To set the "record straight", get the pun. Having music in a game, typically, is more desirable than not. Having good music, which is subjective by the way, is better than having crappy music. Duh.....

Now that said, IMHO, music's significance in a game is relatively minor compared to the design, the artwork and the coding.

Game design and solid concept art is what gets a game off the ground. This is then bolstered by solid coding of all aspects of the game from a goal system, to resposive inputs, to AI. Finally you add in some music, and some sound effects and voice.

So yes, if a musician is not happy with a reasonable compensation for time worked on the music or actual time spent doing voice work, then they are as Fastlane described "Whiny Diva's" I will also add Greedy....

Being paid a 100K for voice work that probably took only one month of real time work, is high compensation, asking for more after agreeing to the contract is a Whiny Diva. Musician's that require high $'s for music can and do fall into this same trap also. There is so much royalty free music available, why would you feel a need to charge large $'s and particapte in profits, for a couple months of work, on adding somthing that is the lowest priority in most games.... We call that the "Tail wagging the dog". Companies that allow this will be out of business quickly....

There are the few games that music is the key, and yes then the musicians should particapte in a larger sense. For most game genres, music is filler, and yes good filler is better than bad filler.

Please point to some instances where musician's in movies have made big bucks on score's. This is rare, and most score musicians do not particapate in a movies profit distribution..... John Williams is an exception to this rule.

Ken