Considering the teachers I've had over my lifetime I'm pretty sure they are more easily replaced, just the system doesn't allow it.

At least voice acting takes some skill, being a teacher just requires patience and being able to read from a fucking textbook.

That's a horrible attitude to have really. Because without a union you are left to negotiate your wages etc all by yourself with the company. And 1 person negotiating with a large company has zero bargaining power, because the company can just say "either you accept these wages and conditions or you don't have a job". A union however can negotiate a single/collective agreement for all the staff, and when all employees are under them they actually have bargaining power. The union can say "You give our workers X wages and Y conditions, otherwise we strike and you will lose millions of dollars", so the company has no choice but to accept. That's a simplification of course, but it's the truth that thousands of employees negotiating as one have more power than 1 person all on their lonesome.

Of course no union is perfect, but I've rather be in a bad union than be forced into some individual contract where I have zero say.

Good discussion mostly.

Unions can get counterproductuve very easy. If this strike goes forward I expect very easy reactions to do less hiring in the US overall - yay for diversity! ;) - and to find less professional actors as replacements - yay for developing new talent!

Snark aside, reading the Forbes articel (PS: Erik Kain does good work) most of the stuff being asked for is so basic I am amazed the game studios haven't agreed. Hence I suspect there might be something under the surface here...

The mot divisive topic seems to be the "royalty". Sounds more like a bonus premium than a royalty to me honestly, but semantics aside even that strikes me as reasonable in theory, given the facts presented - 2Million copies is quite a high number. Of course exact amounts being asked not provided (or did I mis it?) and in principle I am against this kind of demand being unionized at all.

I also get a much higher than usual flexibility at my workplace which allows my traveling, chances to try out stuff a more rigid company wouldn't allow, and some other perks. Together with some drawbacks, of course. Nothing's perfect, and if work was good for you they wouldn't pay you for doing it.

When you take a job, you need to consider it's merits and demerits and see if they suit you and your current situation, IMO. I know people who worked for free for years in exchange of shares that could make them rich if the company seriously took off, I have a bit of a sub-standard salary but it's enough to do what I want, others earn a lot more than I do but wear a suit and go to the office every day. It's a personal choice, but you can't expect all benefits and no drawbacks.

...That's assuming you actually can get a job, of course, I'd say worrying about which job to take is quite the luxurious problem these days.

This assumes the union fulfills its purpose, which at least in my region is a pipe dream. All the unionized jobs in the area pay dick, don't do shit about working conditions, and if you have a problem with the union or disagree you are utterly fucked.

Maybe some aren't bad and once upon a time they did good, but any more in at least some areas they are just another corrupt layer of bloat and bureaucracy.

Give me a go! I played a small part in Macbeth (Hot potato, orchestra stalls, Puck will make amends!) when I was 8 years old and my teacher called my performance 'unnoticeable', which according to much of this thread sums up voiceacting in general. I could be Geralt of Rivia. If you've made a few half-assed Let's Plays in your time, send them to TellTale and you could be Clementine for The Walking Dead's season 3.

Unions can be good. When they are in place to help the workers that cannot protect themselves. Pretty sure these voice actors could afford a lawyer and refuse to sign contracts that endanger their well being. Heres hoping the industry starves out this nonsense.

I'd say that's problematic thinking. If you acknowledge up front that power is with the employers and concede that employees can't expect anything and should be grateful for what they have, you get crappy employment conditions. That's why unions are useful.

Are you sure it's not because they're on the top of the game? There are tons of games with less recognized people but more often than not they're not that great.

In Japan that can easily happen, in west they're not that big as a whole, though.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they can't do just that. Nier had perfect cast for voice acting and the game would be far worse off without them.
You're overestimating the amount put into voiceacting. Marketing (especially for big games where these bonuses would "hurt" the most) is far, far, far, far more costly.

Oh, it's problematic alright. I certainly agree to that. But doesn't change the fact that when you have 5 people and a cat living on a flat with the grandmother's meager pension alone, work conditions aren't exactly your first priority either.

