Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Niko Bellic vs Niko Bellic
Posts
I thought that was the point.
Iriquois Pliskin
Snake Pliskin is the quintessence of over-the-top and campy.
I've no doubt that that is exactly what it is supposed to be.
4x is an underestimate, top coders are anything between 5x and 28x more productive than the average coder. They are the greatest bargain in information technology.
And what the hell does easy have to do with salary?
I don't know where you live, but around here even just okay devs make well above the average household income.
But it's GTA! Huge moneys!
I never asked for this!
The problem he's voicing is that the contract was written by his union/guild, and he had no say in the terms contained. His problem is with the actors' union, not Rockstar.
steam profile
I see. That I can understand, then. Does he actually have a legitimate gripe, though? Meaning, is there anything to be gained from his aforementioned griping?
However, without knowing other things like how much Rockstar would have been willing to pay, how much other actors in similar situations make, etc., it's hard to know how fair the contract was. Honestly, I think he was compensated pretty fairly. Due to the HUGE amount of people who supplied voice acting for this game, let alone the total number of people who worked on it, I can't see any possible way to divide royalties fairly without the percentages having to be miniscule and pointless.
steam profile
I doubt this is the case for the Niko actor.
The only reason he doesn't is because Ubisoft gave him an assload of money upfront instead of an assload of money spread over several years (which was the prior arrangement).
What I'm saying is that I'm not sure what your point is.
Tom Clancy used to get royalties until he decided he'd rather have a hunourmous fuckton of cash up front, instead. Ubisoft also liked this idea and basically drove a dump truck full of Euros to his house.
Isn't that the same arrangement game VAs currently have? It's not Clancy money, but it's still $100K lump-summed rather than spread out over the retail life of the game.
The point is that if the leading creative elements of games, ie the people who would get royalties in other industries, are moving away from a royalty-based payment structure, then why would the publishers move back towards it for VAs?
In Hollywood most royalties are limited to above the line (creative) elements of production, rather than below the line (technical) elements. Actors and writers get royalties, grips and sound technicians not so much (their union prefers better deals on health care and pensions). Well, here's one of the biggest above the line elements in the industry prominently moving away from royalties, not towards them.
I don't see game royalties gaining any traction without the support of big names, and that means they need guys like Clancy and Sid Meier and Ken Levine more than guys like Mike Hollick. If SAG royalty demands were only supported by actors you've never heard of and not the likes of Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts as well, they'd never get anywhere either.
The last time this issue came up, Samuel L. Jackson was one of the actors leading the push. And oddly enough, it revolved around a GTA game as well.