Niko's voice earned about $100,000 from GTA IV
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ May 21st 2008 at 11:00AM }
Of course, if the actor gets residuals, does the artist who "made" Niko get a cut? Although the actors provided voices, and apparently motion-capture, what about all the other people that worked on the creation of these characters? People aren't buying these games because of the actors, they're getting it because of the title and its associated gameplay. In time, this issue will probably come to a head (especially as the industry grows), but for now it comes off like actors whining while everyone else is getting a similarly bum deal. Maybe it's time the video game writers, artists and developers started complaining too? Union, union, union!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Eric H @ May 21st 2008 11:07AM
Of course if it were a TV show or movie it would not have pulled in the sales it did. Hell a TV Show it would be around a year after it aired before it was sold on DVD.
MarkHawk @ May 21st 2008 12:01PM
As a commenter I am outraged that my residuals for creative input through commenting on Nikos bland eye brows haven't made it to my house yet...
R* make sure they are here by Friday or I am brining my story to colonel Saul Tigh...
D0ughy27 @ May 21st 2008 3:24PM
The point of all this is, Look at other big time movies with small time actors. Superman, Spiderman(1), and Harry Potter! Those (lead acting) fools didn't make jack shit out of their first movie but Spiderman and Harry Potter made damned sure that when they got their contracts renewed that they got their share of the gold!
Okay, Put it like this for the voice actor of Niko. He has only been in 3 other productions, which is all different variations of Law and order...which he did not get paid much for a assure you. Then again 100,000 is not much compared to how much it made, and sure he probably should have made maybe 100,000 more? But did you honestly buy the game because he was the voice actor?(Law and Order Fans?) Did you even know who he was? Probably not, so he got his 100,000 which is a lot for a "No name" and he got a HUGE resume builder that might make him get 20X that. Just realize that.
Eric H @ May 21st 2008 3:33PM
My point is you can't compare a medium like this to film and TV in movies even the small time actors playing the leads are what you are paying to see, in this game anyone could have done the voice. It would be like paying a set builder residuals. Thats all voice acting is in games another prop.
Marty @ May 21st 2008 11:07AM
Hey, the guy did a great job... and frankly, there's so much random conversation that needed to be voiced for the game, I'd say he probably did more than his share of work.
copa @ May 21st 2008 11:19AM
The market will work this out in the long run. (And frankly, if this is a movie, the studio would just claim that GTA4 never turned a profit, and the actor wasn't entitled to royalties.)
But I'd like to give a shout out to Hollick. He blended gravity and humor in a way that's really difficult to do, and made the game much, much more compelling than it would have been with a lesser lead. I still get a little chill when I hear his voice on the commercial telling us, "We're all looking for that special someone."
BananaBoat @ May 21st 2008 11:28AM
I wonder how many days it took for the entire Niko part to be recorded. Depending on the length of time it took, this is either a huge amount of money, or just a really good years pay =P
Then again, for doing an entire dialog filled series of an anime doesn't net voice actors anything close to 100k, so he was probably thrilled for the work. Then again, 100k is nothing compared to what stars make to voice characters in cartoons (like Shrek, etc), so maybe he was under payed? Bah what do I care at 11 in the morning on a wednesday. I should still be in bed, seeing as how it's the first week of summer vacation.
Marty @ May 21st 2008 12:49PM
I'm still shocked that they fit all the content on a DVD!
chez @ May 21st 2008 1:03PM
Yea, so don't lie about him doing a great job. He's as bad as Brad Pitt cycling through every Irish accent for Snatch.
Christian @ May 21st 2008 11:12AM
The statement saying that the single "artist" who made Niko should get a cut is very shortsighted. It would make more sense to compare theoretical VG residuals to something like Animated features: No one is going to deny Craig T. Nelson residuals just because he didn't Animate the character, are they?
tooPrime @ May 21st 2008 11:13AM
I'd like to get paid 100 grand to talk like a mild mannered Borat and shout, "I'm leaving here with Roman!"
Seriously, that seems like good compensation.
J @ May 21st 2008 12:06PM
Yeah Pissed Off, I'm an American, but it's these same "free market" enthusiasts who are all about "letting the market" decide whatever until their little babies go under and they need to be bailed out buy the tax payers... like the recent Bear Sterns deal etc... that's when the "free market" goes out the window.
