GamerKulture is about more than just video games, and the platforms by which we enjoy them. As I've written previously, it spans from the newest titles to the media's portrayal of the people that play them. So this week, i'd like to take a look at another part of gaming, the actors that bring the characters to life. You may or may not have heard that recently, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (or just SAG-AFTRA for short) has called for a vote from its members for the right to strike against gaming publishers and developers due to a stalemate in contract re-negotiations. The original contract was up in 2014, and they met first in February, and again in June to discuss new terms. Both sides, however, remain adamant in their refusal to work with the other's demands. So today we will look over a few of the biggest issues each side is fighting for, and i'll weigh in on how I personally feel on the matter.
Firstly, it is key to note that both sides have technically agreed to a media black out during discussions, although this has not stopped many from participating in either anonymous interviews or outright releasing information on the discussions. SAG operates as insurance that its members, specifically for this event, voice actors, have their rights maintained and are treated fairly by the publishers and developers that hire them. The list of rights offered by SAG includes: Residuals paid to actors based on high sale numbers starting at 2 million and continuing until 8 million, reduce vocally stressful session to only 2 hours and receive stunt pay to compensate for any possible damage to their voice, having professional stunt coordinators on hand during motion capture work, and total transparency on the content of the job they are taking upfront. If the publishers refuse, SAG has asked its members to vote for the right to strike IF it comes to it, and it is supported by many famous voice actors, including Jennifer Hale, Steve Blum, Tara Strong, and Wil Wheaton. Wheaton released an article detailing the demands of both sides, and even adds in a hypothetical voice session to show the kind of work they are expected to do while they work, which I include here http://bit.ly/1QzCYIH.
The publishers and developers have their own side to the story. They are seeking the right to fine inattentiveness (checking phones, showing up late, and, as some fear, even 'zoning out') a fee of $2,500. The also want to be able to fine the union upwards of $100,000 if an agent refuses to send a client out, citing disinterest in a particular job. Additionally, actors must sign both a morality clause, which is what Hulk Hogan was fired over by the WWE over his past racist remarks, as well as a Non-Disclosure Agreement when hired for a job. The biggest problem that SAG is likely worried over, however, is the right for publishers to use non-union performers.
That last one is the real doozy. It could possibly open a floodgate that would allow publishers to keep a stable of in house talent, that isn't tied to union legislation, in place of expensive and demanding existing talents. While they argue that these individuals would only be on to read one or two lines, this could lead to a decline in work for 2nd or 3rd tier actors, as well as a reduction in profits for the union that it would collect from its members taking these jobs. Speaking of floodgates, Attorney Howard Fabrick, who is representing 8 different game publishers, said granting residuals to actors would open the way for many more in the chain of development to demand extra pay for a blockbuster game.
So, how do I personally feel about all of this? I think both sides have very strong points. Publishers should absolutely have the right to penalize people who show up to a job late, as these people are often paid by the day, not the hour, and should have the right to make actors sign NDAs for secretive projects. The actors, on the other hand, fully deserve to have compensation for stressful voice session, the right to have a stunt professional on hand for mo-cap work that needs it, as well a right to know what kind of job they are taking. Signing an NDA shouldn't mean they aren't told what the job is, just that they can't talk about it. The biggest no-no for each side, in my opinion, is the devs desiring their own stable of actors, which could harm the actor's union in the long run, as well as the demands of residuals from the actors. Actors sometimes make more money per session of work than many game designers do in a year, and while this whole thing is not about the designers, but the actors, I still feel this may be a little far reaching. So what do you all think? Are the actors being greedy and over-demanding, or are the devs trying to close the fist of control too tightly? Let me know in the comments!
Thanks everybody, and stay Kultured!
-Kuma
Firstly, it is key to note that both sides have technically agreed to a media black out during discussions, although this has not stopped many from participating in either anonymous interviews or outright releasing information on the discussions. SAG operates as insurance that its members, specifically for this event, voice actors, have their rights maintained and are treated fairly by the publishers and developers that hire them. The list of rights offered by SAG includes: Residuals paid to actors based on high sale numbers starting at 2 million and continuing until 8 million, reduce vocally stressful session to only 2 hours and receive stunt pay to compensate for any possible damage to their voice, having professional stunt coordinators on hand during motion capture work, and total transparency on the content of the job they are taking upfront. If the publishers refuse, SAG has asked its members to vote for the right to strike IF it comes to it, and it is supported by many famous voice actors, including Jennifer Hale, Steve Blum, Tara Strong, and Wil Wheaton. Wheaton released an article detailing the demands of both sides, and even adds in a hypothetical voice session to show the kind of work they are expected to do while they work, which I include here http://bit.ly/1QzCYIH.
The publishers and developers have their own side to the story. They are seeking the right to fine inattentiveness (checking phones, showing up late, and, as some fear, even 'zoning out') a fee of $2,500. The also want to be able to fine the union upwards of $100,000 if an agent refuses to send a client out, citing disinterest in a particular job. Additionally, actors must sign both a morality clause, which is what Hulk Hogan was fired over by the WWE over his past racist remarks, as well as a Non-Disclosure Agreement when hired for a job. The biggest problem that SAG is likely worried over, however, is the right for publishers to use non-union performers.
That last one is the real doozy. It could possibly open a floodgate that would allow publishers to keep a stable of in house talent, that isn't tied to union legislation, in place of expensive and demanding existing talents. While they argue that these individuals would only be on to read one or two lines, this could lead to a decline in work for 2nd or 3rd tier actors, as well as a reduction in profits for the union that it would collect from its members taking these jobs. Speaking of floodgates, Attorney Howard Fabrick, who is representing 8 different game publishers, said granting residuals to actors would open the way for many more in the chain of development to demand extra pay for a blockbuster game.
So, how do I personally feel about all of this? I think both sides have very strong points. Publishers should absolutely have the right to penalize people who show up to a job late, as these people are often paid by the day, not the hour, and should have the right to make actors sign NDAs for secretive projects. The actors, on the other hand, fully deserve to have compensation for stressful voice session, the right to have a stunt professional on hand for mo-cap work that needs it, as well a right to know what kind of job they are taking. Signing an NDA shouldn't mean they aren't told what the job is, just that they can't talk about it. The biggest no-no for each side, in my opinion, is the devs desiring their own stable of actors, which could harm the actor's union in the long run, as well as the demands of residuals from the actors. Actors sometimes make more money per session of work than many game designers do in a year, and while this whole thing is not about the designers, but the actors, I still feel this may be a little far reaching. So what do you all think? Are the actors being greedy and over-demanding, or are the devs trying to close the fist of control too tightly? Let me know in the comments!
Thanks everybody, and stay Kultured!
-Kuma