Support NeoGAF

[MarkMe2525]

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

tsk tsk tsk, maybe you should read again as it says "for a buyout of any future royalties FROM THE GAME". lol He never states "all rights" in the tweet. I love your confidence though.

Edit: where ya at RoboFu

 

[Germuso]

Only 7 millions views, loser

 

[saintjules]

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.

It's hard to say without seeing the agreement, but after re-reading the tweet, the buyout here means that a party (often a company or individual) is paying a one-time fee to acquire the rights to a song and use it as a prop to help generate sales. This includes the right to use the song without paying future royalties. So in this case it does seem this deal pertains only to the GTA VI game. The song is still free to exist and be sold elsewhere without it being in captivity by Rockstar.

Rockstar potentially pays the one time fee to exploit the song under the IP and any sales that the game generates. The Artist sees none of it. So yes imagine seeing a video game making billions in lifetime sales and all you got was $7500. Every player that owns the game gets to hear this song. Maybe those listeners will then find you or even buy music from your own catalog because of it. There's no chance of any of that happening though as there's no such guarantee.

In my music, if my songs are being played on radio stations, coffee shops, sold on DVDs, etc. The collection society / neighboring rights would be able to recoup those sales. And in this case the Artist's Publishing entity, collection society still can, just not from GTA VI itself. Like if this was a small time indie game then perhaps $7500 would be more than feasible to obtain and walk away as lifetime sales from a forgettable game may not even recoup the advance (maybe). But we're talking about Rockstar here and a mega IP like GTA. Trust me you want more money out of them. And you can under a paid structure from royalty net sales quarterly.

I bet you Tom Petty's 'Love Is a Long Road' that was used in the reveal trailer did not get the same deal. Whoever handles that song is probably getting a much much better offer with continuous royalties. But hey, we can argue that that song is way more popular. Hypothetically what if his song was the sole reason people bought the medium and the Company that owns the masters to the song was offered only $7500 total in buyout versus what could be six figures plus in royalties? If it were me I would even forgo the advance and wait on a lofty series of quarterly statements from the game. Even at 18%, I'd see a shit ton of money after the first year.

While normally these offers can provide a significant upfront payment, it also means giving up the potential for long-term income. And if you believe a song of yours has significant earning potential, it may be worth holding onto the rights and collecting royalties over time.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's hard to say without seeing the agreement, but after re-reading the tweet, the buyout here means that a party (often a company or individual) is paying a one-time fee to acquire the rights to a song and use it as a prop to help generate sales. This includes the right to use the song without paying future royalties. So in this case it does seem this deal pertains only to the GTA VI game. The song is still free to exist and be sold elsewhere without it being in captivity by Rockstar.

Those were my thoughts too. This isn’t a publishing deal. It’s a rights deal. Two very different things.

Therefore, he’s a fool to turn it down. It does not affect his ability to earn money from the song in other media. All he’s done is turn down the chance to have the exposure for that song increase by an unimaginable amount.

He’s lost out on increased radio plays, increased digital downloads, increased physical sales.

Utterly bonkers move, and fucking idiotic to throw out a performative tweet that guarantees no one is going to make you an offer like it ever again.

By all means ask for more, but don’t turn the deal down. All you’ve done is lose yourself money and exposure.

Rockstar earnings 8.6 billion is completely irrelevant. Rich people don’t pay more for everything just because they’re rich. Temptation and Heaven 17 have zero cultural imprint these days.

 

[saintjules]

Those were my thoughts too. This isn’t a publishing deal. It’s a rights deal. Two very different things.

Therefore, he’s a fool to turn it down. It does not affect his ability to earn money from the song in other media. All he’s done is turn down the chance to have the exposure for that song increase by an unimaginable amount.

He’s lost out on increased radio plays, increased digital downloads, increased physical sales.

Utterly bonkers move, and fucking idiotic to throw out a performative tweet that guarantees no one is going to make you an offer like it ever again.

