Deep breath - - - - go!
Money, performance and rights are in the air this week here at the sprawling TN offices, well that and endless death matches over who gets the window seat.
A central issue in games these days is the line between player and creator, TL, Sal Humphreys, me, Greg & Dan and most recently Betsy, in fact probably all of us at some point, have all explored these themes from different angles.
It’s an interesting issue as we can see that power relations are changing in the industry creating skirmishes all along the fault lines.
Developer-Publishers are in an difficult position sat in the centre of all this. Allegedly they have mountains of cash pouring in. But on the one hand amateurs are creating stuff then claiming all kinds of rights, and on the other professionals are looking for a bigger cut. We tend to focus on the punters here, so its illustrative to see what the pro’s are wining about, sorry, discussing.
OK, so, meandering towards, a point here, the LA times published a piece the other day titled Voice Actors Seek a Share of Video Game Profits, which covers, well, voice actors (specifically Lynnanne Zager who screams for a living) wanting more money for their work on games. I kinda think same old same old,,, and wish both sides luck in the drawn-out slug fest that the dispute looks like its going to be.
It makes me wonder what's in everyone’s interest. In a way the fight is about maintaining status quo.
But -hello- we have things like the internet now. Why do we need “talent” when we have “the public”.
America’s Next Supermodel, American Idol (side bar: why is the US obsessed with putting ‘America’ or ‘American’ in the title of everything, are they afraid they will wake up and forget who they are? – I do have a theory on this,,, but moving on), BioWare holding public casing calls for fans to be faces in the game, SOE looking of EQesque babes .
Is the real Hollywoodisation of the game industry the extension of an old business model maintaining ingrained power asymmetries?
Is this voice actor dispute going to solidify the system or is it one of the dying screams for attention as the game industry turns its back and looks out for talent and ideas rather than inwards and backwards?
Just spotted Wired News' http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,67707,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2>Coders Want Fatter Paychecks, Too, which is a direct response to SAG. In short: Get in line.
Posted by: ren reynolds | Jun 07, 2005 at 08:52
While I mull over Ren's central question, a quick hijacking:
I understand the point of view of the actors; I was probably the first Producer in the top ten publishers to insist on using SAG actors for voice-overs at the approved day rates and with pension contributions, back in the mid-90s. And I still think we should use SAG professionals at SAG day rates, along with professional voice directors, because you get a better performance that way.
But do they deserve residuals? Sorry, but in most cases, no. While I much prefer to use professionals for the non-lead, non-celebrity voicework in a game, they don't contribute enough to the work for me to want to pay residuals. I'd regretfully do without them, if those were my choices.
And frankly, the dev team better get residuals before the actors do. Two to four years of one's life, passion and sweat on one project is deserving of a pay-off.
Posted by: Jessica Mulligan | Jun 07, 2005 at 08:57
I think I'd have to say pretty simply yes.
It seems to me that this happens whenever technology opens a new vehicle for the delivery of similar content / services.
Existing providers attempt to fill the gap, and do it without any adaptation of their business model. They want to just move in with their existing assumptions and power structures and take a piece of the money.
I don't think it is significantly different from the digital audio fight or the coming digital video fights.I would even argue that its much the same concept which has helped maintain the poor conditions in software in the first place.
Inveitably the power balance shifts somewhat, in recognition of the different dynamics.
Voice over work for animations probably bears more similarites to virtual world voicing. If an actor can drive additional sales as a "name brand" they may warrent some residuals. However, for most roles there is a large volume of professionals that will do the work without that sort of agreement.
So far developers only carry any noteriety with other industry professionals, or with very hardcore gamers. Joe who wrote the lighting code, or Joe who worked the lighting rig add value, however they probably didn't add enough to product sales to warrant a piece of the action.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get a percentage of value of the project I work on instead of a flat rate. I just don't think it is going to happen. Especially not when the industry is consistently signifcantly over budget for both money and time.
Posted by: Thabor | Jun 07, 2005 at 12:58
Just as an aside, they put American in front of the shows because many of them started outside of the country.
Posted by: Onion | Jun 07, 2005 at 13:21
Alas, going into my 13th year as a designer, I have yet to see us get the personal credit we deserve. Of course, who's really a designer for the recognition? It's a job for an outsider, but I've always considered it a lifestyle.
And, if designers did get credit, I feel others would start rightly claiming their own recognition. Entertainment is a group project, requiring success in everything from idea to concept to execution to distribution.
In any case, I agree Voice Actors should be afforded their usual share of the revenue, similar to movie voice over acting, in whatever form was negotiated. They add to the immersiveness of an experience, if done well, particularly in movie licensed games (particularly when sound-alikes are disallowed by the license). But I don't think they deserve anything more than what they are getting, because their relevance in the game hasn't changed just because games are a big money business now.
Posted by: Darniaq | Jun 07, 2005 at 16:03
Voice actors *scoff*.
I know I, along with everyone else, noticed that the 2 million Sony spent on voice acting in EQII allowed it to just ROCKET head of Worlds of Warcraft.
Give me a f*cking break. The most irritating part about voice actors is when a game doesn't allow me to skip past their spoken dialogue and, you know, get on with playing the game. They already get paid outrageous hourly rates. They don't deserve residuals.
--matt
Posted by: Matt Mihaly | Jun 07, 2005 at 16:55
Jessica said : "And frankly, the dev team better get residuals before the actors do. Two to four years of one's life, passion and sweat on one project is deserving of a pay-off."
And
Thabor said: "...For most roles there is a large volume of professionals that will do the work without that sort of agreement."
