Martyn Ware tells Rockstar Games to do one!

  • Thread starter Thread starter DHR
  • Start date Start date
There is a MASSIVE contradiction there from people who think they don't need to pay him for what he is asking.

On one hand you are saying "they don't need to pay him that much because the game will get massive exposure for 10 years" and he will get streaming money from this potential exposure that is not guranteed.

For that to happen you are literally saying the game will succeed.

Now it is a MASSIVE Risk? the game could easily flop?

If there is such massive risk then there is no exposure and he really ought to have that money up front then.

Come on, pick a fricking side people lol
 
Last edited:
And no one has shown why the offer they've given is a suitable amount or similar to what he could expect from other sources.
What other sources? The only thing comparable is GTA V.

By the sounds of it he's not desperate for money, which means he's got no financial incentive to sell the rights for what he considers cheap, and it doesn't seem likely he's a fan of the game so there is likely no personal motive to sell the rights cheap/
He could also be greedy. We just don't know.

If Rockstar wanted 400 songs in the game as has been said, then one of the other options would be to set up a streaming server somewhere at Rockstar and do a deal to stream the songs for a set period, and if it works out cheaper for rockstar then that's good for them, if it works out that it costs them more then it indicates they were lowballing their offers.
What a waste of human resources. The last thing we need are more servers guzzling up power and the associated power from sending that information across the globe, because a bunch of artist want more money.

Considering that we are in era were games, videos, movies and images are being lost forever, this is such a short term idea. Rockstar decides to shutdown the server and then you just have to play GTA 6 in silence because they have no licensed songs?

A lot of musicians etc have been burned, often very badly signing contracts that give some the right to use their music indefinitely without further payments so the older and wiser ones tend to be extremely wary of such things.
That's a fair point but they got burnt by their records labels that offered them get rich quick contracts. They were then blinded by the dollar signs that they didn't read the fine print.
 
I find the argument "but you get exposure!" is a non-starter. There is no guarantee that his song being in the game = some kind of explosion of streams. There is a chance, sure, but it is not a guarantee. You cannot guarantee me that is going to happen. Rockstar can't either. Just because it happened to other songs doesn't mean it will happen to his. So without that guarantee, then they need to up their offer.

It really is that simple.
The thing with songs is that unlike other creative endeavours it is one of the few things people will want to interact with again on a regular basis. No matter how good your photo is nobody is going to want to look at it multiple times a day for a few days in a row. But people will listen to the same song on repeat for 6 hour straight.

People who like his song won't be firing up GTA VI just to listen to it, they will go find it elsewhere. I would point to rocket league. The songs (i believe in this case were licensed exclusive for RL) have millions of views on youtube.

Then again, 1 out of 400. Most players will probably never even hear his song.
 
The thing with songs is that unlike other creative endeavours it is one of the few things people will want to interact with again on a regular basis. No matter how good your photo is nobody is going to want to look at it multiple times a day for a few days in a row. But people will listen to the same song on repeat for 6 hour straight.

People who like his song won't be firing up GTA VI just to listen to it, they will go find it elsewhere. I would point to rocket league. The songs (i believe in this case were licensed exclusive for RL) have millions of views on youtube.

Then again, 1 out of 400. Most players will probably never even hear his song.

Yes, I am aware of this human behaviour.

Me on the other hand....I turn off the in game radio, it is the first thing I do when I get into a car. The first thing.
 
Sharing revenue of 0.01% for each artist at the level of the previous game sales would equate to around $300-400 million overall (or how about 0.005%, still a lot of money for the artists if the game succeeds), of course it won't happen because we love billion dollar companies round ere.
All the 3D artist that worked to create this game are far more deserving of royalties than a muscian whose song is 1 out of 400.

Yes, I am aware of this human behaviour.

Me on the other hand....I turn off the in game radio, it is the first thing I do when I get into a car. The first thing.
That means the song is worth even less ;)
 
All the 3D artist that worked to create this game are far more deserving of royalties than a muscian whose song is 1 out of 400.


That means the song is worth even less ;)

Worth less to me has ZERO bearings to what Ware thinks it's worth. I have ZERO right to tell him how much he should charge, neither do you or any of us, or Rockstar.
 
Last edited:
Worth less to me has ZERO bearings to what Ware thinks it's worth. I have ZERO right to tell him how much he should charge, neither do you or any of us, or Rockstar.
No that's just wrong. We live in a capitalistic market, where everyone dictates how much they think something is worth, to them.

