Idea : Developer able to sell steam profile soundtracks at $10.

[Irene ❤]

The current soundtracks in store are purchased for private use. I believe very few have purchase it since there is youtube and other audio sites.

As steam players will visit each other's profile, why not upgrade that soundtrack, and allow it to be played on profile. Of course it will come with a fee. Introducing Profile Soundtracks. Minimal $10 each.

After buying the profile soundtrack, players can add it as profile soundtrack showcase.

-----------------------------------------
| Game : Poke Fighter Z          |
| ► Song 1 ► Song 2 ► Song 3  |
-------------------------------------------

Up to 3 songs (total cost $30).

Profile visitors have to manually click and play the songs. It will not play automatically, no audio spam.


Benefits :
- A great feature for profile designers.
- Promote games : If a player likes the music, chances are he will also check out the game.
- Business : If the profile visitor likes the song, they can purchase the soundtracks for their profile too, increasing soundtrack sales.

Data :
- Each soundtrack is mp3 that's only few mb, compared to those animated backgrounds, frames, themes stuff it's small sized.

[Start_Running]

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Exactly, that's their choice, as it is providing their music to be used on Steam profiles. Your arguments simply don't work, because thousands of composers put their music for free on YouTube. Evidently, the more popular ones make some money from ads, but that's the exception to the rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8Zze1V9Jb4

Read the video description :)

Those type of deals also change, creating a situation where someone paid for the rights to have their license in one format, only to later have the licensing revoked or expired later and then users losing what they paid for is a real possibility with what you describe.

Games have gotten pulled from steam over the game developers losing the rights to licensing in the past. For instance Marvel Heroes on Steam got shut down when Disney decided to revoke their licensing to Gazillion Entertainment. That can happen to any game, any licenses at any time and people would lose what they paid for and Steam would be forced to remove content from their accounts and from being used.

People would then blame steam even though they aren't at fault.

There was also a bit of a fiasco when GTA had to remove tracks.

Heck the remake of GODS had to be done without the original 'Into the wonderful" intro track because the rights could not be secured amicably.

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Interesting.

But tell me, you've noticed that this guy wants everyone to listen to his music for free, right?

Thats fine, one person giving away their stuff for free doesn't magically change everyone else not doing so though. Nor does it mean he will decide to let people do so indefinitely. Again i've seen it happen repeatedly with games and content and its pretty well known for those who look at the business side of gaming

https://www.cbr.com/game-remasters-without-originals-licensed-music/

Yup. As said the creator can do what they want. but they can change their minds at anytime without any penalty or need for consulting other parties.

Dev/pubs cannot in many cases.
As said. Limitations on licenses are a thing.
And while a dev/pub can secure broadcast licenses if they want...yeah that's gonna cost them a pretty penny even moreso if they secure it long term or in perpetuity. Because if they don't, guess what that profile music you paid $10 for is gonna get yoinked like they yoinked the sanan dreas sound track at some point.

The joke is the dev/pubs who would be super chill with it, already have their soundtracks up on youtube. So again. why not just have youtube video links? WHich is already a thing that can be done...

[Brian9824]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

brian9824 a écrit :

Thats fine, one person giving away their stuff for free doesn't magically change everyone else not doing so though. Nor does it mean he will decide to let people do so indefinitely. Again i've seen it happen repeatedly with games and content and its pretty well known for those who look at the business side of gaming

https://www.cbr.com/game-remasters-without-originals-licensed-music/

Exactly, most people are not providing their music for free. They're selling complete soundtracks for less than $10, usually.

Something tells me that selling one track for $10 would be a good deal for them, but maybe I'm wrong...

They aren't selling it, they are licensing it, and the license often doesn't extend past the game or cover the terms of playing it for others...

A game selling a soundtrack is not giving you a license to play that music for others, anymore then you buying a license to watch a Pay per view event allows you to show it a bar. its a common misconception for people who have never learned how licensing works and its gotten many people in serious legal trouble.

In order for developers to secure the rights to do what the OP wants they would have to pay FAAAAAAR more to the license holder.

[Pierce Dalton]

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Exactly, most people are not providing their music for free. They're selling complete soundtracks for less than $10, usually.

