-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Martyn Ware, a member of 80's synthpop band Heaven 17, was offered by Rockstar $7,500 to license the song Temptation in perpetuity [He lied, $22,500]
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
chromatic9
Member
Classic song, I hear it played a lot here still in the UK.
If they pay 50-100k for each song and then we're talking 50-100 million for songs depending on how many. Game budgets can spiral out of control if everyone and anything associated with it want their lofty piece. If they pay too much then other costs will rise. Also GTA is obviously profitable but I'd guess with GTA V and going forward, it was more online than the traditional game that elevate it higher. We see similar problems with Gran Turismo, they want unrealistic fees to license cars so they have to just say we're not paying that and move on, each individual or company see dollar signs yet the game can't be made with that attitude.
Still it seems a bit low, depends on usage and prominence
If they pay 50-100k for each song and then we're talking 50-100 million for songs depending on how many. Game budgets can spiral out of control if everyone and anything associated with it want their lofty piece. If they pay too much then other costs will rise. Also GTA is obviously profitable but I'd guess with GTA V and going forward, it was more online than the traditional game that elevate it higher. We see similar problems with Gran Turismo, they want unrealistic fees to license cars so they have to just say we're not paying that and move on, each individual or company see dollar signs yet the game can't be made with that attitude.
Still it seems a bit low, depends on usage and prominence
Last edited:
Wildebeest
Member
It's not the fault of artists that Rockstar think they need 500 licenced hit songs in the soundtrack of GTA6 to make it seem like a big deal.
Tsaki
Member
Pretty much. And when San Andreas released, artists would be worried that people would be listening their songs without knowing who it was from, but nowadays? A person will play SA for the first time, really like a song and instantly open Shazam, recognize it and with one button insert that song to Spotify or Apple Music.
But seeing their Twitter can tell us exactly in what mindset they're at.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
I don't know where my mind went and ignored this in my first post but I love some Heaven 17 stuff. Shame they pulled their stuff from Spotify. Let Me Go was a goody for me.
NEVERMIND I don't know when they came back or maybe it was another group who left. Bah, whatever lol
NEVERMIND I don't know when they came back or maybe it was another group who left. Bah, whatever lol
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
The calculation for this sort of thing is a whole host of moving parts and practically impossible for me to estimate.
Will it be used in marketing or PR? Will it be the song that's featured on the next trailer?
Is it going to be a theme tune for a character that will play every time that character appears in the game?
Will it be featured in a major set piece for the game?
Will it soundtrack a cutscene that opens the game?
Is it valuable to the game to be able to say in the promo materials "licensed soundtrack featuring..."
Does the artist participate in the promo of the game in some way?
Is the artist a new act trying to establish themselves?
Has the track been used elsewhere?
All that and more, plus as mentioned, how many alternative tracks are there - does it represent something unique?
To some degree people who haven't negotiated this sort of thing or been close to someone who has won't have any clue. If nobody knew what footballer wages were and were asked to estimate what they should be, nobody would get it right. But you could draw a parallel, because in both instances there are finite number of ways to get the job done - a limited number of songs that have the right quality or one of a limited number of players with the skills to play at a professional level.
I do however have some related experience of this world because I've written some music that's been used commercially and has earnt me royalties, flat fees or ongoing annual fees for continued usage. I can say confidently that (cumulatively) more than a million people will have heard my work, but I'm still absolutely a million mules away from a professional. It's not something I mention when people ask me what I do, and it's nowhere near ever having been my main income, I'm essentially an enthusiastic amateur who got lucky a few times.
But even on those terms based on GTAVI having a 10 year life, a single piece of my music, recorded at home, will earn more money per year than Rockstar are considering paying for this track per year.
Through that lens, it's a terrible, terrible offer.
EDITed: to stress that my experience is of someone who is right at the edge of making money from music working at a particularly low level. And to complete a weirdly incomplete sentence!
Last edited:
Toons
Member
Yea it sounds like they were basically just disrespecting him with that offer. He didn't need anything exorbitant but you can't even give him a years salary worth?
Toons
Member
Theres always a weird subset of posters here who turn corporate bootlicker on a time any time an individual dares to criticize their favorite publisher.
