Activision Blizzard CEO questions rhythm game royalties yet again

by Griffin McElroy { Sep 27th 2008 at 2:30PM }

Last week, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick criticized complaints made by Warner Music exec Edgar Bronfman, who claimed the royalty rates for songs used in rhythm games such as Guitar Hero are "paltry." Kotick responded hastily, saying Bronfman's comment was "one-sided". Apparently unsatisfied with his single verbal riposte, Kotick brought the matter up yet again in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, in which he ponders whether music publishers who contribute to rhythm games should be paid at all -- even more, Kotick contemplates whether the music companies should be the ones to shell out the cash.

Kotick claims that rhythm games with licensed tracks have a "significant" impact on the record and ticket sales of contributing artists, causing him to wonder if developers "should be paying any money at all and whether it should be the reverse." He makes a somewhat valid point, though we humbly abstain from picking sides in this royalty rumble -- we'll leave that to you, our well-informed and judicious readers.

Tags: activision-blizzard, bobby-kotick, guitar-hero, music, royalties, warner-music

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Monkeydog @ Sep 27th 2008 2:35PM

Well the same can be said about any other type of media.(Movies, TV...)

I'm pretty sure no one ever listened to The Moldy Peaches before Juno.

However with Rhythm games the music is its main draw.

OMGOMG @ Sep 27th 2008 2:44PM

I see what Activision is saying. The music industry is in shambles, yet people still listen to music more than ever.

The industry dug this hole themselves for refusing to accept downloadable music a long time ago. But hearing Activision complain about money is like a fat kid complaining about not getting food EVAR!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7sT1HRV2qU

And here's Prince shredding on "While My Guitar Gently Weeps".

HOLY SHIT.

Jakka(A tribute to whose who fought and failed during the Epic Flamewar of L.A. Noir and MR.ESC) @ Sep 27th 2008 2:55PM

Never heard of them.

...and wasn't Juno a movie about illiteracy and dyslexia in US? With main character not knowing how to spell "June"?

Monkeydog @ Sep 27th 2008 2:59PM

Are you implying that everyone in Alaska is dyslexic and illiterate?

J.Goodwin @ Sep 27th 2008 3:14PM

It's true, Prince is a god wearing man's meaty flesh as clothing.

I wish I was the CEO of Activision, and could make millions a year by making batshit insane comments.

Haggard (steam: haggard_dawn, PSN: HaggyWaggy) @ Sep 27th 2008 3:27PM

Prince was good there, but Tom Scholz of Boston is still my current favorite soloer

Monkeydog @ Sep 27th 2008 3:30PM

While I absolutely adore While My Guitar Gently Weeps(and Harrison is my favourite songwriter ever, save maybe Colin Meloy and Thom Yorke)...and Prince's cover is awesome, I can't help to think it has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

But I assume it's so awesome it doesn't have to.

Comet @ Sep 27th 2008 3:35PM

OMGOMG,

The music Industry is in shambles BECAUSE of downloadable music. No longer do you have to wait for the single of your favorite song, or buy a whole LP. Now you can just download any song at .99 cents apiece.

But I think its idiotic for Activision to even remotly think about having the labels pay for the "privilege" to have their songs put in a game. Thats like me saying That since I got my friends to buy a
Bikini Kill Album their should play a reunion
show in my backyard.

Monkeydog @ Sep 27th 2008 4:05PM

@Comet

The music industry is in shambles because it fails to use downloadable music to any use, and pisses off artists far too much.

Tell Radiohead, Prince, or NIN that downloadable music doesn't work, I doubt they'd agree with you.

Kellydude025 @ Sep 27th 2008 7:05PM

Down loadable content is sweet...and i feel that Activision shouldn't be the ones making these remarks seeing as their selection of DLC is like a male genitalia in a pile of ice...

All facts put aside, DLC probably does increase the amount of album sales. But for music industries to not get ANY ROYALTIES from it, they would have to lower the price significantly for me to consider paying for it. (I'm not gonna pay 2$ for a song knowing that it would all go to the developers, when all they really did was make a note chart)

Mixaboy @ Sep 27th 2008 4:59PM

Good. Stick it the record companies. Guitar Hero and Rock Band do more for the music industry than anything else I can think of off the top of my head, so if certain companies in music industry want to try and ream Activision and Harmonix, let them cry when their music doesn;t get in the games.

FSK405K @ Sep 27th 2008 2:53PM

Why can't they agree that they both benefit from crossing the media, and get rid of royalties altogether? The game companies should show whatever the statistic is on singles purchased through digital stores comparing songs on these games to songs on the same albums that were not in these games: 'look, music industry, music you share with us get YOU more money from customers. Why are we paying you to advertise your products?'

paquitito @ Sep 27th 2008 3:05PM

I know for certain that Rock Band is responsible for me buying full albums by artists that I normally wouldn't have heard of due to local radio stations only playing the same 10 rock artists on endless repeat.

