SAG To Reconsider Industry Offer

GameInformer has details on a special meeting of the board that the Screen Actor's Guild is putting together. From the article: "When the NEC rejected the tentative contract earlier this week, we said we'd explore all our remaining options...Since then, we have received feedback from enough of our membership to conclude that this matter must be brought before the full board for its consideration."

what does this actually mean?

[h8mE]

I rtfa'd but i still don't get it, whats this all actually mean? what deal with nec are they referring too

Re:what does this actually mean?

[Otter]

The union leadership rejected a proposed deal from the game makers; the union rank-and-file has now rejected the rejection.

("NEC" here is the union's National Executive Committee, not Nippon Electric Company.)

Re:what does this actually mean?

[Starsmore]

The original deal that was approved in negotiations was something along the lines of a rate increase to $700/hr in the recording studio for the rank and file, no kickbacks/profit-sharing/residuals.

The upper echelons (IE: the ones earning seven digits a movie) said 'hell no, we want our dividends for our 1% contribution to the game!' which basically means rank and file doesn't get to work for what they are getting (like $300-$400/hr now, I think). Now the rank and file are telling the fat cats to STFU.

SAG rejection article

[mister_llah]

Maybe this article on the rejection will help...?

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/22/ 1453242&tid=10 [slashdot.org]

So what?

[haystor]

Let them make their own games. They have have the big name voices, let them produce the games and outsource the programming, art, design and everything else that goes into it.

Any "game company" that enters into an agreement like this is on exactly the same footing as a movie company that pays $20million for a bankable star and $2million for the movie.

Re:So what?

[ZephyrXero]

The real heart of the problem is the current business model the game industry is running under. It is similar to the way old-Hollywood ran before the 50's or 60's. The actors are used to being treated decently in movies/tv so of course they expect the same from the game industry. But before their issues even begin to matter, we must have some extreme reform for developers first! It is time developers started standing up to these uber-publishers and demand fair treatment. Every member of the game's developme

Re:So what?

[MyLongNickName]

I'd settle for soap and a second T-Shirt.

Re:So what?

[Seumas]

Couldn't agree more.

And as others have said, while quality voice acting is nice, I don't care about NAME BRAND voice acting. There are plenty of amateurs out there who are far more talented than any top hollywood talent and I'd be just as happy with them doing the voice work in a game I play as I would if it were some crappy starlet.

subject blah blah blah

[vbrtrmn]

I prefer the Film Actors Guild, they're more animated.

SAG's Hubris

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the whole thing rather absurd except in very special cases (like Vin Diesel in Chronicles of Riddick). And in those special cases the actor has enough clout that they'll probably walk away with a deal they're happy with. The hubris of these negotiations makes me gnash my teeth. Any star that thinks that for a few hours of work they deserve a chunk of the profitability of such a massive group effort needs therapy to deflate an out of control ego.

Fortunately, I think they are overestimating their impo

Vin Diesel has his own game company

[AHumbleOpinion]

I find the whole thing rather absurd except in very special cases (like Vin Diesel in Chronicles of Riddick). And in those special cases the actor has enough clout that they'll probably walk away with a deal they're happy with.

FWIW, I *think* he started a game company and they did this title. Tigon Studios?

Re:Vin Diesel has his own game company

[xenocide2]

I wonder if the Guild makes him pay himself royalties?

Does the game industry really even *need* SAG?

[Deagol]

The inclusion of "real" actors in games s fairly recent in gaming history, isn't it? I mean, the VG industry managed to gross more revenue than the movie industry without all that much help. Hell, aren't a majority of the majorly popular title not based on a Hollywood franchise?

Game producers should just tell Hollywood to shove off.

Question: Who Cares?

[Shihar]

If the gaming industry is even vaugly in touch with its consumer base, they are laughing their asses off as SAG attempts to dictate terms. Players really don't give a shit. Is good voice acting nice? Sure. Does rate ANYWHERE near good graphics, sound, game play, lack of bugs, content, exc exc? Hell no. If a voice actor thinks he/she is worth even one half way decent programer then said voice actor is very sadly mistaken. Voice acting rests exactly last on my criteria of things to look for in a game. Yes, I mean it, last. I can't think of anything else less important in a game.

I would rather video game makers simply higher non-union voice actors. There are plenty of young folks in or just out of college drama degrees that would be more then happy to work for a reasonable wage for a few hours worth of work. What SAG doesn't seem to realize is that unlike the movie industry, there are no other unions to threaten the gaming industry with. If the voice actors walk out (for the two days they work in a three year long project), no one else is walking with them. If a game has no union voice actors, it isn't going to be noted by anyone other then perhaps a foot note in a review stating that the game was awesome, but the voice acting was lacking. Voice actors a footnote in game, not a life or death component.

who cares

[Gogo0]

There are plenty of people out there with great voices that are willing to work and make money.
Who really cares if Joe Pantaleone (sp) does a great job voicing a game, or someone else does a great job voicing a game? As long as its good, I dont give a rat's ass.

Actors, and now voice actors it seems, have always thought they were important and worth all the money they make. In the case of voice actors, they can be replaced.
How many games prominently display Starring David Hayter on the front of the case

Gilbert's "SAGalicious"

[eddy]

I thought Ron Gilbert "debunked" all this madness rather throughly in his SAGalicious article [grumpygamer.com].

couple of weeks; lifetime royalties

[videovillainman]

I DON'T THINK SO! Short version: A couple weeks of work on a game that takes many other people 1 to 3 years spending thousands of man-hours to put together does NOT entitle the voice actor to royalties. The programmers, artists, etc. don't get any royalties for the thousands of man-hours (and I'm sure much more passion and talent) put into the game. Most of the profit, if not all, goes back into paying salaries and development costs. The rest? Well that goes into the next project the Publisher wants.