Tales of the Rampant Coyote
Ye Olde Archives. Visit the new blog at http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/ - and use the following feed: http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-rss2.php
Ye Olde Archives. Visit the new blog at http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/ - and use the following feed: http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-rss2.php
Monday, June 06, 2005
Voice Actors, Wil Wheaton, and Game Development
Well, I've recently (in the last couple of years) become a little bit of a fan of Wil Wheaton. He's a geek, a D&D'er, and pretty much an up-front guy (and has to live down the whole "Wesley Crusher" thing from Star Trek: The Next Generation - something I wouldn't really want to wish on ANYONE).
I still like him, but I'm kind of annoyed at him right now, as it sounds like he's one of the driving forces between the whole SAG/AFTRA plan to strike on doing voice-overs for games:
http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,67707,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
I have a lot of empathy for "working class" actors. One of my favorite nonfiction books is Bruce Campbell's Autobiography, "If Chins Could Kill: Confessions of a B Movie Actor." The truth is 99% of actors out there are struggling - living from audition to commercial shoot to being an extra on the set of various TV shows. Even the ones who are only mildly successful end up feeling pressure to live well beyond their means, just so that they can APPEAR more successful and thus negotiate better deals. It's not an easy career path. So I can't blame them for looking at the HUGE rise in cost of AAA game development (costs which EA is bragging about, because it creates a barrier to entry that allows the people with the deepest pockets - like them - to monopolize the market), and wanting to get a piece of the action. I'm sure Wil, in particular, is eyeing the sales numbers of GTA: San Andreas (which he did voice-over work for) and thinking of what he could do with a fraction of the obvious profits from that game.
But I still oppose this voice-actor strike thing. Now I am most definitely NOT OPPOSED to giving royalties to people providing content for a game in exchange for a lower up-front costs. Not in the least. As an indie, it's a particularly attractive alternative to skyrocketing costs of development. And if I'm providing my talents on a contractual basis for a game that I feel has a good chance of succeeding, you'd better believe I'd be jockeying for a piece of that action. I'd rather see that revenue stream if I can swing it. A vast majority of games today LOSE money rather than make money - so in general it's far better off to take the up-front cash than gamble on risiduals, anyway.
But what I feel is going on here is that the guilds are attempting to treat the game industry like Hollywood, and the model just isn't going to work. More importantly, they will be enforcing one-size-fits-all requirements that target the deep-pocketed mega-publishers but for the most part has them robbing the poor. It will limit the bargaining options for both the actors and the game developers, and will be yet another contributing factor in broadening the gulf between the haves and the have-nots in what is still far from being a mature industry.
The game business is fundamentally different from Hollywood - in spite of how much it fantasizes otherwise. I have felt that the attempt of the games industry to try and mimic Hollywood has been dangerous and counterproductive. From an artistic perspective, I feel that there's a fundamental difference in 'storytelling' media and games. This has been something that has stuck in Chris Crawford's craw bad enough that he eventually called it quits on gaming altogether (much to the loss of the medium of computer gaming, although the game industry couldn't care less.) But aside from that, the effort that goes into a game is in my mind is quite different from the work that goes on in movies and TV (noting that I haven't worked in television or moviemaking, so my comparison is based on second- and third-hand knowledge of that business). I don't see that changing. Nor do I see such a change being a good thing (the games industry NEEDS changing - don't get me wrong - but the right kind of changes).
The whole Storytelling vs Games thing has been done to death (and one day I'll probably take my turn whipping that dead horse). But the point I'd like to make is that while in movies and television, the presentation of the story is the product, in games it only represents a small fraction of the amount of effort that goes into the game's development... and only a small fraction of the player's experience (at least in those games that don't suck). It already represents a disproportionate amount of the budget that gets spent on the development. And of that small fraction, usually far more time goes into every other aspect of integrating that voice-over into the game than gets spent on the "traditional" activities of script-writing, recording, and sound editing. It's like the the girl who did the voice recording that says "Please stay seated, and keep your hands and feet inside the car at all times" on the roller-coaster. Sure, it's important, but are most people riding the roller coaster to hear her voice? Does that represent a significant portion of your roller-coaster experience? (Well, okay, if you assume that everybody would DIE from the ride if that voice wasn't reminding them to behave themselves, then I guess it is...)
Nevermind the fact that royalties are almost a joke these days and most development studios never see a DIME of back-end royalties beyond their advance. The whole comment in the above article about the "the industry's skyrocketing profits" may be erroneous. I know that profits for big publishers are certainly up there right now, but the main thing skyrocketing these days is COSTS. Publishers rely on successes like GTA: San Andreas to cover the costs of nine other games that lost money. At least that's what they tell US. I don't know how this all fits into the SAG's and AFTRA's equations... because on the surface of things, it seems like this might just close off avenues to Voice Actors when only the top publishers & "sure-hit" titles can afford their mandatory terms anymore.
