By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Bayonetta OG Voice Actress Calls For Boycott of Bayonetta 3

DonFerrari said:
sc94597 said:

Which is irrelevant to the original point. Again, the point isn't about if it is a full-time job or not, but whether or not it is fair compensation. Fair compensation isn't determined solely by the employer, according to most people's standards in developed societies since about the mid-19th century when working class people reacted to the excesses of Capitalism. 

To suggest what is "fair' is what the employer says is fair is a far-right wing view held mostly by right-wing "libertarians" and radical market liberals/neo-liberals. Attempting to normalize that position is harmful to working people. 

Never seem any right wing, no matter how extreme, saying that the fair wage is decided solely by employer. At most I have seem they say "if you think the wage is bad don't accept the work and look for another one", and this based on free market and finite resources as if company only pay the bare minimum they will only get the worse employees as his competitors will pay a little more to get the more talented. But that is besides the point.

It just seems klxver doesn't understand the difference between being full time employee that gets his Weekly wage (based on a year wage), that can be or not enough - another discussion -, and work you hire a specialist for a short time and those usually are much much higher in cost per hour but a lot lower on yearly cost. The basic idea is that most of those specialists won't be working full time all year (if they did that VA would be making 4k*50 = 200k a year, which is more than 4 times the average you pointed). Very few VAs will be fully occupied (and those certainly would be much more than 4k a week of payment).

It is very similar to other services you hire. When you hire a plumber you won't pay 15 USD/h of the work he do, or perhaps 5 USD to solve your issue as if you would fraction the minimum wage, nope they are going to request you a minimum fee plus a hourly fee that is much higher than weekly based wages.

So because some VAs dont work many hours each year, they should get ridiculous money so they can live of it? Its just ridiculous. Its not a full time job. So yes, getting 250$ per hour is alot. Thats like 10 times higher than your average wage. I mean where do you get the idea that VAs should be paid much higher for way fewer hours of work? Just because its not certain if they will get another gig? Well people who only work 3 days a week should get paid the same as someone working 5 days a week, because sure why not... Silly.



Around the Network
Shatts said:
sc94597 said:

1. She said, "they gave me an insulting offer", then talked about how she wrote a letter to Kamiya, "and it is then that they offered me $4,000." Unless you think the initial offer was higher, I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way. 

Ok I checked the third video and she did say that, I missed it. However, we still don't know what it was, and it's odd she doesn't say what the "insulting offer" was when it would help her claim more. If it was really bad, I feel like she would have said it and claimed she was offered an illegal amount. But she only said it was immoral and insulting. 4k was also insulting to her, so we don't know how much isn't insulting to her. Initial offer could well be higher than $4000 and Kamiya could have lowered the price knowing his personality, and she's only saying the $4000 to make it look worse. She said $4k was the final offer, but final offers can be lower. I'm stretching a bit here but I think it's a reasonable theory.

Let's say they initially offered 3900 and she found it offending, and their counter offer was 4000k... I think that is even more offending than they offering 2.5k first and 4k later.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

KLXVER said:
DonFerrari said:

Never seem any right wing, no matter how extreme, saying that the fair wage is decided solely by employer. At most I have seem they say "if you think the wage is bad don't accept the work and look for another one", and this based on free market and finite resources as if company only pay the bare minimum they will only get the worse employees as his competitors will pay a little more to get the more talented. But that is besides the point.

It just seems klxver doesn't understand the difference between being full time employee that gets his Weekly wage (based on a year wage), that can be or not enough - another discussion -, and work you hire a specialist for a short time and those usually are much much higher in cost per hour but a lot lower on yearly cost. The basic idea is that most of those specialists won't be working full time all year (if they did that VA would be making 4k*50 = 200k a year, which is more than 4 times the average you pointed). Very few VAs will be fully occupied (and those certainly would be much more than 4k a week of payment).

It is very similar to other services you hire. When you hire a plumber you won't pay 15 USD/h of the work he do, or perhaps 5 USD to solve your issue as if you would fraction the minimum wage, nope they are going to request you a minimum fee plus a hourly fee that is much higher than weekly based wages.

So because some VAs dont work many hours each year, they should get ridiculous money so they can live of it? Its just ridiculous. Its not a full time job. So yes, getting 250$ per hour is alot. Thats like 10 times higher than your average wage. I mean where do you get the idea that VAs should be paid much higher for way fewer hours of work? Just because its not certain if they will get another gig? Well people who only work 3 days a week should get paid the same as someone working 5 days a week, because sure why not... Silly.

So you think receiving less than the base minimum is ridiculous money?

Each profession have its own pay grade, and if it is a profession it should more or less as a competent professional afford you enough for a living.

