Posted by ned on September 30, 2008 at 17:51:07:
at first i wasn't so sure on this one. because surely the game companies are profiting from the use of songs in a game like guitar hero. but then i remembered all the times i have barracuda in my head for no apparent reason, or bulls on parade.. after a weekend gh jam session.
if i bought cds or mp3s, i believe playing a game like guitar hero WOULD influence my buying habits because of the repetition. i think there's a case here.
_____________________________________________
Fresh off data showing sales increases from airplay on videogames such as GUITAR HERO and ROCK BAND, ACTIVISION/BLIZZARD CEO ROPBERT KOTICK told the WALL STREET JOURNAL that labels should pay the videogame makers for inclusion on the popular videogames. According to WIRED.COM, his remarks are also in response to WMG CEO EDGAR BRONFMAN's threat to pull WMG music off the videogames unless the videogame maker's pay more for the product.
"When you look at the impact [the game] can have on an AEROSMITH, VAN HALEN or METALLICA, it's really significant -- so much so that you sort of question whether or not, in the case of those kinds of products, you should be paying any money at all and whether it should be the reverse," KOTICK said. "The bulk of our consumers will tell you they're not purchasing the products based on the songs that are included, they're purchasing based on how fun the songs are to play when they're playing them."
To back up his perspective KOTICK can point to comments UMG honcho ZACH HOROWITZ made to a group of analysts earlier this month; he noted that sales of songs used in the games usually increase 200% to 300%. In one case, sales of WEEZER's "My Name Is Jonas" jumped about 1,000% after being included in GUITAR HERO.
Of course, if the labels pay for song inclusion, they'll be in a position to dictate what songs they want used. If the labels choose songs that aren't "play-worthy" in the gamers' eyes, the popularity of the games -- and its power to spur sales -- would suffer.