Wil Wheaton makes an interesting post about how the actor's union (SAG) has just struck a deal with the video game makers for a new salary structure.

Video game programmers react with anger and bitterness that the spoiled actors are getting treated like kings while they “slave away” for years, unloved.

And I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I think some important points are being overlooked here.
(1) Game makers are free to use anyone they wish to do voices for their game. As Wil said in his post, you can hire a real actor or you can hire Joe from accounting.
(2) Hiring a real actor has certain benefits over Joe from accounting. Actors have experience, so they will produce more quality work in less time. Actors have consistency in performance - being able to speak in a difficult voice consistently over an entire day or days.
(3) Actors have an established system for properly compensating their performances (known as scale) - both up front and over time. If a performance is so good that it deserves to be replayed again and again, then the actors are entitled to a small and limited additional income off those repeats.
(4) Actors make an inconsistent living. Most actors have to work at other jobs to make their rent. Only a small (< 1%) number of accreditted actors can afford to do nothing but acting for income.
(5) Programmers make a consistently good living. Let's say the average game developer makes $100,000 per year. If a game takes 3 years to make, an average programmer will rake in $300,000 in salary over that time, plus benefits. The actor who lends two or three voices to the project will make $700 total.

So why are so many $300,000 programmers so bitter about some $700 actors? I don't get the source of animosity here. Let's say the actor makes $700 initially, and if the game sells really well and makes a profit, he gets another $300? What's the big deal?