Then again, what they may not recognize is that it is the free-market that is creating unions (out of necessity).
As for the voice acting stuff I think the writers might deserve a little more credit for the final product than the voice... and this is coming from someone who has done some voice over work... then again, I mostly wrote my own stuff, too.
J @ May 21st 2008 5:52PM
Voted down w/ no responses? Chicken-shits.
(not you tooPrime)
xtremesniper @ May 21st 2008 11:13AM
Oh god, I can't believe you just put the ideas of forming a union into the minds of the innocent. Stop that.
RudyHuxtable @ May 21st 2008 11:15AM
This is one of the major reasons SAG is planning to strike. The actor who voiced hundreds, if not thousands, of lines for the main character in a project that earned half a billion dollars earned .0002% of the total. Yes, $100,000 is a lot of money, but he is a central figure in the game yes he doesn't even earn residuals? It's such a fine line since so many people say "Shut up, 100-large is a lot of loot," and it's a touchy subject because of those who claim the financial incentives of controlling an intellectual property, but seriously. Unions. Get on this.
Arnob @ May 21st 2008 11:30AM
sorry to be all nitpicky but i think you meant .02%?
voodoo_craig @ May 21st 2008 11:31AM
Yes he did a good job, but don't go overboard.
He can be replaced easily and no-one is going to buy the game because his voice is in it. That's how movies and tv work, some people go for the story, others because they like who's in it.
It just doesn't work like this for games, here the IP is king, they can create a union if they like but it'll just mean the devs go elsewhere.
RudyHuxtable @ May 21st 2008 11:33AM
.02% is $10,000,000. He literally earned 2/10,000 of a percent.
RudyHuxtable @ May 21st 2008 11:38AM
There's already 2 unions governing relations between producers and entertainers. We don't need another one. We just need to the two that already exist to do their jobs.
And for those who argue he earned $100,000 by just talking: someone earned over $100,000,000 by saying "Okay, let's do another GTAIV, I'll go find people to work on it."
Anyway, clearly there's no point talking about it here. Spoke my peace, leaving it there.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ May 21st 2008 11:50AM
His voice, as a contribution to the over-all game, is probably about that in percentage. It's good to have a nice voice for things like this, but let's face it, voicing something is far easier than actually acting.
As for people who are hating on unions; what the hell is wrong with unions!? I swear, some Americans take this free market idea too far. It doesn't solve everything.
RudyHuxtable @ May 21st 2008 11:59AM
You can still stutter, miss a word, misspeak, screw up a line, flub your accent, miss the intent of the words, etc. etc. Then there's technical considerations ("Mike, you're too close to the mic, okay now you're too far, don't hit your plosives so hard, don't breathe between lines..."), and of course syncing and ADR which are typically difficult and time consuming tasks.
It's not "just talking." It's easier, yes, but it is by no means easy.
Rondrer @ May 21st 2008 12:11PM
0.0002% of $500 million are $1000
Even if you don't want to understand it, 0.02% is the right percentage!
RudyHuxtable @ May 21st 2008 12:15PM
*sigh*
Dear Everyone,
I was being sarcastic about percentages.
Sincerely,
Rudy
Grant @ May 21st 2008 11:15AM
The voice actors probably worked 3 days to a week tops,i doubt that someone who spent that little time working on the game should get royalty compensation, or that anyone else who works on any project that much should either.
he did a good job, he was fairly compensated. If you don't like the field you're in, don't work there.
Burritoclock @ May 21st 2008 11:19AM
Exactly...
Why did I bother to post that
copa @ May 21st 2008 11:34AM
"The voice actors probably worked 3 days to a week tops."
Per the article, Hollick was paid $1,050 a day. So about 20 weeks of work.
ill trooper @ May 21st 2008 7:04PM
You missed the point of the article. He works in the industry he wants to, and he was payed, but not on the same level as a similar project would pay if it was an animated movie like Ice Age or something akin to working on a voice for a game like GTA4.
The point of the article is that the gaming industry is making products that compete with, and draw money and audiences like the film/television industry, but the actors aren't being paid as much.
