…do you answer every question with a question?
How about you answer some of my questions first, then I’ll answer yours.
…so you no longer hold the position that you’ve been debating the entire thread?
There’s a lot of silly chestbeating going on here, and precious little attempt to communicate constructively.
So here’s a hypothesis that might be worth debating:
Game voice talent is unionized to a lesser degree than, say, cinema acting talent. As long as this remains true, strikes will have ambiguous effects if any. Individual projects will be able to succeed with scabs. But if the industry unionizes more heavily–especially if other aspects of the industry (e.g., coders) unionize, and support strikes by other unions–strikes will become more effective.
Nobody can possibly give a shit who said what in post 7 or what the hell this Joss Whedon bullshit is about, though.
Well, it’s the second best selling game released on Steam in August or September (172k copies, Escapists 2 beat it by 20k) so it seems to be doing okay. More importantly though, it’s a niche game heavily based in the characters – including a recurring character who fans loved – so, if there was any game where voice acting would make or break it, this is sort of the barometer. But no one is having an issue with the new voice actor. Well, out of 172,000 people (plus console versions) I’m sure someone is but it’s not making waves. Criticisms mainly are about new game mechanics or the story being rushed in places, not the quality of Chloe’s voice.
I mean, if no one really bats an eye about “Before the Storm”, how much are they probably going to care about non-union voice work in BattleDuty: Korean War?
I regarded “‘name’ voice talent” and “union voice talent” as essentially synonymous for the purposes of this discussion, so I meant the same thing by both phrases.
And I’m mildly amused at the desperate stretches you’re trying now. Contortionist construction of the arguments you face is usually the sign of a rhetor who’s got little else to bring to the table.
The strike isn’t working. Union voice talent, “name” voice talent, is not pivotal to the success of video games. That’s been my point. You have an opinion on that now?
My experience as a video game player is that most games have terrible voice acting. If it were up to me, there would be a huge overhaul of how game voice acting is done. But since most gamers don’t care, I live with it.
But when I do hear about games that have put extra effort into their voice acting, I am more likely to buy it.
What a ridiculous position. Does that have anything to do at all with the union’s position?
Are you similarly bold in declaring that there is likely no connection to whether or not the voice talents are provided by tall or short people and the success of the game?
That’s true. But then, I assume much of that was done by union people (well, prior to the strike) so while I like good voice acting, it’s not exactly a “Look for the union label” point for me.
I’d guess it has a lot to do with (many in) the industry’s position, i.e. “We probably don’t actually need union voice actors if they’re going to cause issues.”
Exactly. That’s the union’s basic argument: using union voice actors is critical – or at least important – to game success. It seems odd to imagine the union would take a contrary position. (“Using union voice talent really won’t make much difference, but, um, do it anyway?”)
Here is how legit (movies and TV) and industrials work. Projects are union or non-union. Union members are not allowed to work on non-union projects. In NY, which is what I’m familiar with, there are lots of little non-union projects, and the papers with jobs back when my daughter was acting were full of non-union projects. However they had lower quality actors, did not offer residuals, and were a lot slower to pay than union projects. (And paid less, of course.)
I’d assume videogames are similar in that they are either all union on no union.
One other point - while videogame makers might survive well without union voice actors, I doubt many voice actors live only on videogame jobs. So neither side is bleeding in this dispute.
I realize that this is late, but a voice actor taking a non-union videogame gig will not be able to take other union voice acting work, which is usually better paid and gets residuals. The pool of non-union talent is exactly that who cannot land union jobs.
Forget the numbers. You don’t understand how the acting business works.
I’m a programmer also (but not a video game one, thank Og.) When I interview I expect the job to be good for a year at least, and maybe more. When an actor auditions, the job is going to be very limited unless you are lucky enough to land a series - very rare. You might feel very differently about $200 an hour if you knew you were going to do 15 - 18 auditions for that job. What looks like high salaries and residuals are ways of letting reasonably successful actors be able to live.