Rockstar could've offered 25k at least. They got the money. Spotify brings artists virtually nothing so a few ppl streaming it won't accomplish much
I don’t think licensed music in video games serve or function in the same way as they do in commercials/TV or film. If the song isn’t used in PR or as a theme throughout the game, and is only accessed via the games radio then the rate which Rockstar should be paying should be significantly less. A user could go through the entire game and not hear a specific song on the radio even once, since it will be amongst over 100+ tracks. It is also entirely possible that someone only hears your track for a few seconds. It will be dependant on how the user engages with the game, it’s far more difficult in my opinion to justify or measure the cost of a license against traditional methods found in advertising/films.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Nvm
Last edited:
So what would be a fair offer for this song?
Good point, this could have brought the song to a new younger audience. If you look at the Youtube comments of a song that was featured in a GTA game, GTA or the scene the song was involved in is always mentioned. This would also translated to increased streaming figures on Spotify/Deezer, there's even dedicated playlists based on GTA radio stations.
Natsuko
Member
Under other circumstances I would even agree with him? But under these circumstances? I think this is insane. Is it a lot of money for a game that will print money? No. But tens of millions of people will play it. And many of them will hear the songs on the radio. And some of them will search for the artists to listen to them outside the game, put them in playlists and stream them. He would probably end up earning so much more than the few dollars he would have received directly.
I've never heard of the person and may never hear of them again. GTA might have changed that.
Musicians don't usually get paid to perform on the Superbowl halftime show either. Nevertheless, the really big artists crave these gigs. Because they gain popularity overnight. They are streamed up and down after the show. This brings the artists a lot of money without having earned a single dollar directly. GTA is to games what the Superbowl is to sporting events.
Has he had a look at the GTA V soundtrack on Spotify? Especially among the not so big artists there are some where their GTA V soundtrack song is listed at the top of the streams by a wide margin. For some artists, their GTA V contribution is even the only hit that has any relevance on Spotify.
I've never heard of the person and may never hear of them again. GTA might have changed that.
Musicians don't usually get paid to perform on the Superbowl halftime show either. Nevertheless, the really big artists crave these gigs. Because they gain popularity overnight. They are streamed up and down after the show. This brings the artists a lot of money without having earned a single dollar directly. GTA is to games what the Superbowl is to sporting events.
Has he had a look at the GTA V soundtrack on Spotify? Especially among the not so big artists there are some where their GTA V soundtrack song is listed at the top of the streams by a wide margin. For some artists, their GTA V contribution is even the only hit that has any relevance on Spotify.
Little Chicken
Member
Of course, I would expect "bigger" artists/songs to command a bigger fee, but they could've offered a royalty at least for something which will be streamed endlessly by 100+ million people.
Half a cent at 100m is $500k. Even half of that, which is nothing, would eventuate into a $250k royalty before tax.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Yea, exactly. Maybe those moving parts resolve to $2000 for all we know. There is no “right” number. That’s the point. You make write as many words as you want but it doesn’t change that basic fact.
if Spotify, a music service, doesn’t bring in anything then why should a video game bring in more? This guy said GTA brings in 9 billion of revenue, Spotify brings in 15 billion per year. Y’all act like Rockstar is the biggest company on earth and Spotify is run out of a monastery or something. I think Spotify is bigger than Take 2 by a wide margin.
The fact is, for better or worse, the value of a song has just plummeted in the past 20 years. Playback is basically worthless. It’s not 1998 anymore. There was a brief period when artists were making a shitload on Guitar Hero but that’s long gone. Stuff like this reflects that.
And - it’s really not corporate bootlicking. He has the right to turn it down. We pointed out examples where big artists essentially work for free for the exposure. It happens.
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Well, I don't know what to say to you. If everything needs to be expressed in a paragraph or less, there's really not much point in you weighing in.
But as a rebuttal to your point here (in under 30 words, hope that's ok
), if you want to license a track of a similar stature to the one we're talking about here, and you've got a budget of £2k you're not getting it - you're not getting much of anything.
Last edited:
diffusionx
Gold Member
Bro, you said $7500 is not enough. I said, okay so what is. we’re talking numbers here so give me a number. You said “I dunno blah blah blah”. So, you’re just full of shit.
Well that sucks I guess price controls and government should step in and mandate that artists get $10k.
It is either $7500 or 0 from the sounds of it. Or maybe get an agent and negotiate. Whining about it doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter how much the game makes. It is how much they are willing to pay for a song. And if you haven't had a hit song in 40 years maybe it is a good time to take the increase in traffic. b ut I guess thats the artists choice.
