Gaming News

All the latest Xbox and gaming news. Only TA Newshounds can post in this forum.

Voice Acting Strike May Have Revealed Several Unannounced Titles

  • Boots OrionBoots Orion878,358
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 21:58
    The comparison people are making between voice actors in video games and voice actors in cartoons or cgi animated "cartoons" is weak.

    In cartoons, the voice acting is a major and crucial part of the product, whereas with video games it is not. People don't ever buy games - or not - due to the voice acting in the cutscenes. To suggest they do would be asinine.

    Also, while I have no issue with people being paid a fair wage for the work they do, crying because it is hard to make a living doing something is a very left wing view on things. There are many industries wherein it can be hard to make a living. I see no reason why we should feel worse for voice actors than we do for people who struggle to make ends meet who work in more important industries though. Like many careers in the entertainment industry, you have to struggle to succeed. That is life. Deal with it or find another career.
  • FiveWizzFiveWizz555,223
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 22:02
    This has been one of the worst (and best) examples of ridiculous opinions. I can't believe what I'm reading honestly.
  • ShinnizleShinnizle1,711,558
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 22:14
    DominusTenebrae said:
    When an arguement devolves into name calling, the arguement is lost.
    You don't win or lose argument. If that's how you think, you argue for the wrong reasons.

    DominusTenebrae said:
    No, it's not.
    Moot point, you are not giving any reason why it isn't, so clearly this answer doesn't matter.

    DominusTenebrae said:
    Clearly it doesn't or the industry would view it as something to compensate. You don't get to demand something for your skill if your employer doesn't NEED your skill. "I have a medical degree to fix hearts so I demand you pay me $200k per year to change car oil!" It doesn't work that way. EVER.
    Where do you see that they don't want to compensate people for it? They do, they just don't want their piece of the pie eaten from, as so rightfully pointed out by N0T PENNYS B0AT:
    N0T PENNYS B0AT said:
    This pro-corporate stance saddens me whenever I see it. Wages have not increased with inflation, at least not in the US. Profit margins have expanded while wages stagnated or trickled out with small improvements that didn't keep pace with the cost of living, and when working class citizens ask for their share of a livable wage, corporations like McDonald's threaten "we can't do that, it'll harm the business." No it really won't. It'll harm the bottom lines of those at the top, and quite a ways down, sure, but is everyone not entitled to get by? They refuse to do it because it means their piece of the pie gets smaller, but that piece would still be plenty. People just don't like to go back to a previous income once they've reached a new figure. We see it in sports with athlete contracts, and it's also why ticket prices never decrease, only do they occasionally freeze.
    Moreover, they do NEED their skill, because:
    A) They want voice acting in their games, and so do gamers
    B) Despite you claiming bullshit "facts" that 99% of people can replicate their skill (which they can't, get that through your fucking skull), no one is offering to do it for them, as again pointed out by N0T PENNYS B0AT:
    N0T PENNYS B0AT said:
    It's no secret how much they're asking for. They've shared that information. And if there are others that are willing and more talented, they'd already be doing it. Of course they're real actors. Kind of absurd to say they're not, haha.
    DominusTenebrae said:
    Straw man arguement. Apples are not oranges, etc.
    It makes sense. A lot more sense than your "deaf kids" argument. Many games these days are cinematic experiences, and are closer to movies than ever before. You just proved my point by wanting voices in your movies, but not in your games. By your logic, you wouldn't care that movies don't have voices, but you DO care! And if you don't, you are simply saying that Hollywood actors are only paid millions for their physical acting, and not for their voice work, which is complete bollocks.

    DominusTenebrae said:
    It absolutely makes sense. The arguement presented indicated that because there is no sound, deaf children should not want to watch cartoons, but yet they still do and would even if there was no voice work. People will play and continue to play whether there are voices or not.
    You missed the point. The argument presented was that cartoons are MORE enjoyable with sounds than without. And they are. Deaf kids can't know, but I'm sure if they could HEAR a cartoon while watching it, they'd be fucking ecstatic. Same with games. Is it absolutely required to make a game work? Of course not. But it adds value to a game, and that value needs to be compensated accordingly.

