That said, I provisionally agree with your opinion that union voice acting won’t make a difference here, and they won’t get much if anything in response to the strike. Again, this is not a heavily unionized field, and unions work best with serious, for lack of a better term, market penetration.
With the television writer’s strike, the WGA was able to prevent scabs from England from crossing picket lines by contacting the British version of WGA. They were able to set up picket lines around 14 studios, and they were able (I think) to convince Teamsters not to cross the picket lines. They were able to convince writer/producers to go on strike, hamstringing productions. They were 3,000 strong, and people who crossed the lines to go write for shows faced the danger of never being able to work on a union show once the strike ended.
What can the voice actors do? What’s their strength?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be unionized. Far from it: conditions in the game industry are notoriously close to company towns, and the industry would absolutely benefit from the activity of unions for various professions within it. But I do wonder whether this strike was premature, or whether its main benefit might be to raise awareness of unions within the industry so that they can gain new members and be more effective in the future.
Are you defining a “name voice actor” as famous? Had you heard of Troy Baker, Nolan North or Jennifer Hale before you started this thread? We’ve had this discussion. “Famous” voice actors don’t tend to do as well. Peter Dinklage’s lines were removed from the game Destiny and he was replaced by Nolan North. I quoted why they replaced him before. I’ll do it again to remind you:
"North, a prolific video game voice actor, is a better fit because "this is his thing.
“You can just call him up and say, ‘Hey, next week we’re doing this internal play test and it would be great to get some Ghost dialogue in there,’” Noseworthy said. “And he’s available.”
And the other reason they cut Dinklage was that his reading was bad, and one line was so bad “That wizard came from the moon” that it turned into an internet meme.
This is what name voice actors bring to the table. They deliver day in and day out. They are a safe bet for a games studio. “Famous actors” are expensive and risky. Non-union talent are (by in large) un-tested and risky.
So now we have “famous actors” and “name voice actors” and “non-union talent” and “union talent” and “SAG AFTRA voice actors” and “all voice actors.” You are constantly refering to one subset of the voice talent industry when you actually appear to be talking about another. For the love of og can you figure out what your position is and stick with it?
SAG-AFTRA were reluctant to take strike action because they knew they weren’t going to get a result “overnight.” That the strike is still going is not a surprise to me nor is it a surprise to those taking part in the strike. A number of games companies have already struck independent agreements to use SAG-AFTRA actors in their games. Those companies already have “crumbled.”
Games have launched and sold well with non-union voice talent since games have been around. Its happened countless times **before **the strike. Ten years ago you would have watched the very same thing. How does something that happened plenty of times before the strike become an indicator that the strike isn’t working?
What the fuck are you talking about now?
Yep, this is entirely your fault.
I know what you said. I still stand by what I said.
Banquet, you rascally but loveable ursine, I have laid out a set of clear predictions of things that won’t happen. If they do, I am prepared to acknowledge that I was wrong, and the strike was a success.
Do you have any set of predictions that you will stand by for the end of this trike that unambiguously mean failure? Or is any outcome “success” in your mind?
…is this thread about the success of failure of the strike, or about a game’s success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or union? Can you make your mind up?
Because I’ve stated what I think will happen with the strike several times. Both sides will compromise, both will declare victory, and we all move on. What more do you actually want me to say on the matter?
Those topics are intertwined, and the thread encompasses them both. BECAUSE a game’s success does not rest on voice talent being famous, or name, or union, the strike will fail to achieve the following goals: 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. Those are very specific goals, and according to SAG-AFTRA’s page, they are the goals they are seeking.
The next time you ask what I’m talking about, just read the paragraph above. It’s very clear and very specific.
This is, in contrast, not specific.
I postulated earlier that the game developers would offer free sodas to the voice actors. Should the strike end with that compromise, and nothing else, would you regard it as a successful strike?
I would not, but perhaps you have special insight.
If you wouldn’t, can you give some specific examples of compromises on the issues of residuals, two hours vs. four hours, or guarantee of “actual title of the project and the role being hired for being made available before signing a contract,” you feel would be fairly called “success?”
See, I am offering up very concrete conditions. Can you?
I very much doubt SAG thinks it is going to stop the programmers from doing anything. The clout they have in terms of actors is that if a production decides to be non-union, they lose access to the best people. The same goes here. This might have some impact if the production is using known voices, which they’d lose access to, but in many cases no one will care. Like I said, I doubt any voice actor depends on game work.
However consider if future games are built around motion-captured actors, instead of more or less pure animation. Then unionizing the acting part of the game industry could get important. Will it happen? Don’t know, but it is a good place to start.
Do you actually understand why a production company would hire name voice actors over famous voice actors or non-union voice actors?
They hire a famous actor because of that name recognition. To get more eyeballs on the game, to increase sales. The downside of this though is that famous actors are expensive, and sometimes they don’t have the skills to pull it off.
