| Ka-pi96 said: Have you ever known a strike demand to get exactly what they wanted? I haven't. I've only ever seen them make compromises to get some of the stuff they wanted, in which case it makes sense to demand more than you really want to ensure you can get all the stuff you actually care about. So let's hope the royalties are exactly that, something added on top so that publishers will be like 'remove that part and you can have everything else'. |
I've considered that this might be a simple negotiating tactic, but the underlying point stands: if they cared about appearing greedy in the public mind, then they made an obvious error.
For what it's worth, I don't believe public perception will have as much impact in this dispute as it does with other forms of entertainment.
| binary solo said: You're saying I'm incorrect because "the internet" disagrees with me? |
Not quite; it's a citation to the only currently available indicator of public opinion. Which in this case actually matters because...
| binary solo said: In my estimation "the internet" is usually on the wrong side of any issue because most of the people who are vocal on the internet are speaking from a position of ignorance or at best partial knowledge which leads them down the path of error. So your argument that the actrors don't have a legit case because the internet disagrees is very thin on reason. I |
Except that's not what the argument is. At all. The issue is solely, and I repeat:
"Let's set aside whether or not voice actors should be entitled to royalties for videogames... ka-pi complained that demanding royalties makes the voice actors' guild "look greedy or whatever."
| binary solo said: I might agree that the actors made a mistake in not getting the general public on side |
Then boom, we might be done here, seeing as that was the sole topic in that discussion.
