Support NeoGAF

[KaiserBecks]

I respect his integrity, but thinking he could get more because GTA is a huge franchise is just plain stupid. Does this guy think he’s Tom Petty? There are so many fantastic songs from that era, it’s not like „Temptation“ is some kind of essential 80s evergreen. He probably doesn’t understand the opportunity he’s missing here.

 

[Soodanim]

I'm not sure I follow. So because Rockstar has deep pockets they have to pay more because that's how it works? Sure, licensing fees change over time, but that doesn't mean that it rises parallel to a companies' revenue.

I didn't say parallel, you did. You're doing what the others do and jumping to an extreme. As I said before, there's a lot of room between 7500 and an exorbitant fee.

When your game makes that much money you're at least expected to pay out something more than that. Deep pockets mean it could easily be an offer that one party didn't feel offended by. It would have made a almost imperceptible difference to R*'s bottom line, they'd have gotten the song, and everyone would have been happy. As I said before, they could have offered 10x what they did and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to anything. 7500 is what an indie dev might be able to scrape together to offer for a song.

As others have said, he's burned the bridge with those tweets. I'd imagine there'd have been room for negotiation before, but that seems unlikely now. But maybe they already played hardball and he's got nothing left to lose. Who knows. We're only hearing one side of the story.

 

[RoadHazard]

GTA6 has grossed $8B before it has even released? That's impressive!

But yeah, that's a ridiculously low amount of money to license your music to a game that's guaranteed to sell millions and millions.

 

[Yoboman]

Just you guys wait, a bigger game than GTA is about to come along and offer him an even bigger royalty check!

 

[Boss Mog]

Never even heard of his shit band. The palestinian flag avatar tells me all I need to know about the guy though and I can only hope R* won't use his song and that he won't get a penny.

 

[near]

I didn't say parallel, you did. You're doing what the others do and jumping to an extreme. As I said before, there's a lot of room between 7500 and an exorbitant fee.

When your game makes that much money you're at least expected to pay out something more than that. Deep pockets mean it could easily be an offer that one party didn't feel offended by. It would have made a almost imperceptible difference to R*'s bottom line, they'd have gotten the song, and everyone would have been happy. As I said before, they could have offered 10x what they did and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to anything. 7500 is what an indie dev might be able to scrape together to offer for a song.

As others have said, he's burned the bridge with those tweets. I'd imagine there'd have been room for negotiation before, but that seems unlikely now. But maybe they already played hardball and he's got nothing left to lose. Who knows. We're only hearing one side of the story.

What's extreme is assuming a company has to pay more for a license because it has the money to do so. That makes no sense whatsoever. All I'm asking is why? Just because they have the money to do so isn't exactly a valid reason.

 

[Haint]

A band that had some singles success in UK and Ireland in the 80s. The guy is almost 70 years old.

This is their most popular song (Temptation) done in 1983.

Terrible song, I'm old AF and have legitimately never heard it in my life.

 

[digital_ghost]

You think being on the GTA6 soundtrack is a guarantee of several billions of plays on streaming platforms?

 

[Verchod]

That's a ridiculous offer, of course he accept it. Rockstar people must be idiots.

 

[RoboFu]

Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. If Rockstar contacted him for the rights, that means he owns the rights. If the song "blows up", he would see financial benefits from increased streams and possibly even further licensing. You are so far off base that you might as well be in another stadium.

He literally says in his tweet " all rights " argue with him if you take offense but ALL RIGHTS is a shitty deal.

 

[Paperboy]

GTA6 has grossed $8B before it has even released? That's impressive!

But yeah, that's a ridiculously low amount of money to license your music to a game that's guaranteed to sell millions and millions.

His song is not crucial for GTA 6's success and he shouldn't act like it.

I'm baffled they offered as much as $7500 for it! I'm surprised it would cost that much to license a forty-year-old, somewhat successful song.

 

[Banjo64]

If the artist thinks this is an unacceptable offer he is welcome to decline.

Personally, I don’t know his circumstances nor how much he makes from his music catalogue annually.

To me, 7.5k sound like a reasonable offer. If I was him I would have made a counter offer instead of posting about it online.

