[quote name='mykevermin']I can understand your point, especially in a "nostalgic" title like this - you want widespread appeal, and that involves gathering popular titles. However, two things also come to mind:
1) the cost of getting some mega popular titles. Apparently, Quiet Riot was put in their place, since Metal Health was ready for GHII (thanks, HD Loader!) - we can assume they wanted megabucks for it, and brought down their offer substantially b/w now and then. (Other plausible explanations include either missing the deadline for contracts for GHII, or also deliberately holding out on the song specifically for this title).
Quiet Riot aside, we can see the prohibitiveness of cost every time someone brings up Metallica. We'd love to see "One" or "Master of Puppets" in this title, but we all know Metallica wants eleventy bajillion dollars for it, or any other song ("Four Horsemen" or "Motorbreath" would be my picks). Keep in mind, however, that Metallica is surely not alone in overvaluing their songs. Not all bands want "Metallica money," but at the same time, would you pay the same licensing fee to, say, Great White, that you would to Metallica?
2) The attractiveness of lesser known artists - GH1 and 2 were "artificially" bulked up in the number of songs they had due to submissions from relatively unknown acts. I think the same could be done w/ this game as well. Just because it isn't "Sister Christian" doesn't mean it's not fun to play, of course. I'm not taking about all-obscure stuff, but mix in some old Social Distortion ("Mommy's Little Monster," for example, or "Story of My Life") with your Poison. You *can* have your cake and eat it, too. Including lesser-known 80's songs doesn't imply that popular tracks would be left out, of course.[/quote]
I'm not sure about the economics of everything but how many of those original artists do you think still actually own the rights to their songs? Also, wouldn't the smart way to negotiate be to pay the bands/copyright holders a modest flat fee to put the song in the game and then give them a percentage of the overall sales of the game? If they sell 4M copies at $90 then even 0.1% of that will be a nice chunk of change - it also incentivizes the bands to allow their material to be used to make the product better to sell more copies - seems like a win/win to me. What's the alternative? Make nothing? I'm sure Lita Ford can use whatever money she can get these days and it's not like any of these artist will have to do any actual work to get paid.
1) the cost of getting some mega popular titles. Apparently, Quiet Riot was put in their place, since Metal Health was ready for GHII (thanks, HD Loader!) - we can assume they wanted megabucks for it, and brought down their offer substantially b/w now and then. (Other plausible explanations include either missing the deadline for contracts for GHII, or also deliberately holding out on the song specifically for this title).
Quiet Riot aside, we can see the prohibitiveness of cost every time someone brings up Metallica. We'd love to see "One" or "Master of Puppets" in this title, but we all know Metallica wants eleventy bajillion dollars for it, or any other song ("Four Horsemen" or "Motorbreath" would be my picks). Keep in mind, however, that Metallica is surely not alone in overvaluing their songs. Not all bands want "Metallica money," but at the same time, would you pay the same licensing fee to, say, Great White, that you would to Metallica?
2) The attractiveness of lesser known artists - GH1 and 2 were "artificially" bulked up in the number of songs they had due to submissions from relatively unknown acts. I think the same could be done w/ this game as well. Just because it isn't "Sister Christian" doesn't mean it's not fun to play, of course. I'm not taking about all-obscure stuff, but mix in some old Social Distortion ("Mommy's Little Monster," for example, or "Story of My Life") with your Poison. You *can* have your cake and eat it, too. Including lesser-known 80's songs doesn't imply that popular tracks would be left out, of course.[/quote]
I'm not sure about the economics of everything but how many of those original artists do you think still actually own the rights to their songs? Also, wouldn't the smart way to negotiate be to pay the bands/copyright holders a modest flat fee to put the song in the game and then give them a percentage of the overall sales of the game? If they sell 4M copies at $90 then even 0.1% of that will be a nice chunk of change - it also incentivizes the bands to allow their material to be used to make the product better to sell more copies - seems like a win/win to me. What's the alternative? Make nothing? I'm sure Lita Ford can use whatever money she can get these days and it's not like any of these artist will have to do any actual work to get paid.
ing crazy. There was some good music in the '80s. Most of it a hell of a lot better than the shit they play now anyway.
