Well said. How about a little support for the guys and gals who’re told they’re a tiny easily-replaced cog in the machine. So people don’t deserve basic protection because publishers have an unsustainable model. God forbid it eats into the 50 million dollar marketing budget.

Just kidding, they’d drop graphics before they drop marketing.

Didn't notice...

This is ludicrious. Its a job. Contract whatever. They get paid. They DIDNT create the original work or charachter or script they read from.No way should they get royalties (laughable).

Exactly. I really don't like how many gamers are all "greedy assholes, they should get nothing and like it! this strike business might mean I will have to wait longer for Call of Creed VII: Bugged Release!"

Besthesda will have to find four new voice actors abroad.

I always wondered how pay works for these guys... I should really find something worth wondering about.
Some game voices are just irreplaceable, so I guess it depends who is complaining, if I actually support them or otherwise.

ONLY a 100,000? I'm sorry, but if your first point is: "I ONLY made 100,000 dollars," for what amounts to a few hours a day in a vocal booth, with a full buffet and all the beverages you need, then I don't think you truly understand what exploitation actually IS. Voice actors to me are no different than extras in a movie, and they frequently have the easiest jobs in the game's development.

I'm honestly not mad that the same 9 people aren't going to do the voices in every AAA release. I'm already mad that studios OVER spend their budgets on it or getting movie celebs to phone in their performances, while things like QA fall by the wayside. VAs are the single most replaceable element of the development cycle, and I'm sure there's plenty of young people in college drama or actor's schools across the globe who'd love a chance to build their portfolios and acquire some credits.

If a VA isn't getting paid enough, blame the agent representing them, or blame their inability to learn how to negotiate, like any other sane actor. It's simply greed + ego, based upon NOTHING.

Going on strike for better work conditions is something I wholeheartedly support. Stupid requests, I don't. I don't know what the conditions are for this guys and I don't care enough to look into them, but if I personally had a studio and the voice actor requested by contract (with union support) royalties on the sales, I would laugh at their face. I find a one time payment for the work done perfectly reasonalbe. That said, if the parties involved agree to it, they can get whatever it is agree to among themeselves.

This, and also the fact that IMHO you can't demand part of the success of a game (or movie or whatever), if you don't take part into the risks as well. For the people who actually invest money on the game, it is always a bit of a gamble, they might make very little or even LOSE money. Or then the game becomes a great hit and they make assloads of money.

It sounds to me the voice actors here want only take part to the success part, not the possible failure part.

Someone clarified later that this would not be an actual "royalty" but a one-time bonus if the game is a great success. Ok then, but then I feel it should be compensated in the base salary, ie. it would be lower than what it is today. That's how they'd take part to the risk too, ie. if the game does not sell well, then the voice actors (and others working on the game for that matter) would make less money than what they do today. On the other hand, if it sold great, then yes they'd make more money than today.

Sounds fair? Somehow I feel they wouldn't see this as an option.


This reminds me when I argued with an anarchist activists when he said that when a company is making great profit, it should all be distributed to the workers, each and every one (ie. the workers own the company, and get all the profit it makes).

When I asked how about if the company is losing money, should the workers be paying money towards the company then, he kind of seemed to lose his train of thought and suggested no no no it is the _investors_ who'd lose money then, or the banks, or whatever are the bigwigs who actually take the risks (but not the rewards). Yeah, right.

I also pointed out to him that quite often profit is also used for more investments, so is it like each worker makes their own personal investments to the company or what, if they really get 100% of the profits.

He seemed to have a similar idea as these voice actors that the workers should only get the positives, not the negatives, of running a company.

Wouldn't that be programmers or hell, even QA testers?

They spend tons on marketing, not on VA.

But are they any good? Or would it simply be on the levels of the worst JRPG dubs from early 6th gen? Or even from the few in 5th gen.

E: I don't exactly care about the dosh they want but I'm tired of seeing this endless VA bashing all over the place as if they're the root of all evil in videogames.

Oh, how I agree with this. I was recently at a convention for startups, and most of the people I spoke with where all "OMG! You mean you won't be rich if your company makes it big? You think that's fair?" Well yes, I do think that's fair, because I regardless of the company's success I have my salary every months, and I run no risk whatsoever. Whoever runs the risk, runs the chance of winning big time too.

Well, that depends on the startup and its stage, but you certainly do risk lower than normal job stability and often get a low salary too, compared to more established companies. That's why there's often an expectation that you'll get something if the company succeeds.

I strongly agree with timppu that voice acting is at most a positive sum game and they aren't deserving of royalties more than the risk takers who have much to lose and rely on success for a positive or sometimes zero sum outcome. One time payment seems sensible as long as it isn't ludicrously expensive. The demands for extra money for mtion capture seems good, the pressure / difficult voice thing kinda seems dumb since they're hiring a pro especially so they have someone who is an expert at it, the transparency thing seems to be a good idea coming off a stoner.

The voice actors seem to think they're the ones selling the games, like actors may sell movie tickets but they have a MUCH lesser role in the industry than actors do in movies and IMO don't deserve as much esteem. Most of their reasoning is ''its there in the movie industry so its gotta be in the gaming industry'', which is really pathetic frankly.

Anyone who works in-house can't expect to get royalties, but if they're contractors (graphics artists or otherwise) they can ask for this, although the gaming industry don't usually agree to that (see this case with the Banner Saga composer).

And I'm equally tired of seeing people honestly believing that the same few people playing the same voices somehow deserve more money for running what amounts to a monopoly for a job that puts the least amount of creative labor and work in, in the process as a whole.

If someone is buying a game because of who the voice actors are, then maybe gaming isn't quite the right hobby FOR that person. It's all well and good if someone does put in a solid effort and they should absolutely be recognized for that, but ultimately, yes, they ARE replaceable.

I'm also pretty sure that no one VA is going to make a bad game better. It's icing on the cake.