Something tells me that selling one track for $10 would be a good deal for them, but maybe I'm wrong...

In order for developers to secure the rights to do what the OP wants they would have to pay FAAAAAAR more to the license holder.

You don't know, you haven't asked them.

Besides, it's not like thousands of people will visit your profile lmao. You're not really "broadcasting" anything, this is more like watching a movie or listening to a CD with friends you've invited to your place.

[Brian9824]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

brian9824 a écrit :

In order for developers to secure the rights to do what the OP wants they would have to pay FAAAAAAR more to the license holder.

You don't know, you haven't asked them.

Besides, it's not like thousands of people will visit your profile lmao. You're not really "broadcasting" anything, this is more like watching a movie or listening to a CD with friends you've invited to your place.

Um its not exactly rocket science. Licensing music to use in a game costs less then licensing music to use in a game, AND to have the rights for streaming and/or playing it for others.

The same way you can buy a PPV event for $20-30, but to license the PPV event to stream it for others can cost you thousands. Same way you can buy a song for $.99 but to play that song for others will cost you FAAR more.

I've known quite a few businesses who got hit hard by assuming them buying a sporting event on TV gave them the right to stream it to others, just like your assuming that buying a soundtrack gives you the rights to play it for others....

Its why Twitch does DMCA takedowns of any streamers using copyrighted music. The license the studio negotiated is only for the game and the individual license holder that purchases their game. Once you start dealing with broadcast rights that's far more expensive and complicated and is FAAAR more expensive.

[Pierce Dalton]

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

You don't know, you haven't asked them.

Besides, it's not like thousands of people will visit your profile lmao. You're not really "broadcasting" anything, this is more like watching a movie or listening to a CD with friends you've invited to your place.

Um its not exactly rocket science. Licensing music to use in a game costs less then licensing music to use in a game, AND to have the rights for streaming and/or playing it for others.

The same way you can buy a PPV event for $20-30, but to license the PPV event to stream it for others can cost you thousands. Same way you can buy a song for $.99 but to play that song for others will cost you FAAR more.

I've known quite a few businesses who got hit hard by assuming them buying a sporting event on TV gave them the right to stream it to others, just like your assuming that buying a soundtrack gives you the rights to play it for others....

Its why Twitch does DMCA takedowns of any streamers using copyrighted music. The license the studio negotiated is only for the game and the individual license holder that purchases their game. Once you start dealing with broadcast rights that's far more expensive and complicated and is FAAAR more expensive.

Yep, it's not rocket science, indeed: you can ask any composer/rights holder if they would like to receive $10 for one freaking track.

You can also ask them if they're ok with profile visitors listening to said track for free, similarly to what they already do on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Vir9IJcFk

As you might have noticed this video is 10 years old.

Last but not least, if I've bought a CD I can play it to hundreds of people in a party, that isn't broadcasting.

[cinedine]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

This ain't about legal difference, this is about granting permission.

Meh, forget it.
They want to compare apples to meatballs, let them. It only shows how disenguine the discussion is.

There are *obviously* issues with third party licensed tracks. Nobody is denying that. That's why nobody is talking about it as most people will perfectly well understand that this is not easily possible.

It's about 100 % genuinely original soundtracks from games like the ones ... sold on Steam. (Although I am 100 % somebody will find that one example of OST with licensed tracks). Stuff that the studios own.
It's not about blasting Metallica. It's about blasting the DOOM OST which is 100 % owned by Bethesda and they are free to license it however they see fit. Which might include sublincensing it to a company to produce and sell vinyls or licensing it to Spotify or licensing it to Valve for use on profiles or licensing it WB to use on their next Doom movie or grant you an explicit right to use it in your DOOM - The complete iceberg of lore and is it still good Azubu mega-live stream.

Just like we have artwork available as background and avatars.
Just like we have *gasp* MUSIC available in CS:GO.
Just like we have royalty free music available for the explicit purpose of streaming.

If they cannot understand that, there is no need for any discussion.

[Brian9824]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Last but not least, if I've bought a CD I can play it to hundreds of people in a party, that isn't broadcasting.

