Martyn Ware tells Rockstar Games to do one!

  • Thread starter Thread starter DHR
  • Start date Start date

DHR

DHR

DHR

Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2003
Posts
3,475
An interesting one cropped up on my feed this morning that has sparked some debate. Quoting Martyn Ware (Human League / Heaven 17) ...

I was recently contacted by my publishers on behalf of Rockstar Games re the possibility of using Temptation on the new Grand Theft Auto 6.

Naturally excited about the immense wealth that was about to head my way, I scrolled to the bottom of the email re the offer…IT WAS $7500 - for a buyout of any future royalties from the game - forever… To put this in context, Grand Theft Auto 5 grossed, wait for it…$8.6 BILLION Ah, but think of the exposure… Go **** yourself
Click to expand...

So, would you walk with the $7500 and take the exposure which in this day and age for Temptation would be minimal, I may be wrong?

Would you take the $7500 knowing you're a cultural part of something huge?

Would stand by your principles, your work, and refuse?

I was solely on the side of the "do one" fence at first, but when you take into consideration they put about 300-400 songs in the last game, even at that sort of money that's what £2-3 million spent right there?

Still, compared to Spotify, YouTube revenue etc. I'm still thinking it's not actually a bad idea, do wonder whether a 5 figure sum would have been a bit more appalling though!
 
Participant said:
Easy to get emotional about this, especially as the artist who probably needs the cash, but all Rockstar are doing is controlling their costs so they can return more money to their investors. If buyer and seller can't agree a number, there's no deal, just everyday business. Rockstar is not a charity for 80s pop stars.
Click to expand...
Martyn Ware does not need the cash, he’s a multi millionaire
 
If the game sell 200 million copies (like the previous one) and players put hundreds of hours into it each. Finger in the air even with 400 songs we're talking about 100's millions more likely billions of renditions of his song for $7,500. I think I'd tell them to do one.

Spotify pays $4 per 1000 streams according to the first Google result. So $4,000,000 as an equivalent of a billion streams. Now I'm not pretending equivalence but that's some disparity.
 
PlacidCasual said:
If the game sell 200 million copies (like the previous one) and players put hundreds of hours into it each. Finger in the air even with 400 songs we're talking about 100's millions more likely billions of renditions of his song for $7,500. I think I'd tell them to do one.

Spotify pays $4 per 1000 streams according to the first Google result. So $4,000,000 as an equivalent of a billion streams. Now I'm not pretending equivalence but that's some disparity.
Click to expand...

However, having his song in the game would lead to a lot more streams on those platforms.

In GTA V there were a couple of tracks that I added to playlists and have probably listened to hundreds if not thousands of times since.
 
It's a supply and demand pricing. If he doesn't accept or negotiate with them, they won't care and will just offer someone else instead. I'm not sure whether I would accept or not in his shoes, but if I didn't I probably wouldn't bitterly take it to the internet.
 
Shame that tune would be a banger in a GTA game.

Songs for me are what made GTA games great. When the "remasters" came out I ended up reloading VC and SA on my PC and played on that instead due to music being missing in the remasters. The music is what made the games. VC is still the best in the series due to that imo.

If I was a multi-millionaire I would be quite happy to put my song in the game. Some things are worth more than money. Kate Bush for example was reintroduced to a massive audience thanks to Stranger Things.
 
DHR said:
So, would you walk with the $7500 and take the exposure which in this day and age for Temptation would be minimal, I may be wrong?

Would you take the $7500 knowing you're a cultural part of something huge?

Would stand by your principles, your work, and refuse?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if he is being principled here or not as I'm not familiar with the going rate for this sort of use of music in games (or flims etc..) - so I don't know if this is a standard deal for a AAA game or if he's got a reasonable argument to object - unfortunately what he's written about his position doesn't make this clear... he says to put this in context then doesn't put it in context beyond pointing at [big number] rockstar will gross.

The future royalties forever presumably just refers to use within GTA6 on various platforms, they'd need to license again for any later games, but they're not going to have to faff around with new negotiations if there's a later GTA6 port on some future console in a couple of decades time when GTA6 is a "classic" game"

The exposure thing is a bit of a meme in entertainment fields, often the trope is someone being asked to work for free and being told the role/thing is great for "exposure" - rather silly if the project is some low/no budget thing (motivation then is just do you like the project/people) and insulting if the project does have some budget or is with an organisation that should know better - big media company like the BBC etc. often the exposure might not amount to much either.

In this case though he is being paid and he quite legitimately will get exposure, there must be past data on how much songs get boosted by inclusion in GTA series games too.

Whether he's right to think the offer is stingy or whether he's just being difficult/greedy isn't clear though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom