[esonderegger]

Nicely done!

A lot of the commenters here think you're charging too little and I agree.

Have you thought about having two pricing tiers: one for non-exclusive use and much higher one (maybe $100 per track?) for exclusive use?

If I were a game developer and I thought I was making the next Angry Birds, having a recognizable theme that I knew no one else would have would be an easy to understand added value.

[JoshTriplett]

> Have you thought about having two pricing tiers: one for non-exclusive use and much higher one (maybe $100 per track?) for exclusive use?

I think you've vastly underestimated a reasonable price for exclusive use, given the inability to sell it to anyone else, the amount of time needed to produce an original piece of music, and any sensible salary for individual composers.

[esonderegger]

Since my day job involves working with composers as they record original works, I know $100 per track is very low considering the time/creativity/experience required.

However, I respect that different people are at different stages in their careers. This may be a rung on the ladder on the way to commissions or a side project while in school.

I was simply taking the current price of $5 per track and thinking that it may be unlikely for any given track to be licensed by twenty different game developers for non-exclusive use. It might yield more revenue to have one buyer at $100 per track.

[headbiznatch]

I second the idea of the non-exclusive/exclusive price tiers. I would also suggest relating pieces with one another when they might make sense as a suite (i.e. same genere, thematically similar, techno vs. orchestral, etc.)

And I also second the "nicely done!"