I doubt there will be video games lining up to license this song, and if they do they won’t have the purchasing power of RS so it’s reasonable to believe he’ll never make over 7.5k from the video game market.

 

[Banjo64]

I don't understand the thought processes some posters ITT have. Acting like there's no numbers between 7,500 and millions or 10% of the game's gross.

7500 of 8.6 billion is 0.0000008721%

So, sarcastic hyperbole masters of GAF, tell me again how Rockstar didn't take the piss and that their profit margins couldn't take any more than that hefty hit.

R* could have given a more respectful offer than not even hitting 5 figures. They could have offered 10x more and it would still be a drop in the ocean. Even 100x more, which is far more than this song would ever be worth, wouldn't have been missed. 7,500 is offensive.

So because Rockstar have made a successful product they should offer over market rates why exactly?

Should a millionaire spend £50 on a loaf of bread so as to not disrespect Warbutons?

It’s irrelevant how much money Rockstar have, you don’t calculate purchase price based on your own wealth.

 

[diffusionx]

I didn't say parallel, you did. You're doing what the others do and jumping to an extreme. As I said before, there's a lot of room between 7500 and an exorbitant fee.

When your game makes that much money you're at least expected to pay out something more than that. Deep pockets mean it could easily be an offer that one party didn't feel offended by. It would have made a almost imperceptible difference to R*'s bottom line, they'd have gotten the song, and everyone would have been happy. As I said before, they could have offered 10x what they did and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to anything. 7500 is what an indie dev might be able to scrape together to offer for a song.

As others have said, he's burned the bridge with those tweets. I'd imagine there'd have been room for negotiation before, but that seems unlikely now. But maybe they already played hardball and he's got nothing left to lose. Who knows. We're only hearing one side of the story.

Rockstar calculates what they think it is worth, probably lowballs a bit, then presents the offer. If the artist is offended, that's on him. It's not really Rockstar's job to flatter or kiss his ass. He could turn it down, or make a counteroffer. That's just business.

This is like saying, rich people should pay more at the supermarket for milk. No, they should pay what it costs.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Terrible song, I'm old AF and have legitimately never heard it in my life.

I started getting into music late 80s when tapes were still around and at the time everyone at school was getting into some alt music. So stuff like INXS, Pet Shop Boys, New Order, U2, The Cure etc... to go along with US stuff like MJ Bad album, Bon Jovi, GNR etc....

Never heard of Heaven 17, and going by that Temptation song it sounds like total ass. The guy should be lucky even if someone offered him $75 to use that song.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If the artist thinks this is an unacceptable offer he is welcome to decline.

Personally, I don’t know his circumstances nor how much he makes from his music catalogue annually.

To me, 7.5k sound like a reasonable offer. If I was him I would have made a counter offer instead of posting about it online.

I doubt there will be video games lining up to license this song, and if they do they won’t have the purchasing power of RS so it’s reasonable to believe he’ll never make over 7.5k from the video game market.

All he has to do is counter offer.

What happened was he probably did. R* told him to fuck off, so now he's stuck and only thing left to do is rant on Twitter. R* probably already pulled the offer, so he might as well rant as there's no turning back.

 

[{insert code here}]

He honestly comes across as an entitled douche. They made an offer. If he doesn't like it, decline and move on. This is how business is supposed to work in a free market. Voluntary exchange of goods and services.

I think it's asinine to think that the value of your good or service is predicated on the size of the buyers wallet.

 

[Soodanim]

Rockstar calculates what they think it is worth, probably lowballs a bit, then presents the offer. If the artist is offended, that's on him. It's not really Rockstar's job to flatter or kiss his ass. He could turn it down, or make a counteroffer. That's just business.

I completely agree - I said the same thing. The only difference is just how low ball this is.

This is like saying, rich people should pay more at the supermarket for milk. No, they should pay what it costs.

No it isnt. That's a fixed unit consumable good sold at a fixed price and is not similar at all.

I'll say it in a different way.

