@Boolean

Dude, Rockstar could have found someone off the street that would have worked just as good as this punk motha fucker for a fraction of the cost. Actors are over rated. Look at some of the lesser paid actors. Some are way way better than the ones in the spot light.

If the industry is required to pay these voice actors more who do you think is going to pay for that change? That would be us. Yup pay this guy a lot more and all of a sudden the games price jumps $10.

I think he got paid well enough. There is nothing wrong with thinking you should have gotten paid more, but its partly your fault too. Most people in the industry knew that this game was going to sell like hotcakes and if you and your union didn't secure a better deal well now you have to deal with it. If he tried to get more who's to say Rockstar wouldn't say, "F this kid lets get someone else who will work cheaper." What would you rather do, get paid well and be the voice of the main character in the biggest video game release this year. Or whine for more money and don't get to do shit. I'd choose the former.

Ugh, I'm done.

I just think it's going to be funny as shit when half you people jump up and down in anger when something like Gears of War 2, Ghostbusters or RE5 has terrible voice acting and you complain about how developers are lazy.

Enjoy.

@ Leathersoup

yes and guess what, they get paid for it! Over 4 years this chap got paid about $25K a year, spare change compared to what lead programmers or managers are earning. Heck, lets not even start on what the marketing department earns! The point is if this is as much as the lazy unions are going to get voice actors, they just are not going to bother with video games. Next thing you know we will be back in the wonderful days of Resident Evil 1.

Ok I gotta stop posting, I need to get work done.

Boolean

Read the article. He got paid for working 15 months not four years jackass. Maybe you should be commenting on a yahoo movies blog?

The average programmer makes something like $60k a year, so he got paid BETTER than they did. He only devoted 15 months of time to GTA4, not four years: After that he almost certainly went on to do something else.

I'm just curious what his actual hours worked are compared to the rest of the staff. I want to know if he was in the office as much as everyone else for that 15 month period. My gut says no, but obviously I can't say for sure.

I will tell you up front though that personally, I could give a rats ass about voice acting. You can spew off all the games you want that had awesome voice acting, which in turn helped them sell, but not one of those is all that high on MY list of great games.

So to sum up, I think the pay is fine. I think he is low on the priority list of people that need to get paid better. And I think he needs to stop bitching.

I'm sure they could have paid him more, but 100K is a lot of money.

Fuck money, 100k in 15 months is more than adequate. You get fuckers like that and they're going to make games cost more for us. I say BACK TO TEXT BOXES!

While I'd like to sympathize, $100,000 is more than suitable. Though 15 months is the stated timeframe, I sincerely doubt he was in the studio recording every day of those 15 months. In fact, he probably had ample time to work on other projects and further supplement his income.

If he wanted more, it should have been in his contract.

I don't think they should get royalties or residuals, but Rockstar could have coughed up more for this guy. Hell I would have paid the guy 500k for the extensive work he did that was VITAL to the games success.

One time deal though, no residuals.

Okay, seriously, guys: Does no one here see any parallels between this and what goes down in the TV industry? I'm blown away that this isn't obvious to anyone else. TV actors and writers (at least) get residuals on each one of their episodes that sells or airs. What Niko's actor is proposing is no different.

Now, if gaming is supposedly on-par with the movie and TV industries as we claim it is, then why not equal treatment? Please answer me this.

@Leathersoup. Do the programmers, artists, QA people continue to be employed by the developer after release? Do they get kick-backs from the company, like stock and benefits?

Maybe it's time for the voice actors to strike and send the gaming industry back into the Resident Evil 1 era. You were almost a Jill sandwich! I hope this is not Chris's blood!

yeah I think they should actually

and Michael Hollick did an outstanding job as Niko btw

doxa: Gaming is not about actors. It has always been about the experience of gaming for me - this may include a dependence on humans doing voice overs, but games can be JUST as effective without. Big budget movies are sometimes WRITTEN for particular actors. If Gta4 was conceived and coded just for this one guy, then he deserves royalties. (note the implication, that most tv/film actors don't deserve residuals any more than the screenwriters or cameramen) If not, he can fuck off with his plum job, quit, work a low-hourly-wage job, and try to get by.

You people saying voice actors deserve to be paid considerably higher fees than development team members, then receive royalties afterwards can fuck off and die. If they want to have the disgusting treatment that movie celebs get with obscene wage packets they can fuck off to Hollywood.

I don't want to be paying £100 for GTA V because all the douche hole voice actors are demanding hundreds of thousands in salaries then expecting royalties to follow.

Oh and Sharpless, if you think gameplay and story are less important than voice work... well... I can't think of anything to say at the moment. Seriously, you think in a GAME that voices are more important than GAMEplay? So it can have a hackneyed story, clunky unrefined controls/gameplay but if the voiceovers are good it's a success? Really? Think about that.

@Lukich
Yes, I agree with the way the entertainment industry handles things, for the most part. I think it would be best if gaming followed suit. I side with the actors. Personally, voice acting is significant to me and my gaming experience. We'll just have to disagree.

In response to some of these comments: The difference between this dude and Jennifer Anniston is that they said "Jennifer Anniston is in this", people might want to see it more. If this dude wanted more money, they could have just hired someone else. He was not a draw and has no bargaining power. He was given a great part, and in the NYT article, he says that he was informed he would get no resids during his negotiations. He knew that, and accepted the deal, and now he's complaining. This is GTA - he had to know it would be huge before he signed on, and for most actors, the benefit would be landing a huge part that is positively critiqued, to help him get more work.

I have no evidence, but I would assume that his work over 15 months was not constant 8-hours a day work, so he was paid fairly well. Would I buy this game if he weren't in it? Yes. That's why he shouldn't get residuals (that and because it's the deal he agreed to). HOWEVER: I do agree somewhat with his argument that the use of his voice in radio and internet ads might deserve compensation, and he says it's unclear in the deal whether that was dealt with the contract or not.

But look at it this way: The lead actors of the Simpsons were allegedly being payed $30,000 per episode in the "Late 90s" - about 10 years INTO the series, when it was well established, and the actors had the clout that leaving could have realistically resulted in the demise of the series. I would guess that each episode of the Simpsons at that point (between syndication and VHS - later DVD sales) was earning a large fortune for the producers of the series, perhaps comprable to the profit GTA 4 will make. I do accept that one episode of the Simpsons is far less work for the actors than this guy probably had to do, but the profit is probably in similar realms - Simpsons actors would have made about 6-7 hundred thousand per year, and that's with clout - though as mentioned, they would receive residuals - I believe even back then - for the reruns.

The key to residuals, though, in my mind, is that it's a bonus for doing a good job. If the series is successful, due to performance presumably, only then is it rerun and residuals earned. A good portion of the sales of video games like this is on release, before anyone has any idea if the performers are any good (and really, the performance quality is not typically the primary cause of increased sales).

If this guy deserved residuals, I believe it would follow that he should have the clout to get a much better deal if he agreed to be in a sequel game. If they don't want him for one, that is evidence that his performance was not a particularly important draw for people to buy the game.

I agree with what someone in the the NYT article said: This is not like a TV star. This is like session musicians, who also don't get royalties. The actors merely backup the game. It is not their name or appearance that sells the game - like session musicians.