Story time: I recently was faced with a scenario that, while I've been in before, this I think was the first time I really thought at length about the deeper implications of such things. I found out about this indie-game that some people were working on, and they were looking for someone who'd be interested in composing for it. I really liked the project, it was a genre I've always liked but never done, it looked great, so I asked if I could show them some music and see if they'd consider me. They liked it, said they did more so than other demos they'd heard, wanted me to do the gig, and wanted to talk further. As I'd expect from small-team indie games, they weren't able to pay much. In fact, they were using the typical communist "revenue sharing model". This is where it begins to go south. They were, as I said, unable to pay anything close to what I made even the last project, similar in scope that I did, but were offering a percent. Now, let's be real: This game is unlikely to sell very well. I just wanted to work on it because I really liked it. BUT, the percent they were willing to offer me, was the absolute lowest of the group. So I guess it's more rigid-class system than communist sharing, but I digress. I said that I would not agree to that deal, because at that rate, even if the game were to sell boatloads of units, I wouldn't make anything near even half of my initial asking price. I instead offered the idea of maybe like, checkpoint types of payment of a larger denomination. This way, if the game were a surprise success, especially over time, it would be profitable for them, and I would get a larger cut without being much of a drain on their total revenue than had I accepted their percentage. They said "No." and the answers they gave I found enlightening. The first, was that they felt doing so would be to put me above the rest of the team and that this is a "hobby project". I pointed out that, they are putting certain people above others already (mostly based on time investment) and that I don't see how what they're doing is a "hobby project" when it will be sold for profit: That's not a "hobby", that's a business endeavor. and what I noticed here is that they are telling me, without realizing they're doing it, that while it's not about the money and putting profits before quality, it is to say that even if they do wind up in a position to pay me a better deal, they still wouldn't. No matter how much they like my work, no matter how good the soundtrack could ever be, they believe that what I do is worth basically nothing and they will keep me at the bottom of the pile no matter what. So I think that if I could go back in time and tell past me a piece of advice for when faced with these "revenue share" indie games: Put the client's mind in the scenario of their product is going to sell well and find out what they'd be willing to give you in such a scenario, and that will expose what they really think about the value of music in their game. Thoughts?