this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
148 points (92.5% liked)

Games

32943 readers
1008 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Something something digital ownership

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CharlesReed@kbin.social 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The licenses referenced likely have to do with the game’s music. During the The Line’s menu screen, Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” can be heard while the game’s soundtrack includes Martha and The Vandellas’ “Nowhere to Run.”

The same thing happened to the first Alan Wake before they worked something out to get it back (even though it took almost a decade). Consequently, that's also one of the reasons they wrote original songs for the sequel. It's very much a gamble these days to license music for games. More or less puts it on a timeline to be removed at some point.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Couldn't they just insist on a perpetual license?

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Perpetual sync rights licenses aren't unheard of, but typically these require an ongoing revenue split of sales or a big up front. More often than not, limited rights are used to save scratch and because its going to be for a set period, like 30 days (for an ad campaign).

In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if Take Two opted for perpetual, and decided they won't afford a per unit sale anymore, and pulled the game to stop paying.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

So basically music rights owners are too greedy and demand so much money for a reasonable license they have publishers can't afford it? Sounds about right.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Or just remove the music or whatever..

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Unfortunately, there's some thematically appropriate uses in the game and this is sometimes applicable in other media.

[–] CharlesReed@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If you have time for some reading, here's a really great article from a few years ago that talks about licensing in video games and how complicated it can be (the first half of the article is really the only relevant part). Depending on what exactly you want to do with the music in/with the game, a developer could be looking at having to deal with more than one license. I imagine it could get expensive very easily.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Pyrocynical used Midge Ure's cover of "The Man Who Sold the World" in a video covering Half-Life 2 or a mod of it, and that meant Midge needed a cut, the original writer David Bowie, his estate needed a cut, Kobalt Songs, who owns the rights for Midge's cover needed a cut, Warner Chappal, who owns the Bowie library needed a cut, ASCAP needed a cut, PRS needed a cut...

You only get a small fraction of who owns what off SongView. It's a removed. Pyro paid $24,000 for the sync rights. That's the budget for like five of his videos right there.

I wish this process was easier. Contacting a label's sync office is typically the start of the nightmare.