Today, one day after Microsoft announced that it would shut down four of its games studios, Matt Booty, head of Xbox Game Studios, held a town hall to discuss the division’s future goals. “We need smaller games that give us prestige and awards,” Booty told employees, according to internal remarks shared with The Verge.
For some listeners on the call, it was a surprising goal: Microsoft had just shut down the Japanese developer Tango Gameworks, which was coming off the small, prestigious hit title Hi-Fi Rush.
Hi-Fi Rush, which was a surprise release last year, was praised for its innovation and charm. The rhythm action game featured music by The Black Keys and Nine Inch Nails, with an art style that evoked the hyper-stylized games of the PS2 era. Just four months after its release, Hi-Fi Rush hit 3 million players. During the 2023–2024 awards season, the game went on to win a Game Award, a Game Developers Choice award, and a BAFTA.
I think the elephant in the room with Hi-Fi Rush is the cost of the licensing of the music, and how they have to keep updating that licensing to keep the music. Sure, Hi-Fi Rush already has generic music that can be substituted in for Let’s Plays, but it would be a bummer to play this in 10 years and have all the original soundtrack gone. Which is… likely what might happen.
Microsoft wants smaller games that give them prestige and awards that don’t come with complicated long-term music licensing issues that are pretty integral to the game itself since it’s a… music… game…
Anyway, that’s how I read it. A sequel would be just asking for more and new music to be used, creating a long-term licensing nightmare akin to what has happened to the soundtracks of the older Grand Theft Auto games. That seems… ill advised, for a rhythm game series.
Music licensing for games is so dumb. You’d think the studios would remember the Guitar Hero effect, where having your back catalog featured in a game introduces it to a new generation and brings sales and new fans.
If anything, they should pay the devs for the exposure rather than the other way around. It’s not like I bought Hi-Fi Rush for the music, but I ended up enjoying and seeking out a few tracks due to it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if licensing a song to a video game pays more than the fractions of a cent per stream you get from the bump afterward, and exposure doesn’t pay your bills.
My rate has just gone up if someone wants to hire me for exposure.
Apparently Rockstar paid around $5-10k per track for GTA IV, so it wouldn’t take much of a boost in sales to be more significant than the licensing fee income.
GTA is one of the few games where the value of exposure might actually be worth it during negotiations though. That’s getting up to doing the super bowl half time show for free levels of publicity.
No, but touring does and a bigger market for ticket sales is the best profit an artist can get.
They didn’t axe an entire studio because of music licensing…
New games with longevity in mind should only use public domain music.