Videogame Voice Actors union possibly getting ready to strike

[Tech614]

When it's crunch time folks, sure (though having another job lined up isn't always the case by far). But it's common for studios that made games that underperformed or failed to see deep layoffs to longer term staff and even closure as well, sometimes just for a single game underperforming. Game development is far from a "steady" job unless you're much higher up on the ladder.

Studio closures happen when their parent company is losing money. This isn't something exclusive to the gaming industry. Most of these devs are talented and are picked up asap by another studio. Hell, and more and more we see the guys who have already made so much money in their career they can afford to take a chance and start their own indy studio. Stop trying to act like there is some ridiculous unemployment rate for game designers and programmers, because there certainly is not. Also even if AAA gaming died tomorrow most of these guys would be just fine as their skills translate to far more professions then just making video games.

[Edge-]

Stop trying to act like there is some ridiculous unemployment rate for game designers and programmers, because there certainly is not.

Erm...I didn't? I'm not sure where you got that from. I was speaking to the high turnover and the fact that it's very common for devs to get laid off and need to move around. It's far from a "steady" job if you're hunting for a new gig and needing to move every 1-2 years.

[Tech614]

Erm...I didn't? I'm not sure where you got that from. I was speaking to the high turnover and the fact that it's very common for devs to get laid off and need to move around. It's far from a "steady" job if you're hunting for a new gig and needing to move every 1-2 years.

Steady income has nothing to do with moving around. A professional wrestler in the WWE is on the road 300+ days a year but they certainly have a steady income.

[Gray_Matter]

I'm in the industry guys please take my opinion seriously while I remain anonymous.

Basically since I'm of the opposite opinion from what I know, so if I put some anonymous source behind my posts FROM THE INDUSTRY it has more merit then anyone else in this thread/comments? LULZ.

Not more merit. If it's true then that is a big problem. If not then Wil just has to say so. I see that he hasn't responded.

- - - Updated - - -

The "mass lay offs" you speak of are mostly just freelancers who already have their next job lined up. They know what their role is and are ok with it, they get to work on a lot of different projects with different studios and have loads of connections. Most even work for single publishers such as Ubisoft or Activision and just jump to the next studio that needs their game finished. They actually do have pretty good job security, very few of these guys ever draw unemployment.

Some random person (you) on the internet says its the case so it must be true? You state that as a fact with absolutely nothing to back it up.

[Edge-]

Steady income has nothing to do with moving around. A professional wrestler in the WWE is on the road 300+ days a year but they certainly have a steady income.

There's a difference between moving around for your job (which remains steady), and moving around because you got laid off and spent a month securing a new job on the other end of the country.

The former doesn't interrupt your pay or employment status (I have friends/relatives who spend more time traveling than home but have kept the same job for years), the latter is a direct result of your changing employment status.

[Gray_Matter]

If you consider how much longer it takes to develop a game than it does to do voice over work for it, game devs comparably have more steady pay.

Of course. They also have more steady pay than plumbers. You don't find plumbers charging you every time you turn on the tap. That and plumbers (and VA's) have the potential to make a lot more money. Devs don't have that opportunity unless they branch off on their own at which people they fall into the same boat as the VA's with a lot of potential and less stability.

- - - Updated - - -

Steady income has nothing to do with moving around. A professional wrestler in the WWE is on the road 300+ days a year but they certainly have a steady income.

Are you trying to be obtuse on purpose?

[Logwyn]

Might want to poll it, but I'm pretty sure most gamers couldn't name a popular VA off the top of their head. So long as the the dialogue and tone is done right, it doesn't matter who's behind the mic (or phone).

Mark Hammill and Claudia Black. Didn't even need to look it up. What do I win?

[Biotec]

I'm confused Mr.Wheaton.

If it's not about the money.

Why do you keep asking for money?

Why are you trying to make it so that everyone has to join your union if they ever want to voice act?

Why are you making it so that only the voice actors can do mo-cap for their characters when very few VAs actually do the mo-cap?

What a load of shit. It's all about the money. I can sympathize with safer working conditions and rejecting the stupid rules and fines the publishers are pushing but the rest of it just just greedy crap.

Also they seem to think that this money will come out of the CEO's bonus or paycheck but anyone with a brain knows that won't happen. It's these peoples job to find ways to make more money at the expense of the customer. They are just going to release more bullshit day one DLC or try to raise the price of games altogether and use this to justify it. There's no way they are going to let up their billion dollar paycheck a just like there's no way you're going to give up trying to get those residuals.

[Kio]

There's a difference between moving around for your job (which remains steady), and moving around because you got laid off and spent a month securing a new job on the other end of the country.

The former doesn't interrupt your pay or employment status (I have friends/relatives who spend more time traveling than home but have kept the same job for years), the latter is a direct result of your changing employment status.

Voice Actors have to do the same thing, except they have to do it more often.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't find plumbers charging you every time you turn on the tap.

Because the government does. Really bad example.

[klogaroth]

The question really is this for me:

That money is being generated by these games. Would you rather it went to the Bobby Koticks of this world?

Have the voice actors get a decent cut (also conditions by the sound of it). Get a proper union going for the people making the rest of the game; the artists, the programmers, the designers. Have them get what they're due as well.

Backend bonuses, either extra pay triggered by sales or % cuts of sales or something like that, are also a decent way to make sure that if a game tanks you haven't had to pay out all the money up front. It gives studios a bit of leeway in terms of the cost of the development if the game doesn't sell as well as they'd hoped.

[Biotec]

The question really is this for me:

That money is being generated by these games. Would you rather it went to the Bobby Koticks of this world?

Have the voice actors get a decent cut (also conditions by the sound of it). Get a proper union going for the people making the rest of the game; the artists, the programmers, the designers. Have them get what they're due as well.

Backend bonuses, either extra pay triggered by sales or % cuts of sales or something like that, are also a decent way to make sure that if a game tanks you haven't had to pay out all the money up front. It gives studios a bit of leeway in terms of the cost of the development if the game doesn't sell as well as they'd hoped.

Why do you think Bobby isn't going to get his cut after they agree to these demands? You really think he's so selfless he will give his money to these poor poor VAs? He's just going to try and take more money from us instead, or add it to the amount the games need to sell to recoup the costs.

And the developers can't form a union because of how over saturated this industry is. If they unionize they will just be dumped even quicker than the VAs. Video game design is a popular field and I'm sure there are plenty of people in the mobile market or fresh out of college who would jump at the opportunity to work for a AAA studio. They already get tossed around constantly without their unions.

[Gray_Matter]

Because the government does. Really bad example.

Not a bad example. Different people get paid in different ways. A VA could always go and work for a game studio full time and get a fixed salary. The point is that the payment style normally fits with the how the work is done (execs aside who are mostly leaches).

Royalties of any kind are normally reserved for situations where it's a really important part of the product (e.g. licensing) or for situations where people are prepared to pay royalties because the studio wants something that only that person can bring to the table (a specific song or a famous singer). I think the VA's are overestimating their hand. There is a big migration to mobile games that have very little Voice Acting required. About the only places that will feel the pinch a bit are the big studios and even they can make a plan.

[Gray_Matter]

The question really is this for me:

That money is being generated by these games. Would you rather it went to the Bobby Koticks of this world?

Have the voice actors get a decent cut (also conditions by the sound of it). Get a proper union going for the people making the rest of the game; the artists, the programmers, the designers. Have them get what they're due as well.

Backend bonuses, either extra pay triggered by sales or % cuts of sales or something like that, are also a decent way to make sure that if a game tanks you haven't had to pay out all the money up front. It gives studios a bit of leeway in terms of the cost of the development if the game doesn't sell as well as they'd hoped.

The problem is that's not what will happen. Any royalties will translate directly into a price increase. Once one gets a piece of the action then all will want it. The royalty block will get bigger as more and more people need to get paid royalties.

[klogaroth]

The problem is that's not what will happen. Any royalties will translate directly into a price increase. Once one gets a piece of the action then all will want it. The royalty block will get bigger as more and more people need to get paid royalties.

There are limits to this.

If you try and squeeze the money out of your consumers because you're not distributing income from your products properly within your company you'll start to price yourself out of the market. A fair few games companies seem to be very, very top heavy when it comes to where their income goes.

[Tech614]

There's a difference between moving around for your job (which remains steady), and moving around because you got laid off and spent a month securing a new job on the other end of the country.

The former doesn't interrupt your pay or employment status (I have friends/relatives who spend more time traveling than home but have kept the same job for years), the latter is a direct result of your changing employment status.

Please list the unemployment rates of game developers since you think so many are without a job for "months". Still waiting on that.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that's not what will happen. Any royalties will translate directly into a price increase. Once one gets a piece of the action then all will want it. The royalty block will get bigger as more and more people need to get paid royalties.

You don't understand how royalties work do you? If a company isn't making profit, you don't get royalties, just the flat licensing fee paid up front. Royalties are a % directly from the profit. This is taking a small % of the profit away from the publisher, nothing more and nothing less, if the price increased and the games made MORE profit they would have to pay MORE in royalties. You don't counteract royalties by increasing the price.

[Gray_Matter]

There are limits to this.

If you try and squeeze the money out of your consumers because you're not distributing income from your products properly within your company you'll start to price yourself out of the market. A fair few games companies seem to be very, very top heavy when it comes to where their income goes.

Blizzard increased the price of WoD to $50. When the people payed it had the effect of setting the industry standard price for expansions. GW2's expansion came out at the same price. They will test the water with a big brand game and if it floats then the new price for games will be $65 or $70. Whatever they choose. I can see VA's losing out because of this. Smaller studios will no longer get them or may even source these off shore.

[Edge-]

Blizzard increased the price of WoD to $50. When the people payed it had the effect of setting the industry standard price for expansions. GW2's expansion came out at the same price. They will test the water with a big brand game and if it floats then the new price for games will be $65 or $70. Whatever they choose. I can see VA's losing out because of this. Smaller studios will no longer get them or may even source these off shore.

Guild Wars expansions have historically been $50, if I remember correctly, due to the fact that they've primarily been the method of ArenaNet to monetize the game (the cash shop was very minimal in GW1). Heart of Thorns being $50 was likely a continuation of this rather than anything related to WoD pricing. BioWare, for example, has historically priced their expansions for SWTOR far lower ($20-30, with the upcoming one being free with a subscription).

To boot, EQ2 expansions continue to be priced at $40 upon release. We'll see if the new expansion is also $40, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

[Gray_Matter]

You don't understand how royalties work do you? If a company isn't making profit, you don't get royalties, just the flat licensing fee paid up front. Royalties are a % directly from the profit. This is taking a small % of the profit away from the publisher, nothing more and nothing less, if the price increased and the games made MORE profit they would have to pay MORE in royalties. You don't counteract royalties by increasing the price.

I understand more about them than you do. If a company is making $50 and their costs increase then they will, in all likelihood, increase the price to cover that increased cost. If they have to pay royalties of 5% (or in the case of VA's a fixed fee per copy sold) they will increase the price accordingly. Say, using our example above, the price was $100 and the profit $50. If they have to pay a 10% royalty then they would increase the price to keep that profit. Not to $110 because they would still come out with less than $50 but to something like $115. That gives the royalty owner $11.5 and the profit for the company would be $53.5. You see, increasing the price covered the cost of the new royalties and still had some left over.

[Paula Deen]

Please list the unemployment rates of game developers since you think so many are without a job for "months". Still waiting on that

You can find hundreds, if not thousands of texts across the internet of companies that do gaming hire shit loads of people during Crunch Period (the few months before a game launches where conditions are awful and pay is low) and then fire almost all of them after the game launches.

[Gray_Matter]

Guild Wars expansions have historically been $50, if I remember correctly, due to the fact that they've primarily been the method of ArenaNet to monetize the game (the cash shop was very minimal in GW1). Heart of Thorns being $50 was likely a continuation of this rather than anything related to WoD pricing.

EOTN was $39.99. Granted that was back in 2007, but still.