By all means ask for more, but don’t turn the deal down. All you’ve done is lose yourself money and exposure.

Rockstar earnings 8.6 billion is completely irrelevant. Rich people don’t pay more for everything just because they’re rich. Temptation and Heaven 17 have zero cultural imprint these days.

I agree. I wouldn't have taken to X to showcase anger on the deal as the appearance of the song in game could potentially have generated sales elsewhere.

This is definitely a licensing deal. The Publisher in this case would have worked out a deal on his behalf. It is most likely possible they own the rights and/or represent the songwriter.

I don't feel like this is the end of the conversation with this Artist though. You would be pretty idiotic (from the Publisher's standpoint anyway) not to provide a counter offer given the history of this franchise.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Those were my thoughts too. This isn’t a publishing deal. It’s a rights deal. Two very different things.

Therefore, he’s a fool to turn it down. It does not affect his ability to earn money from the song in other media. All he’s done is turn down the chance to have the exposure for that song increase by an unimaginable amount.

He’s lost out on increased radio plays, increased digital downloads, increased physical sales.

Utterly bonkers move, and fucking idiotic to throw out a performative tweet that guarantees no one is going to make you an offer like it ever again.

By all means ask for more, but don’t turn the deal down. All you’ve done is lose yourself money and exposure.

Rockstar earnings 8.6 billion is completely irrelevant. Rich people don’t pay more for everything just because they’re rich. Temptation and Heaven 17 have zero cultural imprint these days.

The artist must be the ballsiest richest guy ever who can dictate what goes on. So he denied it.

It's not like he's U2 or Taylor Swift. Most people have never heard of the song or his 80s band.

In business, sometimes for long term gains you take a deal. If anyone could have their way, every person or business would be making billions. And in this case making billions off a no name 40 year old song.

New or smaller companies will do deals with retailers for long term exposure. And sometimes that involves taking a LOSS. In artists deals like this there is no loss. The offer might be great, but at least it's a gainer of some kind right off the bat.

It might not be the best deal for a supplier, but if it gains traction, they people want it and retail buyers ask the company they want to meet the account manager and talk about it. Next thing you know Mary McDonald's Muffins are everywhere. And then if you get big you can pick and choose the terms better.

Now if the supplier is a giant corporation, even the best biggest retailers can only push them around so much. They got enough pull that if one big store doesnt want it, the other 10 will anyway. Any artist trying to act like he's a god, just go back and renegotiate like an adult. How is that a 28 year old with a handful of years of experience after business school talking to Walmart can act like an adult, but a 68 year old cant? Martyn Ware badmouthing on Twitter, you'd think he's Coke or Nestle trying to dictate terms.

 

[YCoCg]

All he’s done is turn down the chance to have the exposure for that song increase by an unimaginable amount.

Again worth pointing out that one of his songs was already in a previous GTA game, where he was paid more apparently, so I'd also assume some of the anger comes from that because I'd take a stab at him already knowing how it affects having his songs in a GTA game.

 

[saintjules]

Again worth pointing out that one of his songs was already in a previous GTA game, where he was paid more apparently, so I'd also assume some of the anger comes from that because I'd take a stab at him already knowing how it affects having his songs in a GTA game.

Yeah they are trying to lowball here. Which is pretty shitty all things considered. The Publisher should be the ultimate decider on this if they own the masters or the original label that released the song (if they still exist).

 

[FunkMiller]

Again worth pointing out that one of his songs was already in a previous GTA game, where he was paid more apparently, so I'd also assume some of the anger comes from that because I'd take a stab at him already knowing how it affects having his songs in a GTA game.

That’s very much indicative of ego driven stupidity. The value of a piece of intellectual property is determined by its level of popularity and ability to generate income. Temptation is a 40 year old song. It has zero current cultural relevance, whatever he may think.

Regardless, you sure as hell don’t go on Xitter and bad mouth the people making you an offer to use your song in what’s likely to be the biggest piece of media ever made.