    Or by your logic, should we strip games of all their fancy graphics, written dialog, music, sound, and so on? Because, you know, they aren't REQUIRED for a game to work... roll

    DominusTenebrae said:
    Clearly you and the rest of the SJWs have lost this discussion.
    Use of the word SJW and again claiming that a discussion can be won or lost. Thanks for losing all credibility there.

    DominusTenebrae said:
    The "stick it to the corporation" arguement is just as asinine as stating that someone deserves a higher rate of compensation for a skill 99% of the population can replicate.
    Stop pulling numbers out of your ass. Because we all know that's not true, except for you, apparently.

    DominusTenebrae said:
    By your argument you'd probably say: She's not a whore who has sex for money, she's an actress that has sex for money. Even though sex can be done by anyone.
    While I don't have anything against the concept of prostitution (just the way it's implemented), you're comparing an illegal activity to an honest job. That again makes no sense. If prostitution was legal and sex workers were unionized, then yes, we could discuss this. Otherwise, you're just rambling.

    DominusTenebrae said:
    Except you.
    Says the guy with a "chick" picture. Oh, the irony is delicious laugh You're the one with issues here, not me.

    DominusTenebrae said:
    *mic drop*
    The saddest mic drop ever.
    Broke is a state of wallet. Poverty is a state of mind.
  • The GlobalizerThe Globalizer1,647,660
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 22:29
    If you don't like what voice actors are paid, boycott the companies that don't pay.

    It won't change anything, but give yourself a nice pat on the back anyway.

    Also, wage increases won't affect corporate profitability, it just raises the cost of the thing being sold. (Corps measure profitability off of per-share net earnings and/or % margins.) So we'll all subsidize that cost and throw a few more bucks into the "profit" ledger entry. I'll probably buy less games above my de minimis $5 threshold as a result, across a wide population less games will be bought, made, and less voice actors will work. Pick your poison.
  • Elite1111111111Elite11111111111,013,160
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 22:29, Edited on 17 November 16 at 22:32 by Elite1111111111
    Boots Orion said:
    The comparison people are making between voice actors in video games and voice actors in cartoons or cgi animated "cartoons" is weak.

    In cartoons, the voice acting is a major and crucial part of the product, whereas with video games it is not. People don't ever buy games - or not - due to the voice acting in the cutscenes. To suggest they do would be asinine.

    Also, while I have no issue with people being paid a fair wage for the work they do, crying because it is hard to make a living doing something is a very left wing view on things. There are many industries wherein it can be hard to make a living. I see no reason why we should feel worse for voice actors than we do for people who struggle to make ends meet who work in more important industries though. Like many careers in the entertainment industry, you have to struggle to succeed. That is life. Deal with it or find another career.
    Maybe people don't avoid a video game based off voice acting, but the outcry in Destiny was bad enough that they completely replaced Dinklage. Personally I think the new voice is pretty bad too, but whatevs.

    Also in reference to Dom's 'deaf people watching cartoons' argument, well yeah, nothing has sound. They aren't going to be concerned if something is missing sound. Sound is not a factor to them.

    Also Shinizzle makes a good point with his regular actor argument. If you're (Dom) saying voice acting isn't a factor, then we're literally just paying most actors for their faces, and whatever scenes they aren't replaced by doubles.
  • SoupaBuoySoupaBuoy751,386
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 22:32, Edited on 17 November 16 at 22:33 by SoupaBuoy
    DominusTenebrae said:
    Reluctant how? Please. Look at all the season passes (EA Sports), DLC with 50% or more of he story excluded from the base game, and the fact that MS was going to kill the used game industry with the X1!! I'm sure you were totally ok with that decision. Corporations absolutely will pass the cost to the consumer. To think otherwise is not just niave but plain stupid. Corporations are in business to make money, not make you feel good.

    Point still stands. Voices could be cut with little to no issues in people still buying the games. These basic skills are not talents and they could be replaced with a computer, a microphone and a skilled audio technician.
    What I said is that corporations don't NEED to pass the cost onto the consumer. I didn't disagree that they do - just that they don't have to.

    Season passes are an example of "stealth pricing" that allows them to keep the ticket value in a store at £50 (where purchases are made on behalf of other people") while still nickel-and-diming extra money out of people later in the life cycle of a game.

    I'm not naive or stupid - I know WHAT they do, but I know that the economics of what they do means they don't HAVE to. Oh - I don't like season passes either, FYI.

    If voice acting could be replaced that way then trust me - we'd already be doing it. Clearly for someone who likes to talk about the value of reading, you're not reading what I've said and prefer to attack me instead (and others in this thread). Have fun with that.
  • JamesGames83JamesGames83549,488
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 22:40
    He's a troll, guys. Even if he really believes what he's spouting, which of course he's entitled to, he's making the argument which devalues other people's hard work and artistic effort. Put in the position to do voice work for a game, movie, whatever, himself,, it's a good bet that he'd terrible at it.

    As said, emotion and life is brought to the characters by these actors. Hell, they do accents sometimes! That's acting.
  • Posted on 17 November 16 at 23:20
    Boots Orion said:
    The comparison people are making between voice actors in video games and voice actors in cartoons or cgi animated "cartoons" is weak.

    In cartoons, the voice acting is a major and crucial part of the product, whereas with video games it is not. People don't ever buy games - or not - due to the voice acting in the cutscenes. To suggest they do would be asinine.

    Also, while I have no issue with people being paid a fair wage for the work they do, crying because it is hard to make a living doing something is a very left wing view on things. There are many industries wherein it can be hard to make a living. I see no reason why we should feel worse for voice actors than we do for people who struggle to make ends meet who work in more important industries though. Like many careers in the entertainment industry, you have to struggle to succeed. That is life. Deal with it or find another career.
    When robots take everyone's jobs within this century we will all be on welfare anyways, or else everything falls apart and everyone dies hungry. Giving everyone a fair wage now is just ahead of the curve, haha. The argument of "earning" through work versus earning through being alive is soon to be moot. Some countries are already practicing basic income and others are sure to follow.
  • Posted on 17 November 16 at 23:59
    While I have very little desire to continue this discussion, I am pleased that you now agree that it's a skill, not a talent. laugh

    Shinnizle said:
    Moreover, they do NEED their skill, because
    Shinnizle said:
    Voice acting bring a character's emotions to life, and you need talent and practice to accomplish that.
    Off to play some games with the subtitles on and volume down.headspin
  • The GlobalizerThe Globalizer1,647,660
    Posted on 17 November 16 at 23:59
    N0T PENNYS B0AT said:
    Boots Orion said:
    The comparison people are making between voice actors in video games and voice actors in cartoons or cgi animated "cartoons" is weak.

    In cartoons, the voice acting is a major and crucial part of the product, whereas with video games it is not. People don't ever buy games - or not - due to the voice acting in the cutscenes. To suggest they do would be asinine.

    Also, while I have no issue with people being paid a fair wage for the work they do, crying because it is hard to make a living doing something is a very left wing view on things. There are many industries wherein it can be hard to make a living. I see no reason why we should feel worse for voice actors than we do for people who struggle to make ends meet who work in more important industries though. Like many careers in the entertainment industry, you have to struggle to succeed. That is life. Deal with it or find another career.
    When robots take everyone's jobs within this century we will all be on welfare anyways, or else everything falls apart and everyone dies hungry. Giving everyone a fair wage now is just ahead of the curve, haha. The argument of "earning" through work versus earning through being alive is soon to be moot. Some countries are already practicing basic income and others are sure to follow.
    Personally, I'd rather skip the wage inflation and manipulation of labor markets and just go straight to some form of managed UBI.
  • Ereaser NLEreaser NL454,623
    Posted on 18 November 16 at 00:29
    Elite1111111111 said:
    Maybe people don't avoid a video game based off voice acting, but the outcry in Destiny was bad enough that they completely replaced Dinklage. Personally I think the new voice is pretty bad too, but whatevs.
    Pretty bad? Nolan North is one of the most well known voice actors but the awkward pitch completely ruined the experience. Your ghost is voiced so badly it breaks immersion.

