Wish they were able to get those bonuses as originally outlined. What they’ll be getting is way lower.
Making one pop of money for your performance on a particular title is how it’s been, but for games that do very well, and the actors that make them shine, it would help out to be able to keep earning small sums to help with the time between gigs, since working contracts can be really rough. Let the larger, extremely profitable games lighten the load of these people doing a hard job for less pay than is probably deserved. I’m also a contractor and I try to mitigate this by negotiating to be able to sell my music work separate from the products it is for on my own site, for life. The bonuses would kind of be the actors’ version of that.
I felt the need to give some perspective because among gamers, devs and even some game journalists, the bonus payments have been the thing to get hung up on, the point to argue.
@hideokojima It was always bonuses afaik–maybe Patrick got caught up in the usage of residuals as well.
Here is the ideal distribution of bonuses in the contract as of October 2016, the copy I have:
With the new agreement, performers would be earning much less of a bonus per session, and their bonus would be getting capped at $2,100 after ten sessions (the original agreement had them making more back after only four, if the game sold well). The bonus payments also don’t seem to be based on game sales anymore, which I felt actually made them more reasonable for the companies. But maybe the companies are happier just whittling the union down to the smallest bonus amount than being liable to pay more after more sales.
It is certainly more than they were getting when they started the strike, I suppose.