Actually that is false, that would be an example of unlawful use and can get you hit with a lawsuit. Its no different then buying a dvd and showing it at a party for hundreds of people. The only difference is if anyone will find out and bother to enforce. People routinely get in trouble with doing what your describing such as Trump's history of playing songs he doesn't own the right to at parties he hosts.

The laws over what you can do in your own home, are different then what you can do in public. Since you'd be playing the music on your profile all the legal protections that allow you to watch a movie with friends, listen to music with friends at your house for instance wouldn't apply as your in what would be considered by law a "public setting". Just like streaming a game is considered a public setting. Hence why its important to understand the nuances of licensing and the rights you have.

The only difference is he is enough of a high profile to actively enforce, but not getting caught doing something illegal, doesn't make it legal.

cinedine a écrit :

It's about 100 % genuinely original soundtracks from games like the ones ... sold on Steam. (Although I am 100 % somebody will find that one example of OST with licensed tracks). Stuff that the studios own.
It's not about blasting Metallica. It's about blasting the DOOM OST which is 100 % owned by Bethesda and they are free to license it however they see fit. Which might include sublincensing it to a company to produce and sell vinyls or licensing it to Spotify or licensing it to Valve for use on profiles or licensing it WB to use on their next Doom movie or grant you an explicit right to use it in your DOOM - The complete iceberg of lore and is it still good Azubu mega-live stream.

Just like we have artwork available as background and avatars.
Just like we have *gasp* MUSIC available in CS:GO.
Just like we have royalty free music available for the explicit purpose of streaming.

If they cannot understand that, there is no need for any discussion.

Again you don't seem to be aware of how licensing works for many titles. As already exampled with games in the link I provided and examples like Cyberpunk mixing home made tracks and licensed tracks is pretty common. Its why streaming mode is now a thing for many games where they then replace those songs because the games don't have the rights to allow people to use that music in any format outside the game itself for which its licensed.

For instance I HIGHLY suggest you read this - https://www.cbr.com/game-remasters-without-originals-licensed-music/

It sounds like you'd be surprised to know that Bethesda titles like Halo include music from artists like Breaking Benjamin, Incubus, and Hoobastank. Music licensing is convoluted, and its not as straightforward as the "examples" you provided, especially as music licenses tend to expire, and are not negotiated to be used in the way the OP suggests.

Its a Pandora's box of legal issues steam opens themselves to by allowing.

[Pierce Dalton]

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Last but not least, if I've bought a CD I can play it to hundreds of people in a party, that isn't broadcasting.

Actually that is false, that would be an example of unlawful use and can get you hit with a lawsuit. Its no different then buying a dvd and showing it at a party for hundreds of people. The only difference is if anyone will find out and bother to enforce. People routinely get in trouble with doing what your describing such as Trump's history of playing songs he doesn't own the right to at parties he hosts.

The laws over what you can do in your own home, are different then what you can do in public. Since you'd be playing the music on your profile all the legal protections that allow you to watch a movie with friends, listen to music with friends at your house for instance wouldn't apply as your in what would be considered by law a "public setting". Just like streaming a game is considered a public setting. Hence why its important to understand the nuances of licensing and the rights you have.

The only difference is he is enough of a high profile to actively enforce, but not getting caught doing something illegal, doesn't make it legal.

cinedine a écrit :

It's about 100 % genuinely original soundtracks from games like the ones ... sold on Steam. (Although I am 100 % somebody will find that one example of OST with licensed tracks). Stuff that the studios own.
It's not about blasting Metallica. It's about blasting the DOOM OST which is 100 % owned by Bethesda and they are free to license it however they see fit. Which might include sublincensing it to a company to produce and sell vinyls or licensing it to Spotify or licensing it to Valve for use on profiles or licensing it WB to use on their next Doom movie or grant you an explicit right to use it in your DOOM - The complete iceberg of lore and is it still good Azubu mega-live stream.

Just like we have artwork available as background and avatars.
Just like we have *gasp* MUSIC available in CS:GO.
Just like we have royalty free music available for the explicit purpose of streaming.

If they cannot understand that, there is no need for any discussion.