It is either $7500 or 0 from the sounds of it. Or maybe get an agent and negotiate. Whining about it doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter how much the game makes. It is how much they are willing to pay for a song. And if you haven't had a hit song in 40 years maybe it is a good time to take the increase in traffic. b ut I guess thats the artists choice.
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
That sounds a little extravagant to license a single song imo.
Little Chicken
Member
I would say so usually, but GTA is an extravagant piece of software.
The advertisement and promotion the song/band will get is part of the GTA package. The artist shouldn’t be paid significantly more on top of that. I also just don’t think it’s entirely fair to increase the valuation of a license based on GTAs selling power. I think that might work in the film and television industry, I don’t think it translates well into the video game industry. Like I say, I think $7500 is a little low, but what really is a fair valuation? No one really knows, so maybe $7500 is justified?
proandrad
Member
You must be clueless about how big of a deal they are actually getting, the $7500 is more likely for legal reasons over asking them to do it for free. The mega deal is being featured in GTA, the biggest entertainment property is history. Their music being featured on GTA would be giant marketing for their music. Rockstar should really be getting paid to feature an artist’s music in GTA, if they really wanted to be greedy. This is like the NFL paying a regional grocery store to play the grocery’s store commercial during the Super Bowl.
Last edited:
Doczu
Member
7.5k sounds low for a single pay with no roaylties down the line.
Wouldn't make a fuss on X like he did, just said no and moved on.
It's a crime against humanity that this song is forgotten and i wasn't alive when it came out.
Wouldn't make a fuss on X like he did, just said no and moved on.
I swear if i finally get back to writing my story i will make Temptation culturally relevant again.
It's a crime against humanity that this song is forgotten and i wasn't alive when it came out.
Little Chicken
Member
There are obviously a lot of factors we aren't privy to lol
But come on, $7500 gets you what, a banana?
Come on, that's at least a year's supply of bananas.There are obviously a lot of factors we aren't privy to lol
But come on, $7500 gets you what, a banana?
kruis
Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
You're from the US? Temptation reached number 2 on the UK hit singles chart and was also popular in many other European countries. I knew the song and the band in the early eighties. But I was never a real fan. I had a tape of their previous album "Penthouse and Pavement" (from 1981) but I never liked it enough to get the LP and I thought "Temptation" was a step in the wrong direction. Heaven 17 were never that great musically and they never hit it big again after "Temptation". They were not very far off from being a one hit wonder.
KormaChameleon
Member
Seems a bit of a low ball considering how much R*/T2 made from GTAO.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Well, as I explained in my earlier post, there are a number of considerations that we don't know. But I can tell you that I know of someone who had a song on a major game a couple of decades ago that was able to build a recording studio (at a time when building a recording studio was a significantly more serious outlay than it is now) with the proceeds. Things were slightly different then, however, because royalties were paid on sales not just a buyout.
But, ultimately, I don't know the number. As explained, there are so many moving parts. But, 7.5k is a derisory offer. Even if you know nothing of the industry, you can tell it is because of the reaction. This isn't the first time someone's tried to license this song. At some point it might be worth accepting that the guy who owns the song knows the kinds of numbers that people approach him with to license it and that this offer is so godawful, that he felt compelled to announce it publicly.
nikos
Member
He’s publicly complaining about this to still get the recognition he told them to “go fuck themselves” over, which is why I won’t bother listening to the track.
I used to be proud like that, not for money but for being credited for music that I produced for others. In hindsight, I should have probably continued.
I’d give them my music for free.
I used to be proud like that, not for money but for being credited for music that I produced for others. In hindsight, I should have probably continued.
I’d give them my music for free.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Exactly what I thought.
Dont bother. It's awful. How this song made top 3 in the UK/Ireland in 1983 is a mystery when there were much better UK stuff at the time. It ranked so low globally (no wonder many of us never heard of the band or song), that if you look at the album's/song's global charting on wiki it didnt even rank in some countries (not even top 100), Must had been a slow year for songs in the UK.