Ridiculous would be me asking for teachers to receive per hour as much as a football player per hour on official matches. Nope, what I'm explaining to you is why the hourly wage for short terms contracts is higher than full time. There are professional dub artists that work on fixed contracts with an agency, so they will receive an weekly wage, based on the year value, and then that agency will catch the work and profit over it and charge based on the size of the contract.

To me what seems you and some other are complaining is that she and others should be making less because your 44h/week work pay less per hour worked than this contract.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

KLXVER said:
DonFerrari said:

Never seem any right wing, no matter how extreme, saying that the fair wage is decided solely by employer. At most I have seem they say "if you think the wage is bad don't accept the work and look for another one", and this based on free market and finite resources as if company only pay the bare minimum they will only get the worse employees as his competitors will pay a little more to get the more talented. But that is besides the point.

It just seems klxver doesn't understand the difference between being full time employee that gets his Weekly wage (based on a year wage), that can be or not enough - another discussion -, and work you hire a specialist for a short time and those usually are much much higher in cost per hour but a lot lower on yearly cost. The basic idea is that most of those specialists won't be working full time all year (if they did that VA would be making 4k*50 = 200k a year, which is more than 4 times the average you pointed). Very few VAs will be fully occupied (and those certainly would be much more than 4k a week of payment).

It is very similar to other services you hire. When you hire a plumber you won't pay 15 USD/h of the work he do, or perhaps 5 USD to solve your issue as if you would fraction the minimum wage, nope they are going to request you a minimum fee plus a hourly fee that is much higher than weekly based wages.

So because some VAs dont work many hours each year, they should get ridiculous money so they can live of it? Its just ridiculous. Its not a full time job. So yes, getting 250$ per hour is alot. Thats like 10 times higher than your average wage. I mean where do you get the idea that VAs should be paid much higher for way fewer hours of work? Just because its not certain if they will get another gig? Well people who only work 3 days a week should get paid the same as someone working 5 days a week, because sure why not... Silly.

Probably because specialist always gets paid better than your average wage.  This is pretty much standard especially in contracting work.  You are paying for the expertise of the person and their ability to produce a high end product or service.  I have worked a number of consulting jobs and you are always paid at a much higher wage then the employees working at the company.  If you do not understand the business I believe you should do some research on the subject instead of just believing that what you believe is fare is how the industry works.  

I will say that depending on the work you do usually depends on the hourly wage.  There have been a number of situations I was only paid 70 bucks an hour and for the same job I was paid 450.  Each situation was represented on how important my work was to the specific project.  

The main issue I see here is the flat rate.  It speaks volumes that something was not right.  Anytime a client is trying to get you to sign a flat rate especially if its low means its going to be a nightmare project.



KLXVER said:
DonFerrari said:

Never seem any right wing, no matter how extreme, saying that the fair wage is decided solely by employer. At most I have seem they say "if you think the wage is bad don't accept the work and look for another one", and this based on free market and finite resources as if company only pay the bare minimum they will only get the worse employees as his competitors will pay a little more to get the more talented. But that is besides the point.

It just seems klxver doesn't understand the difference between being full time employee that gets his Weekly wage (based on a year wage), that can be or not enough - another discussion -, and work you hire a specialist for a short time and those usually are much much higher in cost per hour but a lot lower on yearly cost. The basic idea is that most of those specialists won't be working full time all year (if they did that VA would be making 4k*50 = 200k a year, which is more than 4 times the average you pointed). Very few VAs will be fully occupied (and those certainly would be much more than 4k a week of payment).

It is very similar to other services you hire. When you hire a plumber you won't pay 15 USD/h of the work he do, or perhaps 5 USD to solve your issue as if you would fraction the minimum wage, nope they are going to request you a minimum fee plus a hourly fee that is much higher than weekly based wages.

So because some VAs dont work many hours each year, they should get ridiculous money so they can live of it? Its just ridiculous. Its not a full time job. So yes, getting 250$ per hour is alot. Thats like 10 times higher than your average wage. I mean where do you get the idea that VAs should be paid much higher for way fewer hours of work? Just because its not certain if they will get another gig? Well people who only work 3 days a week should get paid the same as someone working 5 days a week, because sure why not... Silly.

If people only work part time as a VA, sounds like they should have as second job to fill in the gaps.  People are too entitled.



“Consoles are great… if you like paying extra for features PCs had in 2005.”
Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
KLXVER said:

So because some VAs dont work many hours each year, they should get ridiculous money so they can live of it? Its just ridiculous. Its not a full time job. So yes, getting 250$ per hour is alot. Thats like 10 times higher than your average wage. I mean where do you get the idea that VAs should be paid much higher for way fewer hours of work? Just because its not certain if they will get another gig? Well people who only work 3 days a week should get paid the same as someone working 5 days a week, because sure why not... Silly.

