I guess you don't understand the difference between licensing to a commercial and licensing to every copy of a game distributed. It's not worth the effort.

[quote]I guess you don't understand the difference between licensing to a commercial and licensing to every copy of a game distributed. It's not worth the effort.[/quote] I guess you didn't actually read what I said: [spoiler][quote]and they even did it for Halo 2. Breaking Benjamin was in the soundtrack. [/quote][/spoiler] If they did it once, it isn't too far fetched that the same company would do it again.

Explain how the same problem with licensing suddenly doesn't apply to expansions? I read what you wrote, it's still nonsensical. Sure, if they did it for commercial with a set number of plays, it must be just the same as licensing for every copy of an expansion. Can't be two different things. As I said, you have no idea what you're talking about. Breaking Benjamin and AC/DC, no difference in licensing cost there then. Both band are about the same popularity and fame.

[quote]Explain how the same problem with licensing suddenly doesn't apply to expansions? I read what you wrote, it's still nonsensical.[/quote] I don't need to. I used the example that the same company in question literally put a rock bands music in their game in the past. If it wasn't a "problem" then, it shouldn't be a "problem" now. [quote]Sure, if they did it for commercial with a set number of plays, it must be just the same as licensing for every copy of an expansion. Can't be two different things.[/quote] They are different, which is why I provided you with the facts that Bungie literally did both of those things. Not just a commercial. Also, exactly how can a video on YouTube, that Bungie sent a link to every user's email on this site have a "set number of plays"? [quote]As I said, you have no idea what you're talking about.[/quote] Look bub, it's ok to disagree, but when I literally provide facts pointing out that the company in question literally did what you claim they wouldn't, don't try making it look like I don't know what I'm saying. Let me clarify this for you: You keep referring to strictly the commercial. I simply pointed out that they literally used a rock song in the past, in a game. I said: [quote]and they even did it for Halo 2. Breaking Benjamin was in the soundtrack. [/quote] They being Bungie. The same company who made Destiny, and Destiny 2. They are also the same company that made Halo 2. During the campaign for Halo 2 the song "Blow me Away" performed by the band "Breaking Benjamin" starts playing in the game. Not a commercial. Also, me clearly stating that Breaking Benjamin is in the soundtrack from Halo 2 proves that Bungie literally had song in the game performed by a rock band. This also shows that in the past there was no problem getting the licenses to have a song literally in the game (just like it would be they included it in the expansion). Now please, stop acting nonsensical, and cut back with the sarcasm unless you actually know what you are talking about. Lastly, you said it yourself : [quote]Breaking Benjamin and AC/DC, no difference in licensing cost there then. Both band are about the same popularity and fame.[/quote] So you are literally saying it wouldn't cost any more than what they already were willing to pay in the past. Therefore, totally plausible.

Yes they have done it before. You still don't get the difference between licensing Breaking Benjamin and AC/DC. There's maybe a slight difference in total album and single sales and size of live venues played. Buying a Honda and buying a Bugatti are essentially the same process, there's a reason why more people buy a Honda than buy a Bugatti.....cost. There's a reason why Bungie licensed Breaking Benjamin but are unlikely to license AC/DC, cost. There's a reason why AAA Bands music isn't usually on a videogame sound tracks (with some exceptions), there's a reason why most games have an original sound track. Cost. Get it now? Doubt it, but that's about as simply as I can put it.

[quote]Yes they have done it before.[/quote] Finally, you understand. I mean, you obviously didn't because all of these were you complaining that I didn't know the difference between the licensing: [spoiler][quote]Explain how the same problem with licensing suddenly doesn't apply to expansions? I read what you wrote, it's still nonsensical.[/quote] [quote]Sure, if they did it for commercial with a set number of plays, it must be just the same as licensing for every copy of an expansion. Can't be two different things.[/quote] [quote]I guess you don't understand the difference between licensing to a commercial and licensing to every copy of a game distributed. It's not worth the effort.[/quote][/spoiler] Which we can finally agree that considering that Bungie put "real" music in a game in the past shows that it isn't that far fetched. So since I was able to correct you on that, you had to change your argument. (everyone can see its true because everytime you edit a post it shows how long ago it happened.) Now, for your new argument: [quote]You still don't get the difference between licensing Breaking Benjamin and AC/DC. There's maybe a slight difference in total album and single sales and size of live venues played. Buying a Honda and buying a Bugatti are essentially the same process, there's a reason why more people buy a Honda than buy a Bugatti.....cost. There's a reason why Bungie licensed Breaking Benjamin but are unlikely to license AC/DC, cost. There's a reason why AAA Bands music isn't usually on a videogame sound tracks (with some exceptions), there's a reason why most games have an original sound track. Cost.[/quote] So, your logic for why AC/DC is impossible to be on a soundtrack for a video game is cost? 1: Many other franchises have used AC/DC songs in their games. [spoiler]Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.N.T._(song) Rock Bands 1-4, and even their own Rock Band stand alone game: https://www.giantbomb.com/acdc-live-rock-band/3030-23939/ Madden 2011: https://www.google.com/amp/www.blabbermouth.net/news/ac-dc-guns-n-roses-kiss-ozzy-osbourne-featured-on-madden-nfl-11-soundtrack.amp Pinball Rocks (apparently a mobile game developer can even afford some AC/DC): https://open.spotify.com/user/myplay.com/playlist/6R5tpXKpdgHXnSuDaUduLp [/spoiler] 2: Call of duty didn't get AC/DC, but they did get the Rolling Stones for multiple game soundtracks: [spoiler]http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Songs_featured_in_the_Call_of_Duty_series[/spoiler] The rolling stones are only worth 1 million less than AC/DC. [spoiler]http://ultimateclassicrock.com/acdc-rolling-stones-highest-paid-2016/[/spoiler] What is ironic about this is that considering that Call of Duty is Activision, and Activision has a big part of Destiny, exactly how then is it so far fetched? So the facts are, multiple other developers used AC/DC in their games. I highly doubt those same developers had as much profit as Bungie made even in the first day Destiny 1 was released especially considering that Bungie made $500,000 net profit the [i]first day[/i] on Destiny 1. [spoiler]https://www.google.com/amp/s/gamerant.com/destiny-sales-day-one-record/amp[/spoiler] Take that plus the fact that Bungie used a rock song in their previous game, as did Activision who also helped make Destiny. Please, by responding with sarcasm and providing nothing to support your assumptions you are just making yourself look bad. So please reply with some facts supporting your claim that AC/DC would just cost to much. Especially considering the facts that Bungie already got licensing for songs in the past, and Activision got licensing for a band not far under AC/DC. I'm sorry but the [b]facts[/b] that other games have AC/DC and both major companies involved in creating this game have used similar methods in their soundtracks proves your theory wrong bub. GG Guardian.

That was a lot of text for something that will never happen.