- This topic has 55 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4076184.stm
Hollywood actors have reached a deal with video game companies to receive a pay rise in return for averting the threat of a strike.[/quote:168f068a49]
this can only be a good thing, so now even more money is taken away from the developer!
-
Apart from Sammy L, I don’t know any celeb voice actor that would be worth using in a game. Just don’t see the point in using them.
-
also woods was good as the cia agent in SA.
-
To be honest I didn’t even know most of those actors were in GTA. Surely the only people who want these big names in games are marketing folk. I think the money could be spent better elsewhere.
-
yeah, didnt ray liotta do the voice of tommy vercetti in VC.
also jenna jameson was the voice of candy suxs. loads more ppl also, cant remember all of them but their all acredited at the end of the game manual.
-
This doesn’t just affect the big stars, but any member of SAG or AFTRA and specifies a minimum fee.
Still can’t believe they wanted residuals… though they did alright in the end:
wooooah, thats a big link!
[edit]Made link smaller – Dave [/edit]
-
lazy b*st*rds
A specified rest period for each hour spent recording.[/quote:d5fff6981b]
-
lazy b*st*rds[/quote:1c2549a965]
Now now, Damian. You don’t want them to strain their vocal chords. :wink:Didn’t GTA3 have most of the voiceovers done by the Rockstar staff? Hence all the Scottish accents… Though it all worked out well.
-
You don’t want them to strain their vocal chords[/quote:8fd1ea635f]
why not, they’re doing little else :) -
GTA had some great voice talent…..
Ray Liotta
Dennis Hopper
Burt Reynolds
Tom Sizemore
and others…And in my opinion good voice actors make a huge differance to a game. Games like GTA and the Bioware games are all better for the fact that they use good talent.
I also wouldn’t begrudge good voice actors the extra money, as they can make a big differance to the quality of the final product. -
GTA had some great voice talent…..
Ray Liotta
Dennis Hopper
Burt Reynolds
Tom Sizemore
and others…And in my opinion good voice actors make a huge differance to a game. Games like GTA and the Bioware games are all better for the fact that they use good talent.
I also wouldn’t begrudge good voice actors the extra money, as they can make a big differance to the quality of the final product.[/quote:91503e582a]Something I never thought I’d see, Burt Reynolds and the words “good voice actors”. The times they are a changing
-
They should get a flat rate.
-
Point is, if they used good voice actors that weren’t A class celebs, the cost would be a lot cheaper and no one would know any difference. Its more of a marketing thing as someone said earlier.
-
i actually don’t see why voice talent shouldn’t get residuals… it’s not something that would ever come out of the developers pocket..
in the record/ tv/ film indusrty its the broadcasters that pay into the fund, not the original makers of the record/docu or film..
for example… i know when i play on CDs for recording artists the fee is a fairly standard one , and a “buy out” too.. but i’m still eligible for the radio play residuals… which can mount up if the artist is an international one.
radio stations pay a figure to the organisations that look after these things … the Irish version is http://www.raap.ie .. then they split the pot between whoever was on the recording session.
it’s something i’ve very grateful for when i have no work at the moment LOL
residuals need to be sorted for the games industry.. don’t know how.. maybe rental related or something… but i definitely think we’ll see it come in , in some shape or form eventually
-
i actually don’t see why voice talent shouldn’t get residuals… it’s not something that would ever come out of the developers pocket[/quote:5ec1262c55]i do! they are contractors and are being a fixed fee for a fixed job. don’t see why it should be any different than many other industries. i have no problem with ‘name’ actorsd being paid residuals as they are adding value to the project over and above their actual physical contribution
that’s my opinion anyway
and just to set the record straight – it absolutely DOES come out of the developers pocket somewhere along the line. Even if a game has its dev financed by publishers (which is not always the case, as many PC and indie developers can attest) this is only an advance. In other words, the developer has to pay it back to the publisher out of net sales BEFORE any royalties are calculated
Thsi development is nothing but harmful to the developers
-
i actually don’t see why voice talent shouldn’t get residuals… it’s not something that would ever come out of the developers pocket[/quote:f08066a227]I do! they are contractors and are being a fixed fee for a fixed job. Don’t see why it should be any different than many other industries. I have no problem with ‘name’ actors being paid residuals as they are adding value to the project over and above their actual physical contribution. The current situation doesn’t surprise me however, given how unionised Hollywood is. But its by no means a trend I’d support or encourage
That’s my personal opinion anyway
and just to set the record straight – it absolutely DOES come out of the developers pocket somewhere along the line. Even if a game has its dev financed by publishers (which is not always the case, as many PC and indie developers can attest) this is only an advance. In other words, the developer has to pay it back to the publisher out of net sales BEFORE any royalties are calculated
Thsi development is nothing but harmful to the developers
-
SAG and AFTRA are saying that all their members are equal and if one gets ’em they all should get them…you can see what they are trying to say by doing this, but its hard not to agree that a ‘name’ actor will help with marketing and in shifting a few more copies than the most fantasticalistic ‘non-name’ actor.