Edit: Your post is one of the reasons why Rockstar doesn't place a high value on Ware's music. Which was the point I was trying to make with the "worth even less" comment
 
Last edited:
One of the best things about the digital revolution of the past 30 years of so is the way it's affected the revenue models for music.

Frankly there's few people less deserving of the obscene sums of money that the music firms and some musicians used to be able command for simply putting out something, often knocked up in one afternoon in a drug fuelled haze, on yet another physical format.
Indeed, the new revenue model is so good, so successful and so meritocratic that critically acclaimed artists can’t even afford to tour and have to live with their parents! Yay for capitalism.
 
Indeed, the new revenue model is so good, so successful and so meritocratic that critically acclaimed artists can’t even afford to tour and have to live with their parents! Yay for capitalism.
I can't remember which group it was but there is one where famously no one in the core band actually made any money out of playing a tour (not sure on the merch side of things), the only band member that did was a replacement drummer who was being paid a a flat fee regardless.

But these days as you say, a lot of artists are absolutely screwed by the rates the billion dollar companies pay for using their music, to the point where they are either barely making enough money to keep going, or are making the vast majority of their money from official merchandise and what they might get from the tickets at gigs after the near (vertical) monopoly companies that own the venues, run the booking services and own and operate all the facilities have taken their cut from both the band and the customer.

And if anything apparently it's even worse when dealing with the games companies as they at best love to pay flat rates with no residuals even for the likes of the actors who might provide the main voices for their games over multiple games in a series.
 
Indeed, the new revenue model is so good, so successful and so meritocratic that critically acclaimed artists can’t even afford to tour and have to live with their parents! Yay for capitalism.

Nonsence for the artists actually in demand touring is where most of the money is made.

If 'critically acclaimed' artists can't make money on tour then the 'critics' are clearly out of tune with the public.
 
Last edited:
Martyn Ware will probably regret telling Rockstar to 'go do one', I'm pretty sure every 80's pop and rock star who featured in GTA Vice City saw a massive resurgence of interest in thier back catalogue once that game has been released.
 
Martyn Ware will probably regret telling Rockstar to 'go do one', I'm pretty sure every 80's pop and rock star who featured in GTA Vice City saw a massive resurgence of interest in thier back catalogue once that game has been released.

What made you so sure?

Do you have and data to back up your claim in your second sentence? What was the average difference before and after the release of the game?
 
Last edited:
What made you so sure?

Do you have and data to back up your claim in your second sentence? What was the average difference before and after the release of the game?

Obviously not quite an apples to apples comparison because the song in question (Tom Petty's tune Love Is A Long Road). was featured in an advert but it demonstrates the principle that exposure from something as popular as GTA6 can lead to increased revenues elsewhere.


Since the trailer's Tuesday release, Spotify tells BBC Newsbeat streams for the track have increased 36,979% compared to this time last week.
 
Last edited:
Obviously not quite an apples to apples comparison because the song in question (Tom Petty's tune Love Is A Long Road). was featured in an advert but it demonstrates the principle that exposure from something as popular as GTA6 can lead to increased revenues elsewhere.


Well, one can cite Kate Bush from Stranger Things as an example too....but I am asking specifically for a game, and not ANY game, but Rockstar GTA Vice CIty. Why? Because that is the example he used specifically.

And EVERY SONG btw, not 1 song, EVERY SONG.

Make a claim, back it up.

He did say he is "pretty sure".
 
Last edited:
Well, one can cite Kate Bush from Stranger Things as an example too....but I am asking specifically for a game, and not ANY game, but Rockstar GTA Vice CIty. Why? Because that is the example he used specifically.

And EVERY SONG btw, not 1 song, EVERY SONG.

Make a claim, back it up.

He did say he is "pretty sure".

GTA Vice City's soundtrack tends to be at or near the top when it comes to Google SEO results.

 

I am not asking for SEO results, or "why is the sound track is so iconic" I am asking for what he is claiming.

He claimed "every 80's pop and rock star who featured in GTA Vice City saw a massive resurgence of interest in thier back catalogue"

What is this resurgence of interest? If it isn't revenue then the argument is totally bogus. If it is revenue then prove it. Monetary figures for every 80's pop track featured. I need numbers, actual numbers.

What, that is absurd you ask.

I didn't make the claim.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom