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.

When I want to listen to a composer's work, I'm looking for specific songs. The *one* song out of the 20 or 30 in the game. Unless you made the soundtrack to Chrono Cross or Symphony of the Night, there's no way I'm going to listen to the entire soundtrack, even if the game itself was extremely popular.

I bought some music off Amazon about a month ago. Notice the lack of entire game soundtracks:



I'm not an audio person - I bought these for the purposes of adding to my game design folders. And I'm the abnormality, in that many consumers would've just pirated them. And I've rarely bought this much music before in my life (again, not being an audio person), so it was an almost one-off occurrence.

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 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.

Bands do a bit better. They have a popular song and then people say, "Hey, I like this band." and check out the other songs. Much much less so with games, I'd guess.

All of Halo's soundtrack might as well only be Rock Anthem to Save the World. The average fan doesn't remember anything else, and the average consumer doesn't even remember the name of that one.

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.

If one is relying on a small number of videos, that's probably true (Wasn't it $6 per 1,000 views?)

*fries, not fires. ;)

Regarding business logic, I've seen one studio say in their marketing that their game will have 2 parts but no sequels or DLC...ever. It seems to have worked and made me more excited for the game for some reason.

Is it really a good idea to say it straight away to consumers or say that there will not be a sequel much later?

It's a gamble. You lose some money on not having DLC, but you gain some money from people who would have otherwise held back because they were worried about DLC. So if you already know there will be no DLC, it's probably positive. But you're unlikely to gain more revenue by saying "no DLC" than actually selling some DLC.

It's a gamble. You lose some money on not having DLC, but you gain some money from people who would have otherwise held back because they were worried about DLC. So if you already know there will be no DLC, it's probably positive. But you're unlikely gain more revenue by saying "no DLC" than actually selling some DLC.

Thank you, that was really helpful.

I know my game won't have DLC because the DLC model isn't really suitable for my sort of game, so I think I'll follow that studio's footsteps and say the same in my marketing.

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.

If we're talking about 2 different sellers then it's not really 'upselling', regardless of what the dictionary might imply. The idea is, "given that I already have the customer's interest in a product, am I able to sell them something extra to make more revenue from this transaction". 3rd parties offering related goods don't factor into that.

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.