Bowlerhat

Something else on the topic of humanization in general. When you write with non real (fake) instruments, you indeed have to add all those tiny articulations and stuff and it takes up a lot of time, which might seem a bit of a wasted effort. But don't forget that when you use non fake (real) instruments you do the exact same thing. The art of phrasing isn't something as naturel as it may seem. When I write for ensembles I spent hours and hours on articulation notation. Singing the lines, seeing whether the third note needs a tenuto or an accent. The difference between a staccato and a marcato note is huge. The whole humanization concept is basically the same thing as when you're writing for non real (fake) instruments, and takes just as much time. When I play in an orchestra or combo or whatever and my sheets don't have any articulations on it, well, I just don't know what to make out of it. Humanization is an important part of music, whether you're using a midi keyboard, a symphonic orchestra, or if you're playing all instruments by yourself. Denying or underestimating its importance is a very dangerous thing which can't ever be good for your music. I'm not saying that you're doing that, but it's just generally a good thing to not see non real (fake) instruments as a different thing than non fake (real) instruments. Because, in the end, when you're writing for those instrument, you have to get into the instruments and player anyway, and try to see how you'd play it if you were actually playing. And then try to mimic the impression of the sound you have in your head and convey it either on paper, or in your DAW. 

i don't think any good composer wants something to sound completely mechanical (100% perfectly-quantized rhythm, zero variation in velocities), because it sounds stiff and lifeless. It's not an "obsession"; it's the product of a trained ear.
Mechanical notes are the equivalent of a real person playing with zero emotion, and evidently, a person cannot have 100% perfectly-quantized rhythm, nor can they have perfectly even note intensities in real life - that would be extremely unusual. For pianists as an example, a real person does not plunk down notes at the exact robotic intensity or rhythm on every single note (unless they truly try to play badly by slamming a finger onto a piano for every single note, which is not how anyone is supposed to play piano, even beginners who don't have experience using all their fingers on a piano).
When we on the forums ask for humanization for a track to be submitted to OCR, we usually aren't saying, "go make it so no one, not even the best digital music composer in the world, can tell it's a sample." We're often saying, "make it so it's not so stiff in rhythm and intensity, so that there are actual dynamics in the song."
The point of humanization is to give a sensation of dynamics, and that doesn't always require realistic rhythms and intensities. As long as the rhythm is not 100% quantized, and as long as the note intensities are varied, that's a step towards humanization - at that point, you should ask yourself, "is this how a human being would play it [approximately]?", and adjust further until at the time, you think it sounds good. It doesn't have to be convincing to everyone, but the "general audience" shouldn't be able to tell that much.
Sometimes the rhythm and intensity adjustments are subtle, or sometimes they're kind of obvious, depending on your experience in rhythm. For example:
Mechanical rhythm + intensity Mechanical rhythm Mechanical intensity Fairly realistic You should also consider the context - is the instrument in question exposed, or mixed down pretty well that it becomes harder to hear the qualities that tell you it needs humanization? So, for a solo piano performance, humanization is absolutely crucial; for something that features a piano but not at the forefront, probably not as necessary to be uber-realistic...
With certain OSTs, people don't necessarily shoot for "man, I can't tell if this is a real band or not." As long as it fits the mood, era, etc. for the game, and the composer and other participants are happy with it, I think it's fine. It's what they were going for, probably. But I would say those standards are associated with the fact that the relevant OSTs are probably pretty old, like 8-bit, 16-bit, stuff that's pre-2000s - early 2000s. Or, it's based on dated styles. I don't think anyone expects something crazy-realistic from, say, Pokemon Sapphire's OST, but it fits for a GBA game.
If it "holds up song writing", then it just means you need more practice working faster. It honestly doesn't make me slower, because I'm used to it, and I adjust velocities and rhythm as I go, instead of putting it off until the end. That way it doesn't feel like a lot of work left to do later. You don't want to grade 48 lab reports the day before they're due; you want to grade a few every day until you have to turn them in later, so that it's not such a pain for you.

