I'm all for it, if this means they, in return, pay us for downloading new songs. Seriously, I could use those MS Points for more Rock Band DLC.

Kyattsuai

I can't really take Bobby's comments as "sticking it to the man" - how much do the artists get for the GH DLC?

Kotick can't seriously expect the record companies to pay for bands to be included. The games need high profile artists to shift the retail bundles and DLC, not unsigned bands, and it has to be said the part of the system between high profile and unsigned is entirely with the music industry. MySpace is having a lot more effect on the market from the artist's viewpoint (as it allows them to dissmeniate music freely); the music games are taking the cream of the crop.

Activision and Harmonix are thriving becuase of the success of the music industry though - all the marketing, artists, recognition value and copyright lies with the music industry for the most part. Kotick can call it advertising if he really wants, but lets see how many units of Guitar Hero 5: Unsigned Bands Playing in Local Pubs in Derbyshire he can sell.

Dragonforce are a much touted example of how small bands can make it big, thanks only to the gentle touch of Guitar Hero. Bullshit. They were already on Roadrunner, which is as major label as metal labels get. They were made before GH came along.

stoneagedan

@okenny :) ...building bridges (to hide under): Artists and labels are going to laugh in his face for suggesting that they should pay Activision to be included in Guitar Hero.

Then gamers will laugh in Activison's face when the Hero franchise dies due to them not being able to get any bands.

Meanwhile HMX will continue their current model and form lasting relationships with artists who respect how HMX is doing business.

TRT-X

I see what he's saying but it's the same as saying "Hey Linkin Park, I'm Michael Bay and I'm putting your song in the credits to my big movie, TRANSFORMERS. Lots of people will see it so therefore you need to pay ME for exposure." I don't follow the logic. If YOUR work incorporates someone else's intellectual property, you pay them, they don't pay you on the hope that it's advertising for them. I can't make money writing a book about Pepsi by having Pepsi pay me because I'm mentioning Pepsi...

*this rant endorsed by Coke.
*check is in the mail.

ExistentialEgg

gonna have to agree here

sc00t420

I don't agree with him, why not let these games use music for free.

Omniel

@orcus116: does*

orcus116

This is like the Sawamura vs Mashiba of videogame fights.

arstal

The fact that that man is in charge of Guitar Hero scares me, though it doesnt explain a lot.

orcus116

aaaaaaaaaaand all the record companies go to rock band

dislexiq

@JocktheMotie: Metallica is a whole lot more popular than Guitar Hero. And these bands being in the game does more to promote the game than the other way around. How many times do you hear people say "I'm gonna get Rock Band because of X band" or "Guitar Hero is better than Rock Band because of Y group". Okay I'll grant that Dragonforce got a whole lot more popular after GH3 came out. But they were a bonus track for a reason: because they weren't popular. This guy, however, is talking about Metallica, Aerosmith and Van Halen. Yeah, they are more popular than Dragonforce, I think.

dowingba

This is like a battle of the Titans of Greed. Who will win, Activonus, publisher of video games or Musicanion, publisher of music?

AndrewRyan

I'm no fan of the record labels, but considering the split for the labels on a $2 song DLC for RB/GH is reportedly less than iTunes $1 a song, Kotick should watch his mouth on what can still be fad that will wane.

That is, unless they want to start giving DLC songs away for free on a regular basis or a reduced price (yeah right).

VicViper

Thank you Edgar. This is what I've been saying since this issue popped up when the record companies (Warner?) fired the 1st volley.

TELL 'EM!

Knoxximus (XBL/PSN)

Hopefully this means Rockband starts getting all the Metallica DLC again.

dowingba

Yes, he is absolutly right. They should pay Activision.

Hopefully they (the bands) will turn around and embrace Rock Band instead of the drivel Guitar Hero has become.

Bananabox-Ninja

But then how will they lock down artists to be exclusive to their games, worsening the music game scene as a whole? If they ever stop that, they just won't be Activision. :(

Weaselfingers

....So....does Activision really need more money? I'm sure Activision thinks so.

But he has a point. I tend to buy Rock Band DLC instead of CDs/MP3s. Listening to it on an mp3 player is one thing, interacting with it is totally different.

But more so, these games have done much for getting new music to a broader demographic. ie, I'd never even heard of Muse before playing GH3. That's gotta be giving the Music execs extra business, so should Activision really pay for the privilege of doing their advertising?