Any company could want to license a song. Could be one indy dev who can only spare however much and expects to sell x000 units, and the artist might accept a low fee. But when you're approached by a company who by all measures lacks those financial constraints, that low fee is an insult. It shows a lack of respect for you and your work. They are asking for your work because it will contribute to their billion dollar product and asking for your song to be a part of that forever but don't want to compensate you a respectable sum for it. The sum is what's negotiated, sure. But even R* know that's very low.

 

[EviLore]

Call Ricky Gervais instead.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

He honestly comes across as an entitled douche. They made an offer. If he doesn't like it, decline and move on. This is how business is supposed to work in a free market. Voluntary exchange of goods and services.

I think it's asinine to think that the value of your good or service is predicated on the size of the buyers wallet.

And absolutely asinine in a business deal for the side making the offer to go ape shit offering the moon on proposal #1. What entitled asses expect is the other side to offer up lottery money on the first offer.

It's like going to a car dealership and expecting the sales manager to offer the best price he can do in the first minute.

 

[calistan]

The hostility towards the songwriter in this thread for not accepting Rockstar's tiny offer is fucking astonishing.

It's up to him to value his work however he sees fit. He's presumably retired, he doesn't need to accept Rockstar's piss-taking payoff. He has no interest in helping GTA 6 sound better, and he doesn't need any doors opening for him.

By telling them to take a hike, he's standing up for his rights and the rights of every artist who gets routinely undervalued. The fact that GTA is a money-printing machine is definitely relevant when discussing value.

Come and play for us - we can't pay but it'll be great exposure!
Give me free stuff and I'll mention it on my Instagram!

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The hostility towards the songwriter in this thread for not accepting Rockstar's tiny offer is fucking astonishing.

It's up to him to value his work however he sees fit. He's presumably retired, he doesn't need to accept Rockstar's piss-taking payoff. He has no interest in helping GTA 6 sound better, and he doesn't need any doors opening for him.

By telling them to take a hike, he's standing up for his rights and the rights of every artist who gets routinely undervalued. The fact that GTA is a money-printing machine is definitely relevant when discussing value.

Come and play for us - we can't pay but it'll be great exposure!
Give me free stuff and I'll mention it on my Instagram!

He can do what he wants, but why would a 68 year old rant on Twitter over a bad offer (in his opinion)? Just be chill, decline and move on.

I've met with lots of people about getting a new job but after discussing compensation it doesnt come close to what I want. We mutually agree and move on. No biggie. Why would I go on Twitter and rant to the world that Company X is being cheap and only offered me $$$$. So go F yourself.

 

[EviLore]

Being in GTA6 is more lucrative exposure for a musician than if they ran a Super Bowl ad. The money being offered is a technicality to seal the contract.

 

[Puscifer]

I'm not saying it's a fair offer but imagine how many playlists are going to be created with the songs from the game. The steaming numbers for those songs are going to go up exponentially. Not that musicians make tons of money from streaming either but still.

Just to add, the song Automatic from the Pointer Sisters in Vice City was so positive for them they incorporated the club dances from the NPCs for a while because of how much demand there was after Vice City. I LOVE Heaven 17, to me it was the real evolution of the Human League in terms of sound and writing and I think that exposure would've helped that project get a second life

 

[JerryinSoCal]

I wonder how many bands, especially 80's or lesser known current bands who's songs appear in GTA see a sales increase because of the exposure? I know that song Sleepwalker from Moon Duo was a must buy for me after I heard it in GTA5 and I had never heard of them before the song popped up in game.

 

[calistan]

He can do what he wants, but why would a 68 year old rant on Twitter over a bad offer (in his opinion)? Just be chill, decline and move on.

I've met with lots of people about getting a new job but after discussing compensation it doesnt come close to what I want. We mutually agree and move on. No biggie. Why would I go on Twitter and rant to the world that Company X is being cheap and only offered me $$$$. So go F yourself.

It seems to be interesting to a lot of people. Nobody had any idea how much Rockstar paid for songs until now.

Exposing them does a service, because maybe it encourages other artists to think about what a pitifully small slice of the pie they're getting for something that's actually a significant part of the game. GTA is kind of synonymous with its radio stations.

 

[{insert code here}]

The hostility towards the songwriter in this thread for not accepting Rockstar's tiny offer is fucking astonishing.