    Dinklage did a good job imo and just had a few lines that turned into meme's (which are totally wrecked by Nolan).

    Every now and then when I play destiny with friends someone mentions they miss Dinklebot :(
  • ShinnizleShinnizle1,711,558
    Posted on 18 November 16 at 00:42
    DominusTenebrae said:
    While I have very little desire to continue this discussion, I am pleased that you now agree that it's a skill, not a talent. laugh
    tal·ent
    ˈtalənt/
    noun
    1.
    natural aptitude or skill.

    Joke's on you buddy. They're synonyms. You should be ashamed I know your language better than you do.
    Broke is a state of wallet. Poverty is a state of mind.
  • Posted on 18 November 16 at 01:54
    Shinnizle said:
    DominusTenebrae said:
    While I have very little desire to continue this discussion, I am pleased that you now agree that it's a skill, not a talent. laugh
    tal·ent
    ˈtalənt/
    noun
    1.
    natural aptitude or skill.

    Joke's on you buddy. They're synonyms. You should be ashamed I know your language better than you do.
    LOL. I guess Bing or Google is the reference for the English language now, eh? laugh

    Let's try Merriam-Webster:

    Talent:

    : a special ability that allows someone to do something well
    : a person or group of people with a special ability to do something well : a talented person or group

    Skill:

    : the ability to do something that comes from training, experience, or practice

    I guess you don't "know" English.
  • ShinnizleShinnizle1,711,558
    Posted on 18 November 16 at 02:33
    Talent is a synonym of skill. You'll find that on Thesaurus.com, or any other synonym dictionary.

    Besides, who gives a flying fuck? Not only are you arguing semantics, it has no bearing on the matter. Skill or talent, both deserve to be compensated. Whether you are born naturally with a skill or learn it through practice. It still doesn't mean 99% of people can do it. Stop being so fucking dense.
    Broke is a state of wallet. Poverty is a state of mind.
  • YoDzYoDz628,421
    Posted on 18 November 16 at 02:41, Edited on 18 November 16 at 02:54 by YoDz
    N0T PENNYS B0AT said:
    YoDz said:
    this reminds me of when fast food workers went on strike in my state demanding $15/hour.. long story short, they got pay in seattle raised to $13/hour but now companies hire less people and now a lot of those people are out of work. moral is you cant have your cake and eat it too. if you cant make a decent living doing your job maybe its time took look for a new career instead of striking and ruining future opportunities for others.
    This pro-corporate stance saddens me whenever I see it. Wages have not increased with inflation, at least not in the US. Profit margins have expanded while wages stagnated or trickled out with small improvements that didn't keep pace with the cost of living, and when working class citizens ask for their share of a livable wage, corporations like McDonald's threaten "we can't do that, it'll harm the business." No it really won't. It'll harm the bottom lines of those at the top, and quite a ways down, sure, but is everyone not entitled to get by? They refuse to do it because it means their piece of the pie gets smaller, but that piece would still be plenty. People just don't like to go back to a previous income once they've reached a new figure. We see it in sports with athlete contracts, and it's also why ticket prices never decrease, only do they occasionally freeze.

    Then corporations turn around and threaten, "well if we have to pay you people more we will just automate it and robots will do it for free." That's coming regardless. That's an unstoppable train. They pretend it's an either/or scenario -- either you accept poor wages or we replace you with automated systems, but no. That'll happen everywhere. Just ask truck drivers, Uber and Lyft, pretty much any factory work, soon all computer jobs, et al. There are few jobs, relative to the overall number available, that can't reasonably be replaced by this automation soon if it hasn't been replaced already.