 

[Coconutt]

Listened to the song and there's a good reason I never heard it it was quite bad. Missed out not taking the offer.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That’s very much indicative of ego driven stupidity. The value of a piece of intellectual property is determined by its level of popularity and ability to generate income. Temptation is a 40 year old song. It has zero current cultural relevance, whatever he may think.

Regardless, you sure as hell don’t go on Xitter and bad mouth the people making you an offer to use your song in what’s likely to be the biggest piece of media ever made.

If I was R*, I'd just blacklist him for good from any product. It's not like his 1983 song is the last song on earth to license.

Very few companies want hassles, and even less one side publicly airing out confidential business deals. It's not an anger or immaturity issue, it's a trust issue.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

Its not about the cash, it is about exposure. Tom Petty is a legend but no way in hell would he skyrocket in popularity again after his death on Spotify if they didnt use his song for the GTA6 reveal trailer. Hell I knew of the guy but when I heard the song I listened to his discography for weeks which I would of totally ignored. Anyway its their problem they arent touring anymore otherwise this would of given them their boost. I think around $10k is the usual price. What does their one song have to do with the whole piece of earnings of a game. Its not like only their song is on the GTA radio playing on loop.

Im pretty sure bands on Tony Hawks games didnt get offered even half of that yet theres so many on YT years later saying how it changed their lives being on the OST of THPS 1. It boosts album sales, merch and helps if you are actively touring. Also this Temptation song is shit lol, not catchy at all. He blew it.

 

[diffusionx]

Again worth pointing out that one of his songs was already in a previous GTA game, where he was paid more apparently, so I'd also assume some of the anger comes from that because I'd take a stab at him already knowing how it affects having his songs in a GTA game.

Many, many more people are going to play GTA6 than they did VCS on PSP. Rockstar is leaning on the exposure angle for sure. Some will take it, some won't, it's just business.

GTA5 still has a playerbase of millions of people every month and bafflingly is still in the top 10 every month. So if you look at like that, in 2035 if people are still playing GTA6, your song is still being heard by young people. I mean, in my opinion, that's great advertising for your music, but that's just me. Zoomers and gen alpha get their music from vidya and TikTok, and that's probably not changing.

 

[Dorfdad]

because it would blown up the song and he wouldnt get anything for it and it cost him much more to record it. It was an insult of an offer.

That’s bullshit. That’s not how it works it’s only for inside the game. If the song blows up and people played it on Spotify he would make that streaming money. He’s not selling the rights to his song everywhere for 7500 its free advertising he’s dumb for not taking it.

 

[Jibran#one]

The best part of GTA radio was Lazlow. Shame that dude is gone. I bet he's retired and sipping drinks while watching the world burn.

RIP Big Wayne!

For real ? What happened to him

 

[Hudo]

For real ? What happened to him

Nothing, really. He just quit. I mean, Leslie Benzies and Dan Houser also quit. Benzies is making a game and Dan Houser has also opened up a new company working on cross-media stuff, afaik. I think Lazlow is doing a Podcast with Houser as part of this cross-media thing.

 

[protonion]

The offer may be low but the billions GTA makes are irrelevant.
Unless he is ok to be charged based on his income.

 

[ShadowNate]

He could have made a counter offer. Maybe they would accept it, maybe not. It's either that or 0$ from Rockstar, and they move to another artist.

Going on twitter to ridicule Rockstar for their low offer in this manner is not a good move. Maybe he just doesn't care or he's used to bigger offers.

I would have been +1 person who would have found out about the band and this song from the game. It's not a sound that I like at first hearing, but I have said so for so many GTA songs that I ended up loving upon playing the game and listening to them repeatedly (it's basically how it works for most songs). And I have streamed and purchased (iTunes) those GTA songs.

 

[Silver Wattle]

Temptation by Heaven 17 won't be in GTA6?!

 

[Lapidus' Beard]

Makes me wonder what Cradle of Filth offered him for allowing them to cover it.

