Late edit to the above: Formosa and Blindlight apparently do a lot of work for actual developers (they are just voice companies) so that could matter more.
I wouldn’t bet on it. Disney was the most cutthroat environment I’ve ever dealt with. Suffice it to say that Mickey Mouse and the ‘family’ image are fronts.
…writers were angry because the WGA took residuals off the table in an effort to avert the strike. WGAW President Patric Verrone made this statement"
[QUOTE=Patric Verrone]
"The reason for that decision was strategic and followed several back-channel assurances that, if DVDs were dropped, we would be able to make sufficient progress in new media so that a strike could be averted. This offer, combined with our desire to do everything within our power to make a good deal without a strike (by removing management’s strike issue), as well as some small movement at the bargaining table early on Sunday, provoked our decision to make that move. Unfortunately, the response we got was not as promised and management broke off talks before our new media proposals were seriously addressed. "
[/QUOTE]
So the WAGW tried to avoid a strike, dropped some conditions in exchange for others, then found out that the promises and assurances they received were just hot air.
The lesson from this shouldn’t be “striking doesn’t work.” The lesson should be to “not expect the production companies to negotiate in good faith.”
There was the possibility of sweeping change. But the WAGW fucked up. SAG-AFTRA would be wise not to repeat the mistakes of the WAGW: and it appears that they haven’t done that.
I’m not inclined to take the contention of a self-professed-uninformed person whose cites so far in this thread have included a “comedian making a joke” and a “writer writing a song” seriously. The WGA strike was weakened when they took one of the things they were after off the table. Did the surge of reality productions affect the negotiations as well? I’m sure they did. But negotiations are complicated. And even if negotiations weren’t complicated, you’ve still taken Joss Wheldon’s song out of context.
You haven’t demonstrated this. You’ve provided a link to a website on non-sag talent. That doesn’t prove jack-shit. Istockphoto is a microstock photography site. They provide images at a fraction of the cost at which most commercial photographers sell their photos. But there is still a demand for professional commercial photographers. Because professional commercial photographers offer something that the typical microstock photographer can’t offer. And those things that SAG-AFTRA voice actors can typically offer that non SAG-AFTRA voice actors typically cannot have been talked about at length in this thread. If voice acting was as easily replaceable as you claim then it then it would have happened long ago.
If you want to discuss how pivotal voice talent is to the success of some video games then the strike isn’t that important to the debate. But you **really **seem to want to talk about the strike. Have you even bothered to watch the Jim Sterling videowhere he makes the argument that “performance matters?” He makes a pretty compelling case that voice talent is pivotal: and provides plenty of examples of where voice talent has made a difference, and what happens when voice acting is crap. And Jim is also a voice actor: a voice actor who is not a member of SAG-AFTRA. Here is a more recent video that talks about the recasting in Dead Rising. (And about 9 min 45 seconds his point is made explicitly.)
So if you are debating in good faith: then taking ten minutes out of your day to watch the video would be much more constructive than spending ten minutes typing yet another reply to me. But if you actually want to argue about the nature of strikes, and whether or not “they work” then that is an entirely different debate. If that is what you want to talk about then just be upfront about it.
…I’m not sure about the other games: but Call of Duty 4 remastered was recently released, so I would assume they are talking about that.
The voice actors actually don’t want to have any impact on most peoples gaming because they aren’t utter bastards. They are fighting for better and safer conditions in their workplace: and the only real tangible thing they have to bargain with is their labour, and bargaining will only work if they withdraw their labour as a group. But they want their members to work: the members want to work, and they don’t actually want to punish gamers. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that this strike isn’t having as big an “impact” as most people would think.
Regarding the Writers Guild situation, recall that their position is that the editors and producers of reality shows are screenwriters and should be covered by the gulf contract. So it’s not that they have miscalculated the influence of reality shows in their bargaining power but rather that they didn’t have the power to get that term.
That ain’t it. Strikes work all the time, and what works even better is the ardent desire of the employer to avoid a strike. And those happen when the strike is efficacious.
Here, in this specific case of AFTRA-SAG, I argue it’s not.
…based on what?
As I said in my very first post to the thread: “Its a bit early to tell, don’t you think?” And since that post you still haven’t made a case for this at all. You’ve claimed that game producers can simply hire non-guild talent: but this is true in every single labour dispute, not just this one. You’ve implied that voice actors “have it easy” and that its a simple matter to replace them. But the total extent of your “proof” of this is you’ve proved a link to non-SAG talent.
But even if the strike is a “failure” for SAG-AFTRA, that says nothing at all about how pivotal voice talent is to the success of some video games. It isn’t unknown for a party in a negotiation to “cut off the nose to spite the face.” The game producers could walk away from the negotiations and start using non-SAG voice actors for every production. And we wouldn’t be able to judge the results for a number of years. Considering that you don’t play video games with voice actors, you would probably view that as a win for the gaming industry. But for consumers who are currently revelling in games that offer immersive, compelling, cinematic experiences, it might be a huge huge loss.