BTW residuals are paid using a very complicated formula which depends on the market the ad or program is in, Cable or broadcast (at least that was true 20 years ago) and how often it runs. The SAG proposal seems to recognize that there is money available only for big sellers which have recovered their development costs. You’d think there would be money for developers at this point also.
Accusing people of being desperate doesn’t make them so. You have throughout this thread argued that there already is evidence that the strike isn’t working. Banquet Bear’s position has always been that it is too early to tell, because it takes years before game actually come out.
In this very reply you contradict yourself. You say “the strike isn’t working.” Yet you previously said we didn’t know. Here you are, in this very comment, stating your old position instead of the new one. Here you are claiming evidence before the trial has even begun.
Sigh, and you won’t read my post, because how dare I point out the flaws in your logic.
Your description of how movies etc. work is accurate to the best of my knowledge; but I think your assumption is a little off, or at least leaves out something crucial: the gaming industry is far less unionized than Hollywood is.
That lack of union penetration is going to make any union action less effective. But for folks who believe unions are beneficial for workers in an industry, the lesson isn’t to give up on union action; the lesson is to work on unionizing the industry further.
I’m fine with “too early to tell” but, unlike when this thread started, we now have games coming out to act as barometers. As I mentioned, “Before the Storm” seems well suited to give a worst case scenario: a character-driven, dialogue heavy game with a new voice actor in the role of the lead character who was well loved by fans in the previous game. This is like a special election in a swing district when people are watching for the next election. Except, unlike US politics where you have 2-4 years between votes, “Before the Storm” is just at the front of a number of games that will be coming out using non-union talent.
Maybe it’s not as telling as it could be – maybe Rhianna DeVries is uniquely talented among non-union voice actors or something. But if a game like “Before the Storm”, where the voice acting really counts and is heavily judged, gets by fine without union talent then I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a consumer revolt over the non-union voice acting in their zombie shooters and city simulators.
…if they are essentially synonymous and you meant the same thing by both phrases, why on earth did you have to clarify your position in post 178?
The answer, of course, is that “‘name’ voice talent” and “union voice talent” are not, essentially synonymous.
As discussed earlier in the thread Doug Cockle is a “name voice talent.” But he is not a “union voice talent.” You can also be a union voice talent and not be a party to the SAG-AFTRA dispute, for example you might be a member of Actors Equity instead.
So which is it? Are you talking about “name voice talent” or “union voice talent” or “SAG-AFTRA voice talent”?
I’m mildly amused that you once again have to resort to attacking the arguer instead of debating the post. If you could at the very least do me the courtesy of quoting the post that claim is a “contortionist construction of the arguments I face” I will gladly offer a rebuttal. But you’ve barely made an argument this thread. “Bit by bit” is not an argument: its a pithy aside.
On what basis do you make that claim?
Your criteria for the failure of the strike is that it ends with residuals not granted. Is that it ends without two hours vs. four hours for same pay granted. Is that it ends without a guarantee of “actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract,” granted.
How many of those criteria have been met?
Will SAG-AFTRA get everything they are after? Probably not, and in the entire history of labour negotiations it is very rare for both parties to get absolutely everything that they ask for. Which is why your criteria for “success” or “failure” of this particular strike are so poorly thought out.
Incorrect. The subject under discussion here (and these are your words) is that ““name” voice talent is/is not pivotal to the success of **some **video games.” Note the bolded. Voice acting absolutely is pivotal (IMHO) to the success of **some **video games. But not **all **video games, not even the majority of video games. If you think that both my position and the position of SAG-AFTRA is that “union voice talent, “name” voice talent, is pivotal to the success of all video games” then you haven’t actually been reading the actual words that we have been saying, and you don’t actually understand what this strike is all about.
So are you changing the debate yet again? I’m struggling to keep up with your constant changes of position.
Have you not been reading my posts? I’ve been offering an opinion on “that” for the entire thread. If you want to know my opinion I would suggest you take the time to go back and read my posts.
