...Well, storm in a teacup anyway. According to this piece from the New York Times, unknown actor Michael Hollick who voices GTA IV lead character, Niko Bellic, feels a little aggrieved that he won't be getting a share of the $600 million spoils (so far) from sales of the game. Hollick was apparently paid $100,000 over a period of 15 months for voicing obscenities into a microphone. But unlike with TV or the movies, actors don't get any royalties from game sales.
It seems the Screen Actors Guild may soon be making a push for residuals (more here), but do voice actors really deserve the same treatment as screen performers? I don't think so. Games aren't actor-centered, voice artists are tools in the process, like human versions of 3D Studio Max. Why is their talent any more valid or important than the artists who create the character models? Sure, there are some excellent actors working in games, and several add real individualism and personality to their roles, but none of the people who bought GTA IV did it to catch the latest performance of Mr Hollick.
