I don't understand why a company would even want to use the music if it means they can only sell the game for so long. Obviously, it's not the current reality, but I would outright refuse any deal that involves a limited amount of time to use material that goes into a video game, movie, any form of media except maybe live services that are constantly changing anyways (which is a separate issue).

At the very least, people should be made aware of a game's sale period, though I'm sure that's kept under NDA.

[–] Glide@lemmy.ca 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because capitalism is hilariously shortsighted. Line must go up.

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean the game came out in 2012. It's not really that absurd to base ones licensing contracts for 14 years when the medium (games) generate the vast majority of their revenue in the first months.

Most digital products have an end of life. I agree that the whole digital ownership part isn't fair, but I don't think a 14 year selling window due to licensing is the part to be mad at.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

It makes sense financially if the game is expected to have a big spike of sales initially, and after a while have very few sales, so the expected additional lifetime revenue is less than the cost difference between a temporary and perpetual license.