 

[Moses85]

Banger though


Its right in line with R*'s stellar soundtrack pedigree. I kinda miss the days when they would ship a game yearly, because their music department has always been on another level.

Edit: 'In perpetuity is kinda weird, as R* licensed plenty of track with a expiration date. GTA IV rereleased with lots of tracks cut. Hell, Vice City Stories can't even be re-released (on mobile for instance) because of Phil Collins being in the game and not agreeing with updated license.

Glad we will not get this song.

Nothing of value was lost here

 

[Braag]

The exposure alone would be insane and something most artists would kill for.

 

[Raphael]

If its basically unknown then the guy is missing out for not accepting. Give them a counter if the amount is too small but come on, such a great exposure for him.

Should rockstar be paying more just cause they make great money ?

Silly. Like someone said before people would be willing to pay rockstar to have their song on the soundtrack.

 

[Roberts]

I’ve dealt with music rights at my line of work and that price is peanuts. Usually 10x less known songs cost more than that. That said the song has only 6.8m views on YT right now and having it on GTA will most likely blow it and potentially make them way more than that.

 

[YCoCg]

For those saying why didn't he ask for more, he did, Rockstar rejected:

 

[Wildebeest]

For those saying why didn't he ask for more, he did, Rockstar rejected:

For some reason, this whole thing is the funniest thing I've seen in ages. The serious business expertise is just so intense.

 

[Edmund]

.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

If its basically unknown then the guy is missing out for not accepting. Give them a counter if the amount is too small but come on, such a great exposure for him.

Should rockstar be paying more just cause they make great money ?

Silly. Like someone said before people would be willing to pay rockstar to have their song on the soundtrack.

It's absolutely not basically unknown. They wouldn't be approaching basically unknown people. They'll be approaching well known recognizable songs, which this is. Unknown songs don't have 30m plays on Spotify.

$7500 is a joke. To be clear, Rockstar will sell this game for a decade, earn $10bn from it and will pay this guy something like $750 a year to contribute his music to that product.

Yes, Rockstar should be paying more because this game will make more money. That's literally how it works. If your product uses licensed music to enhance your product then you should pay for that. If you're about to release a product that'll bring in 10$bn then the soundtrack fee should reflect that.

Songs used to earn royalties - that is to say if the game did well then the artists did well. Here, the game will do well, but the artists will be left out in the cold.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

It's more like saying when you buy milk for a family of 3 you pay less than when you buy milk for a family of 2732.

Rockstars proposed license fee is WAY too low. Not just a bit, a lot.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Shoulda taken the offer.

Its not like usage in GTA is going to have a negative impact on streaming royalties, or anything really outside of the game.

Basically its free money for an old track to be used as audio wallpaper. If you have an issue with that on artistic grounds sure, that's your right as the originatior.

However. Making it about relative income generated when the inclusion is entirely inconsequential to the sales value of the the product, you just come across as being an ignorant twat.

Given the iconic nature of the track and what it evokes and the authenticity it can bring by its age and existing exposure, I very much doubt their use would have been inconsequential to them as creators or inconsequential to gamers when R wanted the rights in perpetuity.

At a minimum you'd be expecting an offer 5-10x bigger to equate to £1k per country the game would release and sell well in IMO. so it is very insulting to low ball and fair play to them using the offer via twitter as a means of getting more publicity for their iconic track so their time wasted by R has a positive after effect.

Me and friend- that's been gaming for decades and he's a musician - discuss the importance of music in games multiple times per year and we always comeback to the view that virtually every great game we can think of becomes a shell of it former self without the excellent music.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Given the iconic nature of the track and what it evokes and the authenticity it can bring by its age and existing exposure, I very much doubt their use would have been inconsequential to them as creators or inconsequential to gamers when R wanted the rights in perpetuity.

At a minimum you'd be expecting an offer 5-10x bigger to equate to £1k per country the game would release and sell well in IMO. so it is very insulting to low ball and fair play to them using the offer via twitter as a means of getting more publicity for their iconic track so their time wasted by R has a positive after effect.