Ber'Zophus

Dinosaurs will fall.

Arthois

Well in a typical B2B2C model, that middle man will begin to talk shit to both ends when they achieve great success. That's usually when you find out whose the dick and who respects their business relationships. He's convinced that the record companies need him to sell their music and he's also convinced that the consumer needs him to get a game. This is usually the beginning of how middle men get fucked.

okenny :) ...building bridges (to hide under)

Very strong point. You release 3 fun tracks of an upcoming album on Guitar Hero, I'll bet that Album generates great buzz and gets great advertising which helps the music company's sales.

Guitar Hero/Rock Band could very well become an advertising platform for newer music.

JocktheMotie

Yes, because NOBODY had heard of Van Halen, Aerosmith, or Metallica until Guitar Hero came along.

Let's take this logic and actually put it into a conversational format:

"Hello Metallica. We here at Guitar Hero are going to take your recordings and turn them into tracks for our video game. We will then sell those tracks to users (for a profit), and use your music to promote our franchise."

...

"Oh, and then we're going to send you a bill."

TRT-X

I don't think this is a crazy statement at all. I'm sure there is an appreciable effect on catalog music sales for songs/albums included in these music games.

MSUSteve

I wouldn't be surprised if record labels started paying to get "up and coming" artists music games. I can't say I really side with either..

cio

The record industry is too damn greedy. Artists get jack-shit for those record sales, and here they are trying to get MORE monies from games. Psh.

If I pirated, I'd pirate the hell out of some music right about now, just to be a dick. From artists I don't like, of course.

DoomDoomDoom

Heh. The amount of musicians who will work for free - nay, pay to work, at that level of fame are probably very, very small.

It may help their overall album sales, but it's their creative work and it deserves to be paid for if it's going to be used.

Maldron

I smell drama and money, lots of money.

goldwings

"He does have a point though. I'd say most of the money I've spent on music in the past two years has been for video game DLC."

I don't think that's the point he is trying to make. His point is that sales of music game DLC drives sales of an artists music on iTunes and CD. If you're only buying DLC, you make an excellent example of what Activisions counter-argument would be.

Sabash

But it is true, I mean look how Dragonforce blew up after Guitar Hero 3. It really is a great way to introduce customers to music they might not have listened to before.

Chewbenator

Good call Activision! Take it to those bastards

ALT

Here how it should work.

If the Band wants to be in Guitar Hero to promote their album, then the Band pays Guitar Hero.

If Activision Wants a band to be in guitar hero to promote their game, Then Activision needs to pay the band.

If it is mutual, nobody pays anybody.

tavora

The record companies should look at this as an advertising tool/cost. Really, it should be a wash.

lonkley

@TRT-X:

There are some people who've never really listened to Van Halen, Aerosmith, or Metallica until they got into Guitar Hero or Rock Band for that matter. I had some guy friends who broke down and bought Metallica or some Aerosmith tracks after playing the games. It's their guilty pleasure. lol

superfrogsavestokyo

@TRT-X: I don't think it's that people haven't heard of those bands, it's that games like Guitar Hero stimulate interest in artists, thereby increasing record sales.

"Roadrunner Records, obviously chuffed with the fact something is selling their tired roster's albums, have announced that DragonForce and Slipknot CD sales have both increased in the wake of Guitar Hero III's release. DragonForce's "Inhuman Rampage" sales are up 126%, while Slipknot's figures weren't disclosed."
- taken from a Kotaku article from Nov 12, 2007.

cio

As much as I hate the hubris of Bobby Kotick and Activision, I agree with him 100% on this.

TheGuilty1

This is sad...no one likes the record labels...but the honest objective truth is...both parties need each other to be viable. Think about it...would we be even half as interested in Rock Band and/or Guitar Hero if they didn't feature music from known artists...NO WAY. And vice versa, would these known artist get the notoriety they do if they weren't featured in both games?...NO WAY.

So...its a win/win situation. I actually agree though in this case the record label companies should be getting a little more. They're probably getting the normal cut from the normal game deals...but RB & GH are different. Usually music is licensed for background ambience...here the music is the game...its 50% of the experience.

So its really lame that Kotick has the arrogance to tell record companies they should be paying him...without their music...Guitar Hero is another crappy beat matching game out of Japan...no offense intented to bemani fans here...but you get my ponit.

zaskarclf

@Chewbenator: I agree with you. People I know who dont even listen to rock wind up buying songs on their mp3 players because of guitar hero and rockband. My cousin who solely listens to hiphop loves guitar hero and bought the dragon force album. Hell I never heard of The Sword until guitar hero 2 and searched for that album because I liked Freya so much.

ichiban1081

@Lazlo: What do you mean "Think?"