Again you don't seem to be aware of how licensing works for many titles. As already exampled with games in the link I provided and examples like Cyberpunk mixing home made tracks and licensed tracks is pretty common. Its why streaming mode is now a thing for many games where they then replace those songs because the games don't have the rights to allow people to use that music in any format outside the game itself for which its licensed.

For instance I HIGHLY suggest you read this - https://www.cbr.com/game-remasters-without-originals-licensed-music/

It sounds like you'd be surprised to know that Bethesda titles like Halo include music from artists like Breaking Benjamin, Incubus, and Hoobastank. Music licensing is convoluted, and its not as straightforward as the "examples" you provided, especially as music licenses tend to expire, and are not negotiated to be used in the way the OP suggests.

Its a Pandora's box of legal issues steam opens themselves to by allowing.

Right, so every club and bar on Earth is doing something "unlawful" by playing some music to their customers...

[Brian9824]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

brian9824 a écrit :

Actually that is false, that would be an example of unlawful use and can get you hit with a lawsuit. Its no different then buying a dvd and showing it at a party for hundreds of people. The only difference is if anyone will find out and bother to enforce. People routinely get in trouble with doing what your describing such as Trump's history of playing songs he doesn't own the right to at parties he hosts.

The laws over what you can do in your own home, are different then what you can do in public. Since you'd be playing the music on your profile all the legal protections that allow you to watch a movie with friends, listen to music with friends at your house for instance wouldn't apply as your in what would be considered by law a "public setting". Just like streaming a game is considered a public setting. Hence why its important to understand the nuances of licensing and the rights you have.

The only difference is he is enough of a high profile to actively enforce, but not getting caught doing something illegal, doesn't make it legal.





Again you don't seem to be aware of how licensing works for many titles. As already exampled with games in the link I provided and examples like Cyberpunk mixing home made tracks and licensed tracks is pretty common. Its why streaming mode is now a thing for many games where they then replace those songs because the games don't have the rights to allow people to use that music in any format outside the game itself for which its licensed.

For instance I HIGHLY suggest you read this - https://www.cbr.com/game-remasters-without-originals-licensed-music/

It sounds like you'd be surprised to know that Bethesda titles like Halo include music from artists like Breaking Benjamin, Incubus, and Hoobastank. Music licensing is convoluted, and its not as straightforward as the "examples" you provided, especially as music licenses tend to expire, and are not negotiated to be used in the way the OP suggests.

Its a Pandora's box of legal issues steam opens themselves to by allowing.

Right, so every club and bar on Earth is doing something "unlawful" by playing some music to their customers...

No, those clubs have arranged and paid their licensing fee's for the right to distribute and play the music commercially. Otherwise this happens

https://www.cltampa.com/news/two-tampa-bay-restaurants-fined-by-ascap-for-not-paying-for-music-rights-12290872
https://www.techdirt.com/2011/08/17/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs/
https://www.wral.com/story/listen-up-restaurants-pay-high-price-to-play-copyrighted-music/9984679/
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/bars-and-venues-playing-unlicensed-music-are-infringing-upon-the-copyright-of-musicians-357777

You can read this - https://www.barbusinessowner.com/public/Music-Licensing-for-Bars-and-Restaurants.cfm

The licensing for broadcasting the music to others is vastly different then the licensing for using a song in a movie or game for instance. Hence why many people get in trouble for it. It's also far more money, and works differently. You tend to negotiate with an organization that holds the rights to a multitude of songs for licensing, and you pay a lump sum annually to license a variety of music, versus what a game does in licensing very specific songs via a one time fee, sometimes with a rider based on game sales or expected sales.

[Pierce Dalton]

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Right, so every club and bar on Earth is doing something "unlawful" by playing some music to their customers...

No, those clubs have arranged and paid their licensing fee's for the right to distribute and play the music commercially. Otherwise this happens

https://www.cltampa.com/news/two-tampa-bay-restaurants-fined-by-ascap-for-not-paying-for-music-rights-12290872
https://www.techdirt.com/2011/08/17/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs/
https://www.wral.com/story/listen-up-restaurants-pay-high-price-to-play-copyrighted-music/9984679/
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/bars-and-venues-playing-unlicensed-music-are-infringing-upon-the-copyright-of-musicians-357777

You can read this - https://www.barbusinessowner.com/public/Music-Licensing-for-Bars-and-Restaurants.cfm

The licensing for broadcasting the music to others is vastly different then the licensing for using a song in a movie or game for instance. Hence why many people get in trouble for it. It's also far more money, and works differently. You tend to negotiate with an organization that holds the rights to a multitude of songs for licensing, and you pay a lump sum annually to license a variety of music, versus what a game does in licensing very specific songs via a one time fee, sometimes with a rider based on game sales or expected sales.

