What effect does in-game audio have on players? Audio expert Raymond Usher (Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Crackdown) shares the results of
a study in which players were monitored while playing three games -- Osmos, FlatOut, and Amnesia -- with audio and without
[/quote]
http://gamasutra.com...dio_affect_.php

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Good study made by my friend Raymond Usher. Finally some proof, that we can use to convince our clients of the importance of audio and why to use custom made audio..hehe[/font]

If your clients don't understand the importance of audio then they shouldn't be in the business. (Sound makes a huge difference, i'd rather take 80s graphics than 80s sound in my games)

If your clients don't understand the importance of audio then they shouldn't be in the business.

Actually I think most do understand the importance of audio but they just don't want to have to pay for it - let alone pay industry standard rates! And with so many people offering their services up for free (or severely below market value) some feel like they don't have to.

[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1334772964' post='4932537']
If your clients don't understand the importance of audio then they shouldn't be in the business.

Actually I think most do understand the importance of audio but they just don't want to have to pay for it - let alone pay industry standard rates! And with so many people offering their services up for free (or severely below market value) some feel like they don't have to.
[/quote]

You get what you pay for though.

Completely agree which is why I continually push for folks to charge a fair rate. Even charging something is better than working for free.

Completely agree which is why I continually push for folks to charge a fair rate. Even charging something is better than working for free.

Plenty of amateur programmers and graphics artists work for free aswell though.

[quote name='nsmadsen' timestamp='1334779410' post='4932552']
Completely agree which is why I continually push for folks to charge a fair rate. Even charging something is better than working for free.

Plenty of amateur programmers and graphics artists work for free aswell though.
[/quote]
They don't work for free, they pursue a hobby for free.
Which is absolutely cool. The point where it starts to irritate me is when people call this "work".

[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1334779754' post='4932554']
[quote name='nsmadsen' timestamp='1334779410' post='4932552']
Completely agree which is why I continually push for folks to charge a fair rate. Even charging something is better than working for free.

Plenty of amateur programmers and graphics artists work for free aswell though.
[/quote]
They don't work for free, they pursue a hobby for free.
Which is absolutely cool. The point where it starts to irritate me is when people call this "work".
[/quote]

Ah, so a composer offering his services for free is working for free (Which is a bad thing apparantly) but a programmer who does the same isn't working as programming is just a hobby (and thus its cool). (That was quite frankly insulting)

Creating something is work by definition, alot of people in almost all creative fields work for free for various reasons (It could be that its just a hobby for them, it could be because its for a charitable cause, or a number of other reasons). (Look up the definition of work, creating something is work by definition even if there is no compensation for the work)

The price of goods and services is set by the market, supply and demand, expecting people to charge or pay "industry standard rates" on a global market is silly as there is no such thing as a standard rate on a global market, If people are willing to work for less than you are you need to raise your quality or lower your prices to compensate. Trying to form a composer cartel is not a viable solution.

Ah, so a composer offering his services for free is working for free (Which is a bad thing apparantly) but a programmer who does the same isn't working as programming is just a hobby (and thus its cool). (That was quite frankly insulting)

I don't think that is what Moritz was advocating or saying and I know it wasn't what I was saying. The difference is hobby vs. commercial teams (regardless of how small). If a hobby team wants to put out a game for free and it's a labor of love - I see no problem with that. If that same hobby team approaches me and asks me to work for free simply because they all did then it becomes my choice. But in my own experience I've had teams come to me and actually request free audio, without deferred pay or profit shares but were hoping to release the game commercially. That's what we're arguing against and sadly audio industry noobs sometimes reinforce the perception that audio should be free by offering up their services in hopes of getting some work on their resume. My point is they should put some kind of tangible value on their time and craft instead of offering it for 100% free.

Creating something is work by definition, alot of people in almost all creative fields work for free for various reasons (It could be that its just a hobby for them, it could be because its for a charitable cause, or a number of other reasons). (Look up the definition of work, creating something is work by definition even if there is no compensation for the work)

Sure anytime we create anything we're working on it. So perhaps instead of using the term "work: it would be clearer to you to use the term "usage."

But again we're discussing hobby (free) teams and projects vs. commercial projects that have retail aims. Frankly I don't really care how the deal is set up but I'd prefer that folks working on commercial projects stand to earn something for their time and craft. And yes this applies to all disciplines, not just audio.

The price of goods and services is set by the market, supply and demand, expecting people to charge or pay "industry standard rates" on a global market is silly as there is no such thing as a standard rate on a global market, If people are willing to work for less than you are you need to raise your quality or lower your prices to compensate. Trying to form a composer cartel is not a viable solution.

I think you've misunderstood my point. There IS an industry standard or perhaps a better label is industry range. Of course the industry range differs project to project based on several items: especially what kind of device will the game be launched on. For example my rates differ for an iOS game vs. a PS3/Xbox 360 title. Nobody is creating a composer cartel, please, give me a break! Have you seen anyone in this thread actually say X is what you can charge?! No! All I've said is charge something. In the past I've suggested other ideas besides just monetary compensation. For example it could be an exchange of services like: "I create the score for the game and you create a new website for me." The point I keep driving home is audio folks should charge SOMETHING for their time and craft so clients understand there's a tangible value tied to it.

The industry standard (or range) is seen in every kind of market and you even stated that "the price of goods and services is set by the market, supply and demand." Completely agree and the industry standard or range I've seen is based on many composers and clients discussing what they've spent on various kinds of audio. Of course that cost can range drastically from indie to AAA level projects and what kind(s) of devices it's there but to say the industry standard doesn't exist at all is wrong. Finally, just because there IS an industry standard it doesn't mean you have to charge that rate. For example I work closely with my clients to figure out what their budget is and then present options to fit within it. I don't just say "oh well, sorry, I charge 10X that amount. Bye!" Nobody is saying that the industry standard (or range) is law and written in stone but understanding what is the "norm" in the audio industry can help someone create appropriate rates based on your experience, target clients and skill level.

If people are willing to work for less than you are you need to raise your quality or lower your prices to compensate.

Let me stress this point, again, I have no issue with someone charging less than me. I know for a fact that I'm more expensive than some but cheaper than others. My rates are based on my credentials and skill level as well as what I've found clients are usually willing to pay. I only object to someone charging nothing which, in my experience, doesn't do anything to promote the audio industry on the professional level.

[quote name='Moritz P.G. Katz' timestamp='1334794440' post='4932639']
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1334779754' post='4932554']
[quote name='nsmadsen' timestamp='1334779410' post='4932552']
Completely agree which is why I continually push for folks to charge a fair rate. Even charging something is better than working for free.

Plenty of amateur programmers and graphics artists work for free aswell though.
[/quote]
They don't work for free, they pursue a hobby for free.
Which is absolutely cool. The point where it starts to irritate me is when people call this "work".
[/quote]

Ah, so a composer offering his services for free is working for free (Which is a bad thing apparantly) but a programmer who does the same isn't working as programming is just a hobby (and thus its cool). (That was quite frankly insulting)[/quote]
That's not what I said!

Obviously the same goes for composers - I don't know how you could read this any other way without assuming I'm a real dick.

And there's nothing I could add to what Nate wrote, I fully agree. I for one welcomed the new Classifieds section that clearly differentiates between Jobs, Contract Projects and Hobbyist propositions.