There's a proven boost in record sales when a band is included in the game.

Moonshadow101

As someone who prefers to get new music in the form of Rock Band DLC over being forced to buy the latest "Guitar Hero: band" style game, I fully support this Activision douchebag making a total ass of himself.

XbhaskarX

My god, this guy is a greedy bastard! It's not enough that these bands that have been inaccessible to for years of film and game history are suddenly opening up their vault to you, but you think you're doing them a favor by putting it in your game?! I hope Guitar Hero fails just for this guys arrogance.

Lazlo

My argument for a while for both GH and RB is that if I purchase DLC or discover a new band thorough the game, they should allow me to DL an Itunes/MP3 whatever version for free. I mean seriously, and case in point when they put up a new or old album I should be able to export that to the music player of my choice…but I guess this could go back to DR?/DLC and the whole "you don't own it, even though you bought it" debate.

Anyhow, I get what the guy is saying in terms of album sales jumping after people heard them in RB/GH.

-EDGE-

I agree with him. There's many musicians whose albums I wouldn't have bought had their songs not been used in the Guitar Hero series. The companies shouldn't be greedy at all, this is a good thing for music right now.

kylo4

interesting he should mention Van Halen in the same sentence as Aerosmith and Metallica, two bands that have/are getting their own GH games....

CoffeyWasHere

lol, he has a point.

Or, at least, exposes the greed of the record companies.

lumpi

@superfrogsavestokyo: It's also why, I've noticed, radio stations now seem to play quite a bit of music from those games when previously they didn't: because people like the music now that they've played it on the game.

Petezah

It's funny, yesterday I was supporting GH/RB to my labelmates, today I find this piece of news... ugh.

No Mr. Kotick, you still need the labels and you need the artists, those you will now have to properly compensate thanks to the new agreement between the copyright judges and the publishing, artist and recording representatives.

Here's the thing, people will buy GH: Metallica not because it's a Guitar Hero game, but because it features Metallica. GH: Aerosmith sold on the basis of it featuring Aerosmith who already worked their asses off touring and recording for over 30 years to create a loyal fanbase.

There resides the problem as other people have eloquently put it, GH and RB are distribution channels for music, they are not the content in itself as much as a radio station isn't the content... so for both games to survive you need to be able to draw the crowds, unless you compensate people for their work, you won't get many big artists to work with thus diminishing the value of your game.

Music games have had the effect of exposing bands to a wider buying public, most of which are already popular or on the verge of becoming so and that's something to be proud of but consider if Guitar Hero: MySpace Unsigned Edition would've sold as well as Guitar Hero: Aerosmith?

All Kotick wants is mo' profit...

zoesch

While I don't agree with what his company is doing with the GH franchise, I will say that the music industry is a bigger evil than Activision, for now.

OtherAdam

@Moonshadow101:
I know they boost records sales because people who lived in holes have never heard of Kansas (the band not the state) but many of those bands that have been so hard to get licenses for Hendrix, Metallica, The Doors, Van Halen, etc., aren't exactly hard up for cash. So it's not like these bands are breaking down because they need to pay the bills, no they are doing it because Activision is paying them through the butt for their songs. It is incredibly arrogant to think that they should juts open up their vault purely because bands get the record sales boost by being in the game. It just shows that Activision doesn't care about the music, only about the profits (yes I know they're a business but the game's lead has gone on the record saying "it's all about the music").

Lazlo

Keep it all in perspective. Remember, this was just a shot back at Warner Bros. From the first article:
"[Warner Music Group CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr] called for greater industry participation, threating "we will not license to those games" if higher royalties don't fall in line with the "true value" of the game's music."

Let's not forget what generation we are in now. Metallica, Aerosmith, Van Halen and pretty much any band older than 10 years are not MTV popular. What these games have done was introduce a whole new generation to those bands where outside of these games, it would have never happened. Also, many songs on RB and GH from lesser known groups were not MTV popular, but by being in the games they have had their fame and their sales skyrocket. Seriously, would kids listening to Avril Lavigne and Miley Cyrus even go out of their way to listen to this stuff if it wasn't in a game?

