In japanime, voice actors are real celebrities, and the success or failure of a particular show could depend on having a well known voice actor, just like movies. Eventually, depending on whether a game is action or story oriented, voice actors in games could be just as important, like i said, if the game is very character driven. There could even be game actors that get elevated to celebrety status in the industry because they get a fan base from their performances. If that happens, if the presence of a certain actor in a game is a selling point, it's time to pay royalties. Until then, I think we should give our hard working programmers (and designers) some love.

frankly i don't see why only voice actors should be considered for residuals/royalties. people are mentioning $278/hour and saying that actors are overpaid. i think we have to remember that the actors don't work nearly as many hours as the artists, programmers, or scripters. so the actor may work for only 20 to 30 hours and that's it. so personally i don't think that kind of fee is outrageous.

VoiceActor brings up a good point about Unions. They stick together and can demand those types of wages/benefits. So should programmers start a Union? Another question is why can't programmers receive royalities for games they've worked on as well as get a base pay? If they're gonna work 60 to 80 a week and may lose their job a few games later, then why shouldn't they be compensated for their work?

The reasons for royalties neither include the subjective perceptions of what job is "important" and "difficult" nor are royalties paid based on the hours required to perform a job, or how much a job contributes to a final product. The reason for royalties is simple.

"Royalties" is defined as "payment to the holder of a patent or copyright or resource for the right to use their property".

Read that definition carefully. Royalties exist as a form of payment to the holder of patent, copyright, or resource (such as intellectual property (i.e., likenesses, voices)) for the right to use the holder's property in a commercial product. Celebrity status is irrelevant to whether there is royalty fees. Celebrity status only affects how much money is paid out.

Understand the difference between the provision of services (what employees and other vendors do) and the provision of products (what actors, musicians, and some artists do). Providers of products are legally entitled to license their products (e.g., engine licensing).

Unless the performer of a job function is providing a client a right to use property belonging to the performer, the performer is not entitled to royalties. Programmers, designers, artists, whatever... usually these performers are not legally entitled to royalties by definition.

Quote: Can you explain to me why actors receive residuals for animation features? Television cartoons? Voiceovers in commercials? Radio voiceovers?

Their "mugs" aren't there...only their voices. But actors are paid residuals for those.

Good point.

Quote: Why should video games be exempt? What is so "special" about video games that actors should waiver their standard fee of residuals for this "special" industry?

Thanks for your response! ;)

Because, sorry to say but video games aren't dependent on you the same way movies, animation features, cartoons etc are. Audiences are a lot more forgiving about acting performances or even lack of such in games because the focus is elsewhere. Gameplay, graphics, sound effects and other technicalities is where it's at for the game player while voice acting is more like an afterthought. So why should game companies treat you like other industries do when strictly speaking they don't have to? If actor demands go through the roof then yes, game companies *can* more or less turn to using their cleaning lady or whatever for VO.

I think what theyre getting at is the idea that programmers/artists/designers/ects might deserve a piece of the profit. Its largely known that game programmers really get crapped on in the industry. Long hours for little pay. Getting a percentage of the profit from the final product would be nice compensation.

Quote: Original post by Cannibal_Coder
I think what theyre getting at is the idea that programmers/artists/designers/ects might deserve a piece of the profit. Its largely known that game programmers really get crapped on in the industry. Long hours for little pay. Getting a percentage of the profit from the final product would be nice compensation.

They are not legally entitled to royalties by definition. Most programmers provide a service, not a product. By the way, don't complain about the treatment of programmers. Quality Assurance is paid far less and work the same hours and then some... to find defects introduced by the programmers. (Oversimplification, of course.)

Quote: Original post by Cannibal_Coder
I think what theyre getting at is the idea that programmers/artists/designers/ects might deserve a piece of the profit. Its largely known that game programmers really get crapped on in the industry. Long hours for little pay. Getting a percentage of the profit from the final product would be nice compensation.

They are not legally entitled to royalties by definition. Most programmers provide a service, not a product.

Quote: Original post by Adraeus
The reasons for royalties neither include the subjective perceptions of what job is "important" and "difficult" nor are royalties paid based on the hours required to perform a job, or how much a job contributes to a final product. The reason for royalties is simple.

"Royalties" is defined as "payment to the holder of a patent or copyright or resource for the right to use their property".

Read that definition carefully. Royalties exist as a form of payment to the holder of patent, copyright, or resource (such as intellectual property (i.e., likenesses, voices)) for the right to use the holder's property in a commercial product. Celebrity status is irrelevant to whether there is royalty fees. Celebrity status only affects how much money is paid out.

Understand the difference between the provision of services (what employees and other vendors do) and the provision of products (what actors, musicians, and some artists do). Providers of products are legally entitled to license their products (e.g., engine licensing).

Unless the performer of a job function is providing a client a right to use property belonging to the performer, the performer is not entitled to royalties. Programmers, designers, artists, whatever... usually these performers are not legally entitled to royalties by definition.

you're angry. but technically that makes sense. but. the makers of Tomb Raider got royalties for their game and the movies. yes both. and they belonged/owned by Eidos. not to be snide, but can you explain that?

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
you're angry. but technically that makes sense. but. the makers of Tomb Raider got royalties for their game and the movies. yes both. and they belonged/owned by Eidos. not to be snide, but can you explain that?

I'd have to study the "Tomb Raider" case before I could provide a reasonable judgment. By the way, "makers" is a broad term, and technically doesn't mean anything.

Quote: Original post by Adraeus

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
you're angry. but technically that makes sense. but. the makers of Tomb Raider got royalties for their game and the movies. yes both. and they belonged/owned by Eidos. not to be snide, but can you explain that?

I'd have to study the "Tomb Raider" case before I could provide a reasonable judgment. By the way, "makers" is a broad term, and technically doesn't mean anything.

maker = Core Design. sorry.