    The voice actor strike is similar in this regard. AAA games take a lot of work to make, and yeah if the actors get paid more changes will come to the industry. Particularly, what will follow is a unionization of the developers who are being left out of this equation. But that's on them to unionize. They can't complain that the actors have the right checks in place to assist them in getting paid better. Devs should do the same too. EA and the like can afford to pay all of them more fairly, it just takes change which corporations dread, especially when it comes to the money they pocket.

    They throw out a lot of politicking to influence public opinion. "If we have to pay them more money games might get cancelled or delayed or we might not be able to make as many." So what? Make fewer games then. We don't need annualized series or even the every-other-year sequels. The whole AAA space is prone to a lack of inspiration, so put the art back into the medium by making fewer games but making them in an environment conducive to creative expression for the game makers and making them as special as you can. If a strike and further unionization in the games industry means we don't get games like Assassin's Creed Revelations and Dead Rising Off The Record, then by all means, I want that.


    Sorry, I'm just sort of rambling but it always disappoints me to see anyone siding with corporations. It's always seemed like brainwashing to me. Like poor people who vote for candidates that have historically always favored making the rich richer. They're not on your team, don't be on theirs.

    Edit: a word
    i like what you wrote there but im not siding with anyone.. i just see the big picture of things, strikes are good in some cases but they rarely result in 100% in the workers favor. i myself am a union worker but i dont agree with most strikes, ya we might get a slight raise in pay or benifits but even if you dont agree with your unions strike in most unions you are forced to join strike regardless then you are out off work for several weeks till the strike is over.. there is no true winning with unions and corporations. when im well with saving my money im going into business for myself, no bosses hounding me, no corporates down my neck no unions taking money from my check which is nearly $150 each month
  • AdmiralMooAdmiralMoo865,285
    Posted on 18 November 16 at 14:34
    The Globalizer said:
    If you don't like what voice actors are paid, boycott the companies that don't pay.

    It won't change anything, but give yourself a nice pat on the back anyway.

    Also, wage increases won't affect corporate profitability, it just raises the cost of the thing being sold. (Corps measure profitability off of per-share net earnings and/or % margins.) So we'll all subsidize that cost and throw a few more bucks into the "profit" ledger entry. I'll probably buy less games above my de minimis $5 threshold as a result, across a wide population less games will be bought, made, and less voice actors will work. Pick your poison.
    The guy that understands economics gets ignored. Everyone else argues ethics. The world never fails to disappoint.

    Seriously though, as someone who has never and will never pay $60 (or more) for a video game, the next Call of Duty could be narrated by a toddler instead of [insert overpaid big name celebrity here] and it wouldn't sway my opinion one way or another.
  • Posted on 18 November 16 at 14:34
    Unskilled work. They should try a real job.

    Just like that 3 dog from fallout 3. He was crying because he's not in fallout 4. A lot of them don't even have any interest in games.

    I know someone who had their voice cast in dead rising and like 15 other AAA games and she has never even owned a console. Only game she ever played was candy crush. She said games are a complete waste of time and they're not fun at all.