Tepoz

His comment is really more of a reaction to the requests for increased licensing fees from the music industry side.

It isn't a plan to do so (yet).

His comments are pretty correct. Take a popular band whose name is practically a household word. Let's call them AC/DC.

Let's put one of their songs in a video game. (Almost certainly a whole glorious raft of them. )

AC/DC is putting out a new album suddenly. Their first in a decade or so. They may end up with a new phase to their career.

These two are not related? The Rock Band deal has nothing to do with this?

moofrank

I'm no fan of bigger record companies, but... maybe GH makes so much money because of their songs? Maybe Activision should pay them after all... for studio master tracks for all licensed songs. They have enough cash easily.

Maybe without licensed tracks, as much of an improvement I'd take it as, GH would be no more successful than Guitar Freaks is here?

I liked GH, I even love 3, but I can't shake the feeling that they've peaked and are just about to slump hard.

fuchikoma

@Mokona: Then there's no reason why record companies should pay Activision then. You bought Guitar Hero (Activision product) and then proceeded to buy music (record company product). If everyone gets paid for their respective product then it's all fair.

orcus116

@ExistentialEgg: Er, no. You come to a licensing agreement. Companies pay a lot of money to have their products featured in films. Transformers was basically an ad for General Motors. The music industry is no different. Do you think it's a coincidence when a Sony Pictures film has a bunch of Sony Music stuffed into it? Who paid for those tracks? Nobody. I make sports videos that are wall-to-wall music, 40 to 110 minutes of music on each. We have never paid for a single track because that was the licensing agreement. There are plenty of music makers out there that are willing to work this way. I'm not saying that this can work for a game like Guitar Hero which completely relies on the cachet and nostalgia of established artists, but there is no reason the relationship between all people involved in a creative process should be completely one-sided.

xot

I agree. I'd say 75% of the music I bought in the past 3 years was directly linked to my playing Guitar Hero. I discovered bands/artists (Wolfmother, Eric Johnson...) and songs and ended up buying CDs I would have never bought otherwise.

Mokona

Ohhh! That gets two snaps and a head swivel! Mmmmmhmmm!

Mister_Jack

@OtherAdam:

If we bring down one system lord another will only rise to take over their armies... we must strike at every enemy at once - only then can we be certain of victory!

;)

Duoae

I will say that I personally think these games are a great platform to reach new fans. A lot of people that are playing these games had not heard all the classics or all the bands before the game. So Really its a 2 way street I'm sure that these music games have increased revenue in the form of CD and downloadable tracks even outside of the game.

But its fair to say the games would not be as good without the music also but I think both sides need to realize what each other offer and not get too greedy and keep the music coming for the betterment of both parties. To me asking for more money when the entry price for most songs is much higher than the regular iTunes prices is stupid. But i don't know the cuts in the background how much of a cut is for MS/Sony and the Game maker and the Music rights holder.

Konchu

@Maldron: Personally, I think they could find a better middle ground. Right now, *game* pays *industry* for rights to use the song. The *game* benefits from having the song on their track list, the *industry* benefits from having the song on the track list AND from the *game* paying to use it.

Now I'm not saying that the *industry* should pay the *game*, but perhaps the *game* shouldn't pay as much, or the *industry* should allow a few waived licenses...

I'm all for $1 DLC tracks being common place :p

Aex

@zoesch: - "All Kotick wants is mo' profit"

Damn straight. So now we have Peter Moore and Bobby Kotick taking punches at the music industry.

*Sigh*

dead_red_eyes

@dowingba: I wish people wouldn't pull "facts" out of thin air.
"Activision has called Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock its "largest product launch ever", selling over US$100 million in the first week after release in North America alone." Divided by $80 (Guitar Hero 3 + guitar package), 1,250,000 units sold. Then again, considering that there are multiple SKUs, this is my lowest estimate.
"Death Magnetic debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, selling 490,000 copies in just three days of availability."
Let's double that number to make up for weekly sales: 980,000 units sold.

All sales figures pulled from Wikipedia.