The reason that people like voice-over actors get residuals (which, btw Thabor, are not percentages of the profit) is to compensate for the fact that theirs is a performing art, very unlike the case for PAs, production managers, programmers, etc., regardless of the medium. It is traditional to pay artists at least some nominal fee each time their performance is sold.
Should studio musicians not get royalties from albums they work on? Should people who take small roles in movies and tv not get residuals? I don't understand what's different about a voice performance, whether it's for a videogame, a movie, tv, etc.
Just because you feel underpaid and overworked and would like more money (which I think everyone can sympathize with), doesn't mean that now the industry is fully 'prime-time' peforming artists should get the shaft.
As for the fact that there is a significant volume of professionals who will do the work without that sort of agreement: well, i don't know what to tell you, but there are plenty of people willing to do your jobs for damn near free, so I don't think you want to go there, either ethically or pragmatically.
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 07, 2005 at 16:58
I don't believe I said they were a percentage of profit. I believe I said that residuals are warrented in a case where profit is added by that person's work.
What exactly constitutes a performing art? Pieces of dialog, music, and animation are recorded in pieces, re-recorded, re-arranged, filtered, and enhanced. They aren't live or particularly dependant on individual performers skills. I'd say there is very little difference between that "performance" and the tasks that the engineer's and developers perform.
Yes it is "traditional". Thats exactly what I was talking about. "We have always done it that way" is another way to say it. Old model, without any examination of new situations.
Should a person who works four hours on a project get paid the same as somebody who works fourty? Quantity, quality, difficulty, and risk are some of the standard evaluators we use. On what basis do you justify giving a bit actor an extra residuals?
There it is again. The sense of entitlement, that wants to enforce the old power structure / model.
As far as my job goes, I still believe the same thing. If someone else CAN do the same job for almost free, then pretty soon they will be. My feelings don't enter into it. If I want to keep my job then I need to add some value to the project that the other guy can't.
Look at the software engineering industry. They are facing the same issue in the outsourcing trend. Right now I can still compete with India on the basis of knowledge, communication, and responsiveness. As communication techonology improves the gap will narrow, and I'll have a harder time adding value.
Should I start suing broadband providers and video conferencing companies because I'm "getting the shaft"? It makes more sense to me to find a new role, or other ways to compete. Just like the recording industry is being forced to do now.
Posted by: Thabor | Jun 07, 2005 at 18:23
I don't understand what's different about a voice performance, whether it's for a videogame, a movie, tv, etc.
I don't think there's something inherent to performances and getting paid residuals. If so, why don't the camera operators and various crew members also get paid residuals? After all, their activity on a television set contribute to the recorded performance as well, and in that sense they are also part of the performance.
The answer here is that the actors can extract residuals purely because they have the clout to do so. Without the actors there can be no show, and actors cannot be replaced easily when compared to the crew. As far as I can tell, there is no other special magical status to being a performer that grants you an inalienable right to residuals.
Therefore there is a difference with video games: the voice work is not the key element of being able to sell the game, and the voice actors can be replaced in games much the same way a crew can be replaced for a TV show. I don't see that as any more of a shaft than what 90% of the world gets from in their day to day work.
As for the fact that there is a significant volume of professionals who will do the work without that sort of agreement: well, i don't know what to tell you, but there are plenty of people willing to do your jobs for damn near free, so I don't think you want to go there, either ethically or pragmatically.
Actually I am perfectly happy to go there, because that's the reality of the wage labor system that we live in. My salary as a game programmer is highly dependent on what other game programmers capable of doing my job are willing to accept. If my employer could easily replace me with a person or persons capable of doing my job and willing to work for less money (assuming that all other costs of are equal), then I would either have to likewise accept a lower wage, or I'd be out of a job. In fact, that's why actors can get residuals for TV: because they can't be replaced by those who would work for less. But, in video game voice acting, they probably can, or the games can go without. Those folks who are willing to do my job for free? Just because they are willing, doesn't mean they are capable. I'm sure there are at least as many people willing to be Hollywood actors.
Posted by: yph | Jun 07, 2005 at 18:38
Every probably already knows this, but Eenonomically, people are just fighting for a split of the profits or residuals.
Capitalists tend to have most of the power in getting much of the share. So, we got collective bargaining and public opinion.
Everyone can make their own valuations, but I tend to think that if someone fights for their fair share, people may pay the person his or her fair share, or not.
It all depends whether the other person decides whether it is worth it or not. Same with RMT. Doesn't matter that being exchanged.
Posted by: magicback | Jun 07, 2005 at 21:29
Matt Mihaley wrote - I know I, along with everyone else, noticed that the 2 million Sony spent on voice acting in EQII allowed it to just ROCKET head of Worlds of Warcraft.
$2M? I didn't guestimate that much. So be it.
Don't forget to add in more money over time as SOE must bring the voice talent back in to record new phrases when they update game content, as well as localization.
As bad as text-to-speech sounds, it's much more economical and more flexible than pre-recorded speech... and it can be promoted as part of the "procedural everything" craze that Spore has started.
Posted by: Mike Rozak | Jun 07, 2005 at 21:45
Since the game industry is moving more and more towards what is business wise and not so much art wise, I'd expect the enormous supply of willing voice actors to zerg out the demand (to use a term popular recently here).
I totally agree that a good voice actor adds to a game, but I don't think it gives them a right to residuals. The development team is obviously directly responsible for the success of the game, but no one will buy a game and enjoy it from the voice acting alone. They will enjoy it *despite* poor voice acting and even poor translation, though.
Posted by: Jim Self | Jun 08, 2005 at 02:46
Onion > Just as an aside, they put American in front of the shows because many of them started outside of the country.
I don’t buy that as explanation. Reason being that there are also things like the Americans with Disabilities Act - in the UK we have things like Disability Discrimination Act (2005) we don’t feel the need to say it’s the Britain’s Act.
Posted by: ren reynolds | Jun 08, 2005 at 04:59
"American" is p-a-t-r-i-o-t-i-c!
Now, let's say together :)
I explain this away in the way I explain away the use of the word "federal" in a name.
After 911, anything "American" is p-a-t-r-i-o-t-i-c!
Oh, and no trademark issues.
You gotta be an American to understand this :)
Posted by: magicback | Jun 08, 2005 at 09:29
I agree with magicblack. Adding "american" to a name rides the wave of couch-potato patriotism, where people can feel good about themselves by feeding off patriotic identities, particularly those that do not obligate them to perform any difficult act, or better still, those that entertain them.
Marketers are quick to play into this craving. Lawmakers even moreso. Heck, would the "Patriot act" have passed with the support it did with any name that even vaguely described what it did? Yes, the "Americans with Disabilities Act" predates 9-11 by a decade, but it was passed at a time when "discrimination" was a "let-down" term people preferred to avoid... but who could oppose something "American?"
Heck, most people never get past the title anyway...
Posted by: Chas York | Jun 08, 2005 at 10:06
Jessica: ... And frankly, the dev team better get residuals before the actors do. Two to four years of one's life, passion and sweat on one project is deserving of a pay-off.
To get back on target, I think this IS one of the key points to discuss here. It's not whether the ACTORS should get residuals, it's whether a residual model should be applied to the entire development team.
Some may argue that if you agree to do a task for a set fee, and you are compensated based on that agreement, then you should be satisfied. However, when someone else then takes the fruit of your labor and makes considerably more profit off it, it's rather natural to feel exploited. Residuals are the guarantee that you'll get SOMETHING MORE should the fruits of your labor pay off more than anticipated.
However, residuals can mean that the person who took the risk of financing the entire production sees less reward from his investment. Given that the production can be something of a gamble- no guarantee production costs will be recovered- this loss of potential revenue will affect the decision to finance a game / movie.
Will it work in the game industry? Possibly, but it should start with the people who put the biggest investment (time & energy) into production.
Posted by: Chas York | Jun 08, 2005 at 11:17
yph wrote: "I don't think there's something inherent to performances and getting paid residuals."
Thabor wrote: "What exactly constitutes a performing art? Pieces of dialog, music, and animation are recorded in pieces, re-recorded, re-arranged, filtered, and enhanced."
It's not an erudite concept really: A Performing Art is an art wherein the product of that art is the act of production itself.
Camera operators are not performing artists because the product of their craft is not the act of operating the camera itself; rather, they operate the camera in order to secure a recording of some act or event. It is the recorded camera media that is the product of their art.
Similarly, a game programmer is not a performing artist (I almost can't believe I'm having to explicate this ;p) because the product of your art is not the act of programming itself, but, rather, the code you produce.
The reasoning behind using residuals as part of the structure of compensation for performing artists goes something like this:
1. Before recordings became the dominant means of using and distributing art involving performances, a performer could expect to be paid each time their work was used--they'd have to be on hand to supply it.
2. Since performances are now recordable and are in fact predominantly employed as recordings, which are trivially reproducible, the performers are no longer required to be on hand each time their work is performed. This fact
3. Residual payments are reasonable because they offer performers a means of being compensated for how many times a producer sells a copy of their performance without having to rehire the artist.
From a pragmatic standpoint, residuals offer performers an element of compensation that comes in over time. This helps stabilize what is a very chaotic , catch-as-catch-can vocation for many people.
From a social point of view, residuals came into existence as the result of strikes by performer's unions, most notably SAG. They started striking when they realized that the nature of the media of entertainment had changed so that producer's were capable of making huge profits reselling performances for which the artists had only been paid once. They did not feel it fair that performing artists completely lose out simply because the technology of delivering performances (but not the need for performances themselves) had changed.
From an economic viewpoint, the community of producers benefit from residuals in the following way: By helpin g to stabilize the means of compensating performers, producers stabilize the pool of talented laborers. As a result, producers are more likely to find the kind and level of talent they require much more quickly and easily. This results in more value being added to projects by more talented labor that is acquired more efficiently.
Now, no one's going to force you to use union performers in your work. Personally, I find scabbing somewhere between distasteful and utterly immoral. But you may not. Or maybe your production is of such a low budget that using union workers is prohibitive. (Independent movies are often exempted from having to use union labor due to their budgets.) But if you produce a AAA game and fail to go to union performers, don't be surprised to find that your ability to get the kind of talent you want in the future is destroyed.
Which brings up the issue that seems to be burning many of you: Voice talent is not necessary in videogames, it's of marginal importance in the overall product, and it's readily performed equally well by others, so why should they get residuals and not me (wah). If that's what you think, then, again, by all means don't use union performers or even voice actors at all. But these facts, have nothing to do with *whether* a performer is in line to get residuals. Residuals have come into play because of the very nature of performing arts and modern technology. And I have seen *NOTHING* expressed here that is new about the use of performances in videogames that changes this relationship.
Rather than bashing the performing artists for unionizing and bargaining for residuals, maybe you should consider organizing yourselves and bargaining for your own form of profit-sharing.