Okay folks, we're one month away from the second check-in deadline, so here's the obligatory reminder. We've been making good progress with the album, but you know what would be awesome? A new update from @Jorito, @GaMeBoX, @evktalo, @zykO, @Audiocolor, @Chernabogue, @DusK, @Lucasonic, @Tuberz McGee, @~Faseeh~, @generaloffensive, @Bowlerhat and @Unknown Alias!
You know what would even be more awesomer? A WIP from @KingTiger, @WillRock, @wildfire and @jnWake! Eager to see what they come up with, I bet it's gonna be fab
Me and Black Doom are happy to give you feedback on your tracks and help you remove any roadblocks. Since this is the last check-in before the final deadline on October 30, this check-in would be a good opportunity for you to catch up with your friendly album directors and make the album the best it can be!
Oh... and we may or may not have some other progress to share with you in the near future

One thing I've learned in organizing several platforms with volunteers: including money changes things. Sure, the people in staff now are not doing it for extra money, but that could be an incentive for people to push for being a staff member. You don't want that line of thought. It also spawns a lot more conspiracy-theories, something you also want to avoid when you're reliant on contributions of others (some if the theories are even going around now that the staff isn't even getting paid). Last but not least: you have to divide the money. Does everyone get an equal share? Or should you get more if you get involved more? Those can be toxic discussions as well.
My experience is that these things always get out if hand, no matter how good the intentions see. Compensation for expenses on the other hand works quite well usually (fully compensated travels to conventions and such)

The purpose of this thread is to give people a clear idea of how OCR operates, how revenue is generated (and where that revenue goes), and the relationship between OCR, its operations, and the people that contribute to it.

Is content on OCR licensed?

No. We do not license the ReMixes distributed on our site (and through channels like YouTube). (There is one exception, which is described below.)

Why aren't the remixes licensed?

It's simply impossible to do this for several reasons.

1. Mechanical licensing via the compulsory licensing permission (the one that does not require publisher permission) requires that the source material be published commercially in the United States prior to licensing. Many remixes on the site are of source material never released in soundtrack form in the US, therefore they cannot be licensed.

2. Even if the music could be licensed, since OCR is founded on the concept of distributing music for free, it would be impossible to support the massive licensing costs necessary for all remixes on the site. To use some napkin math: assume 3400 remixes are each downloaded 100 times per month, which is a gross under-estimate. At 9.1 cents per copy downloaded, this would require licensing fees of over $30,000 a month - for downloads alone.
3. No established license mechanism could cover free downloads of MP3s and ad-supported streaming. Compulsory mechanical licensing only covers downloadable copies; as a result, custom licensing agreements would need to be made with every publisher (which they could simply reject, unlike a compulsory license.)

For total emphasis, there is no conceivable way that the content on OCR could be licensed, and especially not while remaining compatible with the site goal of distributing free music.

Does that mean OCR is illegal or infringing copyright?

By default, any use of copyrighted material without express permission of the copyright holder is considered infringement. However, US copyright law makes provisions for "fair use" of copyrighted material as a defense to infringement in a court of law. Fair use is the legal principle that allows for things like educational usage, commentary, parody, and satire, among other uses. While fair use cannot be established except in a court of law, and there are no strict guidelines allowing anyone to decide whether a use is fair or not outside of the court system, it's possible to make an educated guess as to whether a use is fair or not.

This educated guess is based on an evaluation of the factors evaluated for determining fair use, and precedent. The biggest of these factors are whether a work is transformative, and whether it is 'commercial'. These are both loose and nebulous terms, but that being said, our strongly-held belief (reinforced by the belief of consulted legal counsel) is that OCR's distribution of fan-created arrangements for non-commercial educational purposes is fair use. This has been discussed at length in other posts but suffice it to say that when analyzing all these factors, we've made a very strong case for this if a court case were ever to happen.
Isn't it worse to upload music to YouTube, especially if it's monetized?
No. If fair use applies to OCR's activities, it would certainly extend to YouTube. If it doesn't apply, then the site's current activities (on and off YouTube) would be considered infringement, in which case it's a moot point.
YouTube is actually a better place to address issues of infringement than elsewhere, because Google provides content creators with several tools: the ability to claim a video (which grants the publisher/claimaint all further revenue from the video) or issue a takedown. Both of these would not entangle either party in the court system, as Google/YouTube mediates any disputes, avoiding a costly legal battle. In short, we'd much rather defend ourselves to YouTube, ON YouTube, with the assistance of YouTube specialists who have extensive experience in copyright disputes.
Also, keep in mind that on YouTube (and off), a creator can claim infringement regardless of whether someone is generating revenue from a work or not. My own personal experience with YouTube claims and takedowns has exclusively been with un-monetized videos. In short, if a publisher took issue with OCR, not running YouTube ads would not protect us in any way.
Does OCR generate revenue from its content?

