I filed this report for Wired News today on labor conflict between the game industry and two Hollywood unions representing voiceover talent.
The most contentious issue at hand: whether actors should be entitled to a share of the profits from video games that feature their voices.
"Nine of the top 10 selling games in 2004 were produced with union contracts, using union voice talent — and because of that, the quality of those games becomes exponentially higher," said Seth Oster, a representative of SAG and AFTRA.
Under one of several models proposed by the two unions, actors would receive additional compensation when a game in which their voice is used sells 400,000 units. When sales reach additional 100,000-unit thresholds, the actors would receive additional payments. "Every other sector of the entertainment industry provides some residual profit-sharing model to performers whose talents make the product come alive," Oster told Wired News. "The video-game business is the only exception, and that's unfair."
Bob Finlayson, of the game industry's Publishers Interactive Bargaining Group, disagrees."People buy games for gameplay, not to hear voices," counters Finlayson. "And technology creates gameplay, not actors. People who play these games understand that, and in fact, some gamers turn the volume down because (they) find those voices distracting. In film or television, the actor's performance makes the experience. In video games, it does not."
Reader feedback: Many Wired News and Boing Boing readers wrote in with their thoughts on the story. Here are a few.
"Mark Long, Zombie" writes:
I'm an independent game developer in Seattle and I think SAG is nuts if they think they deserve residuals for a half day of VO work when the development team slaves away for 2 years to produce a title. I'll back SAG when game programmers and artists get residuals first.
Ron Gilbert writes:
It would have been interesting to mention in you article about SAG actors in video games that very few people working the games industry get royalties. Why should we pay actors royalties when programmers and arts don't? Hollywood is driven by the "points" everyone gets, the games industry is not. It is a very different economic model. I think that fact that the actors are asking for back-end when very few people in this industry get any is worth mentioning. I hardly ever see this in the mainstream press.
Kevin Greenstein writes:
Given the reviews that Revenge of the Sith [the video game] has received, particularly with regard to the stand-in voice talent (no Hayden Christensen, Ewan McGregor, etc.), I think it's clear that high-quality voice talent adds a great deal to the gaming experience. Otherwise, game manufacturers wouldn't be seeking out that talent in the first place. As games get more advanced, the presence of quality talent will become more and more crucial… until game manufacturers can adequately simulate the voice talent electronically, thus no longer needing any voice talent at all.
Craig writes:
I honestly don't care whether they strike or not and I don't think it will make a difference to the industry. I do wonder though if the people that actually create the games are union and will they back the "actors" up in their idiotic battle.