Just for some perspective when mounting your own bid for 'residuals', here's what the bastard money-grubbing SAG actors are asking for:
1. $675-750 for a four-hour, three voice session. (This is the initial compensation, and isn't a 'residual'.)
2. An extra 'residual' payment of $675 after a game has sold 400,000 units.
3. An additional $675 for every 100,000 units thereafter.
According to Chris Edgerly of SAG, only 2% of the 4000 console games released in 2004 sold more than 400,000 units. That's 85 out of 4000 games that would have involved residual payments. And those residual payments on those 85 would have amounted to about 1% of those games' revenue.
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 08, 2005 at 13:21
Am I wrong in thinking that authors get residuals, too? The argument could be that storytellers used to have to be on hand to tell their stories, but then the printing press came a long and made it so a storyteller could write down his story once and thousands of people could read it whenever they want. And since the storyteller no longer has to be on hand each time someone experiences his story, he should get residuals, right?
Whatever.
Seriously, the reason actors (and authors) get residuals is because they, at one time, had a very valid argument that the performance would not have been the same without their specific talent. Each actor brings something very different to the screen/stage/air waves, even when you're talking about two very talented actors -- imagine replacing Russell Crowe with Tom Hanks in Gladiator, for example.
But, with the exception of recognizable celebrity voices like Al Pacino or Sean Connery, the above simply does not hold true for game voice work. KotOR has some of the best voice work in a game that I've ever heard, and it is the only one that comes to mind where bad voice work would have really ruined the game. But did the actress who voiced Bastila's lines bring so much to the game that it wouldn't have been the same without her?
Well, no.
The person who brought the most to that game, without whom the game would not have been the same, was the person who wrote the storyline and dialog for KotOR -- a game designer-writer, as Obsidian likes to call them. What? What's that?? A game designer made a unique contribution to a game, such that the game would not have been the same without them?? Whoever heard of such a thing!
If authors get residuals based on how many copies their book sells, why don't game writers get residuals? Isn't that the same argument that SAG is making -- voice actors get residuals for other works they perform, so they should get residuals for games, too? And if game designer-writers can get residuals, why not the guy who designed the combat for KotOR? Or the guy who designed the Jedi powers? The game really, honestly, truly would not have been the same game without their unique talents as designers -- if they had been different designers, we would have had Gladiator with Tom Hanks instead of the Gladiator we know and love. Is the unique contribution of game designers to the game so much less than the unique contribution of Jennifer Hale?
In principle, am not against voice actors getting residuals for games. I am, however, against those who do the least amount of work on the game -- 1/2400th of the manhours, by some accounts -- getting residuals before those who work long hours with no overtime pay and no extra time off do. If everyone involved in the creative process of making a game were already getting residuals, I don't think voice actors getting in on it would really be an issue.
Aaron Ruby said, And those residual payments on those 85 would have amounted to about 1% of those games' revenue.
Yes, but that would be %1 of the profits for 0.04166% of the work. Meanwhile, designers, programmers, and artists are working 60 to 80 hours a week for months on end, only being paid for 40 hours a week of that, not receiving any sort of profit sharing, and have nothing but angry spouses to show for it.
If we had a union of our own, this would be a much different issue. If we had a union, we could negotiate for all the things SAG is asking for -- shorter hours, more breaks, better pay for the hours we do work, more comfortable working conditions, and residuals. Sure sounds nice, doesn't it? But just as the big game companies are not at all worried about SAG striking, I doubt whoever goes out on a limb and starts up a game developers union would come to a happy end. Big game companies are more than willing to hire non-union voice actors, and they'd hire non-union game designers, programmers, and artists in a heartbeat.
So what's the answer? I don't know, but SAG picketing outside of E3 did not raise my hopes that they would come to the aid of their fellow working class artists.
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Jun 08, 2005 at 15:00
When you are working on a movie, game, or other recorded product that product is the same for both the actor and the cameraman., etc They are integral to each other. Particularly in cases where there is interation which elements which are added in digital processes later.
That is why I would dispute your casting movie acting as performance art. A live concert or theater play is clearly a performance art. A simple reproduction of that performance might fall in the same category.
If you are going to maintain that a typical modern movie is actually a performance, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by: Thabor | Jun 08, 2005 at 16:08
Samantha:
No, writers do not get residuals. They get royalties, which are actually different. Royalties are assigned to writers to represent that they are actually partners of a kind with those who publish their work. When a publisher and I sign a contract for a book, I am typically not relinquishing all rights to my work. In a sense, I am merely licensing the rights to my work. Royalties, unlike residuals, are actually percentages of the revenue generated from sales, rather than a schedule of flat payments.
I think you have completely misidentified how a performance should be valued You are assuming, for example, that the value of a performance is soley a function of:
1. How well the performer is known (since that 'might' add value to a project in itself)
2. The quantity of time the performance represents relative to that of the rest of the production team.
3. How much of the final product the performance occupies.
Valuing performers based on notoriety is certainly one component of value, in that the performer becomes a sort of 'brand'. However, presumably that notoriety (and thus the value it creates) is derived from features of the performer themself or the kind of performances they give. This is just as true in performances for games as anywhere else.
Valuing performers based on how much of the total amount of the production team's labor a performance represents is just absurd, imo. It completely ignores the nature of performance labor as opposed to other kinds of creative labor that is product oriented (as I explained earlier). Also, you likely don't pay your testers as much as, say, the principals on the design team, even if they happen to work just as many hours on a project as the principals. Different kinds of work, which require different kinds of skillsets, engender different amounts and methods of compensation. The voice acting situation is no different.