Yes. Since the early 2000s, ocremix.org has run ads throughout the site. Other revenue is generated from sales of OCR merchandise (not music; music on the site is not sold commercially) such as t-shirts and hoodies. Within the last few years, OCR launched a Patreon page which also generates revenue. Ads were also enabled on <1% of videos on OCR's YouTube channel from June-August 2016 for testing purposes, which has also generated a small amount of revenue. Until OCR officially becomes a registered non-profit organization, and YouTube ads are discussed further with the community, YouTube ads will only be served on the videos of ReMixers who have given OCR their explicit permission.

Why does OCR need to generate revenue?

OCR as a website has technical costs, such as the cost of a dedicated server, mirrors, and bandwidth. These expenses are necessary for the basic operation of the site. Revenue is also needed to create promotional materials for the site: that includes merchandise like t-shirts and hoodies, as well as strictly-promotional physical copies of album projects. (These promotional physical albums are not sold, and the content on them is available for free on ocremix.org. They are given away at conventions). OCR has also been attending conventions such as Otakon, MAGFest, and PAX (among any others) to evangelize video game music, promote recent album releases, and give away free stuff. Expenses directly related to OCR panels at these conventions (such as technical equipment needed for panels) are sometimes covered by OCR as an organization.

There are also many plans for the organization that require revenue to achieve. For example, the OCR YouTube video template has not been updated in many years and looks dated. We're in the process of commissioning custom visualization software to produce better-looking videos strictly for the enjoyment of viewers and fans. Also, we're looking to obtain true non-profit organization status, which we believe will take a substantial amount of money to file and maintain properly.

Where does surplus revenue go?

For a long time, there was no surplus revenue. Expenses were often paid out of pocket by Dave and other staff. Now that revenue is exceeding expenses, the revenue... isn't going anywhere. It's staying in OCR's accounts until it is used for purposes like those described above. The aforementioned non-profit filing process will likely take most if not all saved money.

So is OCR a non-profit organization?
From our submission agreement: OCR legally cannot distribute submitted materials for for-profit endeavors. Furthermore, OCR is legally bound to spend any revenue on costs directly associated with operation and promotion of OverClocked ReMix.
However, OCR as an entity does not have true non-profit status - 501(c)(3) - which is why achieving that official status is a major goal.
Are any ReMixers or site staff paid for their work?

No. Nobody has been paid for their work contributing to the site either as a remixer, staff member, or administrator, djp included.
(Fine print: OCR has released one commercial album, For Everlasting Peace: 25 Years of Mega Man, as an officially licensed release in partnership with Capcom, with Capcom retaining ownership of the music. ReMixers were paid for this release, which was licensed directly with the publisher. This music is not available on the site and was not submitted through the normal channels, so it's an outlier.)
Will ReMixers ever be paid?
Not for regular submissions to the site, which are distributed for free. Not only would the logistical overhead be unmanageable, but it would invalidate our fair use case, as it would be impossible to justify those payments as necessary to the direct operation of the site as a non-profit entity. However, we'll continue to explore separate licensed projects like MM25, or officially licensed commercial albums through our sister site OverClocked Records. We view these as separate from the core work that OCR does: distributing and evangelizing free music.
Will site staff ever be paid?
There is absolutely no plan to do this, nor has it been seriously discussed among site staff in all years of operation. It's conceivable that it could happen someday, after 501(c)(3) status is achieved and we're complying with all regulations for transparency, corporate bylaws, etc. djpretzel wants there to be a plan for the site should anything ever happen to him, and operating a 501(c)(3) will require more administrative duties for things like bookkeeping and accounting. Again, if it were to ever happen, it would be executed properly to the letter as per federal guidelines for non-profit organizations and in full compliance with our own legally binding submission agreement.
Is there anything to prevent revenue from being distributed as profit to staff now?!

Of course. Just because OCR is not a 501(c)(3) yet does not mean our submission agreement isn't legally binding: it is. And that agreement, which applies to OCR as an organization, strictly limits how revenue can be used. Again, site staff have never been paid nor are there any plans to do so.

I can imagine it being donated to charity, or maybe it can be divided between other at that time current vgm fora. I don't think it's necessary to think about that now, since there are more than enough fair options. 

