well, sure. I think we can all agree unions should be nonsense to begin with, but as an employee there is only so much you can do. You need work, so you can't say: 'well, fuck it then, I'm not doing anything until I get what I want'. Sooner or later, you have to comply. That's why you need a union. Because even for the people that make good money, if they received an extremely unfair cut, then they still need a union to get what they earned. It's debatable of course if this specific situation is required. It might be, it might not be.

Some fragmented thoughts.

First of all, stop pitting the programmers against the voice actors. They are not eating the same crumbs and should not be compared as competition. The fact that programmers have not united under a mutual banner still astounds me, but that is life when you are, or think you are, a dime-a-dozen.

Secondly, don't value an actor's pay in time. You pay them for the value they bring to a project, which can be great (Troy Baker, Nolan North, John de Lancie, Keith David, etc). It's the same way you pay an experienced plumber their premium charge for added value: a guaranteed fine goddamn plumbing job, and instead of days they are done in hours. The more convinced up and coming VAs are of having to perform for a pittance, the worse off the industry gets. Worst case scenario is nobody making a living off of it, because everybody is doing a dollar race to the bottom.

Publishers don't care if voice actors make a living off of their craft. There is no interest on their side to pump the brakes and say, "Hold up a second, Sunny Jim. We're not securing this guy or gal's house payment for the next month. Maybe after we've baked this game, they could get some crumbs off of it."

The publisher only cares about the end product and how much it cost them to get it done.

Stop looking at the money per hour. Don't tell them to "get a job" or accept the pay as is. Why should they? The publishers are raking in massive profit off of guaranteed sales from big franchises (we're talking around the billion mark in net profit), and that's the piece of pie that the VAs are primarily voicing concerns over.

It feels like a bunch of people are being terribly vindictive and defensive. As if any disruption to their future entertainment should not go unpunished.

These disputes are always a good reminder about how much the average person despises worker's unions. The video games that you love don't just roll out of some automated games factory with logos stamped on them. There's a human being behind every single aspect of every game you play putting the work in. My views about this strike are the same as every other strike, I support the worker's rights and I support their fight for what they deserve. The ridiculous "just get a new job" or "these people should realize they don't matter as much as they think" are the exact kind of disgusting attitudes that allow companies to treat their workers like shit.

I think people looking at how VA's are asking for compensation miss the point on why they need to; people think VAing is just talking, but they also have to yell and some have to make monster noises which after so many takes can be absolute hell on the vocal cords. Now if they have to rehabilitate for a week or more they are not going to get any gigs which is very bad.

The big thing is that developers should unionize too, but its like in the pro wrestling industry where if a worker even thinks about unionizing you are blackballed or ratfucked by a coworker who likes his spot in the company.

I think we need to be clear about a few things, actors are often underpaid and don't have any benefits. The payment structure of performance related bonus (which is a small ask) is just a different way of getting paid, rather than being a salaried employee with health care etc. It's a standard way for actors to get paid and allows companies to hire them without having to put too much money up front.

Last minute calls are really important, if you can't do a gig you get replaced, you don't schedule your performances they get scheduled and you better be free.

The problem with developers isn't pay its being overworked. So clearly plenty of money to pay people properly.

The job of unions is to work on the minimums so everyone is paid properly and has decent working conditions.You get the support of actors that would be paid more through their agents to help support the cause, not because it effects them.

These are people that know their industry, and anyone who gets into acting for the money is an idiot, unions know when to pick their battles, nothing asked seems unreasonable.

Finally, surely we should side with the workers, not the billion dollar EA or Activision.

Yeah, almost. They're effectively saying "if they don't want to [pay] the terms on offer then don't and go and earn a living without us". Which is totally fine. And the companies are saying "Ok then we will". Which is also totally fine.

Clearly the reality is that more than enough people are prepared to perform the 'stressful' job of voice acting -and to a standard required by the industry- that those currently doing it are in no position to be making extravagant demands beyond what they are worth. There are a zillion other jobs they could choose to go and do instead, but of course the reality is that most of the ones they will be qualified for are massively more difficult and stressful than voice acting.

It's not a matter of being 100% irreplaceable, it's a matter of developing a skillset which is more in demand than supply and therefore would be costly or difficult to replace. The handful of very top voice actors with some name recognition probably can demand good compensation for their time. Replacing Nolan North or Jen Hale with someone roughly equally talented would be difficult or impossible so of course they can demand more. Mediocre voice actors are not remotely important to the project and can be easily replaced, so of course they can't demand or expect extravagant compensation.

If you want to see a real race to the bottom then start over-rewarding mediocrity and disincentivising excellence.