Last edited:
fart town usa
Member
Wayne sadly died of a heart attack in his work truck probably over a decade ago, it's been a while. His was there for a few days before they found him, super shitty. Dude was so damn funny. Decades of smoking blunts and drinking rum caught up to him.
longrainwater
Neo Member
Unfortunately music is undervalued these days. I think he is from a generation that expects to make a living from music, which is not really realistic these days. I would just take the publicity.
Last edited:
Wildebeest
Member
According to GAF all the music in the game should be from unknown Swedish metal producers who make "band music" by themselves in Ableton with some incomprehensible chain smoker growling on top. They do it free for exposure, proving themselves to be the greatest business minds as well as superior musicians.
P:axMagellanic
Member
I'm absolutely amazed you even have to point this out. Perpetuity for 7500 is an insult.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
It's quite an eye opener on here.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
The guy is arguing $7500 is too low when the potential pot of money from streaming and getting his name back out there (especially globally) can be way more. And when the streams and licensing deals come from other sources (this R* deal is limited to GTA6 only), he can sit back and collect the money. All he has to do is sign over his 40 year song for a single video game, which most people have never heard of before.
If his song was so good and important R* would had offered more or agreed to his counter proposal which he has no balls to disclose, though he disclosed R*'s offer.
DannyDanger
Member
I understand him wanting more but, San Andreas introduced me to do many songs.
The exposure would be huge.
I would try for 15k - 20k lol
The exposure would be huge.
I would try for 15k - 20k lol
P:axMagellanic
Member
It's the perfect car music for these kind of games. 'zero' cultural impact my arse as well, it's very well known over here.
Do they even earn fuck all from streaming? Isn't it like pennies per thousands of listens?
RedC
Member
If it made no cultural impact in America than it has zero cultural impact.
We were too busy listening to this:
Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1983 - Wikipedia
nikos
Member
I somehow missed that it’s from 1983, thought this guy was a somewhat new/unknown artist.
Yeah had a listen, I do remember it, and it is iconic, should have googled first
That said, 8 years of listens on Spotify for their remaster will have got them around 100k…maybe high end 130k. Likely to have been very front loaded with the rerelease too. YouTube, for those 7mil views, throw on another 20-30k. Not really talking about big numbers here. Most their money im guessing will be coming from licensing in films or tv shows.
That said tho, given the number of players GTA will have, and if comparing it to TV shows or film, their offer is certainly pretty shitty. It should probably have an extra zero on the end to be a fair deal. Flip side, given the likely popularity of GTA, seeing their streaming stats double or triple as a result would not be unrealistic. It being popular again would also likely result in increased licensing deals elsewhere like tv ads, film/tv. So whilst rockstars offer was shit…turning it down is also likely to lose them significantly more than the value of the offer. Tough call as a creative. If I was them I’d have probably taken it, as the opportunities for this sort of stuff are gonna be increasingly slim imo as music becomes more hyper personalised ai stuff.
A counter offer could have been, agreeing to that price but only if they feature the song prominently in their marketing, which would have had way more people then searching for it than if it was just “another song on the radio in your car”
Uk, but I was young and I was into rock in the 80s/90s…having since googled it, yeah I recognise it. Just not sufficiently familiar to remember their name. Posted a more lengthy reply elsewhere in this thread, they have been low balled for sure…market rate could well have been 10x. But not being in it at all is also a massive missed opportunity for them, and would have gained them far more £££ than the upfront pay. Must have been a tough decision to turn them down.
funking giblet
Member
Clubs and Drugs.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
No one posted this?
The total offer was $22.5k for the song, split amongst the 3 rights holders.
He counter offered $75k (I hope he doesn’t mean $225k total!?)
Well, well, well. Look at that. The offer was actually $22,500, and he countered by more than tripling it to $75,000 (and that assumes it's $75k total and not per person). Give him credit for being ballsy. Not too often anywhere in any negotiations, someone will demand 3.5x more than the first offer. Good luck.
Hey, just as he and his buddies have every right to reject it. So does R* rejecting his counter offer. Case closed Martyn Ware. Chances are the window is closed even if he and his buddies went back and agreed to the first offer.
When it comes to internet whiners, never believe them too much. It's a one way street, since the corporate side usually dont reply into public bickering matches.
The guys final rant mislead people. That would be like saying a sports team owner saying the offer of $10M is way too cheap. Then turns out this guy only had 1% ownership of the team. So in reality the offer might be pretty good at $1 billion, but his share is only worth 1% of it.
Last edited: