Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

shuma-gorath

Member Since 14 Apr 2003
Offline Last Active Today, 08:54 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Would You Like Fires With That? (Business Logic)

Today, 06:26 PM

In a situation where the the composer's revenue is linked to the number of sales of the game and he/she is seller of the soundtrack, he/she would indeed be receiving more revenue without necessarily being the original seller.  That meets your criteria.


In Topic: Would You Like Fires With That? (Business Logic)

Yesterday, 08:12 PM

 

If one is relying on a small number of videos, that's probably true (Wasn't it $6 per 1,000 views?), but a skilled composer should not have to rely on a small number of videos.  In addition to ad revenue, YouTube has a donation feature integrated into their site.

A quick google suggests X per 1000 ad views (varies depending on ad demand, but the number I saw was $7.60), and the ads aren't shown for every actual view. And that's before YouTube takes between 30% and 45% (and before your YouTube Partner network's cut). Also depends on how much viewers engage with the ads, which I imagine would be quite less with music (because they'd run it in a different tab while doing other things).

 

People with millions of subscribers (not views, full subscribers) pushing out four or five videos a week that constantly hit million views or more, even with branding deals and referral fees, still aren't making livable wages and often need to work jobs on the side.
 

Thanks for expounding on the ad revenue model.  That's the most comprehensive breakdown I've seen, and it clarifies Kylotan's point.  The $6 I stated was something I'd heard from an author discussing this sort of topic, but he did not mention the part about Google's cut, so I never thought to seek it out.  But, yes, I was aware that a minority of YouTubers can rely on ad revenue as a primary income source.
 

If people are primarily running the YouTube mobile app, the impact of tabbing should be minimized.

 

 

 

In many games, I don't care about any of the music in the game enough to pay for it. I'm sure similar applies to other people who listen to music on YouTube. What are they even supposed to google for, "Song that played during level with the tower in Game Y"?

 

 

 

If a composer/publisher were to put the whole soundtrack up, it probably wouldn't be too difficult for someone to find the song they're seeking.

On the flip side, people can stumble upon songs that are of interest, even people who don't know that a given game/track exists.

 

 

If you made One Wing Angel, it might bring in some ad revenue (ignoring the 200 YouTubers who'll post your music on their own channel giving you no revenue). But even then, for one of the most popular videogames of all time, that's pretty much the only song people remember. Sure, they'll recognize the tune of the others if they listen to them, but they won't go out of their way to listen, and you'll get virtually no ad hits for them.

 

 

I must be in the long tail, because some of the other tracks are more memorable than "One Wing Angel."  At the very least, people would seek out the "Let the Battles Begin."  (BTW, yes, I realize that this tune gets the fewer views on YouTube.)   Going by my own experience, if a game has a decent soundtrack, I at least remember more than one track being decent.  Can I be that different from the norm?

 

 

If composers are independent contractors, it is likely they will have gaps between projects. Those gaps could be the opportune time to compose remixes.  It needn't really even be remixes.  Sometimes composers/publishers will release tracks not used in games as part of standalone soundtracks, suggesting that the tracks are already created, so there would be minimal time investment.

I think this is missing the point. Are we talking about supporting game developers or supporting musicians? Musicians will, of course, write music between projects and attempt to sell it. But it doesn't apply in the context of 'upselling' because it's not the same people doing the selling.

 

The reason why I've mentioned both composers and publishers previously is because both release standalone soundtracks.  There are merits to either one getting the revenue.

 

I mentioned in a previous comment that some soundtracks cost more than than their respective game.  That is sufficient to satisfy the dictionary definition of "upsell."  There is no requirement for the seller to be the same.

 

 

 

The amount is per-ad (not per-view). It's also just not possible for most musicians to get the kind of viewing figures that would make it worthwhile. Attention is limited (a viewer can only watch one video at once) so it's not practical for all musicians to just increase their views.

 

 

Per ad view, right.  I wonder how many of the viewers are reading comments while the video is playing.  I would imagine that still count towards the engagement that Servant mentioned. 

 

More videos mean that one can cover more tastes, in principle.


In Topic: Would You Like Fires With That? (Business Logic)

23 August 2016 - 05:36 PM



Creating extra remixes costs the composer time, and probably isn't going to make the developers any money, so isn't likely to be relevant.

 

The specific reason I mentioned this is because some composers choose to go this route.  Jake Kaufman is one example that comes to mind (And, no, I am NOT referring to his covers of other games' tunes.).

 

If composers are independent contractors, it is likely they will have gaps between projects. Those gaps could be the opportune time to compose remixes.  It needn't really even be remixes.  Sometimes composers/publishers will release tracks not used in games as part of standalone soundtracks, suggesting that the tracks are already created, so there would be minimal time investment.

 

 

 

Ad revenue from videos on YouTube is worthless. Unless you're seeing literally millions of views it's pocket change.

 

 

 

If one is relying on a small number of videos, that's probably true (Wasn't it $6 per 1,000 views?), but a skilled composer should not have to rely on a small number of videos.  In addition to ad revenue, YouTube has a donation feature integrated into their site.


In Topic: Would You Like Fires With That? (Business Logic)

22 August 2016 - 06:31 PM

So, to review, we've gone from being able to play game discs on CD players, having dedicated listening modes built into consoles, and having sound tests to gambling on a publishers/composers releasing a standalone soundtracks.  In the event that such a soundtrack is released, it might even cost more than the game.  Moreover, unlike many mainstream albums, it might not be possible to buy individual tracks.  

 

There are certainly ethical ways to monetize music separately.  Some game composers include remixes in the standalone soundtrack not found in the game.  The music industry frequently publishes songs on YouTube, relying on ad revenue.  I think they can even make money if someone else's video includes their music, so that could add up.  Maybe the game industry is trying to imitate the wrong industry.

 

If customers are willing to repurchase their games for later platforms, it's reasonable to infer that some of these same customers are unwilling to pay out extra for a standalone soundtrack.  Finally, a company would be foolish to believe that customers don't realize when they are losing functionality.  The annals of gaming are lined with comments posted by gamers who have been burned.

 

I'm definitely with you about how some tracks are mysteriously missing from soundtracks.


In Topic: Would You Like Fires With That? (Business Logic)

19 August 2016 - 07:12 PM

I often see, "Would you like GameX's soundtrack with GameX?"

 

And I think, "The soundtrack is already in the game, and they just made the music in-accessible so I have to rebuy the same music twice."

Yup, removing sound tests is such a dirty tactic.


PARTNERS