The same sort of argument applies to valuing labor based solely on how much of one's work winds up in the final product.
The bottom line here is that you simply don't really respect the contribution of performances to videogame production and therefore value it accordingly. That's your perogative. I think you're wrong, especially as concerns the videogame medium itself as opposed to the current exigencies and circumstances of game prodution and marketing. But I also think you're wrong even under current conditions.
In any event, what you really seem to care most about is the fairness of your own compensation.
I totally respect that desire, and I even tend to agree that the compensation for the members of design/production teams you describe is patently unfair.
However, I don't see what that has to do with whether it is fair and reasonable for an entirely different kind of laborer (viz., performing artists) to ask for residuals from game performances. Especially when there is nothing inherently new about videogame performances with respect to those media where residuals are considered fair and equitable practice. If you disagree, don't hire union. But as the videogame medium matures, and quality performances (of any kind--don't be surprised if mo-cap actors start wanting residuals too) become a standard of production, using non-union performers may put you at a competitive disadvantage when comes to acquiring the talent you want.
Samantha says: "If we had a union of our own, this would be a much different issue...I doubt whoever goes out on a limb and starts up a game developers union would come to a happy end.
Here I disagree with you heartily. If the game design/programmer communities organized, I fail to see how they would lack the power to essentially shut down the industry, at least to the point where some kind of collective bargaining were agreed to. It's worked for film editors, screenwriters, cinematographers, etc.
The difference between them and those in your profession is simply that they actually organized themselves. You haven't yet. And no one's going to do it for you. Personally I think it's high time you do. It's likely the only way you'll get the sort of conditions you desire and, again imo, deserve.
My gripe with the posts here is that instead of bothering to organize yourselves to collectively bargain with the 'big game companies', you are attacking the performing artists who have. Those kinds of attack come off as an unattractive species of sour grapes.
And it's simply not productive imho.
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 08, 2005 at 16:17
"A Performing Art is an art wherein the product of that art is the act of production itself. ... Similarly, a game programmer is not a performing artist (I almost can't believe I'm having to explicate this ;p) because the product of your art is not the act of programming itself, but, rather, the code you produce."
I never claimed that programming was a "Performing Art"; I simply said that this distinction is not important when it comes to compensation.
Your comments above miss a very key point (which I almost can't believe I have to explain ;P). I am not paid for the code I produce. I am paid for my labor in producing that code. I am paid based on my time spent on the act of programming. This is exactly analogous to performers getting paid an hourly rate for the act of performing.
"Residuals have come into play because of the very nature of performing arts and modern technology. And I have seen *NOTHING* expressed here that is new about the use of performances in videogames that changes this relationship."
No, residuals have come into play because unions have been successful in extracting them from other industries. The basis for residuals boil down very simply: media producers were making large profits off actors' efforts, without the actors getting a cut of the money. The actors wanted that cut, and because they could not be easily replaced, they were able to successfully demand it. That's all. There is no god-given right to residuals for performing artists, as you seem to be claiming.
Actors can attempt to get residuals from video games, but the brutal fact is that actors do not enjoy the same power in this arena. It is not an analogous argument to say that actors get residuals in a medium where the acting is of central importance, so therefore they should get residuals in a medium where the acting is not.
By the way, I'm not saying all this motivated by greed. I'm not sure that paying game developers something akin to residuals would be such a great thing, because it's not as simple as saying that residuals equals more money. I just think it's funny and delusional for voice actors to claim that they deserve a bigger share of the profits when they already get paid better than I do (even accounting for time spent outside the recording studio looking for the work and all that) for a smaller contribution to the project, as if they were being exploited or something. It's hard for me to believe that someone who only needs to work 8 hours to earn more than I make in a 50-60 hour week is being exploited.
Posted by: yph | Jun 08, 2005 at 16:18
Thabor says:
When you are working on a movie, game, or other recorded product that product is the same for both the actor and the cameraman.
No. The job of the actor is to deliver a performance, irrespective of whether their performance is marketed, distributed or sold as a recording or live performance. The job of the cameraman is to capture the actor's performance successfully. The artistic product of the first is the performance itself. The artistic product of the second is the correctly exposed film/recording.
Thabor also says: "If you are going to maintain that a typical modern movie is actually a performance, then we will just have to agree to disagree."
I maintain no such thing. I simply maintain that movie acting is a variety of performing art.
=]
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 08, 2005 at 16:29
Aaron,
Aaron, thanks for the hard data on what the SAG is asking, along with a more detailed definition of "performing art."
I think you'll find that many developers don't see the distinction of "performance art" vs "development art" as very necessary. The case for residuals need not apply to ONLY the performance artist. Heck, many technically-skilled people in movie production could argue that points 2 and 3 of your rationale can be applied to their cause as well. This is even more pronounced in game development, where the skill of the development team takes a far more important role than the traditional "performance artists."
You mentioned the cameraman in your example. Camerawork is more than recording a performance. It's a technical skill that critics have recognized as an integral part of the experience. They're guided by a director (as are actors) but they add lasting value to the final product.
The camerawork done for "Alien" was credited with successfully conveying the sense of claustrophobia within a space ship, and particularly within a space suit.
It was an act, committed once, that was resold and profited on repeatedly by the producers. Worthy of some residual compensation? Maybe not on the scale of the artist, but the case can be made.
Heck, many of these movies are lauded for their special effects, or camerawork, or story, but routinely criticized for their... flat performances. It seems that there's more to the final packaged product than simply the recorded performance of an artist.