Simple solution. Fire them all and use Microsoft Sam and Vocaloid as voice actors.

I'm certain there are plenty of synthesized voice libraries.

If people demand a real human voice actor, just have the devs and their office staff voice characters.

Voice actors are not necessary for a game.

However, if you are going to have voice actors in a game, you can have good or bad voice actors. Good actors can help improve the game experience, where bad ones can seriously impact the game's quality.

Look at Destiny. Peter Dinklage was hired to voice the Ghost because he was famous, but he had absolutely no experience in voice acting and his performance was one major criticisms about the game. People complained of the lack of character in the game, due partially to Dinklage's stoic, unemotional and inexperienced performance

With the recent release of the Taken King expansion, Peter Dinklage was replaced by Nolan North, who has considerable experience in voice acting. People have since heaped praise on the Taken King for finally having some decent characters, which the base game of Destiny lacked.

Is this a coincidence? Maybe, but to me it's pretty clear. If you're going to have voice acting in a game, a skilled actor can make a very significant difference in the production value of a game.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for skilled voice actors to expect reasonable compensation for their work, considering the impact they have on a game's overall quality

If you don't want to pay them, then don't have games with them

Yes, it takes time to get a programmer up to speed (but not necessarily as long as you seem to think, I've seen programmers do their job normally after a week of getting accustomed to the project, it's particularly easy if the lead makes sure that certain standards which can be easily communicated are kept throughout a game's code), but a voice is something you might not be able to fully replace at all and especially once a character or entire game is tied to a certain recognizable name replacing that person is a problem. And the thing is that actors and their performances are super recognizable, that's why they are also highly useful in marketing and that's also why you absolutely should stick with them once their involvement in your game or franchise is known to the public. Replace them and you risk to disappoint or even piss off fans, news of conflicts and other problems reach the press etc.. It can lead to a serious shitstorm and already has a bunch of times.

Also note that once a project is already going on you can make personnel changes in any department (even if in certain phases of a project it may be problematic), a competent worker will be able to continue the work of his predecessor / fit in with the other members of the department but once voice recordings have been made they become perfectly useless if you replace the actor.

Designers are the people responsible for the game design, level design etc. and have usually little to no impact on a game's aesthetics. And no, changes in the art department don't result in the stuff you're describing either. The vast majority of artists in the game industry are craftsmen rather than artists, they just get the job done following the general style specified by the guys in charge rather than expressing themselves creatively. And even if the lead artist got replaced or something, if the new guy as much as suggested redoing a notable amount of assets he wouldn't be doing his job properly and would deserve to get his ass fired (UNLESS the company could actually easily afford to redo all the content in question and much better sales could indeed be expected but that's simply not the case usually).

Having worked as an audio professional with voice actors and singers (and frequently using my own voice in sound design) I assure you that the human voice is one of the most complex things imaginable and each voice is unique, especially in case of voice acting where you have to take other factors that constitute a performance into account. Sure, you can choose almost anyone for a role but once an actor's performance has already been captured or even his name is tied to a certain character replacing him is simply not an option in many cases. Especially using several actors for the same role in the same game is something that can't be pulled off sensibly.

Fine, but starting to use a different actor for the same role is like starting to use cartoon characters in a game that has been using a realistic style so far. Even if you have little respect for a voice actor's work, you sure as hell should care about consistency and it's impossible to maintain that if you switch actors.

Sure it does. Problems caused by a personnel change nobody noticed are of a perfectly abstract matter, not something the public can put their finger on. They are far less critical than problems where the cause can be perfectly specified. And the matter is still that in most departments personnel changes aren't a big matter, most work in the game industry is simply something that can be continued by someone else without too much of an impact, especially in case of larger projects where most people's contribution is just a drop in the ocean. Even the work of a super talented person like John Carmack has not as much of an impact on the entire product anymore as it did back in the early 90's.

And it has still ruined the consistency throughout the series, it has still caused a PR shitstorm. I don't think that the replacement can be beneficial says anything about the replaceability.

Oh no, many Silent Hill fans were happy about the new performances. It was still the biggest matter of controversy.