It's up to him to value his work however he sees fit. He's presumably retired, he doesn't need to accept Rockstar's piss-taking payoff. He has no interest in helping GTA 6 sound better, and he doesn't need any doors opening for him.

By telling them to take a hike, he's standing up for his rights and the rights of every artist who gets routinely undervalued. The fact that GTA is a money-printing machine is definitely relevant when discussing value.

Come and play for us - we can't pay but it'll be great exposure!
Give me free stuff and I'll mention it on my Instagram!

I'm not a billionaire so, if I offer him 7.5k is that cool?

 

[calistan]

I'm not a billionaire so, if I offer him 7.5k is that cool?

7.5k for what?

If you're making an arthouse movie, and one of the producers is a friend of a friend, and there's a song that would be perfect but there's not much budget left, then maybe you look to the lower end of the pricing scale. If the film turns out to be Donnie Darko, everyone's happy.

If you're making the sequel to 'the biggest entertainment product launch in history', you don't get to call in any favours.

 

[RoboEight]

I wonder how many bands, especially 80's or lesser known current bands who's songs appear in GTA see a sales increase because of the exposure? I know that song Sleepwalker from Moon Duo was a must buy for me after I heard it in GTA5 and I had never heard of them before the song popped up in game.

It will definitely give exposure to some extent. Tom Petty's Love Is A Long Road jumped up on streaming platforms nearly 8000% after the teaser trailer release plus there is also the potential to introduce these bands to a new generation. It's funny when I think about it I'm like no surprise it's Tom Petty because I'm older but I bet the majority of the younger people playing GTA have no clue who he is. The song Rockstar wants to license was Heaven 17's biggest song and the song now sits on Spotify with only 26k streams which is hardly anything. While I get that as an artist you have a value in mind and rightfully so it's more than fine to value your creations but let's be real these guys aren't exactly the most well known band. They had some success in the UK mostly and I doubt a small percentage actually know who these guys are.

 

[danklord]

I've made low budget commercials with a higher buyout budget than this, it's insulting no doubt.

 

[YCoCg]

Things to consider:
- He previously agreed to put a song in an older GTA game, Vice City Stories, where he was paid more back then
- This dude gets royalties and shit from Human League stuff too
- This includes full rights for all time so it can't be negotiated later for another pay out or removal like what's happened in the past

 

[diffusionx]

Any company could want to license a song. Could be one indy dev who can only spare however much and expects to sell x000 units, and the artist might accept a low fee. But when you're approached by a company who by all measures lacks those financial constraints, that low fee is an insult. It shows a lack of respect for you and your work. They are asking for your work because it will contribute to their billion dollar product and asking for your song to be a part of that forever but don't want to compensate you a respectable sum for it. The sum is what's negotiated, sure. But even R* know that's very low.

What's respectable? It's relative. Some people might think it is worth it. He did not. Rockstar can't read every person's mind and offer them exactly what they feel would be respectable.

Someone else brought up the Super Bowl. This is a show seen by 100 million people, the biggest TV event of the year every year in the USA, where commercials cost like $7 million per 30 seconds, for a league that gets over $20 billion in revenue a year. The halftime show singer gets paid like $1000 to perform it, bare minimum union rate. These are big stars, too, who make a lot more money just doing a regular show, an appearance, or even an Instagram post. Yet somehow the NFL finds someone every year, because they decide that level of exposure is worth it. Ultimately it's an individual choice.

GTA6 is going to be played by a lot of people who would otherwise never have heard of this band or this ancient song. What is it worth it to reach that audience? Well, that's everyone's choice.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

What's respectable? It's relative. Some people might think it is worth it. He did not. Rockstar can't read every person's mind and offer them exactly what they feel would be respectable.

Someone else brought up the Super Bowl. This is a show seen by 100 million people, the biggest TV event of the year every year in the USA, where commercials cost like $7 million per 30 seconds, for a league that gets over $20 billion in revenue a year. The halftime show singer gets paid like $1000 to perform it, bare minimum union rate. These are big stars, too, who make a lot more money just doing a regular show, an appearance, or even an Instagram post. Yet somehow the NFL finds someone every year, because they decide that level of exposure is worth it. Ultimately it's an individual choice.