Scalable profit sharing of some sort- royalties, residuals, or otherwise, would be a fair way to recognize the contributions of all members of a production team (though the producer should see significant compensation for the "gamble" taken in the financing of the production) but it makes little sense to reward someone with a much smaller overall contribution for the success of a product without first rewarding the people with a larger role in its creation.
Posted by: Chas York | Jun 08, 2005 at 16:44
yph says:I never claimed that programming was a "Performing Art"; I simply said that this distinction is not important when it comes to compensation.
You didn't but Thabor did. I apologize if I implied that you did.
yph also says: "Your comments above miss a very key point (which I almost can't believe I have to explain ;P). .. [Aaron interjects: "Touche!" =)]...I am not paid for the code I produce. I am paid for my labor in producing that code. I am paid based on my time spent on the act of programming. This is exactly analogous to performers getting paid an hourly rate for the act of performing."
Not really. It would be analgous if you were paid for the amount of time it took for the code you produce to run rather than the amount of time it took you to generate it. The difference between you and a performing artist lies in the difference between the product of your labor. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that these differences would result in different modes of compensation (not amounts per se).
yph goes on to say: "No, residuals have come into play because unions have been successful in extracting them from other industries...There is no god-given right to residuals for performing artists, as you seem to be claiming."
Yes, residuals have come into play because unions have been successful. And in collective bargaining much of their argument for why residual payments are fair relies on the reasoning I laid out previously.
I claim no god-given right of voice actors to residuals, unless there is some god-given right to fairness I don't know about.
I doubt there is, however, since if there were, you'd have a god-given right to be fairly compensated for your own work without having to organize and fight to get it.
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 08, 2005 at 16:46
No, I didn't. I said:
My implication was that movie acting is not a performance art. Not that programming was. Please don't mis-represent what I have said.
Posted by: Thabor | Jun 08, 2005 at 17:02
Thabor says:"My implication was that movie acting is not a performance art. Not that programming was. Please don't mis-represent what I have said."
Aaron says:Sorry, but I think my inference is reasonable based on the following statement of yours: "I'd say there is very little difference between that "performance" and the tasks that the engineer's and developers perform."
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 08, 2005 at 17:10
Either way, Thabor, if I misrep'd what you meant, I apologize.
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 08, 2005 at 17:24
Aaron said, The difference between them and those in your profession is simply that they actually organized themselves. You haven't yet. And no one's going to do it for you... My gripe with the posts here is that instead of bothering to organize yourselves to collectively bargain with the 'big game companies', you are attacking the performing artists who have.
It's not that we haven't "bothered" to organize ourselves, and the fact that you think we are all just too lazy to get up and fight for what we want is a bit insulting. The fact of the matter is that the possibility of blacklisting is very, very real. I'm not going to put my family's entire livelihood at stake just on the chance that if I start a union, other people will join up.
We're all afraid of being the one to start the union. We're all afraid of being in the first wave of early adopters. Until we have critical mass amongst all game developers, we won't stop production with our demands -- we'll just lose our jobs. There are plenty of people lined up to take our jobs for less than what we're making now, let alone what we should be making. Unless/until we can effectively stop production on major games at major studios, forming a game developers union is just suicide for whomever takes that leap first.
So we have a chicken and egg problem. We need a union but no one wants to join the union until everyone else does. The only thing I can think of that would get around that is to organize a Game Developers Union Sign Up Day, where we form the union and everyone agrees to sign up on the same day. But even that could fail horribly -- and lead to those who took the jump being blacklisted from the industry forever -- if we didn't reach critical mass pretty quickly.
As for the topic at hand, I don't know what to tell you. You seem to have a much higher opinion of voice actors than of game developers, and you can't honestly be surprised that that doesn't go over well here. Actors receive residuals on most of their work. Authors receive residuals/royalties (I have it from a very trusted source that he has indeed received residuals for his contribution to a book, but whatever) for their work. And somehow, game writers and designers and programmers and artists shouldn't qualify, or should only qualify after those who have done 0.04166% of the work have their money...?
You seem to think that voice actors are somehow more deserving of residuals, that the fact that they use their voice to produce a creative endeavor is so much more important than when I use my imagination to produce a creative endeavor. I see no difference whatsoever. The one and only difference is that they have a union with an over-inflated sense of their own importance, so they think they can go around and demand better pay and better working conditions than anyone else. And if you think we could solve this if we would just get off our lazy asses and form a union ourselves, see above.
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Jun 08, 2005 at 17:48
Smantha says:"It's not that we haven't "bothered" to organize ourselves, and the fact that you think we are all just too lazy to get up and fight for what we want is a bit insulting. Aaron interjects: I'm sorry I insulted you. It was clearly unfair.The fact of the matter is that the possibility of blacklisting is very, very real. I'm not going to put my family's entire livelihood at stake just on the chance that if I start a union, other people will join up."
Absolutely. Organizing unions is very, very difficult and brave work, and failing to organize one is certainly no sin, nor is it an act of cowardice. Two of my best friends are labor organizers, and I understand the challenges. I also see how I appeared to trivialize that part of it, and, again, I'm very sorry to have done so.
Samantha said: "We're all afraid of being the one to start the union. We're all afraid of being in the first wave of early adopters. Until we have critical mass amongst all game developers, we won't stop production with our demands -- we'll just lose our jobs."
