SAG-AFTRA's video game performers are on strike after contract talks failed to settle a central question for the industry: how far studios can go in using performers' work to train AI systems.
The dispute is not only about voice acting. According to the source, the biggest remaining issue involves on-camera performers, including motion capture performers, and whether protections around AI training cover their work as clearly as they cover voice performances.
What the strike is about
SAG-AFTRA has called for a strike of all its members working in video games. The union says its next contract must prevent “companies to abuse AI to the detriment of our members.”
That framing places AI training at the center of the fight. The concern is that a performer's voice, movement, image, likeness or broader performance could become input for AI-generated work without the kind of permission and payment the union says should be required.
Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA, connected the dispute to earlier labor actions by SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America (WGA). Those actions were broader than AI alone, but they also focused on AI-generated work product and the use of member work to train AI.
“Frankly, it’s stunning that these video game studios haven’t learned anything from the lessons of last year—that our members can and will stand up and demand fair and equitable treatment with respect to A.I., and the public supports us in that,” Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, chief negotiator for SAG-AFTRA, said in a statement.
Why motion capture matters
The remaining disagreement appears to turn on which kinds of performers receive AI training protections. The source says AI training protections were extended to voice performers, while motion and stunt work was left out.
That distinction matters because modern game performance can include far more than recording dialogue. On-camera performers can provide movement, physical acting and stunt work that becomes part of a game's production pipeline.
Crabtree-Ireland described the issue in terms of consent and compensation across several forms of performance.
“[A]ll of those performers deserve to have their right to have informed consent and fair compensation for the use of their image, their likeness or voice, their performance. It’s that simple,” Crabtree-Ireland said in June.
For the union, the practical question is whether a contract protects only some kinds of captured performance, or whether it covers the full range of work that game performers contribute. The source presents that as the sticking point between the two sides.
Which companies and games are affected
During the strike, the more than 160,000 members of the union will not provide talent to games produced by Disney, Electronic Arts, Blizzard Activision, Take-Two, WB Games, and others.
Even so, the strike does not automatically apply to every game. The source notes several exceptions and complications:
- Some productions may have interim agreements with union workers.
- Some continually updated games that launched before the current negotiations starting September 2023 may be exempt.
- Some titles may be hard to check because production names, code names and ID numbers do not always match public-facing game names.
SAG-AFTRA has a tool for searching game titles to see if they are struck for union work. But the source describes the tool as finicky, because it recognizes only specific production titles, code names and ID numbers.
One example shows how confusing that can become. Searches for Grande Theft Auto VI and 6 returned a “Game Over!” result, meaning struck, but Kotaku confirmed the game is technically unaffected, even though its parent publisher, Take-Two, is generally struck.
What the companies say
The publishers and other companies issued statements through a communications firm representing them. Their position is that negotiations were close to resolution before the strike began.
“We are disappointed the union has chosen to walk away when we are so close to a deal, and we remain prepared to resume negotiations,” a statement offered to The New York Times and other outlets read.
According to the source, the statement said the two sides had found common ground on 24 out of 25 proposals. It also said the companies' offer was responsive and “extends meaningful AI protections.”
That means both sides are describing the dispute in terms of protection, but they do not appear to agree on whether those protections are broad enough. The union's objection centers on performers whose work involves motion, stunt work and on-camera performance.
Why the impact may be hard to measure
The strike's effect on game releases may not be obvious quickly. The source explains that game production is non-linear and often secretive. A game can move through conception, development, casting, acting, announcement and further development on shifting timelines.
That makes the labor impact harder to see than in a production cycle with clearer public milestones. Some affected projects may be early enough that delays are invisible. Others may rely on existing work, exempt arrangements or non-union options.
There is also precedent for the impact being difficult to track. Video game performers in SAG-AFTRA last went on strike in 2016 over long-term royalties. That strike lasted 340 days, still the longest in that union's history.
The 2016 strike ended with pay raises for actors, while residuals and terms on vocal stress remained unaddressed. The source says the impact was generally either hidden or largely blunted, as affected titles hired non-union replacements.
This strike is different in its central pressure point. AI training has turned performance data itself into the contested issue, especially where voice, likeness, image, movement and stunt work may be reused beyond the original session.