GTA6 is going to be played by a lot of people who would otherwise never have heard of this band or this ancient song. What is it worth it to reach that audience? Well, that's everyone's choice.

Exactly. I thought super bowl performers got paid $0. But if it's barebones $1000 thats close enough. And these are mega hit stars who dont need more exposure or money. They just are doing it to get even more fans and clicks.

If Martyn Ware doesnt think $7,500 is worth it, thats fine. Money follows to whomever will accept it from the golden goose hand, not snatch it from the goose first. It's an offer, not an entitlement.

I guess he has big morals in the value of his hit song in the UK from 1983, and doesnt need the money. Maybe he's loaded and doesnt care.

If I was in his shoes (assuming he's not rich and his musical career petered out 40 years ago), I'd take the offer, look long term for exposure and consider the $7,500 a bonus.

If he hates the offer, just counter. He's got to remember he's not U2. He's from an 80s UK band called Heaven 17, which most people have never heard of.

 

[ADiTAR]

He does know he can negotiate... oh wait, Palestine supporter...

Also, Rockstar is prob reaching out to tons of 80s artists for the game, so if it's not you, it'll be someone else. Their game's worth is meaningless, it's your song's worth, and I guess it ain't a lot.

 

[YCoCg]

Maybe he's loaded and doesnt care.

He gets money from royalties from this band AND The Human League, so he's comfortable, and again Rockstar paid him MORE in 2006 when they used one of his songs in GTA Vice City Stories.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

He does know he can negotiate... oh wait, Palestinian flag...

Also, Rockstar is prob reaching out to tons of 80s artists for the game, so if it's not you, it'll be someone else. Their game's worth is meaningless, it's your song's worth, and I guess it ain't a lot.

A google check says GTV has 441 songs.

I bet the dev team comes up with a list of 600+ songs and simply goes down the list. It sounds like a pain in the ass for R*s licensing dept to wheel and deal with a gazillion artists and agents. But what they probably do is have a bunch of songs they consider tier 1 they really want and pay more, and then the rest whatever gets accept or not who cares. If someone rejects it, just move down the list to the next row. After they cobble together 400 songs that are accepted thats good enough and they end their searching.

I highly doubt this 1983 song is a top pick by R* that makes or breaks the game's music stations.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

He gets money from royalties from this band AND The Human League, so he's comfortable, and again Rockstar paid him MORE in 2006 when they used one of his songs in GTA Vice City Stories.

But who cares if he got paid more for an older game. That's like saying a pro athlete's salary can only go up with every contract.

 

[YCoCg]

But who cares if he got paid more for an older game. That's like saying a pro athlete's salary can only go up with every contract.

I'd assume he's wondering why he got paid MORE for a lesser known song in 2006 but is being offered less NOW for his most well known song when Rockstar are now a multiple billion dollar company.

 

[ShakenG]

Should have taken the money toombs

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'd assume he's wondering why he got paid MORE for a lesser known song in 2006 but is being offered less NOW for his most well known song when Rockstar are now a multiple billion dollar company.

Sounds reasonable to correlate that.

But makes no sense.

But in business, that would be like Walmart, Costco and Apple being at their biggest ever purposely agreeing to higher supplier costs because they can afford it better than 20 years ago.

 

[saintjules]

I would’ve taken the $7,500 if I were him. He reacted like they offered him $100. What percentage of that 8.6 billion does he feel entitled to?

And the good news here is they are signing contracts to get songs in perpetuity and won’t have to retroactively fuck their game up like they had to do with San Andreas.

Music Producer here. I wouldn't have taken the deal. Essentially if this game is going to make anything like GTA 5 did in sales you would want to see a continuous payout in royalties for an x amount of time.

$7500 in this case should have been an advance fee paid to the Artist(s) until the advance gets recouped by Rockstar. Then a payout of royalties should be given out to Artist every quarter until either the game stops being sold or there's a sunset clause in place to gradually reduce the royalty payout (net sales) after an x amount of years.

Giving your rights away to a song, especially in this case of being forever is stupid. Any digital sales of the song, physical copies of a GTA OST, etc. would not go to the Artist, but to Rockstar. Usually they give a term of timeframe to license out a song.