Me and friend- that's been gaming for decades and he's a musician - discuss the importance of music in games multiple times per year and we always comeback to the view that virtually every great game we can think of becomes a shell of it former self without the excellent music.

100% this.

To expand on this excellent point, If Rockstar want to evoke a mid 80s feel with the soundtrack (and it appears they do) they won't manage it without music from the period. So, they're working with a limited number of songs from the era. And from that number, a limited number that fit the mood and tone they're trying to strike.

As noted by PaintTinJr , the authenticity of the track and it's iconic status, maybe more so here in the UK than the US* absolutely gives this song cache, as well as meeting all the other criteria noted above. And that's worth something. Because like gold (the metal, not the Spandau Ballet song - good luck licensing that for 7 grand) scarcity equates to value.

Hopefully the guy's willingness to expose that he rejected the deal will be enough for other 80s artists to refuse these lowball offers.

It wouldn't take a huge number of people to do so to scupper Rockstar's chances of getting a decent soundtrack together.

*I await a reply from "Disgruntled in Dagenham" telling me nobody they've ever met has ever heard the song.

 

[Hudo]

Makes me wonder what Cradle of Filth offered him for allowing them to cover it.

This is the most hilarious thing I have seen/heard all day.

 

[Clear]

Given the iconic nature of the track and what it evokes and the authenticity it can bring by its age and existing exposure, I very much doubt their use would have been inconsequential to them as creators or inconsequential to gamers when R wanted the rights in perpetuity.

At a minimum you'd be expecting an offer 5-10x bigger to equate to £1k per country the game would release and sell well in IMO. so it is very insulting to low ball and fair play to them using the offer via twitter as a means of getting more publicity for their iconic track so their time wasted by R has a positive after effect.

Me and friend- that's been gaming for decades and he's a musician - discuss the importance of music in games multiple times per year and we always comeback to the view that virtually every great game we can think of becomes a shell of it former self without the excellent music.

I don't disagree with you on the value of music generally in games, but my point was more about context and usage. If a piece is being used in a significant way, say as a theme, or as a needle-drop at a key moment then it should be valued higher than if it was just say, 1 of 50 tunes on an in-game Juke box or radio station.

If music of a certain vintage is being used as audio wallpaper, with no specific tracking of how often users play it as opposed to any of the other tracks, how valuable can it be judged to be really?

If you can accept that Spotify pays what, $0.003 to $0.005 per stream -on much flimsier grounds frankly as it is specifically a music service- then £7500 for his share of the publishing (H17 was not a solo act remember) really does not seem that out of whack to me.

Objectively speaking, GTA needs a lot of tracks, both licensed and original so its kinda obvious that its going to dilute the value they are willing to pay per piece.

Just to put this into context, the late Edgar Froese of Tangerine Dream provided over 60 hours of original music for GTA 5, how much do you think he got paid?

 

[KaiserBecks]

100% this.

To expand on this excellent point, If Rockstar want to evoke a mid 80s feel with the soundtrack (and it appears they do) they won't manage it without music from the period. So, they're working with a limited number of songs from the era. And from that number, a limited number that fit the mood and tone they're trying to strike.

As noted by PaintTinJr , the authenticity of the track and it's iconic status, maybe more so here in the UK than the US* absolutely gives this song cache, as well as meeting all the other criteria noted above. And that's worth something. Because like gold (the metal, not the Spandau Ballet song - good luck licensing that for 7 grand) scarcity equates to value.

Hopefully the guy's willingness to expose that he rejected the deal will be enough for other 80s artists to refuse these lowball offers.

It wouldn't take a huge number of people to do so to scupper Rockstar's chances of getting a decent soundtrack together.

*I await a reply from "Disgruntled in Dagenham" telling me nobody they've ever met has ever heard the song.