Nice of you to step down for a second, assess the situation, and decide that he HAS been paid enough, though. Carry on.
Grant @ May 21st 2008 7:49PM
"You missed the point of the article. He works in the industry he wants to, and he was payed, but not on the same level as a similar project would pay if it was an animated movie like Ice Age or something akin to working on a voice for a game like GTA4."
well than what industry does he work in, the gaming industry or the voice acting industry? because if he wants to voice act for games, he's gotta take whats the status quo, but if he wants to do voice acting, regardless of what industry it's in, he's gotta play by every industry differently.
I don't think that's unreasonable, that's like an actress complaining that she isn't getting paid when the play she was in goes on to make money for years after she retires. Sure she's an actress, but it's not a movie, and movies are one of the few forms of media that have this royalty system how it is. TV doesn't have it, and neither do games.
big_nah @ May 21st 2008 11:17AM
Could you imagine having to sit through a six month video game developers strike?
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ May 21st 2008 11:53AM
Nintendo would go into over-drive on VC releases. It'd be awesome :-)
tooPrime @ May 21st 2008 11:18AM
One more thing, it's the writing that made the GTA’s story good, not necessarily the voice acting. Now that I think about it, most of the voice actors seemed like they were shouting about half the game and Niko’s voice acting is pretty good but I think having listened to him for 30 hours probably made me like it more than it deserves.
Jody Anthony (cookingrebels.com) @ May 21st 2008 11:18AM
i make $31k/year busting my ass.
he made $100k for talking.
i think he had a pretty good deal already.
copa @ May 21st 2008 11:24AM
Jody, Michael Hollick does not have any sort of guaranteed salary. He has to find his own work (and pay and agent to help him), and then he gets paid on the days he works, and he doesn't get paid on the days he doesn't.
When you are working on for-hire or contract arrangements, you're hourly rate is going to be higher than a salaried employee because of the risk and uncertatinty.
If you are suggesting that nobody should make more than $31K/year because that's what you make, that's fine.
But otherwise, Hollick took in $1,000 per day for a key creative contribution to a billion-dollar blockbuster. That does not seem excessive in any way to me.
voodoo_craig @ May 21st 2008 11:35AM
Okay copa, first, it's his choice to be in this industry, nobody forces him to work this way (and talk this waaay)
Second, if he didn't do it there are thousands of others who could have filled the role. Michael Hollick isn't going to draw people to buying the game so he shouldn't get paid more because it did well. I'm sure he was more than happy with what he was paid.
Jody Anthony (cookingrebels.com) @ May 21st 2008 11:36AM
all i'm saying is that from my point of view, he made plenty. from his point of view or from yours or from anyone elses, he may have made enough, way too much, or not enough. it was just my opinion.
copa @ May 21st 2008 12:01PM
"nobody forces him to work this way"
I 100% agree. And in the article, he says he is grateful for the role, and he doesn't have any problems with Rockstar.
Rockstar doesn't have to pay him more just because Mike Myers pulled down millions voicing Shrek. Nor does Hollick have to accept any less just because Jody is pulling down $31K.
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ May 21st 2008 12:04PM
it's his choice to be in this industry, nobody forces him to work this way
worst argument ever. I'm not saying I don't agree that it was enough or anything, but saying that nobody forced him is a pretty naive way to think about things like that; fair pay should be fair pay and shouldn't require you to work in an equally, or even less, lucrative industry just because they treat people fairer.
Grant @ May 21st 2008 1:00PM
"it's his choice to be in this industry, nobody forces him to work this way
worst argument ever."
No, not really.
It's the same thing with actors, not all of them find jobs all the time, but they usually have other part time jobs to fill in the down time. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who do voice acting solely, but the ones who arn't making it big and aren't dumb as a rock and just want to piss and moan about their compensation, are out there with other jobs as a safety net.
this isn't traditional acting, and shouldn't be treated as such.
ill trooper @ May 21st 2008 7:24PM
Well, let's look at that... 31K a year, that's just over 3 years for this guy's GTA pay of $100,000... Probably owes 20-30 in taxes off of that. It's starting to look like he's only getting about 2 years of the same financial security you have with your income. It's not really that much money for a one-time, labor-intensive thing like GTA4, and certainly not much in the shadow of the pile of money generated by GTA4. (On a side note, it's interesting that they went for almost no known actors with this one, like they have on the last two.
