| binary solo said: I haver plenty of artist friends, including actors, some doing well and others struggling. I support their claim that residuals are an important part of the compensation for an artist's work provided the finer details are tailored to the industry concerned. If you think all residuals for actors are wrong, including TV and film residuals then OK I can respect the consistency of your opinion, though I would disagree. But if you think video games should be specifically exempt, then you will need to explain your inconsistency. |
Actors in film are usually tied very closely to the commercial success of a project. Tom Cruise is worth millions, perhaps billions of dollars more than a no-name actor who is just as good at acting. In gaming, the development studios are the stars. People buy games because of who made them, not because of who provided the voices.
Logic should have more do to with this than "that's how it's done in other industries." That's not being inconsistent, that's just being realistic. In my opinion, the argument that they deserve it is the argument that has to prove itself. Just because it's done that way elsewhere does not mean it should be done that way everywhere. Why do voice actors in games deserve residuals? "Because live action," or, "because artists deserve more than everyone else," fail for me as reasons.