Bob @ Sep 27th 2008 3:15PM

To play devil's advocate: if Guitar Hero or Rock Band did NOT have all the licensed music, would anyone buy them? I agree that the music industry makes out with the free publicity, and shouldn't pout too much about it, but they'd still have a product with or without rhythm games. Without the licensed music, rhythm games would not be making any money at all.

Xoviet chiK @ Sep 27th 2008 3:25PM

Guitar Hero: Nutcracker. Featuring: All new recordings of Tchaikovsky's masterpiece with exciting neoclassical heavy metal flair!

Sign me up!

Meta @ Sep 27th 2008 3:40PM

Make it night on bald mountain or the sorcerers apprentice and I'm sold!

Haggard (steam: haggard_dawn, PSN: HaggyWaggy) @ Sep 27th 2008 3:41PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpfX6FNahv0

Jakka(A tribute to whose who fought and failed during the Epic Flamewar of L.A. Noir and MR.ESC) @ Sep 27th 2008 4:08PM

Imagines a heavy metal version of Overture 1812....will buy!

Cesaria (Gamertag: Cesaria360) @ Sep 27th 2008 4:24PM

"To play devil's advocate:"

That term fits very well with Activision, Bob.

LameDuck @ Sep 27th 2008 3:23PM

"Bawwwwwwww!!! We're not making enough money of others peoples creations! HOW CAN I AFFORD MY JET AND 20 ASIAN HOOKERS?!"

Did I sum that up about right?

zombiejesus @ Sep 27th 2008 3:32PM

Oh yes Kotick please try that. You will see how far you can go in a music game when you piss off the main source of your games, the music labels.

Sora @ Sep 27th 2008 3:36PM

Weren't the record labels the one who started it by saying "QQ NEED MOAR MONEYZ"

zombiejesus @ Sep 27th 2008 3:44PM

The way I look at it you shouldn't close out the whole idea but come to an agreement. If you piss them off enough they will pull out and someone as big as Warner Bros. You don't want to piss off and have them pull out there entire library from you to use. If Warner Bros. pulls out due to this what makes you think other ones won't pull out as well?

Sora @ Sep 27th 2008 4:04PM

Pulling out would pretty much be losing money, meaning they'd either be hypocrites or want "all or nothing", which is still pretty dumb.

zombiejesus @ Sep 27th 2008 4:13PM

Not really they would just go to the other competition or competitions that will pay.

Sora @ Sep 27th 2008 6:37PM

But the other competitions willing to pay would pay less if the music industry had less people to choose from.

j.howlett @ Sep 27th 2008 3:38PM

you can either pay for the rights to music people want or use your own and public domain like wii music and see how much dough rolls in for almost redundant instruments and pop goes the weasel.

Haggard (steam: haggard_dawn, PSN: HaggyWaggy) @ Sep 27th 2008 3:39PM

I'd be suprised if people weren't already paying to have their music on GH/RB.

After all, there was that free-to-download song to promote some movie on Rock band, and I remember a news story a while back that GH3 was confirmed to have a song of QOTSA's (then) unreleased album.

I can't imagine Neversoft sat there thinking "you know what we really need? A song off QOTSA's new album that we've not even heard yet! Because that's definitely a 'Legend of Rock'"

Red Leader @ Sep 27th 2008 3:49PM

Hey John, look! I'm trolling another Rock Band/Guitar Hero post!

*Dr. Evil Pose*

Courtney @ Sep 27th 2008 3:57PM

One might think that the music industry should welcome another venue through which to sell their product and expand fan bases.

I might, if I were head of a music company, worry about some rather ingenious game programmer figuring out how to generate quality rhythm games generated from their own music libraries, thereby cutting out the music labels entirely.

Oh wait, that's already happening on a limited scale isn't it? Is it perfect, no, but it sure as hell is possible.

By playing nice and maintaining quality relationships with game creators, it seems far more plausible to keep rhythm games as a revenue source rather than losing more access to the genre.

GalileoAce @ Sep 27th 2008 4:08PM

"we'll leave that to you, our well-informed and judicious readers."

WTF!? Have you been reading the comments on this site? Honestly?

(yes I'm aware of sarcasm, thank you)

Cesaria (Gamertag: Cesaria360) @ Sep 27th 2008 4:25PM

Translation: I want a second gold plated BMW.

Kadamon @ Sep 27th 2008 4:36PM

I can see where Kotick is coming from...

Basically, he looks at RB/GH series as commercials for the artists and alst I checked, the artists and such had to pay to have their commercials aired, not the otherway around.