They would hire non-union talent because it would be cheaper. But non-union talent is cheaper because they don’t have the experience, and are inherently a riskier proposition for the production. More takes to get things right. More likely to hurt their voice. Less range.
Name voice actors bring something else to the table: something that non-union actors don’t bring (due to a general lack of experience) and that famous actors don’t bring either (a different set of skills). Nolan North doesn’t get hired because consumers go “Hey! Another Nolan North game! I’m going to buy it!” Nolan North gets hired because it makes the production of a game an inherently less risky proposition. It means the production will probably get done on time and on budget, and they will get things right first time. And if some lines of dialog need to be re-recorded it gets done with little fuss.
I simply don’t buy your proposition that name voice actors do not contribute the success of the games that they are part of. You are thinking in terms of “how many extra sales will this name actor make for this game” when that isn’t the point at all. Here’s a question for you: if name voice actors aren’t an important part of a successful game, why do you think they get consistently hired by the gaming industry? Why do they not hire more famous people more often, or less experienced union voice actors, or experienced non-union voice actors? Why do they keep hiring these name voice actors when they could hire people who upload their profiles to a “voice talent database” (like the one you cited) instead?
Great! You’ve repeated the same thing over and over again! Well done you!
It is very clear and specific. I hope you are proud!
Of course it isn’t, because I’m not a fucking psychic. I can’t predict what is going to happen perfectly in an industrial dispute between two parties. And I actually know something about video games. You admit you know next to nothing about video games and the video games industry and your posts in this thread demonstrate that clearly. Yet for some reason you feel you are supremely qualified to make exact predictions in a relatively complex labour dispute.
Of course I wouldn’t: because I’m not a fucking idiot.
I think if you look at what has already happened you will get an insight into what I think will happen in the end. I’ll repeat it for you yet again. “The Union wanted a 5% increase, the employers wanted 1%, they settled at 3%.” The Union quoted high, the employers quoted low, they met in the middle. That has nothing to do with “free fucking sodas.” This is how many, if not most industrial disputes end up getting settled.
My metrics for success are “are the voice actors generally happy with the deal?” If they are, the strike was a success. If they are not, then it was not. If that answer is too wishy washy and not “concrete” enough for you I don’t really give a shit. This isn’t a fucking game. We are talking about these actors lives, their livelihood, and their health. I want them to succeed because they really aren’t asking for a lot at all and none of it is unreasonable. The gaming industry has a reputation for treating their employees like shit: and the reason they can get away with it is because they have gotten very very good at stopping their employees from joining together to fight for better conditions.
This isn’t just about the actors. Its about an industry that has no qualms about things like “crunch” becoming “standard operating procedure.” Voice actors actually have the infrastructure in place to make a positive change. It isn’t going to happen overnight. And if they can show the way for other people working in the gaming industry then that is a good thing, not a bad thing, for both the industry and for the consumers.
I’m not your fucking monkey. We aren’t making a bet. This isn’t a “prediction” thread. You can either accept my answers or not but I’m not going to dance for you.
All other things being equal, I’m sure a production would seek out people for precisely the reasons you outline. But when things aren’t equal – when procuring that union name actor means the company must incur costs like the requested residuals, the four hour pay time, and incur the risk of disclosing the actual title of the project and the role being hired for before signing, then I say they will willingly forgo those advantages and hire non-union talent.
I started this thread knowing very little. Since then, I’ve read responses in this thread, I’ve read external articles, and I have observed one usually unerring rule: the guy in a debate who substitutes hostile attacks and passionate defenses for sound reasoning is usually on the side that lacks supporting facts. For these reasons, I feel confident – not ‘supremely’ so but enough to advance my views as specific predictions – that I’m seeing the conflict correctly.
That wasn’t the result of the strike, though - was it?
How does this rule out the free soda outcome?
That is, if the strike ends and the voice actors have gained free sodas on recording days, you wouldn’t call it a win, as you strongly expressed above. But if the voice actors’ union say they’re generally happy with the outcome, then the strike was a success. Can you reconcile these?
Do you think that passionate belief in how things SHOULD be helps you accurately predict how things WILL be?
For an $80 million computer game, all that extra stuff is pocket change. Any production company would be happy to pay it in order to avoid the risk of bad voice acting sinking the project.
Honestly, as previously noted, most game voice acting ranges from “moderately competent” to “atrocious”. The few exceptions stand out because they’re legitimately exceptions.
I swear to God, of all the things that were wrong with Mass Effect Andromeda, I think it was the mediocre voice acting that bugged me the most, especially considering how good the work as in ME1-3.
