SAG vs. Video Games

Why does anyone need to have an "actor" do the voice? I'm sure there are a ton of less famous and even struggling actors who would do the voice for a flat fee. Perhaps if they had a contract to do several games in a series then I could see how they are entitled to more.

getting as much as it can for its members. Actors are paid residuals for voiceovers on TV, record albums, radio and through all other media except video games. Why should SAG agree to separate rules for one industry?

the SAG is doing their job and many video game companies sell their games on authenticity of the game... The last Simpsons game was a much bigger hit than all the others because the voices were from the actual characters in the series... If video game developers have an problem with this, they should develop games that rely on amazing game play not authenticity and realism...Donkey Kong never complained about profit percentages

I do agree that licensed game products (which usually suck in my opinion) are different from most video game fair. Those ones do need to have the authentic voice talent. However can anyone tell me who did the voice from Halo or Half-Life? It's not fair that in those great games that the guy who says an hour of dialog reaps rewards greater than the people who created the great game play.

Halo is not sold on celebrity talent, so its moot. More to the point, if there are two Star Wars games available with equal playability, which would you prefer? One voiced by Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and James Earl Jones or one where the voices sound similar, but aren't quite right. Me, I'd pay a buck or two extra for the stars, just the same as I will buy a football game where I can have Peyton Manning throw a touchdown to Marvin Harrison over a game that lacks NFL syndicate rights and uses fake names and bogus teams.

But you are forcing the people who make Halo to pay royalties to the voice actor even though he is no Mark Hamill. For some games it does make since, but we are talking about ALL games. You are forcing BOTH Star Wars games to pay royalties, not just the one with the A List talent. If you EVER want to make a game with SAG talent you must pay EVERY voice actor royalties and they MUST be a SAG actor.

And companies that make commercials and use voice overs pay residuals to the actor whether its Jennifer Aniston or Jennifer Doe. The amount payed out is based on a sliding scale based on who you are and how much you can demand (or you get "scale" residuals if you are truly a nobody). Again, why should video games be exempt from this.

Software should be exempt from it because commercials and TV shows do not require the amount of work by others that video games need. Actors do the vast majority of the work in TV and movies, they are the biggest factor for the success or failure in those venues. By taking more than there fair share of a medium where their talent is marginal to the talent and skill of others they claim more reward then they risk.

The "more work was done behind the scenes" argument doesn't hold water. Someone had to formulate Calgon, then it had to go through a structured safety testing program where it was probably refined a number of times, then a round of marketing tests which probably led to changes in the product. How about package planning and design, board approval, etc. The voice talent who had nothing to do with designing the product, its planning or packaging, yet still walks away with residuals...

Again, how is this different?

But not from every unit of Calgon sold...

Unlike video games, the actors voice is not a component of every shipped unit of Calgon. If that's your standard, SAG should push for larger residuals.

...it's not like the programmers would see it. That money is just extra profits for the corporation. These software companies make millions of dollars of profits a year, I think they can afford to shell out a couple of million to actors. It must be cost effective, in other words, the extra sales must make up for it, otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue.

Yup, the cost increase will be rolled to the customer.

Why should they have to pay millions on games that don't feature start talent though? Also making money is no excuse to have to pay more money out. Being able to afford something and having to pay it are two totally different things. If you need James Earl Jones to do the voice for Vader in your game he has the right to say "I want royalties from the game." Then you can decide if he is worth it or not.

That's how unions work. The high priced talent protects the low cost talent from being taken advantage of. Are you against minimum wage? You could argue anyone can flip a burger, so why should a company be forced to pay a minimum salary? Electronic Arts made 577 million dollars in profit last year. They have 4,800 employees. They could give every employee 100,000 extra dollars a year and still have a profit of 90 million. So you tell me, are the actors taking the programmers money, or is the corporation?

If a company does a good job and makes a superior product they deserve all the profits that they earn. Just because there are profitable doesn't mean they have to give that money way because someone thinks they have a right to it.

You say "if a company does a good job" and then "they deserve all the profits" but in reality the programmers due a good job and the owners get the vast majority of the profits earned. When the SAG is getting money, it's getting money out of the owners, not the programmers doing the work.

As a (hopefully) future company owner I don't like the fact that if I go through all effort to make a company, not to mention the financial risk and uncertainty that I don't deserve what the company earns.
People like Sid Myer and John Romero made great games and great game companies. I think they everything they get everything they deserve.

You make it sound like any increase in pay to these actors will put these owners in the poorhouse. The owners could cut their share of the profits in half and still walk away wealthy men. Revenue is divided four ways, marketing, raw materials, labor, and ownership. Now if you can create a company where you don't need the labor, by all means, keep all the profits. Let the owners do the voice over work, otherwise, be willing to pay labor their fair share.

Currently the owners can do voice over work. Some of the greatest games and games companies, Blizzard for example, have the designers and programmers and even marketing voicing their games. Under the new contract that SAG is talking about you can't do that anymore. If you EVER want to do a game with even a single SAG actor ALL of your games, every voice, must be done by a SAG actor.
To me that is the rub. I have no problem with individual projects or people having residuals. My problem is that its an all or nothing deal. If the vote goes through people will have to decide if they are going to have to eat the cost on every other project they ever make to have one franchised product.

What if the programmers decided they would work on one game but not another? Would that be fair to the owners? Why should the owners be able to say, we need you for this, but not for this, wait by the phone for our call. Look, SAG provides a service and they have every right to negotiate the terms of that service. On some games, I'm sure the voice work means little, but on others it means a lot. You don't know ahead of time which will be which, so by creating this contract, you average it out. Owners have an over inflated sense of entitlement. They deserve a share of profits, not every last drop.

It looks like the result from the SAG vote will become known June 7th. They need 75% to strike.

If it doesn't happen this time, it will in the next 5 years.

Computer games have long been considered a source of aggression and cruelty. Now they are developing a "team spirit" and learning to help each other. It's more fun to play as a band, say "gamers". That's why my friends and I often spend time playing interesting computer games.