By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following over ten months of striking, SAG-AFTRA has suspended its strike against major video game companies after reaching a tentative agreement. The agreement, which includes Activision, Electronic Arts, and others, addresses key issues such as wage increases exceeding 24 percent and crucial AI protections. The union’s national board will review the agreement on June 12th, 2025, before it goes to the membership for ratification. The agreement secures vital safeguards against AI exploitation while building upon three decades of industry collaboration.
Read the original article here
The US actors union, SAG-AFTRA, recently suspended its year-long video game strike after reaching a tentative agreement with game studios. This agreement, however, has sparked considerable debate, with many questioning whether the union truly achieved its goals or simply conceded to industry pressure.
The initial focus of the strike centered around concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in video game voice acting, specifically the fear that AI would replace human actors and undermine their livelihoods. The tentative agreement reportedly includes “sufficient AI guardrails,” a phrase that has proven controversial, with some suggesting it’s inadequate protection for actors’ rights and a sign of the union capitulating to studio demands.
Many believe the AI issue was, in fact, a secondary concern, and that the strike was primarily driven by the union’s ambition to expand its influence within the video game voice acting sector. The significant financial requirements for SAG-AFTRA membership ($3,000+) potentially acted as a barrier to entry for many voice actors, limiting the union’s reach and creating resentment among those excluded.
The strike, it seems, resulted in significant repercussions for the union’s image. Some studios, notably Hoyoverse, responded to the strike by actively recruiting voice actors from outside the US, effectively bypassing the strike and highlighting the union’s inability to fully control the industry. This shift away from US-based talent revealed a vulnerability in SAG-AFTRA’s strategy and arguably contributed to the negotiations leading to the tentative agreement.
Accusations of the union acting as bullies have surfaced, alleging that SAG-AFTRA members actively targeted and harassed replacement actors, further damaging the union’s reputation and solidifying the negative perception among some game developers and voice actors. These actions, in combination with reports of union leadership encouraging blacklisting, have led to significant criticism.
The high-profile nature of the strike, lasting almost a year, and the ongoing discussion surrounding the agreement’s terms underscore the complex dynamics at play within the industry. The duration of the strike, compared to shorter periods of similar actions like the 2023 writers’ strike, further illustrates the union’s limited control over the video game voice acting sector. Attempts to expand influence and control seem to have encountered significant resistance.
Furthermore, the debate extends beyond simply the union’s tactics. It touches upon a larger conversation about the future of work in the digital age and the evolving relationship between labor organizations and the rapidly advancing technology industry. The ease with which studios found replacement actors, whether from other countries or simply within the existing non-union talent pool, suggests a significant challenge to the union’s bargaining power in this specific context.
The perception of the union leadership has also come under scrutiny. Criticism has been leveled not only at the perceived inadequacy of the negotiated AI safeguards, but also at allegations of the union prioritizing its own financial interests over the needs of individual members. This perception, combined with existing skepticism towards unions among certain segments of the population, has fueled a wider anti-union sentiment surrounding the strike and its outcome.
The use of AI in voice acting presents a major technological shift, and the union’s response, in the eyes of many, has been reactive rather than proactive. There is widespread acknowledgement that AI is becoming more sophisticated, and its integration into the industry is inevitable. Rather than trying to resist its advancement, the union, it is argued, should have focused on ensuring fair compensation for actors whose work is used as the basis for AI training and implementation. The focus on solely banning AI, many feel, was a misguided tactic.
The outcome of the strike and the subsequent tentative agreement leaves many questions unanswered, particularly regarding the long-term impact on the relationship between SAG-AFTRA and the video game industry. The use of international voice talent, initially seen as a temporary replacement, may solidify as a long-term solution for game studios, undermining the union’s power and influence even further.
In the end, the tentative agreement seems to have been a compromise, one that leaves many feeling unsatisfied. While the strike ended, the underlying issues surrounding AI, union representation, and the power dynamics within the video game voice acting industry remain largely unresolved, leaving the future of the profession uncertain. The experience, regardless of the outcome, likely serves as a crucial learning point for both the union and the industry as they navigate the complexities of an evolving technological landscape and workforce.