Nah, I wouldn't pay for that.

We would rather have even less money is a solid commercial strategy.

Look at Rick Astley.. got free exposure for which he paid nothing and it revived his career.

Even from a pure artistry point of view.. in the era of internet if I want to hear a band I can do so for free already.. thing is I have to know of the band to do so.. it looks like they don't care if people listen to them or not.. it's about money (not sharing the already freely shares art).

Thanks for the self exclusion from this cultural piece

So funny. People always talk about greedy corporations and here is this guy, trying to squeeze a few more dollars out of a song that is, in my professional music listening opinion, garbage. He should have taken the $7,500. It's not like the song (or any song) is a major element of the game.

Who cares. If they think their music is worth more and Rockstar doesn't want to pay more, then no agreement will be met. Both parties will move on.

That’s a ton of exposure this band just missed out on. They’re gonna regret it.

I'm glad the publisher is trying to do what it can to make sure works don't disappear from shelves over music licensing terms.

There's a lot of older TV shows that'll never get a good DVD / Bluray / Digital release because the music rights were negotiated before those formats existed and it's just not feasible or even possible to sort it out now. I've seen interviews with producers and show runners where they talk about the lawyers not even being able to get a straight answer on who could grant consent.

$7500 for a perpetual license is highway robbery. But poor old rockstar only made hundreds of millions in profit per year off of GTA online for over a decade, they cant afford more then that!

opckieran said:

That’s a ton of exposure this band just missed out on. They’re gonna regret it.

Click to expand...

Imagine unironically arguing that "exposure" is worth anything in 2024. Everyone with an IQ higher then a potato figured out that "exposure" was total BS as compensation a LONG time ago.

Whitefero said:

We would rather have even less money is a solid commercial strategy.

Look at Rick Astley.. got free exposure for which he paid nothing and it revived his career.

Even from a pure artistry point of view.. in the era of internet if I want to hear a band I can do so for free already.. thing is I have to know of the band to do so.. it looks like they don't care if people listen to them or not.. it's about money (not sharing the already freely shares art).

Thanks for the self exclusion from this cultural piece

Click to expand...

This ignores the years rick spent struggling before his song randomly became popular, and that he still makes no money from it. He is nowhere near as successful as tat one song is.

ZackL04 said:

Oh well, their loss. The only “exposure” they will receive now is from this article.

Quite the mouth on those guys BTW…and their song sucks…

Click to expand...

"exposure" as payment is an insult to any artist today. Only suckers buy that line.

Theinsanegamer said:

This ignores the years rick spent struggling before his song randomly became popular, and that he still makes no money from it. He is nowhere near as successful as tat one song is.
"exposure" as payment is an insult to any artist today. Only suckers buy that line.

Click to expand...

You just debunked yourself by admitting that be went from struggling and obscurity to resurgence due to that song. A little research also suggests the meme boosted his career. If you focus on a single track, you ignore the fact that the artist’s other works get increased attention too, and the fact that Rick himself became immensely more popular as a result of the meme.

Theinsanegamer said:

Everyone with an IQ higher then a potato figured out that "exposure" was total BS as compensation a LONG time ago.

Click to expand...

The rich irony of bringing IQ into this... Money is not the only form of compensation that exists. It's ultimately up to the artist to identify and take advantage of whatever comes their way.

Theinsanegamer said:

$7500 for a perpetual license is highway robbery. But poor old rockstar only made hundreds of millions in profit per year off of GTA online for over a decade, they cant afford more then that!
Imagine unironically arguing that "exposure" is worth anything in 2024. Everyone with an IQ higher then a potato figured out that "exposure" was total BS as compensation a LONG time ago.

This ignores the years rick spent struggling before his song randomly became popular, and that he still makes no money from it. He is nowhere near as successful as tat one song is.
"exposure" as payment is an insult to any artist today. Only suckers buy that line.

Click to expand...

I dont agree, I wont sing a song to myself or relate it to a game or movie scene if I never have a chance or exposure

Theinsanegamer said:

$7500 for a perpetual license is highway robbery. But poor old rockstar only made hundreds of millions in profit per year off of GTA online for over a decade, they cant afford more then that!

Click to expand...

Rockstar's income has no bearing on what the perpetual license to this song is worth.

Imagine unironically arguing that "exposure" is worth anything in 2024. Everyone with an IQ higher then a potato figured out that "exposure" was total BS as compensation a LONG time ago.

Click to expand...