It would be a tough call. On the one hand, yes, staff DOES work quite hard on keeping the quality control high on what is pushed through the site, as well as making sure music always meshes with the site objectives. On the other hand, Brandon's point that we shouldn't make money off of other people's work would come into play - why would the staff contribution to how this site is run outweigh the contribution that the artists put into their music? It's not a bad point, actually.
I think both sides of the argument have merit, though I personally don't want to work with the quagmire of ethical and possibly legal issues involved in getting paid for this while the artist didn't. So from my stand point, I'd be against compensation for the work put into the site.
On the other hand, I will point out that if this were a site about the free distribution of other people's original music, and we had the same work in quality control, I'd be all for compensating staff - the work that goes into quality control, feedback and hosting is definitely worth something. However, I would also be 100% for giving the artist a share in the revenue, too, as they would be contributing music to the site. That is neither here nor there, though - OCR will never have the benefit of original compositions passing through it, so this is moot. Since we can never compensate artists for their work, so too do I think we can never compensate the staff for their contribution. Alas.
I do want to also note that my contribution to the thread is completely hypothetical - monetary compensation to the staff has never come up in my time working here, nor has it ever been considered a possibility, due to the nature of the work. I do have to make that clear, being a part of staff, and all.
EDIT: Do note that this is a general statement on how to deal with revenue - I am not taking the non-profit status into account. I can comment on that aspect later.
(Spoiler:I'd be against it for slightly different reasons)

Don't give Lucavi the satisfaction of having something else to bitch about on The Shizz.

Alright, I think I'm caught up on the thread.
I want to respond to the above comment from @Garde first because I've already apologized, and while apologies are nice, the simple fact that I made one at all DOES indicate that I agree that this could potentially have been handled better... ideally, our "experiment" would have been shorter, and we would have stuck with the original plan to make an announcement after the first week, kick off a discussion, and time that to coincide with 501c3 filing status and/or updated artist pages, where we hope to emphasize artist promotion more. Filing for 501c3 means having at least SOME of your ducks in a row, and while @Chimpazilla put some materials together that I've reviewed, most of my OCR time these days is consumed with posting mixes, coordinating albums, and trying to work on several different projects to improve the site, all at the same time. I'm not going to lie, being a father of two has affected the time I can devote to OCR, but I'm still doing everything I can. We were always intending to discuss this with artists BEFORE enabling the back catalog, and I want to emphasize this... the number of videos on our channel with ads enabled right now is less than half a percent of the total videos. That's not an explanation for not telling anyone about the experiment (which is more about observing the effects in a normal context), but it does hopefully support & make clear that our intention was to wait for this conversation to take place BEFORE enabling 99.5% of the rest of the videos.
It might FEEL like back-pedaling... I get that, I do... but if you think about this point, and actually believe we were never going to tell anyone, then why have we NOT yet enabled ads on 99.5% of the videos?
Okay, I did want to clear that up, because at least on the surface it's a legit point.
Now, the current concerns seem to break down along these lines, with the following explanations:
This isn't right, because OCR staff shouldn't make money off the mixes. We don't; our 2007 content policy stipulates how funds will be used (site operation and promotion), and banner ads have been in place for over a decade. Artists should have been informed prior to ANY videos being enabled with ads. We apologize for this being a surprise, but we DID want to observe the impact of ads for a small percentage of mixes in a neutral setting before discussing this with artists and then, eventually, enable it for 99.5% of the rest of the videos... we also wanted to time that discussion/announcement with 501c3 filing, which in retrospect has delayed things for too long. YouTube ads are different from website ads because they feel different, play before the actual music, are embedded, etc. A video ad IS different from a website ad in terms of the medium, but the end result is often the same. Having to "skip" an ad CAN feel more intrusive - which is exactly why we wanted to monitor the impact with a "test batch"...our observations have been that very few noticed or were adversely affected by this change. It's worth noting that we do not enable "unskippable" ads, and NEVER will. They are Satan. We've also never enabled certain types of website ads that are more obnoxious - "pop-unders" and full-page timed skippable things.... uhh, because we hate them. YouTube ads aren't covered by the current content policy, or it's not clear. When we worked with artists back in 2007 on our content policy, we very intentionally tried to make it "future-proof" by using flexible language, where it made sense. Regarding ads, we used the phrase "advertisements presented in the context of submitted material" - I personally feel that is clear enough to convey that we were NOT just talking about banner ads on websites, that it meant ads could be presented before, after, alongside mixes in a video, on a stream, or on whatever technology the future throws our way - VR, 3D, augmented reality, whatever. Who wants a policy that's out of date every time a new & relevant technology comes out? Nevertheless, it has been proposed that the content policy should be modified to clarify this point. This would not be a modification of substance/meaning, simply one of enhancing the clarity with real-world examples. I think this could definitely make sense. YouTube ads expose OCR and/or artists to additional legal risk. First off, you should know that I've poured tens of thousands hours into OCR and will thus always seek to protect it. I do appreciate the concern, but I don't appreciate the idea that I would somehow intentionally pursue a reckless course of action just to enhance revenue potential to support site operations. As @zircon has repeatedly indicated, YouTube makes it very easy for IP owners to assert their rights without going through traditional legal channels, and this happens quite often. OCR should be more transparent about how it handles its finances. The best thing we can do right now is get the 501c3 ball rolling. As many have pointed out, a 501c3 organization can still be corrupt, can still compensate its employees, etc. - simply having this status doesn't mean we couldn't be the evil, maniacally deceptive people that @Brandon Strader suspects But it's a good faith step in the right direction, it will involve something kinda-sorta like an audit to attain, and it will lay a foundation for decoupling OCR from, well.... me. Right now we're a sole proprietorship LLC, and while all OCR funds are kept in separate accounts, those are still MY accounts, and it all ends up on MY taxes. Attaining this status may actually be rather expensive for us, so when people ask what on earth we could possibly need a budget surplus for, this type of thing is a great example. It's also worth mentioning that while most of the cost is upfront, there is also a cost associated with MAINTAINING 501c3 status from year to year. I think that covers everything.
If people feel the above six points are incomplete, I'll be updating this post with anything additional that isn't covered.
 