Thing is though, how does your game benefit? Alot of ‘name’ actors don’t sound good (or miss their physical onscreen presence) or the voice is too distinct from others films or tv shows to actually become YOUR character.
Also, voice acting and screen acting are different art forms.
Personally, if i want my dialogue to be the best for the game, give me a well cast, ‘non-name’ voice actor.
-
SAG and AFTRA are saying that all their members are equal and if one gets ’em they all should get them…you can see what they are trying to say by doing this, but its hard not to agree that a ‘name’ actor will help with marketing and in shifting a few more copies than the most fantasticalistic ‘non-name’ actor.
Thing is though, how does your game benefit? Alot of ‘name’ actors don’t sound good (or miss their physical onscreen presence) or the voice is too distinct from others films or tv shows to actually become YOUR character.
Also, voice acting and screen acting are different art forms.
Personally, if i want my dialogue to be the best for the game, give me a well cast, ‘non-name’ voice actor.[/quote:97e6a05bc9]
Totally agree.
There are very few ‘name’ actors who have very distinct voices that are easily recognisable. I wouldn’t have known there was anyone named in GTA3 if it weren’t pointed out to me. -
SAG and AFTRA are saying that all their members are equal and if one gets ’em they all should get them…[/quote:41d363686f]
Bloody hypocrites, you dont see them saying that in Hollywood do you?Meh, while A-list stars’ contribution may add to a game, for some reason I dont think the reverse holds true. The first time I was disappointed at the lack of proper voices was with Indiana Jones And The Infernal Machine. They had a decent voice actor doing it though who kinda sounded like Harrison Ford, strangely though after awhile it didnt bother me and it kind of felt unique to the game.
Another way to look at it is this. If a minimum fee is demanded by SAG and Co for all of their members do you think that studios will splash out on said members or will just do it in-house? At the moment companies will hire normal voice actors for normal roles in games and IF they have the money, they may hire A-list actors, hence at the moment everyone gets a go…introduce the minimum fees and I think the answer to the question will be a no in most cases…
-
Also, I heard a figure in here for the cost of a certain b-list british tv actor on a game made by another company several years ago. Lord god, he cost alot. I can’t imagine how much the football commentators get!
-
and just to set the record straight – it absolutely DOES come out of the developers pocket somewhere along the line. Even if a game has its dev financed by publishers (which is not always the case, as many PC and indie developers can attest) this is only an advance. In other words, the developer has to pay it back to the publisher out of net sales BEFORE any royalties are calculated
Thsi development is nothing but harmful to the developers[/quote:2f9f15547d]
tony, i’m not talking about royalties… these are a ground that even us musos never get if we work on a project owned by someone else (unless we’re extremely lucky..)
the residuals are not taken from the record companies, film studios .. producers.. developers etc..
infact all these people benefit from them too !
residuals are payments from radio companies/ tv stations for “airplay” … not a royalty , which is on sales…. something totally different :) it’s to do with the artistic contribution an artist adds, that only that person can add.. see http://www.raap.ie/ they explain it better than me
i promise you it’s a fairly new thing in ireland.. since 2001 and it’s yet to flower :) but it’s working worldwide. It means .. to give an example..
all the people that recorded the string parts to shania twains last cd.. we were all here in ireland , on a buy out agreement.. we have no rights to royalties.. and this is totally accepted.
when these collecting agencies started up in 2001 .. they took money from the radio/tv companies for each time a track was played on the radio.. ireland and worldwide… NOT taken from the record company note..
70% of the pot actually goes to shania twain, as it’s her performance
the other 30% goes to us the performers..this is standard… worldwide radio play = residuals
the royalties are still paid 100% to the record company because royalty is sales..
another..
someone who writes music for a tv docu.. gets paid, but not very much as the company has not a lot of money..
ah well you think, lesson learnt and move on..
no.. this tv show gets bought by lots of stations around the world and the composer/players on the show all benefits from these residuals..on broadcast airplay .. not sales to the tv companies..
honestly .. residuals and royalties are 2 completely different entities ..
if there was ever anything set up… it would be by MCPS for example, and the developers would benefit just as much as the voice over actors..
they would get a bigger share of the percentage :D
-
Sounds a bit unfair for us grunts at the bottom of the ladder. We do all the work and get our base salary, maybe if we’re lucky a bonus, and some guy who does 5 minutes voice work for the game should continue to make money every time the game sells.
-
do residuals not come from public performance or broadcast of a piece of music? (in theory if you play your music loud in your car with the window down, or have a car load of people you should be paying a public performance licence to prs/ppl/imro/raap!)
you can understand the policing of that and collection of money for music and totally agree with it, but what percentage of games are played in the public domain?
S’pose with online games it may be different….
-
I know the difference between the two, Claire and both of my points still stand, I think.
Shania Twain or whoever getting residuals for public broadcast of the result of her creative activities is one thing. But paying a soap opera actor residuals for ‘acting’ lines I or my colleagues have written or paid to be written? No way… Different kettles of fish all together.
Now in the case of a composer who is contracted (please note the emphasis) by me and paid me to write a score for my game is not, in my opinion, entitled to residuals. If, however, the composer was to negotiate residuals from me for a a spin off soundtrack of the game, for example, that I could consider
All that this result will achieve is having people like me hire non-union talent or going abroad
In the case of your second point that developers/publishers aren’t paying the residuals, then who is??? My uderstanding – and I admit I haven’t read that deeply into the subject, just picked up bits and pieces from articles and from industry colleagues – is that the unions/guilds wanted residuals from every CD/DVD pressed, and not just from broadcast… Can you shed more light on this, and enlighten a poor sinner?!
-
more details here: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=5664
looks like the residuals (read: profit sharing – a form of royalties) were dropped in favour of increased min. wages
still stand by conclusion that that this can only add to bottom line cost of a game dev deal – ultimately paid for by the game developers
-
exactly.. it’s not cut and dry yet in the games industry.. residuals that is, not royalties..
not sure how it would get implemented (if ever) but there is something to be thought about..
. everyone who had an intellectual imput/ artist input would benefit.. in theory it would mean payments going right back to the developer as well, so agreements could be made within the team as to what is paid to whom.
i’m thinking .. every time a game was rented a percentage could be taken maybe.. making XtraVision(for example) pay in the same way radio and TV stations have to pay to air tracks etc.. (think how much they are making in 2nd hand sales right now, nothing going back to the developer, this could rebalance the scale) or online games have a distinct possibility too.. they are being broadcast online, with records as to how many people are signed up.. each person signed up or online would equate to a payment being made to these residual collecting organisations worldwide. ..
not sure how internet radio stations work at the moment, but some pay into the broadcast ethic, others don’t ( they ask you to agree to this when you sign up)
-
not sure how it would get implemented (if ever) but there is something to be thought about…
everyone who had an intellectual imput/ artist input would benefit… in theory it would mean payments going right back to the developer as well, so agreements could be made within the team as to what is paid to whom.[/quote:629ec456ff]shudder! don’t want to go there… While I wholeheartedly agree with rewarding the dev team that made the game, I don’t agree with non-exempt type staff or contractors being included in the royalties/bonus schemes at all. I mean, where does it stop? Do I have to include the cleaner that comes in once a week? How do I evaluate which person on the team had more good ideas?? I think much of the current underlying business models would have to change first. Wihtout that dev costs will balloon
i’m thinking .. every time a game was rented a percentage could be taken maybe.. [/quote:629ec456ff]currently, neither publishers nor developers get a single cent for game rentals. This is a bigger problem that would have to be sorted out first
-
-
just to clarify..
residuals ..are small sums of money paid to the collecting organisations.. RAAP in Ireland .. PAMRA in UK .. for Airplay on Radio.. for every piece of music ever written..
they are not collections on sales figures of CDs.. that’s royalties
the figure collected is then divided up according to the higher up the food chain you are..
ie , if you are the solo artist on your own record you would receive a 70% share of the total..
the rest is divided amongst all the other people that took part in creating the artistic performance..
.. so , yes, at the moment .. the only way in the games industry would be affected by this would be in the “soundtrack release” … and this would be liable to the residual rule whether or not a “royalty split” was decided on in the contract..
it would be up to every person involved in the soundtrack , engineers, performers, voice over .. to join RAAP or PAMRA and tell them that you were involved. this would then be checked obviously :) .. then everytime it was played on the radio these residuals would be collected and mounted up.. and paid out..
here i’m not talking about composers rights, which would either be signed away with copyright being bought out, or agreement about a royalty split with a license to use the tracks written.
Residuals is purely a performance element that seriously can never be signed away..
i’m just thinking that eventually it will be integrated into the games industry… to bring it in line with every other industry that uses performers/artists at some point
-
While some of us agree and disagree on this subject, let’s all agree that someone who should not get any royalties or residuals or anything really is ‘crazy frog’.
Let us all also agree, that anyone who actually buys a ‘crazy frog’ single is a blight upon the human genepool and as such should be terminated with extreme prejudice.
I just heard a new top 10 entry into the charts for yet another crazy frog “song”. I despair for the human race…I really do.
[/rant]
-
While some of us agree and disagree on this subject, let’s all agree that someone who should not get any royalties or residuals or anything really is ‘crazy frog’.
[/rant][/quote:e96dc3c0cf]
christ if i hear that song again ill kill myself. stupid “fuppin” song!!
-
:lol: agreed !
-
If this wasnt so depressing it would be *almost* funny. If they get residuals or royalties or profits or any other form of cash other than their flat fee, I’m going to fucking quit this industry.
fuck this. I’m going to go work in a pub or something. Those clueless fucks.
Where is videogames AFTRA or SAG or whatever????…oh I forgot we’re too thick to have fucking unions :!:
:x :x
-
Was listening to the radio last week and the dj was complaining about crazy frog and getting texts in from people about it. one guy texted in to say he was going to buy a copy just so he could burn it. How stupid are people, why not just NOT BUY it. I despair about modern ‘pop-music’
-
blight upon the human genepool and as such should be terminated with extreme prejudice[/quote:4f38bae6e5]agreed…. scarey thing is: statistically speaking, given how much it has sold each of us probably knows someone who has bought the damn thing…
are you afraid now?!
-
residuals ..are small sums of money paid to the collecting organisations.. RAAP in Ireland .. PAMRA in UK .. for Airplay on Radio.. for every piece of music ever written..
they are not collections on sales figures of CDs.. that’s royalties[/quote:3c9974d7c8]which is my point exactly, Claire – call them residuals, call them royalties they amount to the same thing = profit sharing
granted, amount paid out may differ, but that’s not the point
-
agreed…. scarey thing is: statistically speaking, given how much it has sold each of us probably knows someone who has bought the damn thing…
are you afraid now?![/quote:7e5675fdb0]
I’m pretty sure Ian bought it…Dave
-
-
Don’t forget Achey Breaky Heeeeeeaaaarrrttt!! :D
-
I’m pretty sure Ian bought it…[/quote:a247c367dd]goddamn it – i knew it! i bet you he listens to it on his Ngage too…
-
yeah think it’s on there somewhere along with a couple of nanny-banging Chris De Burg tunes ;)
-
“Nanny-banging”!!! LOL
-
“Nanny-banging”!!! LOL[/quote:982240809a]
hahah. legend!
-
don’t encourage him, lads… god knows what he’ll admit to listening to next!
-
I think this thread needs some more fuel:
-
The only actor who can sell a game if it sucked is Bruce Campbell :p
Sorry to re-post stuff from another forum but these are good :
Take Jebus for Scott Miller:
Wil, you make a good distinction between profit sharing and residuals, but then that argument flies out the door in a classic bait-n-switch.
Asking for extra payments after certain sales milestones IS, without question, profit sharing, and has nothing to do with residuals. For example, this would be like asking for extra money on TV shows that achieve a certain level of viewership on the first showing.
To make a true apples-to-apples comparison in the games industry, residuals would be similar to re-releasing versions of the game on new platforms.
However, games tend not to have long lifespans, so it’s not much of an issue.
Frankly, I think name actors bring no significant value to the game industry. Just as I think all of the Pixar movies would have sold just as well had they all used no-name (though good) actors. MY company will never use a name actor in our games (too costly versus the benefit), unless that actor happens to being the only appropriate choice for matching the vocal quality we’re looking for.
BTW, most game developers who work on games, often for 2-4 years, see no residuals or profit sharing. It’s just absolutely whacked out to expect an actor to spend 5 – 20 hours in a studio to get something that most developers do not get.[/quote:912d95fff4]
Playful Passion:
…..the media has absolutely no idea what to do with us. They want to continue to report on us as if we’re some bastard stepchild of Hollywood that follows the same rules (albeit in a more lawless way) and its just not true. The game industry is not Hollywood. The media has a lot to learn about us.
[/quote:912d95fff4]This is very true.
-
The only actor who can sell a game if it sucked is Bruce Campbell :p
[/quote:f4243f160d]
Although I agree that Bruce Campell is fantastic, don’t forget the unholy turkey that was the Evil Dead game and the terrible sales figures that accompanied it… -
The only actor who can sell a game if it sucked is Bruce Campbell :p
Although I agree that Bruce Campell is fantastic, don’t forget the unholy turkey that was the Evil Dead game and the terrible sales figures that accompanied it…[/quote:3aa6bd06a9]
wasent there an even worse evil dead sequel?
campbells voice did help the spiderman game.
-
I think this thread needs some more fuel:
http://www.wilwheaton.net/mt/archives/003293.php#003293%5B/quote:52ab196d6c%5Dtroublemaker!
As I understood the video game negotiations, SAG wasn’t asking for per-unit payments from video game producers. The proposal I read and supported asked for an additional session fee, after the game in question had sold a minimum of 50,000 copies and was profitable[/quote:52ab196d6c]are you on drugs, Will Wheaton?!! most games don’t BREAKEVEN until 300,000 units and as for make a profit… well, let’s just say that if your game sells another 300,000 you might be in with a shot of making a profit
This article (http://www.greggman.com/pages/making2.htm) provides a little more info
-
S.A.G. hmmm….. is that similar to F.A.G. as seen in Team America: World Police? :roll:
-
I do film production work on the legal side for one of the major Hollywood studios – the actors’ unions over there have an incredibly strong lobby voice and negotiation strength. Like a musician, voice-over actors have what are called “performance rights”.
Ultimately, on your own games, it comes down to contract. If you are a developer and your contract doesnt tie down the IP properly and transfer it to you cleanly frpoom the contractor at the start then the contractor can come back cap in hand and look for a cut of the profits later. I is a legal mess that you want to avoid. If the contract is drafted properly and the contractor has sold the IP that he develop for a flat fee, then thats what he’ll get.
-
-
But the vote was unlikely to have any effect since most games are produced with non-union talent.[/quote:3a97707ff1]
So whats the big fuss about? Developers rarely use big name voices and with this deal it’ll be even rarer, the only exception maybe being movei tie-ins… -
As the name of the thread says, rich people trying to get richer by doing little…
-
-
They’ll be holding out for a long long time I reckon! :lol:
-
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.