Sure, he could have asked for more money, more on scale with a movie, and he likely would have been passed over for someone else willing to work for what they pay. But it doesn't sound like he's complaining about it as much as people in this comment thread are. The gaming industry is not paying on the scale of what they aspire to with this game, with it's 'movie-like' story and presentation, and a $60 ticket to get in.
Actors don't really work with the same schedule as other jobs, so the yearly thing can't totally apply. It's not like he can decide to keep being Nico every year, and earn $100,000 yearly, like you talk about earning $31k.
And for chrissakes update your blog if you're going to put a link to it in your name! (that's me joking with you)
J.Goodwin @ May 21st 2008 11:23AM
I'm a supporter of unions. I'm also a supporter of some personal responsibility when you're signing a contract.
I presume that the individual in question believed that he was properly compensated for the job, otherwise, he wouldn't have signed the contract.
Taylor Sternberg @ May 21st 2008 11:39AM
The problem with actors (and most freelancers) is that you don't know when the next paycheck will come. Residuals allow actors, writers, etc to eat and provide for their families after a project has finished. You never know when the next project will happen. A patent/licensing works the same way. In a sense, the producers in screen media license an actor's look and voice. Each time the producers use it, they have to pay for the license. An actor is a product, and if you license the product, you should have to pay for it.
If a project does well, in part to the quality of the acting, I believe that the actor should receive part of the success, as their hard work has helped that project succeed.
Roto13 @ May 21st 2008 11:37AM
I wish I could make $1000+ a day for talking and sometimes moving.
ill trooper @ May 21st 2008 7:30PM
Improve your skill-set and keep the dream alive.
why not the LS2LS7? @ May 21st 2008 11:41AM
The issue is not going to come to a head. Hollywood unions would like to change this, but they won't be able to. It's a market economy. If this guy wouldn't take $100,000 and no residuals, someone else would.
Hollywood unions (er, guilds) were able to get the pay scales in place they did because Hollywood was a very small (I don't mean physically, I mean a tight community) town and the guilds could get all the productions in town shut down by striking. Game companies are not affected by unions, if some kind of voice actors union decides to go on strike, game companies will just use non-union labor.
sleeptastic @ May 21st 2008 11:49AM
The actor is in a union :P Read the article.
Unfortunately, while "equal pay for equal work" sounds good, in practice the value of an actor on TV or in a movie is a lot more than the value of an actor in a video game. No video game company is going to pay residuals to an actor. This guy probably made more than most of the coders or game designers, who have a much higher impact on sales than any voice actor would in this medium. A game like GTAIV could have the worst VAs in the world and would still sell this much. It imght become even more beloved with a certain level of crappy VA (Ex - Resident Evil 1).
JaKa (Because 666 gives a wrong impression!) @ May 21st 2008 11:50AM
You can't say that about the guy who played Roman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH2nirEuO-k
browntown @ May 21st 2008 11:51AM
Boo hoo the dude made 100 k just doing voice acting, WTF, y should he be complainging.
SavageGrampa @ May 21st 2008 11:57AM
You pro-union people won't be able to afford video games if they unionize. If all the voice actors, and the writers, and the artists, and the programmers, etc etc etc etc... were to all get royalties, we would be paying $150 a game or more. The only thing unions do is force unfair wages for workers. Why should someone be paid more than someone else just because he has been there longer? If employee A does 150% of the work of employee B, why does B get paid more than A? Everybody has heard the joke about the union brothel right?
A Pissed-off English Gamer @ May 21st 2008 12:09PM
That's simply not true. I think you need to realise that certain people in these industries make obscene amounts of money for doing very little work, and that the principal of fair pay can work in concert with competetive prices.
brokenscope @ May 21st 2008 12:13PM
How many hours did he spend working on the voices? Was that his only job? Was it part of a contract or was he paid for each recording session? Was he only paid at the very end? How much of his overall earnings did that account for?
Saying he only made 100K from the game is meaningless.