Heaven 17 Musician Insulted By 'Pathetic' Offer From Rockstar Games For GTA 6

There's no Heaven for Criminals. Makes sense.

I'll sing any songs they want for that cash but that's me ha🤷

Rockstar have obviously been observing that other great 80s UK icon, Del Boy.

I've been waiting several iterations for GTA to have this song so I'm disappointed but fully agree with the musician in this case. The greed and obsession with profits of these companies knows no bounds and will undoubtedly spearhead the use of AI in all aspects of development.

Heaven 17 only had a couple of notable tunes back in the 80's. I bought their record when it first released (on vinyl, as CDs weren't a thing back then). I only bought the record because I was heavily into New Romantic genre at the time, and absolutely loved the likes of Human League who were a vastly superior group.

Heaven 17 and Human League were there right at the start of synthesiser music, and so different were the sounds of them, Depeche Mode, Tears For Fears, Bronski Beat et al, that they set the foundations of much of the music we hear today. It was a fantastic time to be a teenager / young adult and hear a new sound emerge.

Regardless, I think Ware is overestimating his own importance, and allowing his song to be in the game would likely have led to a surge in listeners to their music. He is behaving a like a petulant child...

@themightyant gta5 had around 500 songs. Assuming they did the same with 6, and paid all musicians the same fee, that’s approaching $4 million alone. Imagine if they paid what this guy is asking.

I can imagine they have already found another sucker/peasant that has gone through with it.

That's my thinking precisely, @PsBoxSwitchOwner. Plus, Heaven 17 are an obscure early 80s group (one that maybe only me, or at least only a few, on these forums has ever heard of!), it's quite possible that Rockstar would be willing to pay more for a more recent, or more recognisable song and artist...

@OldGamer999 Mange tout Rodney mange tout!

I can understand why it would be an insult. They pretty much said "Here's $7500, on the understanding we get full control of any and all royalties,"

That would be like if someone went back in time and persuaded George Lucas to sign the royalties rights for Star Wars, or Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek, over to them for a dollar. It would only be much later before they'd realise they'd been scammed, and who knows how much money.

Seems Rockstare made an offer that could be ignored.

@themightyant "But quoting how much a previous game made is a red-herring and shouldn't really change the amount. Else should a game that failed and made a loss have got the licensing for free?"

Well no, but if the previous game had made a loss, offering a $7500 royalty buyout would have been more than fair, because it would mean a guaranteed return whilst royalties would not.

GTA6 is basically guaranteed to make a LOT of money. A $7500 buyout represents less than 0.00009% of the previous game's revenue, which makes that $7500 a considerably more insulting figure.

He's an idiot. Only those over 50 have even heard of the band now, roughly speaking. He could've opened the doors to a whole new listener base, even if only on Spotify etc.

@Fiendish-Beaver "On vinyl"

What, no 8-Track player? Dweeb.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner @themightyant The traditional model is to cut the artists into royalties. The more the game makes, the more the artist makes. If the game bombs, the artist's sales bomb too. That was the most fair system.

Offering a pittance on a likely blockbuster title for perpetual rights is pure corporate strong-arming on a level even Microsoft hasn't done (imagine if they payed Mercedes and the music artists each $7500 for Forza for perpetual rights and no delistings.) 2k is just gross. It's how they approach everything. They have no problem their lawyers can't solve.

Whilst I did have an 8-track, @NEStalgia, I used to get most of my music on vinyl, and only occasionally on cassette. Back then, some of the artists used to release different songs on different formats, so you'd have to buy the vinyl and the cassette to get everything. I did used to have an 8-track in my first car though, which was a lovely blue Triumph TR7. It cost me £2000 back in 1984... 😂

It seems the issue for the musician is the buy out of any future royalties which can be a huge amount of money. Lots of actors will take less money initially to get a bigger future royalties.

@Fiendish-Beaver You were ahead of the curve by being behind.

I'll still never forgive cassette for

...click...

replacing the far superior 8-Track though.

The point of "exposure" is to get lucrative deals from companies that can afford big payouts... like Rockstar Games.

I doubt Rockstar is lowballing him, that is probably a pretty standard rate for the industry based on the song. Makes you wonder what call of duty paid for those rolling stones songs they used to have in campaigns.

Google tells me songs being licensed for a movie can range from 50k to 500k depending on song poularity, how long the song is featured, etc. so it does seem really low from the artist perspective. Especially since GTA6 will have more users than most movies and would likely utilize the full song as a radio song that you would probably hear multiple times (potentially dozens of times) in a playthrough.

I could see where he would say no thanks to videogames.

He’s right though, That’s a pretty rubbish offer to be honest but I can also understand the exposure argument. By the way, I’m 32 and know who Heaven 17 are and some of their songs.

@OldGamer999 and Martyn Ware is no plonker.

The 1968 movie Bullitt has an iconic car chase scene, the two cars are a 1968 Ford Mustang and a 1968 Dodge Charger. Both muscle cars of that era, and that Mustang being the personal daily car of the lead character Steve McQueen and featured the entire movie.

So how was that all determined? There were many other muscle cars to pick from. Did the movie makers pay to feature the cars used or was the movie makers paid to use those two particular cars?

An old movie from the 1940s I viewed recently has a box of laundry soap in plain view and was a real and common used product at the time. Who was paid for that product placement and the product placements in other movies and visual media.

A song that is used in a video game could be defined as a form of product placement. Video games like GTA will play the entire song and may be given credit by the in-game radio dj and is in the game credits. So who should get paid, the band, writers, or game makers?

I’m curious to know how much Rockstar paid other artists for their songs on GTA V. I bet Rihanna was paid a tidy sum as she was very popular at the time of GTA V’s release. But it would be interesting to see how the $7,500 offer compares to other low offers made to artists who agreed for their songs to be added into GTA V.

I understand Rockstar will likely have a budget when it comes to licensing music from various artists but I doubt Tom Petty’s family accepted $7,500 for Love is a Long Road.

Rockstar proving they continue to lower the bar out of greed. A small give back on royalties would have been a win win. More musicians should offer the same statement

They should have at least doubled that offer. It should be at least 50k.

Before you criticise Martyn Ware, read this. https://thetrichordist.com/2023/09/22/the-videogame-industry-is-larger-than-film-and-tv-combined-why-arent-they-paying-musicians-fairly/

What a scummy move. They've made more money than any entertainment product (games, movies, music, books, etc.) in all of history, and they continue to shaft the people who actually make them that money. The soundtrack is a really important part of GTA, and they should pay millions for it.

@Yousef- It's seven thousand five hundred dollars not seventy five thousand dollars. This is for a game that will likely make billions.

that 7500USD is fair for one already made non unique track! And u can sell more and more and more.....

That is Full Correct price from Rockstar!

For all the money made with online and how long the game will be out for they shouldn’t offer any musician under 500k to be honest just look at how big of a song ‘ run so far away’ was

@Ricky-Spanish I see where you're coming from, but whatever song it was would probably easily make nore than that every year or so. So you imagine every year they earn say $10000 for example per year. Over 10 years that's $92,500 they've lost out on. Its not just the price to use the song but also they would be buying him out of any possibility to earn any more than that ever