Some developers not as enthusiastic at videogame voice actors's demands amid the possibility of a strike

[Teeqoz]

spemanig said:

Teeqoz said:
I don't think voice actors should get royalties for a short few weeks of work. And using CEO and COO bonuses as an explanation for why thry should is downright stupid. I'm all for voice actors getting better working conditions though, but not royalties. Voice actors get paid well.

Getting payed $100,000 for 15 months of work for starring a game that made $600m in three is not "getting payed well." That CEO explanation may have been week, but the idea that the faces of a successful game don't get payed extra depending on how successful the game is is rediculus. These guys get community theatre pay for Hollywood movie performances.

First of all, that 600 million number isn't how much 2K interactive made, it's the revenue from the game, 10 million copies at 60 dollars per copy. Only some of those 60 dollars per copy go to 2K, then they have to pay platform royalties (to Sony and MS) and then they have to pay shipping costs etc. and last but not least; they have to cover the friggin budget of the goddamn game, which in GTA IV's case was probably 200 million+ when you take into account marketing. Most likely 2k had just broken even by that time.

Second of all, 100k for 15 months work (when this person was a relative nobody) is getting paid well regardless of what the project you are working on ends up making. I also doubt 100k for 15 months is the norm for professional voice actors, cause like I said, this was a relative nobody at the time.

In fact I'd be down for them working for overall better pay, but not residuals/royalties.