So what's potentially happening here is that Rockstar would own the rights to the song and now anyone who wants to use the song moving forward would go through Rockstar. Not the original Artist nor the Publisher of the Artist.

 

[justiceiro]

Cmom guys, it is a bad deal. If he was offered a small royalty, like %0.01 of the revenue, he would still be entitled for $86,000. And, he would still get paid if down the line in case rockstar decided to do 4k re-releases without affecting the budget in a meaningful way.

Don't you guys remember how the Witcher writer kick himself because he should the rights of the Witcher to cd project red for a mere $20,000 dollar check? Not claiming residuals over your IP is just plain stupidity for creators.

But I like how rockstar is thinking long term, even if it's a really greed one.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So what's potentially happening here is that Rockstar would own the rights to the song and now anyone who wants to use the song moving forward would go through Rockstar. Not the original Artist nor the Publisher of the Artist.

By the sounds of the tweet, the forever deal would only apply to GTA6.

 

[saintjules]

By the sounds of the tweet, the forever deal would only apply to GTA6.

It's hard to say without seeing the language of the agreement. Licensing or otherwise. They probably gave him / Publisher a summary of the offer via email to then follow up with an agreement.

If I were The Publisher I would have countered a better offer. But he took to twitter without identifying whether or not they had gone through negotiations for a better one.

In any event, $7500 for a buyout under this IP that makes millions of dollars in gross sales annually is indeed a slap in the face. And this is regardless of how popular the song is.

 

[{insert code here}]

Being in GTA6 is more lucrative exposure for a musician than if they ran a Super Bowl ad. The money being offered is a technicality to seal the contract.

Except his dumbass said no, so he's missing out on getting paid to have his music exposed to hundreds of millions of people. My guy making those high-IQ moves

 

[FunkMiller]

What a dumb fucking jackass

At least have your agent go back to them with an argument for more money. You don’t just tell them to fuck off. And you sure as hell don’t do it on social media.

Any decent agent would have got him more.

The increase in platform alone is more than enough to excuse a small royalty fee for the use of the song in the game.

Clueless decision from someone who either doesn’t need the money, or is just a fucking moron.

 

[P:axMagellanic]

In perpetuity? No wonder he told them to do one.

 

[FunkMiller]

hes super old. this deal gives all rights away. ONLY ROCKSTAR WILL BENEFIT FROM THE SONG BLOWING UP. he wouldn't see a dime. He isn't making any new "hits" either. its insulting that they are trying to scam him.

Do you have any idea of the potential increase in radio play being in a GTA game can earn you?

 

[saintjules]

Except his dumbass said no, so he's missing out on getting paid to have his music exposed to hundreds of millions of people. My guy making those high-IQ moves

$7500 is way too low for what Rockstar makes from this Franchise. He should have countered for something else. Even something like a small percentage of royalties would be better.

What a dumb fucking jackass

At least have your agent go back to them with an argument for more money. You don’t just tell them to fuck off. And you sure as hell don’t do it on social media.

Any decent agent would have got him more.

The increase in platform alone is more than enough to excuse a small royalty fee for the use of the song in the game.

I agree on presenting a counter offer. Which should be done from the Publisher or the label that owns the record (unless the song is released of any contractual obligations from one).

We don't know if he really said fuck off to Rockstar directly. There could be negotiations that are going on. Just speculating but if I were The Publisher I'd be looking into a different offer as this could be a once in a lifetime offer for the Artist, Publisher and song.

 

[FunkMiller]

agree on presenting a counter offer. Which should be done from the Publisher or the label that owns the record (unless the song is released of any contractual obligations from one).

We don't know if he really said fuck off to Rockstar directly. There could be negotiations that are going on. Just speculating but if I were The Publisher I'd be looking into a different offer as this could be a once in a lifetime offer for the Artist, Publisher and song.

I don’t understand where he says that they were seeking rights for all future royalties for 7500. That mean in total? For all subsequent use of the song wherever that is? That sounds crazy and can’t be right. Surely it means it grants Rockstar the right to use the song with no further payment. Nothing else.