3 ms·
I'd say plenty of music is worth it. Music that comes with decades of history and subtext. Music that instantly puts the intended audience into the right headsp
by stubish 3y ago
I'd say plenty of music is worth it. Music that comes with decades of history and subtext. Music that instantly puts the intended audience into the right headspace and makes them go 'woah'.
But why would a developer go for worse music or higher costs when licencing? Apart from a small, niche audience there is no long tail on sales. Almost everyone who would ever want to play this game has played it, and any future sales would be for peanuts or as filler in bundles. I think my copy was free or next-to-free, part of some giveaway or bargain bundle. The rare games with legs get a remake to work on modern hardware.
TV shows have a similar problem with music licensing. A number of high profile series from 90s and 00s are only available on old DVDs, as relicencing or even just redubbing with new music are not worth their effort. Nostalgia gains some sales, but it has aged and won't connect with new audiences.
- adastra22 3y agoIt's absolutely insane to me that this is allowed. Music artists should have a right to charge for their work, but not in a time-limited way like this when the thing being created is timeless.
- stubish 3y agoYeah. My own manifesto is that once exposed to wider society, it becomes part of our culture and we the public gain some rights over the art from that. For reproducible art works, owners should be required to sell at a reasonable price, or others can freely distribute it. One side effect being you can't license a work for a limited period.