So you think receiving less than the base minimum is ridiculous money?

Each profession have its own pay grade, and if it is a profession it should more or less as a competent professional afford you enough for a living.

Ridiculous would be me asking for teachers to receive per hour as much as a football player per hour on official matches. Nope, what I'm explaining to you is why the hourly wage for short terms contracts is higher than full time. There are professional dub artists that work on fixed contracts with an agency, so they will receive an weekly wage, based on the year value, and then that agency will catch the work and profit over it and charge based on the size of the contract.

To me what seems you and some other are complaining is that she and others should be making less because your 44h/week work pay less per hour worked than this contract.

Ok how much should she recieve then? You keep saying its not enough, what is enough then? Give me a number.



Machiavellian said:
KLXVER said:

So because some VAs dont work many hours each year, they should get ridiculous money so they can live of it? Its just ridiculous. Its not a full time job. So yes, getting 250$ per hour is alot. Thats like 10 times higher than your average wage. I mean where do you get the idea that VAs should be paid much higher for way fewer hours of work? Just because its not certain if they will get another gig? Well people who only work 3 days a week should get paid the same as someone working 5 days a week, because sure why not... Silly.

Probably because specialist always gets paid better than your average wage.  This is pretty much standard especially in contracting work.  You are paying for the expertise of the person and their ability to produce a high end product or service.  I have worked a number of consulting jobs and you are always paid at a much higher wage then the employees working at the company.  If you do not understand the business I believe you should do some research on the subject instead of just believing that what you believe is fare is how the industry works.  

I will say that depending on the work you do usually depends on the hourly wage.  There have been a number of situations I was only paid 70 bucks an hour and for the same job I was paid 450.  Each situation was represented on how important my work was to the specific project.  

The main issue I see here is the flat rate.  It speaks volumes that something was not right.  Anytime a client is trying to get you to sign a flat rate especially if its low means its going to be a nightmare project.

Well please explain to me why Helena deserves more than your average VA then?



KLXVER said:

Ok how much should she recieve then? You keep saying its not enough, what is enough then? Give me a number.

The minimum rate her main union (U.K's sister union to the American Actor's Guild) has been negotiating with its clients sounds like a good rate for the work she's been doing. 

https://www.equity.org.uk/news/2021/december/uks-first-ever-agreement-for-voice-artists-engaged-on-video-game-recordings/#:~:text=Minimum%20fees%20are%20set%20according,(under%20%C2%A30.5m).

600 GBP per hour for first hour, 300 GBP per hour for each subsequent hour, So for 16 hours, $5768.

But the video game voiceover contract for the American Actor Union is ending next month, they should strike and ask for royalties in addition to comparable rates to the UK Equity Union rates imo.

Maybe the % of the revenue that their hours represents in relation to total collective employee hours over the development period as an additional bonus.

So if the game nets a revenue of $60 million and their individual effort divided by collective effort of all employees is say 1 week /(52 weeks in year*200 employees*5 years) = .00192% of total employee effort. That'd give them a bonus of $1,152 from revenue of $60,000,000. 

And the total payout over time would be $6,920 for 16 hours or .00192% of effort.

 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 18 October 2022

sc94597 said:

I keep seeing the commentary about "breaking the NDA." Did she break an NDA? In the United States discussing one's compensation or employment contract offers is a protected legal right that NDA's can rarely infringe upon. Is this different in the U.K? 

From VGC's related article about Jennifer Hale responding to the issue:

"In Taylor’s video messages – which she said were an act of her breaking non-disclosure agreements – the actress claimed Platinum’s chief game designer Kamiya had presented her with an “immoral” offer to reprise her role as Bayonetta."

Naturally, you can watch Taylor's videos to hear her own admission of breaking an NDA.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.

RolStoppable said:
sc94597 said:

I keep seeing the commentary about "breaking the NDA." Did she break an NDA? In the United States discussing one's compensation or employment contract offers is a protected legal right that NDA's can rarely infringe upon. Is this different in the U.K? 

From VGC's related article about Jennifer Hale responding to the issue:

"In Taylor’s video messages – which she said were an act of her breaking non-disclosure agreements – the actress claimed Platinum’s chief game designer Kamiya had presented her with an “immoral” offer to reprise her role as Bayonetta."

Naturally, you can watch Taylor's videos to hear her own admission of breaking an NDA.

Right, but a lot of people aren't aware that the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) protects contractors right to discuss compensation. Hale could very well think that portion of a hypothetical NDA is enforceable when it isn't, or has no interest in discussing her compensation and is using it as cover. 

Not sure what the U.K laws are.