OK, this is just ridiculous. Take a look at this article about voice actors going on strike. They feel they are entitled to royalties of game sales as apposed to a flat fee. This is just sad. They feel that since actors in movies get such a big fat pay check, voice actors in games should get equally compensated since they(games) generate similar amounts of revenue. Games != movies. In a movie, acting is one of the key ingredients. In games, having a professional voice actor is sugar coating. There is far less work in voice acting then say.... programming, modelers, level designers, etc ,etc. These people don't typically get royalties. If voice actors became the highest paid people in video game development, I'd instantly become disgusted with the industry. Sure, it's sad when something generates a huge chunk of cash and the money doesn't actually get to those who produced it, but that's business.

i think profession voice acting is amazing and we should have more of it. Pay them!!

the incredibles, toy story, antz, a bugs life. Voice acting = acting.

the lack of pay voice actors recieve in the games industry is the reaosn we dont hear the likes of samuel jackson or sylvester stalone.

Quote: but that's business.

So is this.

Composers are sometimes payed royalties, so I don't see why voice actors shouldn't be.

so your saying that we should pay an extra 15 bucks to voice actors because the 2 minutes the speak in the game was so pivitol, that you couldnt figure out the plot instead of just PLAYING the game? oh wait, their was no plot.

Quote: Original post by Riviera Kid
the lack of pay voice actors recieve in the games industry is the reaosn we dont hear the likes of sylvester stalone.

If that's the reason than we definitly shouldn't pay 'm royalties !

That money should go to the people who do deserve it : the programmers, artists and musisians who make the games. Not to people who get in for 15 minutes of recording.

I don't think a strike would do them much good - they are more likely to get replaced by non-union actors (or by the developers/random people picked off the street/microsoft sam)

Much depends on the sort of royalties their expecting to get. I don't think all that many actors can do much for a game's sales based on their voice talents alone. Ultimately other factors are far higher on the gamers list of priorities - graphics, physics, maybe even gameplay somewhere on the list [grin] and therefore I'm not really convinced that they could justify a significant royalty percentage.

No doubt, if the producers want a particular voice enough, they'll work out some sort of deal to get it.

if they get royalties, I want royalties. I should should be the one to go oon strike.

Quote: Original post by BobV
Games != movies. In a movie, acting is one of the key ingredients. In games, having a professional voice actor is sugar coating. There is far less work in voice acting then say.... programming, modelers, level designers, etc ,etc. These people don't typically get royalties.

Economics has a lot to say about this. You could argue that set design and musical scores are integral parts of movies as well. But do they make or break a movie? Hard to say. That's why Tom Cruise the actor-cum-Scientologist gets $20 million a picture, while Tom Cruise the set builder gets $50,000 for a year's work on Mission: Impossible. The success of the movie depends much more heavily on whether or not Tom Cruise the actor pulls off his lines, and much less heavily on whether or not Tom Cruise the set builder makes some snazzy scenes.

Analogously, if it can be shown that the presence or lack of voice acting in games is a significant factor in their success, I'd say the position of the voice actors is justified. I also wouldn't be too quick to dismiss voice acting as icing on the cake. With the hyper-realism we're seeing from games lately, it's only a matter of time before voice acting is pretty much a given in a high-end product. On the other hand, it's already prohibitively expensive to make a game -- having yet another cost could be the straw that breaks teh camel's back.

Quote: Original post by kSquared

Economics has a lot to say about this. You could argue that set design and musical scores are integral parts of movies as well. But do they make or break a movie? Hard to say. That's why Tom Cruise the actor-cum-Scientologist gets $20 million a picture, while Tom Cruise the set builder gets $50,000 for a year's work on Mission: Impossible. The success of the movie depends much more heavily on whether or not Tom Cruise the actor pulls off his lines, and much less heavily on whether or not Tom Cruise the set builder makes some snazzy scenes.

Analogously, if it can be shown that the presence or lack of voice acting in games is a significant factor in their success, I'd say the position of the voice actors is justified. I also wouldn't be too quick to dismiss voice acting as icing on the cake. With the hyper-realism we're seeing from games lately, it's only a matter of time before voice acting is pretty much a given in a high-end product. On the other hand, it's already prohibitively expensive to make a game -- having yet another cost could be the straw that breaks teh camel's back.

An A list actor can sell a picture. You know that if you have 'tom cruise' you will make at least X amount because of his fan base alone. In movie goers minds they think, hmm if this actor did this movie, then it must be good. Because of these facts, the demand is very high and they make special consessions to get these big names. In a TV series that is making a lot of money, it could have serious impacts to change up actors/voice actors, once the show becomes popular, these actors can begin bargin for higher wages.

You don't see people going out and buying Halo because they thought the guy who did the voice over was amazing. I'll even use a game that relies pretty heavy on voice acting for an example; KOTOR. That game wouldn't be nearly as good without the voices, but I didn't pay any attention to who did it. So if the lead programmer did the voice for all the wookies or 'tom cruise' did them would make little difference to me. Though, I will agree, that it was a key element and you do want talented people doing it. Yet there are other games that voice acting plays very little. In these cases, I see a flat fee would suffice.

I don't know how much they are getting paid now, but I assume it isn't that bad. What these people are saying is they want to be paid the big bucks. And all I'm saying is, why do they think their job is so much better then what other people put in?