Fascinating, I wonder what judges think of that.

"If I hire musicians to play live music, aren't they responsible for any public performance fees?

No. Since your business is benefiting from the performance of music, by law management is held responsible to ensure that music played is properly licensed.
You are liable if your musicians play a cover song that you have not paid a license to use. If your musicians play all original material, a license is not needed. However, if they slip a cover song in then you are liable for having a license for that song."

Haha that's comedy gold...

[Brian9824]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

brian9824 a écrit :

No, those clubs have arranged and paid their licensing fee's for the right to distribute and play the music commercially. Otherwise this happens

https://www.cltampa.com/news/two-tampa-bay-restaurants-fined-by-ascap-for-not-paying-for-music-rights-12290872
https://www.techdirt.com/2011/08/17/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs/
https://www.wral.com/story/listen-up-restaurants-pay-high-price-to-play-copyrighted-music/9984679/
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/sg/pitchmark/news/bars-and-venues-playing-unlicensed-music-are-infringing-upon-the-copyright-of-musicians-357777

You can read this - https://www.barbusinessowner.com/public/Music-Licensing-for-Bars-and-Restaurants.cfm

The licensing for broadcasting the music to others is vastly different then the licensing for using a song in a movie or game for instance. Hence why many people get in trouble for it. It's also far more money, and works differently. You tend to negotiate with an organization that holds the rights to a multitude of songs for licensing, and you pay a lump sum annually to license a variety of music, versus what a game does in licensing very specific songs via a one time fee, sometimes with a rider based on game sales or expected sales.

Fascinating, I wonder what judges think of that.

"If I hire musicians to play live music, aren't they responsible for any public performance fees?

No. Since your business is benefiting from the performance of music, by law management is held responsible to ensure that music played is properly licensed.
You are liable if your musicians play a cover song that you have not paid a license to use. If your musicians play all original material, a license is not needed. However, if they slip a cover song in then you are liable for having a license for that song."

Haha that's comedy gold...

Not really, same way if you hire a contractor to do work you are required by law to do your due diligence and make sure they are licensed and insured. I mean that's basic business knowledge. The business is responsible for making sure the people they hire are following the rules and applicable laws. Thats why you don't hire random people and research them.

Of course in the situation where if you had a contract with a live band and they breached it you are able to take civil action against them, and it doesn't mean those organizations will press the issue if you can show them that you were the victim of a malicious band.

The entire licensing structure for music is incredibly complex, hence why its never as straight forward as people think. It opens steam up to liability that they probably won't find worth the risk...

[Pierce Dalton]

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Fascinating, I wonder what judges think of that.

"If I hire musicians to play live music, aren't they responsible for any public performance fees?

No. Since your business is benefiting from the performance of music, by law management is held responsible to ensure that music played is properly licensed.
You are liable if your musicians play a cover song that you have not paid a license to use. If your musicians play all original material, a license is not needed. However, if they slip a cover song in then you are liable for having a license for that song."

Haha that's comedy gold...

Not really, same way if you hire a contractor to do work you are required by law to do your due diligence and make sure they are licensed and insured. I mean that's basic business knowledge. The business is responsible for making sure the people they hire are following the rules and applicable laws. Thats why you don't hire random people and research them.

Of course in the situation where if you had a contract with a live band and they breached it you are able to take civil action against them, and it doesn't mean those organizations will press the issue if you can show them that you were the victim of a malicious band.

The entire licensing structure for music is incredibly complex, hence why its never as straight forward as people think. It opens steam up to liability that they probably won't find worth the risk...

You realize that most artists don't give a damn if a restaurant/club/bar/whatever is playing their music, right?