How are you judging a “successful” video game? By its sales, by its critical acclaim, or a combination of both? How many games with voice acting have you played, and on what basis are you comparing SAG talent with non-SAG talent?
Real world measurable results: revenue.
No. A strike that started October 2016, being discussed in July 2017? No, not a “bit too early to tell.”
I can only imagine your reaction in 2019. “Just give them time. You don’t know what might happen!”
Plus noting that game developers are still recording voices. There’s that.
It might, but if they buy anyway, or if their numbers are small enough that revenue is not meaningfully affected, then perhaps the game companies won’t give a rat’s ass. Or free soda.
By revenue.
I don’t play any games with voice talent. The last one was Pokemon Coliseum, ages ago.
But of the two of us, it sounds like you think you have a better basis than I to accurately predict an outcome, based on your greater experience with the genre. Do you?
Ok, but the question posed by the OP was regarding the impact or potential impact.
…the thread has gone on for three pages now: the only other mention of revenue was a post by me, back on page 1. So I’m glad you’ve bought up real world measurable results. So how does revenue relate to the subject for debate?
Then, using real world measurable results, please justify your conclusion that “it isn’t too early to tell.”
When SAG-AFTRA took this action they knew they were in for the long haul. We have seen that many prominent game productions want to use SAG actors so they negotiated temporary agreements. And if negotiations continue to stall then temporary agreements might be the way forward for a while. And if it takes a few years for these “temporary agreements” to become “accepted industry practice” then all that extra time will be worth it.
That proves jack shit. But thanks for acknowledging you’ve barely provided an argument in this thread.
Warner Brothers has made a shit-load of money from the critically panned Superman vs Batman, Suicide Squad, and Man of Steel. But Wonder Woman was not only critically acclaimed, its making more money than its peers. It opened in less theatres. Some complained there was less visible marketing.
Performance matters. Quality matters. Critical reception matters. It makes a difference.
Only by revenue? So an indy game that is critically received that doesn’t pull in a lot of revenue but it makes a handsome profit for the developers would not be as successful as a Triple A game what makes a huge amount of revenue but puts the developer into bankruptcy? Can you be a bit more specific here?
My position all along has been that this will end with both parties making compromises and both sides claiming victory. I’m not going to put money on that though, because I’m not fucking stupid.
…we aren’t debating the OP. When I asked Bricker “what is the debate?” he directed me to my post.
Of course, all those had union productions. It’s not as though WW was the professional union product and Suicide Squad was made by a bunch of non-union scrubs. Hell, Suicide Squad had the big name super-actor Will Smith while Wonder Woman had Gal “Who?” Gadot.
Really? Because I was referencing the OP. Bricker started the thread and didn’t seem too wound-up about me referencing the OP. Maybe you’d like to start a blog where you get to determine what everyone else responds to or how they speak.
…we were discussing the intangibles that make a successful creative product. Bricker seems to think we can distill it all down to a single metric: revenue. But it is a lot more complicated than that.
You were referencing my post, not the OP. You were responding to my post. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that this strike isn’t having as big an “impact” as most people would think. Whats your problem with that statement?
This is a thread in great debates. I’m not limiting your responses or how you speak. Say what you like. If I disagree with you then its common sense I’m going to tell you I disagree with you. But I’m not placing any restrictions on you responding to me.
I was referencing the thread as a whole but your concern is noted :rolleyes:
None at all. Why are you so worried that you need to keep asking about it over and over again? It feels like you’re really intent on trying to make everyone believe that it’s no big deal that the strike isn’t impacting much or that it’s even a good thing because the voice actors are all such great guys for keeping game development going.
An examination of game companies’ revenue will not show significant effects post-strike as opposed to pre-strike.
Sales figures are generally unaffected and consistent with non-strike figures.
How many years would have to pass before you conceded that the strike was a failure?
Is your position falsifiable?
Also because it’s too vague to be measured.
I also have this question. You’re reacting like Jophiel and I showed up at your daughter’s third grade dance recital and laughed when she tripped.
Would it really be crazy, for long timers here, to not guess or sense that you are taking delight in a mostly futile strike action?
Even if that was his supposition, it would explain only the “laughed when she tripped,” part, and not the “daughter,” part.
And that he simply has the opposite feelings towards unions is too wild a leap of conjecture for a careful and studied man such as yourself.
“Opposite,” is putting it mildly. I’m not always a fan of unions, true, but in this case my reaction is more curiosity than antipathy. I wasn’t kidding when I said that I didn’t have enough information to judge the impact well. If your theory is correct, he not only has “opposite feelings,” but has assumed my claims of ignorance were feigned.
Or he’s just combative. Dunno.