The 80s were an excellent period for music and there are countless songs that are more iconic than „Temptation“. To this day, the Vice City Soundtrack is one of my favourite compilations and it doesn’t even come close to covering that era. This guy doesn’t want the exposure? Fine, many other artists will.

 

[YCoCg]

the Vice City Soundtrack is one of my favourite compilations and it doesn’t even come close to covering that era.

And he was paid for the songs he worked on back then with presumably a better deal than this one.

 

[mdkirby]

I listen almost exclusively to synthpop and synthwave, and am a child of the 80s. Never heard of them. Never had Spotify radio recommend them etc. they should 100% take the money. If it sees a big boost in interest he’ll make much more than the 7k, and even if he doesn’t, that’s another 7k for a song that’s likely not paying out that much anymore.

 

[Bartski]

I've told this story a few times before, but around 2012, I unknowingly turned down a job that would have later gotten my name in the credits of GTAV - mixing and mastering tracks that ended up in the game on Soulwax radio.

I have no idea how much he got paid for it, but it was enough for him to move from Amsterdam to Los Angeles and build a studio there.

 

[nikolino840]

Isn't the problem with gamepass? That Isn't anymore a gold mine bc they pay less? Microsoft pay also in visibility...

 

[PaintTinJr]

I don't disagree with you on the value of music generally in games, but my point was more about context and usage. If a piece is being used in a significant way, say as a theme, or as a needle-drop at a key moment then it should be valued higher than if it was just say, 1 of 50 tunes on an in-game Juke box or radio station.

If music of a certain vintage is being used as audio wallpaper, with no specific tracking of how often users play it as opposed to any of the other tracks, how valuable can it be judged to be really?

If you can accept that Spotify pays what, $0.003 to $0.005 per stream -on much flimsier grounds frankly as it is specifically a music service- then £7500 for his share of the publishing (H17 was not a solo act remember) really does not seem that out of whack to me.

Objectively speaking, GTA needs a lot of tracks, both licensed and original so its kinda obvious that its going to dilute the value they are willing to pay per piece.

Just to put this into context, the late Edgar Froese of Tangerine Dream provided over 60 hours of original music for GTA 5, how much do you think he got paid?

The relative economics for audio wallpaper seem in flux to me, and Spotify is a poor yardstick IMO as you aren't getting the tracks at Hi-res audio for that price and are unlikely even getting CD quality at that price, with Spotify being today's relative radio downmix AFAIK, and every track is statistically in competition with every other track from the 60 or so million they provide which change and aren't in perpetuity as any Swift Spotify users will know only too well. So it is hardly comparative IMO when GTA6 was buying rights in perpetuity, having tracks compete with at least a factor of 5,000x less music, if not closer to 50-25,000 times less music and be usable at lossless quality if required. And as Mr Reasonable points out, they are shopping for tracks in a small pool to project the age of their game world with actually good iconic music, meaning the wallpaper is significantly more valuable in a supply and demand situation.

(Not that I know either way) but even if Kojima productions paid similar royalties for iconic older tracks in his brand new IP Death Stranding, or even for the main theme from Chvrches or Low Roar I don't think it would be comparative to a fully establish money printing game like Rockstar getting carte blanche to use such a track in perpetuity at maximum quality, even if just as wallpaper but appreciate it is interesting how this all works out economically for both musicians and game publishers to be a win, win, and a third win for the consumer.

 

[LooseLips]

I listen almost exclusively to synthpop and synthwave, and am a child of the 80s. Never heard of them. Never had Spotify radio recommend them etc. they should 100% take the money. If it sees a big boost in interest he’ll make much more than the 7k, and even if he doesn’t, that’s another 7k for a song that’s likely not paying out that much anymore.

Released 1983 (10 weeks in the charts), remixed in 1992, Featured in the film 'Trainspotting' in 1996, re-released 2008 (again), the 2016 remaster has over 26 million plays on Spotify alone, just under 7 million views for the original music video on YouTube; The band themselves didn't make many great waves outside of the UK - but that song is very well known, very well used in a range of media across multiple decades. Interesting.