They could be even pleased to know that.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with op's suggestion because in that case they would get paid. And everyone likes money. So yeah, not much else to say about this matter.

[Brian9824]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

brian9824 a écrit :

Not really, same way if you hire a contractor to do work you are required by law to do your due diligence and make sure they are licensed and insured. I mean that's basic business knowledge. The business is responsible for making sure the people they hire are following the rules and applicable laws. Thats why you don't hire random people and research them.

Of course in the situation where if you had a contract with a live band and they breached it you are able to take civil action against them, and it doesn't mean those organizations will press the issue if you can show them that you were the victim of a malicious band.

The entire licensing structure for music is incredibly complex, hence why its never as straight forward as people think. It opens steam up to liability that they probably won't find worth the risk...

You realize that most artists don't give a damn if a restaurant/club/bar/whatever is playing their music, right?

They could be even pleased to know that.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with op's suggestion because in that case they would get paid. And everyone likes money. So yeah, not much else to say about this matter.

Again it has everything to do with the OP's suggestion. The entire point is that licensing music for a game is COMPLETELY different for licensing music to play for others.

The license to own a soundtrack for your personal use is completely different then licensing a soundtrack to play for others. The costs for what the OP are describing are FARRRRR more, are recurring, and open the businesses hosting the music to legal responsibility. Hence why the OP isn't likely to see his suggestion done.

Music licensing is nasty, convoluted, and very very complicated and requires a lot of oversight and micromanaging to avoid being legally liable. As you pointed out the business is the one responsible for every song played via their platform, and a bad actor could get them hit with hefty fines.

[Start_Running]

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Yep, it's not rocket science, indeed: you can ask any composer/rights holder if they would like to receive $10 for one freaking track.

Correction. FOr the broadcast rights for one track for a to be determined period of time.
And As we've said. they're going to be charging a flat fee plus a percentage of that $10.

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

You can also ask them if they're ok with profile visitors listening to said track for free, similarly to what they already do on YouTube:

It's not a matter of if they'll say yes m8. It;s a matter of how many 0's on the cheque it will take to get them to say yes.

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Vir9IJcFk

As you might have noticed this video is 10 years old.

And I'll bet if you put any of the music from that in one of your videos on your channel you'd get copyright flagged and dmca's within a week.

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

Last but not least, if I've bought a CD I can play it to hundreds of people in a party, that isn't broadcasting.

Actually. You can't. You can get away with it, but the thing is, you can be taken to court for that.. YOu can be fined. You can play it for others. but there's a threshold there. and that threshold varies from place to place. In some places iits been as low as 20 people.

Just because you can get away with exceeding the speed loimit doesn't mean there isn't a speed limit, and it doesn't mean you or other people won't get caught at some point.

[Pierce Dalton]

brian9824 a écrit :

Pierce Dalton a écrit :

You realize that most artists don't give a damn if a restaurant/club/bar/whatever is playing their music, right?

They could be even pleased to know that.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with op's suggestion because in that case they would get paid. And everyone likes money. So yeah, not much else to say about this matter.

Again it has everything to do with the OP's suggestion. The entire point is that licensing music for a game is COMPLETELY different for licensing music to play for others.

The license to own a soundtrack for your personal use is completely different then licensing a soundtrack to play for others. The costs for what the OP are describing are FARRRRR more

If we were talking about The Beatles or Madonna, sure. That's not the case here. We're talking about videogame music, which is a very niche market with low revenue.

You seem to think that people like Mick Gordon would ask millions from Valve for that. Well, he's not Lady Gaga, you know? And guess what, the complete Doom (2016) soundtrack is available for free on Spotify:

https://open.spotify.com/album/0KQyC28P9808r0oKKNgHvp

Hey, look what I've found, Wolfenstein - The New Order too:

https://open.spotify.com/album/6VNnTz7roRd6qVDQlBZWFr

Wait, there is more, Prey:

https://open.spotify.com/album/7dsFpra92ogATVcROcJyZ1

You want me to keep going? Nevermind, you can see all his stuff here:

https://open.spotify.com/artist/13ab1LgQZ3tQOhkDRRYB8Y


Now, I'll make this really simple for you. The world can listen to these tracks for free, do you know what that means?