    If you don't back the industry you work in, it's time to go back to school and get a real job.
  • LV 1 Blue SlimeLV 1 Blue Slime1,390,537
    Posted on 18 November 16 at 17:09
    SoupaBuoy said:
    Disagree. The games industry has shown over time that it's really, really reluctant to break the £50 mark for the price of games as that's the point where you see a massive drop-off in sales. With the huge budgets that are used to market games, there's more than enough flex to pay to guys providing a single line here or there a little more money - particularly with the figures they'll likely end up paying the "big names". They absolutely do not have to pass the cost onto the consumer - they just justify it that way so they can make a bigger mark-up on a sale later down the line.
    They already charge more than $60 though. DLC, cosmetic shit you used to unlock in-game, characters, maps, so on and so forth. If you want the complete experience, the one you used to get out of the box in previous console generations, you have to pay way more than $60 nowadays.
    "Slutty outfit? You're one to talk." "This isn't slutty, it's strategically placed."
  • iMaginaryyiMaginaryy2,089,109
    Posted on 18 November 16 at 18:01
    N0T PENNYS B0AT said:
    YoDz said:
    this reminds me of when fast food workers went on strike in my state demanding $15/hour.. long story short, they got pay in seattle raised to $13/hour but now companies hire less people and now a lot of those people are out of work. moral is you cant have your cake and eat it too. if you cant make a decent living doing your job maybe its time took look for a new career instead of striking and ruining future opportunities for others.
    This pro-corporate stance saddens me whenever I see it. Wages have not increased with inflation, at least not in the US. Profit margins have expanded while wages stagnated or trickled out with small improvements that didn't keep pace with the cost of living, and when working class citizens ask for their share of a livable wage, corporations like McDonald's threaten "we can't do that, it'll harm the business." No it really won't. It'll harm the bottom lines of those at the top, and quite a ways down, sure, but is everyone not entitled to get by? They refuse to do it because it means their piece of the pie gets smaller, but that piece would still be plenty. People just don't like to go back to a previous income once they've reached a new figure. We see it in sports with athlete contracts, and it's also why ticket prices never decrease, only do they occasionally freeze.

    Then corporations turn around and threaten, "well if we have to pay you people more we will just automate it and robots will do it for free." That's coming regardless. That's an unstoppable train. They pretend it's an either/or scenario -- either you accept poor wages or we replace you with automated systems, but no. That'll happen everywhere. Just ask truck drivers, Uber and Lyft, pretty much any factory work, soon all computer jobs, et al. There are few jobs, relative to the overall number available, that can't reasonably be replaced by this automation soon if it hasn't been replaced already.

    The voice actor strike is similar in this regard. AAA games take a lot of work to make, and yeah if the actors get paid more changes will come to the industry. Particularly, what will follow is a unionization of the developers who are being left out of this equation. But that's on them to unionize. They can't complain that the actors have the right checks in place to assist them in getting paid better. Devs should do the same too. EA and the like can afford to pay all of them more fairly, it just takes change which corporations dread, especially when it comes to the money they pocket.

    They throw out a lot of politicking to influence public opinion. "If we have to pay them more money games might get cancelled or delayed or we might not be able to make as many." So what? Make fewer games then. We don't need annualized series or even the every-other-year sequels. The whole AAA space is prone to a lack of inspiration, so put the art back into the medium by making fewer games but making them in an environment conducive to creative expression for the game makers and making them as special as you can. If a strike and further unionization in the games industry means we don't get games like Assassin's Creed Revelations and Dead Rising Off The Record, then by all means, I want that.


    Sorry, I'm just sort of rambling but it always disappoints me to see anyone siding with corporations. It's always seemed like brainwashing to me. Like poor people who vote for candidates that have historically always favored making the rich richer. They're not on your team, don't be on theirs.

    Edit: a word
    clapclapclap

    Top shelf, mate, top shelf.
    Fear is the mindkiller.
  • Removed Gamer

    Removed Gamer

    Posted on 19 November 16 at 13:32
    Ostrowidzki1989 said:
    Unskilled work. They should try a real job.

    Just like that 3 dog from fallout 3. He was crying because he's not in fallout 4. A lot of them don't even have any interest in games.

    I know someone who had their voice cast in dead rising and like 15 other AAA games and she has never even owned a console. Only game she ever played was candy crush. She said games are a complete waste of time and they're not fun at all.

    If you don't back the industry you work in, it's time to go back to school and get a real job.
    And what's a real job to you?

    A minimum wage, 9-5 desk job?
    t-t-t-today junior
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.