I'd never even heard of some of the bands on half of the set lists, and most of the bonus tracks, now I have and I've bought a few of those CD's because of it.

Of course, that's just in my case. We all know that both sides are greedy for more of our cash.

KeenCommander @ Sep 27th 2008 5:31PM

Only in most cases, people aren't paying to see (play) advertisements. It goes both ways, the devs should be glad to have the songs and the music people should be glad to have them in - if people stop being greedy SOB's and just work out something reasonable for both parties then it's a win-win situation.

Haggard (steam: haggard_dawn, PSN: HaggyWaggy) @ Sep 27th 2008 6:11PM

And I don't want the next GH/RB having a setlist based on who paid the most..

Mr Khan @ Sep 27th 2008 5:13PM

I see the logic behind his idea, but he stated it in the most arrogant way possible

Robert Maynard @ Sep 27th 2008 11:05PM

The whole reason people will buy one of their stinking products in the first place is that people like the music - before the sale actually takes place it is the music carrying the game. If a Guitar Hero game had a crappy tracklist, its sales, and the sales of the franchise, would be negatively affected. His argument that Guitar Hero should be viewed merely as an advertisement platform betrays his complete lack of respect for the franchise. Hey moron, people can still choose not to buy your crappy products, a choice I already plan on exercising (in favour of Harmonix, natch). As long as that's the case, YOU need the music to push your cash cow out the door, not the other way around.

Guitar Hero works because it's not full of unsigned bands paying for exposure, it's full of rock legends and contemporary music people recognise on the bullet points of the box and want to play. You need them more than they need you. If you think artists should be paying you to be included in your club, maybe you should stop going to them, and seeking exclusive contracts with huge artists to compete with Rock Band, you hypocrite. Maybe they should come to you, seeing they apparently need you so bad.

Nick8708 @ Sep 27th 2008 11:50PM

Come on, not paying royalties for music is just ridiculous. It's just like in television and movies: it's about attracting consumers (in TV and movies it sets the tone, so it's indirect but still the same concept). I could understand saying that some unknown bands who would benefit from the exposure being coaxed to pay to be put in the game, or if a marketing exec wants to build anticipation for a new album they might be willing to pay, but as a whole that's ridiculous. How many people haven't heard of AC/DC, Aerosmith, or the Rolling Stones and are playing these games?

Besides the fact that it makes little sense for most artists to pay to be in a game, I also think it'd be a dangerous precedent. Dangerous as in a lot of shitty music could end up in the games just because a record label layed down a ton of money for it. Who wants that to become the norm? All I know is whoever holds the right to Led Zeppelin would not lay down a cent to be put in the game, so the little glimmer of hope left that my favorite band will show up will disappear entirely if bands have to start "paying to be played."

canadianartistsunited @ Sep 28th 2008 12:51AM

A lot of people are making good points on this comment board. Kotick's comments are completely ridiculous. The industry is dying, and giving up all the money involved with rhythm games is a shot in the foot. Them paying you, Bobby, are you crazy!

I'm not giving you my art, or the art I helped produce, for free. This is my job. It is how I earn my living.

How can Bobby be so arrogant and feel like he can get away with these comments? Because Activision Blizzard is owned by Vivendi who owns the Universal Media Group who own EVERYTHING! Even if they refuse to promote 90% of their property, UMG owns enough music, especially more recent Pop hits, that the average consumer would never realize what little amount of WMG, SonyBMG or EMI music ends up in future Guitar Hero instalments and DLC, granted Kotick keeps pissing people off and/or takes the easier route of just licensing music that will never get refused.

Spartacus @ Sep 28th 2008 7:04PM

Two words: PRODUCT PLACEMENT.

In media, be it movies or TV, companies shell out advertising dollars to get a few seconds worth of air time. In very rare cases do movie or TV show producers have to pay companies to use their products.

I see no reason why another media format (videogames) should be different.

I always thought it was ridiculous that racing games had to pay Ford or Porsche to use their cars too.

Aww heck, come to think of it, about 99% of copyright, patent and licensing is complete and utter crap.

LiquidJ @ Sep 29th 2008 1:39AM

They are both right! And there is a simple solution. The game publishers need to do their jobs and come up with the bridge instead of crying about the toll to use someone else's; because RB/GH/whatever wouldn't exist without licensed music whereas the latter does not need the former.

1. Game developers pay royalties for music in their games.
2. Game developers give gamers a way to purchase music they like or got turned on to from a game. Obviously, they'd need to create some kind of system for this but it would be akin to being asked "did anyone help you with this purchase today?" and the gamer responding "Yes. Activision, by way of Guitar Hero, hooked a brother up."
3. Music Industry pays game developers royalties for music that was purchased due to games.