That would definitely a possibile outcome, and I agree that may make the prospect prohibitively costly in many cases. On the other hand, these challenges are very often overcome, even by people in industries and professions you've indicated are analgous to your own, and have succeeded.
Samantha said:"You seem to think that voice actors are somehow more deserving of residuals, that the fact that they use their voice to produce a creative endeavor is so much more important than when I use my imagination to produce a creative endeavor. I see no difference whatsoever."
I never said that I think performing artists in general, or voice actors in particular, are more deserving of residuals. Nor do I think that voice actors are even *as* important as what you contribute to a game, let alone 'much more' so.
I do, however, see a difference between the nature of your respective contributions. That difference doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to profit-sharing. As I said before I certainly think that would be fair. If I had the power to grant it, I certainly would. And I'd most certainly see that you'd get yours before the voice actors even had to ask for theirs.
What the difference between the nature of your respective contributions does mean, however, is that when the performing artists' union goes to bargain for residuals, they come armed with an argument for fairness that is reasonable and that argument is something like what I outlined earlier.
That said, just because I think
Being a modern performing artist implies a modern performing artist has a reasonable argument when bargaining for residuals from game companies by virtue of the nature of their contribution
is true, doesn't mean I think that
*Only* modern performing artists are entitled to profit sharing from videogame companies.
or /shudder that
Voice actors have some greater entitlement to profit sharing from videogame companies than the game design/production team itself.
I promise.
I wouldn't have spent the last four years of my life working on a book about videogames (who makes 'em, who plays, who cares) if I did. The whole point of Smartbomb is that what you people are doing right now is no mere cousin to the traditional media family; rather, Smartbomb argues that videogames represent an entirely new *species* of media altogether. I try to show how people like you are going to create and influence art and society to a degree most people simply cannot imagine presently. I spend my time telling people why they should respect not only what you do but also yourselves as artists. I tell them they should not just mark this medium out of turn because they can't be bothered to get a clue. I even try to show how games workers are starting to become disillusioned that the industry they helped create is not giving them a fair shake. I agree with you.
And again, I'm sorry to have insulted you or anyone else here.
(Oh, fwiw, and you may find some karmic justice in this, my wife and I are seriously in the hole on Smartbomb even after a relatively-large-by-industry-standards advance. The kind of hole that'd take a minor miracle to erase ;))
Posted by: Aaron Ruby | Jun 08, 2005 at 18:45
Aaron, thank you for your reply. Reading back through your other comments, in light of your most recent one, I see that you have largely been arguing the point of view of voice actors, none of whom are here to argue their stance themselves.
Everyone I know, everyone I work with is very touchy on this topic right now. We've been trying to find ways to fight for simple quality of life issues -- like not being forced to work 80 hour weeks without any form of overtime compensation -- without losing our jobs and while continuing to work full time. We've been struggling with this, discussing what our options are, if class action suits or a union would be the best way, trying to figure out not how to get a bigger slice of the pie, but rather how to turn things around so we are no longer being exploited.
And then SAG comes along and threatens to strike if they don't get residuals. We all love working with good voice talent; it's one of the things that is bringing us out of the nerdy basement and into the sunlight of the mainstream. But when we look at the hourly rate that SAG was offered and realize that a voice actor can make more in an 8 hour day (two four hour sessions at $980 per session, as offered by publishers, according to this news story, would come out to $1960 for 8 hours) than the Lead Designer makes in a week (say $90,000 salary, which would be about $1730 for the week), it hardly seems fair. The Lead Designer will work five to ten times as many hours for his $1730, and has to be at the top of his profession, with a highly rarified skill set, to even get that job.
So hopefully you can understand why we're all a bit touchy on it. It isn't that we don't value voice actors, it's that we have a hard time assigning them more value per hour than a Lead Designer. Voice actors saying that they get this sort of pay and residuals for other work they do doesn't soften the blow at all. Programmers can make a great deal more money making databases than they can making games, but so far that hasn't helped programmers get better wages in the game industry. I will admit that it's a bit of sour grapes on our part, but with the current barriers to creating a union of our own, I personally feel that the sour attitude is if not justified, at least understandable.
(And btw, I don't wish any sort of karmic "justice" on you in any way, shape, or form. I've watched my father start up and sell several companies, so I know what that hole looks like, and what it feels like when the hole is finally filled.)
Posted by: Samantha LeCraft | Jun 08, 2005 at 19:22
*deep breath*
1. Something I mention only because I haven't seen it pointed out yet is that there's a difference between being a paid employee of a studio (like a grip or gaffer) and being essentially a contracted freelancer (like an actor or voice talent). The former don't get residuals from performances of a work to which they contributed because their income is considered secure compared to the performer's.
The performer gets residual checks for each performance as a way to try to insure income between gigs. This is why actors on TV shows celebrate when they record their 100th episode -- it generally means that the show will be syndicated, meaning a constant stream of residual money.
It's possible that this is an archaic and obsolete remnant of a bygone age. That's an arguable position. All I'm trying to suggest is that pay for performers isn't structured this way just because SAG is forcing it down everyone's throat.
2. Unionization of game developers: No, no, a thousand times no.
No, a union is not "needed"; that's an assumption that cannot be allowed to stand unquestioned. All a union would do in this modern day is what virtually every union does: artificially drive up labor prices and drive down competence.
The result of unionization would all the problems that SAG and its ilk actually do cause. Do you want there to be only a very few huge studios because the little guys can't afford to pay inflated labor costs or hire the lawyers necessary to litigate "unfair labor practices" lawsuits? Unionize. Do you want to have to fix to code of bad programmers because the bosses only care about building their empire with more bodies and won't allow employers to terminate the incompetent? Unionize.