This is a simple math problem with an objective answer. After GTA 6 has been out for a year, we'll be able to go back and look at the direct additional revenues for the songs included, such as streaming income from the song in the 12 months after release vs. the 12 months prior. While it's not a guarantee, when an older song is used to great effect in a new title, bringing it to a new generation, the resulting streams can be substantial. And while I have no idea if this artist is interested in touring any more, I imagine ticket sales and even being able to get booked in a venue in the first place would be substantially improved.

So call it BS or worthless, but there's going to be a measurable answer, and I'll be surprised if it's not a meaningful number. This is why Rockstar knows they will have no trouble filling out the game's song catalog.

There's a separate discussion around how long it takes to write a song and if $22,500 is really an insulting pay for that work. I'm going to guess the development team has large numbers of talented people who were paid say less than 10x that number, while working far more than 10x the number of hours it took to write one third of one song.

That offer was insulting.

I think Rockstar did it right. It's not a key song for the story, just filler for the radio. Make offers to 1000 artists, even if most reject if 100 say yes that is 100 songs for the radio. From this story, 7500 per writer (3x), plus what the publisher is surely pocketing, is 50-100k per song, and 5-10 million $ is not pocket change.

I don't see what other commenters are thinking, car radio is a tiny part of the game, they'd be crazy to pay 100s of millions.

Lol they should have taken the money.

"You've got to make me an offer, that cannot be ignored" - 1:04
I guess Rockstar didn't listen to the song first.

nitebird said:

I think Rockstar did it right. It's not a key song for the story, just filler for the radio. Make offers to 1000 artists, even if most reject if 100 say yes that is 100 songs for the radio. From this story, 7500 per writer (3x), plus what the publisher is surely pocketing, is 50-100k per song, and 5-10 million $ is not pocket change.

I don't see what other commenters are thinking, car radio is a tiny part of the game, they'd be crazy to pay 100s of millions.

Click to expand...

Exactly I was just coming here to say this lol. Even if they pay artists for 100 songs at the price they're offering for this one ($22,500), that's over $2M. And I just checked, GTA V offered over 400 songs upon release and they paid to add more music over time... To pull this off at the rate they're offering this band, they have an initial budget of over $10 million.

https://gta.fandom.com/wiki/Radio_Stations_in_GTA_V

Still no word about a PC version, though.

Click to expand...

Am looking forward to the game, but if it's not on PC they can count me out. I'm not shelling out money for a console to play it. Haven't had a console since PS3 and have had no regrets. I'll patiently wait for it's release and then buy it at a cheap discount with that tactic.

Ooooor the free exposure from this gets them a deal.
No diff from shark tank where they reject a deal and still get recognized and they don't give up equity.

ZackL04 said:

Oh well, their loss. The only “exposure” they will receive now is from this article.

Quite the mouth on those guys BTW…and their song sucks…

Click to expand...

Unless the company that offered it is so filthy rich that it indeed sounded like an insult.
I think they should have offered him a % of the profit. Offer him a solid sale number for the game, and then
he would get a generous reimbursement.
On unrelated note, I hate it so much that music and other things in games have limited time.
And it gets so much worse with "you will own nothing." Pay full price, play the game, then we trim it a bit here, and a bit there. Thank you for being our supporter.

DanteSmith said:

There's no need, this band is bad anyway.

Click to expand...

I graduated from high school in 1983 and don't remember this song at all. Matter of fact, first time I ever heard this song was today out of curiosity. The article described this song as a hit. It's pretty awful and I have to wonder what chart the author was looking at to describe this ear pain as a "hit" song.

Theinsanegamer said:

poor old rockstar only made hundreds of millions in profit per year off of GTA online for over a decade, they cant afford more then that!

Click to expand...

Frankly, such an attitude is personally offensive, morally questionable, and socially dangerous. I'm sure you've got at least a few hundred spare dollars -- should Starbucks charge you $500 for your next cup of coffee? You can afford it, after all.

The value of an object is what someone's willing to pay for it. Nor will this rather banal tune increase the value of Rockstar's product by substantially more than the $7,500. Or are you going to argue that millions of gamers around the world will line up to purchase a videogame, simply for the opportunity to hear an old '80s pop tune once more?

Theinsanegamer said:

Imagine unironically arguing that "exposure" is worth anything in 2024. Everyone with an IQ higher then a potato figured out that "exposure" was total BS as compensation a LONG time ago.

Click to expand...

Except that was never true. Even in the heyday of album sales, nearly all artists made far more off touring and personal appearances than they did direct song sales.

Yeah nah glad they wont be putting that rubbish in the game.

Should accept the offer. I wouldn't even pirate that song. Absolute garbage.