If anyone representing these groups wishes to chime in, I'm glad to hear it. I'm on the receiving end of FUD (and happily sharing it) right now. But of course, I'm a small-time operation these days, and I have to carefully budget even a little $50.00 content pack or tool. So maybe I shouldn't have much of a voice here. But when has that stopped me in the past?
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:56 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Little Update here:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050607/en_usatoday/voiceactorstovoteonstrike
I guess we'll see what happens today, huh?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050607/en_usatoday/voiceactorstovoteonstrike
I guess we'll see what happens today, huh?
I don't think I understand the "points" system they mention. I mean, royalties for voice actors would amount to $0 for most games, just like it would for programmers and artists.
And I don't think the argument "We only work a few times a year" is enough to merit being paid more for the work being done.
Voice acting isn't easy, and quality is important. But I don't see voice actors getting that big of a cut compared to programmers and artists who work throughout the project and not just for a few times out of the year.
On the other hand, aren't programmers and artists getting profit-sharing normally? I thought it was standard to get royalty agreements, even if the project does badly.
If so, then voice actors should get a cut...I suppose the amount/percentage would have to be determined by someone who is more qualified to talk about it, but I'm currently inclined to think that voice acting should not be rewarded on the same scale as programming for years.
If not, then voice actors are asking for a lot more than is expected by anyone in the industry. And perhaps the fact that no one expects it is a problem as well.
I'm wondering how bad this strike will affect the industry. Will we find that voice acting is really that important to making a successful game?
And I don't think the argument "We only work a few times a year" is enough to merit being paid more for the work being done.
Voice acting isn't easy, and quality is important. But I don't see voice actors getting that big of a cut compared to programmers and artists who work throughout the project and not just for a few times out of the year.
On the other hand, aren't programmers and artists getting profit-sharing normally? I thought it was standard to get royalty agreements, even if the project does badly.
If so, then voice actors should get a cut...I suppose the amount/percentage would have to be determined by someone who is more qualified to talk about it, but I'm currently inclined to think that voice acting should not be rewarded on the same scale as programming for years.
If not, then voice actors are asking for a lot more than is expected by anyone in the industry. And perhaps the fact that no one expects it is a problem as well.
I'm wondering how bad this strike will affect the industry. Will we find that voice acting is really that important to making a successful game?
Jay,
This is Sammy G, a mainstay from barnson.org, finally writing in after reading your blog almost on a daily basis!
I have an opinion on the voice-actor situation, although it isn't taking one side over the other. I don't think anyone is wrong in this situation. Instead, I think that those involved in the situation, and who espouse opinions (Wheaton) may not possess an objective opinion of the driving forces behind the economics of the game market.
I'm not an expert on the specifc media category, but it seems to me that games are complicated media which, like other media products, require some up-front cost to create and package. You've proven that talented developers and writers can conjure and lock a game product in a small team. However, the large costs come in the form of marketing.
Here's where I have a difference of opinion. I believe that in the media industry, the highest value in turning profit on a media product comes from the marketing cog on the supply chain. Voice-overs, graphics, etc. are all features, but marketing the media to consumers is the highest-value strategic point on the supply chain.
Anything that would hinder a business from deriving positive economic return (voice-actors crying foul) will likely be avoided as the market turns to other sources. There are a glut of voice-actors and game developers, but there are few marketing forces that have the capital and know-how to exploit gaming concepts into profitable games on the market.
This is Sammy G, a mainstay from barnson.org, finally writing in after reading your blog almost on a daily basis!
I have an opinion on the voice-actor situation, although it isn't taking one side over the other. I don't think anyone is wrong in this situation. Instead, I think that those involved in the situation, and who espouse opinions (Wheaton) may not possess an objective opinion of the driving forces behind the economics of the game market.
I'm not an expert on the specifc media category, but it seems to me that games are complicated media which, like other media products, require some up-front cost to create and package. You've proven that talented developers and writers can conjure and lock a game product in a small team. However, the large costs come in the form of marketing.
Here's where I have a difference of opinion. I believe that in the media industry, the highest value in turning profit on a media product comes from the marketing cog on the supply chain. Voice-overs, graphics, etc. are all features, but marketing the media to consumers is the highest-value strategic point on the supply chain.
Anything that would hinder a business from deriving positive economic return (voice-actors crying foul) will likely be avoided as the market turns to other sources. There are a glut of voice-actors and game developers, but there are few marketing forces that have the capital and know-how to exploit gaming concepts into profitable games on the market.
# posted by 
: June 07, 2005 10:11 AM
: June 07, 2005 10:11 AM
I've been out of the game a little bit, but I worked at two places that did kinda-sorta have some form of profit-sharing in the form of bonuses or royalties. One place (Acclaim) had just phased out the royalty scheme because they were paying out too much to the employees, and wanted to capture more of that revenue stream. Curiously enough, the company tanked after the generation of games using this new scheme came out...
SingleTrac had a profit-sharing program that I REALLY liked - however, we didn't really see anything from it. When we got bought out, the long-time employees did get something from the buyout. But we never saw anything directly from our games. The company was struggling for money, even after releasing multiple million-selling titles.
That's too common among the independent studios - they RARELY see anything on the back end. The advance money barely gets them from payroll to payroll, so they really hope for some back-end royalties to actually get ahead for a change. Unfortunately, this happens all too rarely, and one cancelled project is often enough to kill a small studio. A lot of the guys there at those studios have been working their butts off for substandard wages and obscene amounts of unpaid overtime in hopes of seeing a trickle of extra money come in, and too often their reward is to come in to work one day to find they've got an "all hands meeting" to explain that the company has gone under and they all have to find new jobs.
And after SingleTrac was bought out, profit-sharing went away. I have heard that the profit-sharing programs in many larger companies have been largely phased out, though there are still bonus plans in place (like most companies) for individual performance. Basically, if you are willing to take a RISK in a smaller company (accept lower pay, miss paychecks, etc), you may be eligable to see a piece of the action on the back-end if you manage to score a home run. But that's about it.
Voice Actors really aren't accepting any of that risk - especially not when they are demanding bigger base pay in addition to royalties.
But if they did get a back-end award on the same scale as the rest of the dev team, then in MY opinion (absolutely free and worth every penny!), it should be on exactly the same scale - based on their number of hours contributed to the project. So if a Voice Actor puts in 4 hours on a project, they are elligable for 1/1000th the royalty of a senior artist who averaged 50 hour weeks for 80 weeks to get the game out the door.
All that bluster going forth - the bottom line is still that I am *NOT* opposed to Voice Actors getting a piece of the royalty stream. NOT AT ALL. I just think that should be something that should be more free for negotiation. I know that hurts smaller names, but anything else also hurts smaller companies and smaller games.
SingleTrac had a profit-sharing program that I REALLY liked - however, we didn't really see anything from it. When we got bought out, the long-time employees did get something from the buyout. But we never saw anything directly from our games. The company was struggling for money, even after releasing multiple million-selling titles.
That's too common among the independent studios - they RARELY see anything on the back end. The advance money barely gets them from payroll to payroll, so they really hope for some back-end royalties to actually get ahead for a change. Unfortunately, this happens all too rarely, and one cancelled project is often enough to kill a small studio. A lot of the guys there at those studios have been working their butts off for substandard wages and obscene amounts of unpaid overtime in hopes of seeing a trickle of extra money come in, and too often their reward is to come in to work one day to find they've got an "all hands meeting" to explain that the company has gone under and they all have to find new jobs.
And after SingleTrac was bought out, profit-sharing went away. I have heard that the profit-sharing programs in many larger companies have been largely phased out, though there are still bonus plans in place (like most companies) for individual performance. Basically, if you are willing to take a RISK in a smaller company (accept lower pay, miss paychecks, etc), you may be eligable to see a piece of the action on the back-end if you manage to score a home run. But that's about it.
Voice Actors really aren't accepting any of that risk - especially not when they are demanding bigger base pay in addition to royalties.
But if they did get a back-end award on the same scale as the rest of the dev team, then in MY opinion (absolutely free and worth every penny!), it should be on exactly the same scale - based on their number of hours contributed to the project. So if a Voice Actor puts in 4 hours on a project, they are elligable for 1/1000th the royalty of a senior artist who averaged 50 hour weeks for 80 weeks to get the game out the door.
All that bluster going forth - the bottom line is still that I am *NOT* opposed to Voice Actors getting a piece of the royalty stream. NOT AT ALL. I just think that should be something that should be more free for negotiation. I know that hurts smaller names, but anything else also hurts smaller companies and smaller games.
Sammy G:
Yeah, you are right. It's the frustrating truth of things - "If you build it, they will come" really only applies to mystical baseball diamonds in cornfields. While I certainly WISH it weren't nearly impossible to make a game on a shoestring budget with sales that would rock EA's world, it's not incredibly likely. The thing is - while marketing is a HUGE factor, it's not the deciding factor. If it was, then John Romero's "Daikatana" would have been a monster-hit.
The guys with the money and the established channels of marketing and distribution really control things - not completely, but enough that they can dictate how the whole industry gets treated. Lately they've been flashing money around and trying desperately to be taken seriously. And this is one of the unintended results.
I really don't know that voice actors boycotting videogames would really be that much of an impact from a marketing standpoint. I didn't even KNOW what voice talent they were using for Half Life 2.
I'm curious to see what happens. If the boycott goes through, I wonder if the big game publishing giants will blink. There is plenty of non-union talent out there. Considering the quality of MOST game scripts and dialog out there, it probably won't matter if you've got Denzel Washington or that dude from accounting who does community theater doing the voice-overs... it's still not gonna turn the dialog into Shakespeare, or really make a perceivable impact on game sales.
Yeah, you are right. It's the frustrating truth of things - "If you build it, they will come" really only applies to mystical baseball diamonds in cornfields. While I certainly WISH it weren't nearly impossible to make a game on a shoestring budget with sales that would rock EA's world, it's not incredibly likely. The thing is - while marketing is a HUGE factor, it's not the deciding factor. If it was, then John Romero's "Daikatana" would have been a monster-hit.
The guys with the money and the established channels of marketing and distribution really control things - not completely, but enough that they can dictate how the whole industry gets treated. Lately they've been flashing money around and trying desperately to be taken seriously. And this is one of the unintended results.
I really don't know that voice actors boycotting videogames would really be that much of an impact from a marketing standpoint. I didn't even KNOW what voice talent they were using for Half Life 2.
I'm curious to see what happens. If the boycott goes through, I wonder if the big game publishing giants will blink. There is plenty of non-union talent out there. Considering the quality of MOST game scripts and dialog out there, it probably won't matter if you've got Denzel Washington or that dude from accounting who does community theater doing the voice-overs... it's still not gonna turn the dialog into Shakespeare, or really make a perceivable impact on game sales.
Apparently, they blinked. But not by much:
LA Times Article
I *think* this is good news for everyone. After all, it would have taken TWO YEARS for the game industry to really notice the effect. This year's games using top-drawer, union talent are already done... next year's would find alternative sources, and it would then take a few months AFTER the games were released for it even to be determined whether or not the lack of "name" talent in voice-overs really had a measurable impact on sales. With the upcoming console generational leap coming up next year, they'll be hitting the reset button on sales numbers anyway (not totally, but sales of PS3 games in 2006 are going to be a different animal than sales of a PS2 game this year).
Two years of not being able to do game voiceover work probably wouldn't hurt TOO many actors, but it would still close off a source of income.
Not that it REALLY affected me anyway. I can't afford $600 or $759 an hour to pay a voice actor anyway.
LA Times Article
I *think* this is good news for everyone. After all, it would have taken TWO YEARS for the game industry to really notice the effect. This year's games using top-drawer, union talent are already done... next year's would find alternative sources, and it would then take a few months AFTER the games were released for it even to be determined whether or not the lack of "name" talent in voice-overs really had a measurable impact on sales. With the upcoming console generational leap coming up next year, they'll be hitting the reset button on sales numbers anyway (not totally, but sales of PS3 games in 2006 are going to be a different animal than sales of a PS2 game this year).
Two years of not being able to do game voiceover work probably wouldn't hurt TOO many actors, but it would still close off a source of income.
Not that it REALLY affected me anyway. I can't afford $600 or $759 an hour to pay a voice actor anyway.
.. and that rate (hell, even the original rate) is FAR more than any game programmer or artist will ever get in a salary. (Nevermind even factoring in real [read: crunch] hours worked.)
- Jim Buck
- Jim Buck
# posted by : June 16, 2005 2:16 PM
: June 16, 2005 2:16 PM
lol 3 years late to the party....
but seriously compare your comments to any other kind of actor and youll see how silly it all is. Screen and stage actors and musicians sometimes work 1/the amount of hours that a stage hand or roadie or editor or designer or other "meat n potatoes" type puts in hours wise. So saying the programmer and grfx artist deserves more cause they work more hours just doesnt hold any weight.
If voice acting was so easy, everyone would hire thier brother and girlfriends to do it and thatd be that.
What bothers me is high-end hollywood actors stealing all the work and thats part of what has driven the costs sky high.
Post a Comment
but seriously compare your comments to any other kind of actor and youll see how silly it all is. Screen and stage actors and musicians sometimes work 1/the amount of hours that a stage hand or roadie or editor or designer or other "meat n potatoes" type puts in hours wise. So saying the programmer and grfx artist deserves more cause they work more hours just doesnt hold any weight.
If voice acting was so easy, everyone would hire thier brother and girlfriends to do it and thatd be that.
What bothers me is high-end hollywood actors stealing all the work and thats part of what has driven the costs sky high.
# posted by : July 03, 2008 12:14 PM
: July 03, 2008 12:14 PMLinks to this post:
<< Home