I honestly didn’t notice they switched voice actors. To me, Chloe Price (the character) sounded the same like in the first game. If I played the games immediately after the other I’d notice a difference.
Because, inexplicably, you claimed to be confused.
I’m talking about all of them. Concededly, however, this strike only impacts SAG-AFTRA, but my thesis is that in virtually all cases, a game’s success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or union. Game companies will achieve essentially the same sales if they hire non-union voice actors.
Yes, to all those.
So far, as to the struck companies: none, so far as I am aware.
Will SAG-AFTRA get anything they’re after?
I predict “no.”
You?
Voice acting may be pivotal. Union voice acting is not.
You’re the only one in the thread who’s having such a struggle.
I started the thread unsure if union voice acting was important to the success of video games. My position has changed only in that now I’m pretty certain the answer is “No, it’s not.”
You’re breaking Banquet’s heart.
…you posted that clarification five months before I had even popped back into the thread. How the fuck can you claim that you posted the clarification because you state I’m confused when I hadn’t even posted in the thread yet?
Then the correct term you should be using is “name voice actor” and not “union voice actor.” I’m glad we cleared that up.
We are at four pages now. Are you actually going to try and make a case for this at any stage without relying on a single data point or a Joss Whedon song?
None of these criteria have been met. The strike is still going on. By the criteria **you **have set we cannot determine that “the strike isn’t working”.
So how have you come to the conclusion that the strike isn’t working? Is this the first time you’ve observed an industrial action?
They have already gotten many of the things they were after. The Union wanted a 5% increase, the employers wanted 1%, they settled at 3%. The producers removed “fines” from the language of the agreement. They came to agreement on cast clearances. So your prediction is already out of date.
What about me? I’ve already told you what I think. You just finished quoting exactly what I think. I’m not going to repeat myself.
You just finished saying “I’m talking about all of them.” Can you make up your fucking mind? Is it really too much to ask that you pick a position and stick with it?
Big T agrees with me. So again you are incorrect.
Can you clarify are you talking about “union voice acting”, or “SAG-AFTRA voice acting” or “name voice acting” or “all voice actors?”
If that was why you started the thread then perhaps it would have been a good idea to put that question in the OP. Here’s what you wrote:
It wasn’t until post 8 (prompted by my post) that you then asked this question.
And perhaps the Games Forum would have been a better place to post this because people who play video games are more likely to be in that forum and not this one: and people that know about video games are more likely to be able to give you better feedback on “what makes a game successful” than people who like to argue about “really important things.”
I’m glad you have formed an opinion. But we are in Great Debates: and as you’ve pretty much not laid out any foundation for your opinion then you are not debating, but witnessing.
Can you stop making this about me? For fucks sakes you complained pretty fucking loudly when someone did it to you in this thread. You’ve done it to me at least three times.
You wanted specific examples of outlandish interpretations on your part?
I said: but my thesis is that in virtually all cases, a game’s success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or union.
You replied, “Then the correct term you should be using is ‘name voice actor’ and not ‘union voice actor.’ I’m glad we cleared that up.”
See the problem? No, it’s not “name voice actor” alone. I contend that in virtually all cases, a game’s success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or on using union talent. Neither factor is a big deal. Games will do essentially as well if they use non-union voice talent, I claim. Also I claim that games will do essentially just as well if they use non-famous, non “name” talent.
See the word “or?”
BWAHAHAHAHA.
Yes, sure, as long as the strike continues, then it might be working. We’ll revisit this thread in 2020, and you’ll say, “Hey, the strike is still going, and those game companies will crumble any second now!”
I’m watching games launch and sell well with non-union voice talent.
Any word on the free sodas?
Look, this is perhaps my fault for dealing with you and failing to explicitly include my prior context.
So, as a reminder: strike ends with residuals granted. Strike ends with the two hours vs. four hours for same pay granted. Strike ends with a guarantee of “actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract,” granted.
I’ll take your word for it.