The advantages of name voice actors is a game made on time and on budget. The advantages of using name video actors is a production that is decidedly lower risk than one that does not. Do you understand how a negotiation works? Is this all really so new to you? Have you not ever thought you were worth more money to your employer and asked for more? Have you never thought “these conditions could be better”, and bought it to your employers attention? The voice actors feel that the advantages they bring to the table have value and they have declared what that value is. The voice actors have explained that their job puts their long-term health at risk and have stated what they want to happen to minimize that risk.
All things are not equal. The employers hold nearly all of the cards. Which is why they have consistently gotten away with being shitty employers since pretty much the start of video games. The only card that the voice actors have that they can play is the decision to withdraw their labour.
The actual amount of money we are talking about here (as Alessan correctly points out) is pocket change. Residuals would not affect the indie game company, or the small game company, or the medium game company, or even most large game companies because they would only take effect after the sales of 2 million units.
So it isn’t the case of games companies either choosing to incur costs or not to incur costs because incurring costs is what video game productions do.
Your “one usually unerring rule” has put you wrong here. Your unerring rule is in error. Your unerring rule is not evidence based but entirely emotional. If you are ignoring the substance of my post because you perceive they are “hostile” then you are ignoring evidence. If you believe that I am being hostile and that you are not then you need to learn what “passive aggressive” means. You can’t tone-police yourself to winning an argument.
Why do you need to ask me that question? This is your thread. I would think that you would know whether or not this was “the result of the strike.”
But you are looking at the strike in isolation, and I see no reason to do so in the context of my response. The context was you kept pushing the ridiculous soda analogy so I offered an analogy (based on something that actually happened) in response. If the fact that this wasn’t a “result of the strike” rules out the analogy, then we can eliminate your fucking soda as well.
Because I’m not a fucking idiot.
What do you believe the odds are that the SAG-AFTRA voice actors would be generally happy with a fucking soda? You’ve read the article that Wil Wheaton wrote about why he has decided to strike, have you not? Do you think a soda would address his genuine concerns for his health?
Of course I can reconcile this. Voice actors are not fucking idiots either.
What part of I’m not fucking psychic, I’m not going to make a prediction, I’m not a fucking idiot, I’m not your fucking monkey, did you honestly fail to understand? If the point wasn’t clear to you before, then I would hope that it is clear to you now. I have no interest in accurately predicting how things will be. I have an interest in hoping the voice actors are successful and you quoted me expressing that I hope they would be successful.
I’m not psychic either, but I offered a set of concrete predictions regardless.
I’m predicting that the strike won’t succeed in gaining the goals I mention. I am predicting that the strike will be a failure by that measure, and in fact will be a failure by almost any reasonable measure.
I think you’re saying that you hope I’m wrong, but you have no particular confidence in any outcome whatsoever. It’s all a mystery to you. You’re not psychic; no one can tell what the future might bring, after all.
By the time the free soda deal is on the table, I’m sure you’ll have figured out a way to call that “victory.”
But if you can’t define conditions ahead of time that constitute victory, I’d say you’re simply setting yourself up to redefine almost any outcome as “victory.” That’s what you’re doing now: refusing to be locked into a prediction because you don’t want to have to acknowledge error when the prediction fails to materialize. Instead, like John Edwards or Sylvia Browne, you confine your statements to the vague: “Each side will compromise and both will claim victory!” Sure, I expect that will happen. But the true success or failure will rest in what those compromises look like.
No one’s forcing you to answer. The fury that arises as you insist, “I’m not your monkey,” is easily averted by simply ignoring the posts I make. There’s even a button to do this automatically.
…oh for fucks sakes Bricker. There is going to be no fucking free soda deal on the table. Because the employers, just like me and the voice actors, are NOT FUCKING STUPID.
No I don’t have particular confidence in any outcome whatsoever. That is why I choose not to make a concrete prediction on the exact terms of the final agreement (if any). Thank fuck you finally figured that out. It only took you five pages. But not having particular confidence in a particular outcome does not mean this is all a mystery to me. And I’ve defined my conditions ahead of time for “victory.” And those conditions don’t set myself up to redefine almost any outcome as a victory. It will be clear if the voice actors are happy with the final deal or not. It was fucking clear that Joss Whedon was not happy with the deal they got: he was so unhappy he wrote a song about it. I’m not being disingenuous.
And you are the one who declared that there was “no point in engaging with me” back in July. Yet you felt the need to drag me back into the conversation when this thread got bumped. This board is about fighting ignorance. And I’m fighting ignorance. I’m prepared to keep going on this as long as you choose to keep responding to me.
You want it both ways: some types of deals definitely won’t happen, because NOT FUCKING STUPID. But, hey, anything can happen. Because you’re not psychic.
I’m confident that space aliens are not going to intervene and broker a deal. But do I need to actually fucking spell that out to you? You presented a ridiculous hypothetical that has no real world chance of ever happening in real life. You’ve managed to reduce to absurdity your argument from absurdity. And you are using my decision to treat your ridiculous hypothetical with the disdain it deserves as evidence that I wan’t things both ways?