Still, from what I gather, they offerd less than previously, so I can see why he countered. They rejected, and so he made his frustrations public - bit of a risk, but I doubt either side will care much beyond that.

Bodes well, in my opinion, for their soundtrack if this is the sort of tune they're going for... and I'm definitely rbecoming hyped to play around in a new Rockstar GTA world...

 

[Kerotan]

Thanks Danzig, now they need a replacement song and the game will be delayed until 2026.

Awesome song though and a shit ton of people would have been reminded or discovered it.

Does a perpetuity licence mean any future remaster or port would have the song?

 

[KaiserBecks]

Released 1983 (10 weeks in the charts), remixed in 1992, Featured in the film 'Trainspotting' in 1996, re-released 2008 (again), the 2016 remaster has over 26 million plays on Spotify alone, just under 7 million views for the original music video on YouTube; The band themselves didn't make many great waves outside of the UK - but that song is very well known, very well used in a range of media across multiple decades. Interesting.



Still, from what I gather, they offerd less than previously, so I can see why he countered. They rejected, and so he made his frustrations public - bit of a risk, but I doubt either side will care much beyond that.

Bodes well, in my opinion, for their soundtrack if this is the sort of tune they're going for... and I'm definitely rbecoming hyped to play around in a new Rockstar GTA world...

„Love is a long road“ by Tom Petty has close to 10 million views on YouTube (song was uploaded on Petty’s channel after the gta 6 trailer was released) and went up from originally 5 million to almost 60 million streams on Spotify. And it isn’t one of Petty‘s most well known songs, it’s a b-side from „Free Falling“. We’re talking about a period of 8 months. That’s exposure from the trailer of the game alone…for a b-side.

 

[PaintTinJr]

The 80s were an excellent period for music and there are countless songs that are more iconic than „Temptation“. To this day, the Vice City Soundtrack is one of my favourite compilations and it doesn’t even come close to covering that era. This guy doesn’t want the exposure? Fine, many other artists will.

Put it this way, people working on the audio will be earning 10x that amount per year at Rockstar, would you consider their contribution per year to be worth more than that track's inclusion in the game - in perpetuity - when it is already a finished published and successful track in its own right?

Even taking 200 tracks and paying each creator £70K costs(£14m) is a fraction of the game's mega advertising budget that will run into 10's or 100's of million. So IMO it is really insulting that iconic music content is trying to be acquired carte blanche for virtual nothing.

 

[Neff]

Absolute fucking slap in the face. Good on him.

 

[m14]

A few years ago the director Roger Avary was hoping to license some 80s songs for the soundtrack to an independent movie he was making. Unfortunately for him the prices quoted were astronomical, as a direct consequence of the success of Stranger Things. All of a sudden Alphaville or whoever else were setting the prices of their songs in the hundreds of thousands as they waited for the call from Netflix.

 

[poodaddy]

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.

Weird....I can't place it but I've heard a much, much, MUCH better version of that song that sounds nothing like that band. Must have been a cover, and knowing me it was probably a metal band....I need to find that cover.

 

[DryvBy]

They could have went from "who?" to selling records but they chose poorly.

 

[diffusionx]

It's more like saying when you buy milk for a family of 3 you pay less than when you buy milk for a family of 2732.

Rockstars proposed license fee is WAY too low. Not just a bit, a lot.

What’s a “reasonable” number to you and how do you calculate it.

 

[RedC]

Weird....I can't place it but I've heard a much, much, MUCH better version of that song that sounds nothing like that band. Must have been a cover, and knowing me it was probably a metal band....I need to find that cover.

Makes me wonder what Cradle of Filth offered him for allowing them to cover it.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

because it would blown up the song and he wouldnt get anything for it and it cost him much more to record it. It was an insult of an offer.

I think some people are mistaken in believing this offer was for all the streaming rights to the song. It was just for using the song in this single game.

The song would likely get more popular and generate the musician more revenue on the usual streaming services.