These aren't silly claims or scare stories. They are well-documented conditions that real employers have to deal with every day, and they will happen to the game industry if game developers unionize.
And please, no accusations that I'm claiming that unions are "evil and always have been." That's silly and I'm saying no such thing. In the U.S., there certainly was a time when unions made sense... that time being the early 20th century when jobs were scarce and employers could dictate terms like feudal lords.
That time is not now. Maybe Bob can't get the perfect game development job working for someone else? Well, that's a hard thing, but it's not an entitlement and there are plenty of other jobs out there that Bob could productively take, not to mention working for himself (which, as noted, is something that plenty of people manage to do).
Finally, and just to try to be clear, there's nothing wrong with making a case for unionization of game developers; I'm not in any way trying to stifle discussion of the pros of doing so. But it is not so clearly a Good Thing as has been implied in this thread so far, either, and it's fair to point out the cons as well.
For the reasons given above, I do not believe that unionization of game developers would have positive results, either for developers, the industry, or gamers, and I do not support it.
Others are free to conclude differently.
--Flatfingers
Posted by: Flatfingers | Jun 08, 2005 at 22:02
They reached an agreement which averted a strike:
http://www.sag.org/sagWebApp/application;JSESSIONID_sagWebApp=Cn1rpM8BORe8o9GqXYRfk2yPhTdOLz73uhT4M07GdMbQi4IxdhN7!-1506457536!NONE?origin=page1.jsp&event=bea.portal.framework.internal.refresh&pageid=Hidden&contentUrl=/NewsAndAnnouncements/announcementLander.jsp&cp=null&announcementPage=/Content/Public/videogameagreementreached.htm
Highlights:
- 25% increase in minimum wages, with more increases over the next 3.5 years.
- 7.5% increase in benefits contributions
- No residuals
- Double time pay after 6 hours (previously 10 hours)
Posted by: yph | Jun 09, 2005 at 00:15
Holy cow, that's a long link. Here's a link to make it more accessible.
Posted by: yph | Jun 09, 2005 at 00:16
A few years from now, when we have the programming tools to synthesis absolutely convincing human voices, will the "voice animators" get residuals?
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 09, 2005 at 04:15
The link above says, "Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) today announced they have reached tentative agreements with video game companies on new contracts."
So.. which video game companies? EA, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Activision, Ubisoft, NCSoft, Webzen, Blizzard, JoWood, Atari, AOL, Square, CAPCOM, the US Army ...? Is there some sort of collusive combined bargaining agreement that covers "video game companies" or is this agreement really with a few big ones?
Interesting also that SAG and AFTRA view this agreement as a stop-gap: '“The negotiating committee wrestled with a great challenge. Our members clearly support the inclusion of residuals in our Interactive contracts. However, with great reluctance, our negotiating committee concluded that it is in the interests of the members who work these contracts to make this deal,” said SAG President Melissa Gilbert. “We will spend the next three-and-a-half years devoting resources to further organize this industry, and return to the bargaining table with renewed strength and vigor to establish a fair participation in the enormous profits generated by video games.”'
Finally, someone earlier asked about mo-cap artists. According to the news release, this agreement covers "voice-over talent, singers, dancers and performance capture performers, among others."
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jun 09, 2005 at 13:17
I have yet to see a contract software engineer get residuals for a project they worked on. I don't see design positions being that secure either. How many projects does the typical lead designer do for the same publisher / studio?
Posted by: Thabor | Jun 09, 2005 at 14:43
I'm not saying it's a perfectly rational system, Thabor.
That some people get residuals and some don't looks odd to us today because it's an archaism from before computers changed entertainment, and because many of our old social and economic patterns haven't yet caught up to the new technology.
--Flatfingers
Posted by: Flatfingers | Jun 09, 2005 at 18:57
This can be similar to a game, if the game is being sold as more than just a fun activity. Vin Diesel doesn't actually enhance the function of playing Vivendi's Riddick game, but it does enhance it's relevance as an iteration of the story arc. As such, he's performing multiple functions in an experience (adding to the "fun", adding to the marketability, costing more to make the character ;) ).
So while voice animating programs can replace real life actors, just as CGI will eventually be able to deliver an actor/actress indistinguishable from a live performance, the cache of that actor/actress gets lost. Whether they brought a unique/exclusive "art" to the movie/TV show is only part of the point.
Posted by: Darniaq | Jun 12, 2005 at 13:06
Darniaq wrote;
>>Richard Bartle wrote: A few years from now, when we have the programming tools to synthesis absolutely convincing human voices, will the "voice animators" get residuals?
>You were probably being facetious,
I remember a discussion some time back on Radio 4 about a voice person who’s phonemes were captured so that the software could build up just about any word and have a stab at the pronunciation. The discussion was mainly about the idea of using the software to make famous people say things that they were unlikely to [insert gag here], though there was also a little discussion about how the voice person was rewarded as it was a once only job. So think kind of technology raises all kinds of life question about ownership and reward. There seems to be a parallel with arguments over the use of DNA and other samples (sorry can’t remember the cases right now).
Posted by: ren reynolds | Jun 12, 2005 at 18:52
Darniaq>You were probably being facetious, but I think this raises an interesting point.
I was being facetious while trying to raise an interesting point.
(This is from someone who was paid a flat £1,500 fee for designing an SMS phone game that rang up close on a million messages a month for the best part of a year at 25p a message...).
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Jun 13, 2005 at 02:59