Don't forget that:
a) Involving the "more popular" bands in the promotion of Guitar Hero costs Activision money. Yeah, signing a few copies of the game and playing a few songs at an event counts as working. Not to mention that using their pictures, music and likenesses are probably all "property of the artists" and have to be paid for.
b) Through Guitar Hero they'll reach a bigger audience than through "normal" means (airplay, gigs, etc). The whole "I'm getting Rock Band because of band X" crowd will get exposed to other artists, too.
c) Yarrrr, piracy. The music industry estimate their losses to piracy to about $13bn (2007 estimate, [arstechnica.com]). The ESA puts their losses at about $3,5bn (2007 estimate, [www.msnbc.msn.com]). Of course, these are their own numbers, so take them with a grain of salt. Don't forget that coupling peripherals with the software (to make it playable) helps cut down some piracy. Try playing Guitar Hero without the guitar. Try playing a music album without a CD.

Gaff

@Gaff:
"That's a bit better than the one-to-one argument, but not by much. It essentially assumes that one of every five downloaded songs would have been purchased, were it not for file-sharing."

"So here again, we have data which would necessarily lower the study's estimates not being taken into account."

"Another study even goes so far as to argue that the effect of file-sharing on legal music sales is "not statistically distinguishable from zero." Published this past February in the Journal of Political Economy, the study tracked the effects of 1.75 million song downloads on 680 albums. The researchers concluded that the availability-and even increased downloads-of music on P2P networks did not correlate to a negative effect on music sales."

[arstechnica.com]

Mact

Imagine what Guitar Hero would have been if they had record companies pay to have their songs in the game. My guess is you wouldn't have found classic rock songs in there; probably more mainstream rock/rap and pop stuff. If Mr. Kotick really believes what he's saying, then he's going to further slam the franchise into the ground by putting a bunch of crap songs into future GH games.

Harmonix put together the seminal Guitar Hero by choosing songs that were both guitar-centric and technically challenging. In other words, they actively searched for the songs they wanted to feature. Since its success, getting licenses and masters has been a lot easier, but I figure that Harmonix still likes to be the ones to feature songs, not be assigned to them.

boopadoo

How about - and here's a crazy idea - give some money to the artists? After all, neither the record company nor Activision would have a product if the songwriters and performers weren't actually doing the work.

Besides, I'm sure a band would be a little more inclined to give more songs to the project if there was the chance of a backpayment if their songs help sell some more games.

Dajmin

@Sabash:

Actually, I believe that would be the reverse in the case of DLC.

People tend to buy songs as DLC that they already like.

Mact

It doesn't matter how true it is, it's still stupid for him to go out and say it like that. It's bad PR and there might even be some sort of backlash if Activision starts swaggering around too much.

Blah8

@dead_red_eyes: Yeah, funny huh? Makes me question why I don't go and pirate their games since they're quite happy with taking my work for free, actually... scratch that, they're quite happy taking my work and making me pay for it...

Wonderful world we live in :(

zoesch

@Bananabox-Ninja: Knew it wouldn't be long before the RB fanboys arrived in this thread (I like both games btw). If you don't think EA is going through the same thing with the music labels, you're kidding yourself.

foddon

You know, I have a theory about this actually. Before the advent of GH and RB my local stations (save the classic rock ones) only played what was on the top 100. Since the release of guitar hero and rock band, I can't drive anywhere without at least one song that appears in either game coming on the air. It's not just the new hits that get added in. I'm talking about songs like "We Care a Lot" that were popular when they first came out but haven't been played since, until they got put in the game.

SailorDeath

@Blah8: Agreed - if people move on to something else/new this could die real quick and the records might double their price next time.

mariospants

HOLY. SHIT.

That's some Suge Knight talk right there.

mariospants

@moofrank: Nope... the AC/DC record has been in the works for the past 4 years.

Do you seriously think that Rock Band had anything to do with that? That's a stretch, it's not like you sit in a studio for 40 hours and lo and behold an album came out, specially with higher profile artists.

No one denies thar RB is a great avenue for lesser known artists to be heard, but if you think the resurgence of Weezer, AC/DC, Metallica, etc. is due to RB/GH you are quite mistaken.

zoesch

@SailorDeath:

Well, it is more complicated than that. Sure, radio stations played "sure things" (aka Metallica), they also played the stuff record labels paid them the play, the play some current stuff, and they play music from artists, who play for free at their radio specific concerts. But yeah, more people are requesting RB and GH stuff, and I think radio stations are taking notice. lol

SpearXXI

Would there be Guitar Hero without music? No

Would there be music without Guitar Hero? Yes.

Any music executive worth his salt will see through this rather lame bluff

baccardi84

@Mact: Sales have been tracked following the release of DLC for Guitar Hero. Significant increases in sales have been seen after the DLC was released.

Spartan1308™

Knights of Cydonia came first in the Triple J Hottest 100 because of GH3. For those not in the know, the Hottest 100 is an annual countdown done on Australia day, reportedly the largest music poll in the world and covers all songs released in that year. Muse managed to beat out Silverchair's Straight Lines which was the run away favourite (Australian poll, big Australian band, highly saturated and popular song, normally that's all it takes).

GH/RB is essentially the best marketing tool for music in the genres it covers these days which is where he's obviously coming from.

Of course, all the record companies have are licensing fees so all of their marketing streams tend to give them revenue from those fees.

Long story short, the record companies use a very outdated model to try to get profit from everything, they're all "take take take" without any actual give. It's only a matter of time before people find something sustainable that cuts them out completely and then we won't have to worry about this.

TrjnRabbit

@okenny :) ...building bridges (to hide under): ...and I thought that by middle man you meant the record companies, because artists get jack-shit, while the audience pays a lot... while you just wanted to post some BS, because it's cool to hate activision.

mizeriq

I have thought this for a while. When an older song gets on at least the main disc of GH or Rockband, their sales explode elsewhere. I have often wondered if Apple has to pay the record companies for the music in the iPod commercials. I don't think they should, because by being in the commercial the song usually shoots way up the chart. I also agree with anyone that wants to stick it to the record companies. Why couldn't the RIAA have bought some sub-prime debt and collapsed like Lehman Bros.?

GodwinAnchises

Usually I don't buy DLC for song I don't already own. But there are few occasional songs I will download like songs I heard on the radio but thats a rare occasion.

dohdohburd

@Petezah:
Good point. Here I was hoping I wasn't the only one thinking it. My coworkers listen mostly to hip-hop but love GH, and we notice those tracks getting much more play. Pretty cool.

MegaDethKlok

Bobby Kotick said something stupid/he shouldn't have said again? What else is new?

Granted, he's got a point in how the games are awesome marketing tools for certain artists, but quite frankly, it's more of a symbiotic relationship than anything else.

CommentatorHatman

Back in 1998, this is nearly what EMI did with its Dancemania label.

EMI let Konami use music in its Dancemania music, for free. The product? DDR.

SYSSMouse

@Zero_Beat: Heh, whoops, 126%.

Zero_Beat

@Chewbenator: Yeah, what was the increase in sales for Inhuman Rampage after GH3 came out? I know it was over 300%.

Zero_Beat

@stoneagedan: I agree. Dragonforce was modestly popular before GH3, but afterwards, they exploded.

Zero_Beat

@Zero_Beat: And how many people are actually new fans of Dragonforce, anyway? I know it's a small sample to draw from, but my three idiot roommates who claim to be Dragonforce fans are most definitely not Dragonforce fans when they listen to exclusively "Through the Fire and Flames." That's like me saying that Rock Band turned me into a Testament fan (so far) when I can't tell you anything they've done beyond "Electric Crown" and "Souls of Black."

Carl Everett's Fossil Collection

@DoomDoomDoom:

Done and done. Glad I could be of service.

NeoAkira

@Sabash:
Should Activision be paying record companies money to promote their music? That's what he's talking about.

Keeko_ca

Kotick's correct... these music games are breathing new life into old back catalogues and have solidified as a viable platform for emerging artists to gain exposure.

I'm sure studies have been done to produce empirical data, but from my own monitoring of iTunes, you can always tell when new GH/RB content hits, because the songs soar into the Top 100 most-downloaded singles, and some stay there for a very long time.

On a casual level, I'm getting to the age in my mid-twenties where I'm starting to feel old (high school kids today don't know Billy Madison quotes... incredible), but when I hear my younger cousins talk about how sick the guitar solo is on "Highway Star", or the drums in "YYZ"... well, what are the fucking odds in 2008 kids would be that into Deep Purple and Rush to be able to dissect the instrumentals on that level?

Granted, it's through the lens of five-noted plastic instruments, but apart from a very select group of immortal acts like AC/DC, Zeppelin, and Guns N' Roses, music games have given a lot of older acts an encore act of coolness to kids today.

I seem to recall in the '90s when media convergence first caught fire that many music companies, or their parents, had at least some sort of stake in the videogame business.

The labels are just kicking themselves in the asses (and rightfully so) that they didn't think of it first, just like comic book people collectively crapped themselves when the Matrix came out and ate their lunch.

Jonaconda