This is an egregious reductionist oversimplification of all the nuanced discussion that's happened in this 9-page thread.

Much of this has been stated, but I thought it be helpful to have the ethics spoken to by another remixer who isn't on staff.
Regarding whether remixers should trust the staff --- the fact that 501c3 status is being voluntarily pursued by the staff should be enough to inspire trust. If you didn't know, it would mean that OCR would have to report publicly a lot of financial information, including revenues, expenses, and information on whether/how it compensates staff. And it would be a federal offense to intentionally misreport that information. 
Regarding profit --- as has been pointed out, it appears that many of us here are unaware of what profit means. Both for-profit and non-profit companies would love to grow. Both would love to generate more money than they spend. The difference comes in what happens to that extra money. Both can chose to pour that extra money back into the company for it to grow (marketing, research and development, staffing, etc.), but only the for-profit has the option of distributing the profits to the owners/shareholders. That's the difference. Non-profits generate profit... they just have to pour that money back into the organization's stated purpose. And we have no reason to believe the OCR staff has done anything other than this, especially in light of them wanting to attain a certain legal status that requires them to publicly report exactly how they're doing this.
Regarding paying remixers --- that is immediately a for-profit situation, as zircon stated, and that immediately endangers fair use issues. "But wait, why is it legally OK for OCR to do it for themselves but not OK for them to pay Patrick Burns?" Because OCR is an organization with a stated public/artistic mission, no shareholders who profit from dividends or the sale of the organization, and uses the money in a certain fashion (soon-to-be legally obligated to use that money in a certain fashion, as the staff voluntarily desires). Patrick Burns has no binding, stated purpose for the greater good, and can use the money however he pleases---most likely a burrito bowl that will contribute to his BMI and increase the public healthcare burden (but even if I used it for my kids, it's still for-profit). In other words, the money going to OCR is fair-use because that gathered money has no other outlet than the further promotion of OCR's fair-use mission. I, on the other hand, can take the money anywhere.
Regarding testing the monetization quietly --- the entire idea "that someone should've asked us" is based on the unfounded assumption that OCR is doing something selfish. On the contrary, we have no reason to believe the money isn't going precisely back into the function which inspired every single remixer here to submit to OCR in the first place: visibility and community. (And soon we might have public documents to verify this, as the staff obviously desires.) Give me proof that anyone on staff is using the monetization for personal gain, and then I would agree that we should have been asked.
My feelings: OCR provides a platform which isn't within my skill set---a platform which would not exist through my own self-promotion, nor through the collective, individual self promotion of all remixers here. Even if you assume that the homepage's value is minimal, social media buoyancy doesn't come easy. I have been given no reason to distrust the staff, and the staff seems proactive in making their non-profit status official, thus providing some transparency.

There's also a thing to be considered about "profit", whatever is made extra of just website sustaining, is put back on making ocr better.  Do you want ocr to stay as is, and never expand or change, not promote vgm music more, that the staff keeps investing their time which most of them don't have, and money into promoting ocr everywhere they can?  Improvements not only take time, which the staff provides for free and without asking anything in return, but it also requires money.  Money for extra development, extra promotion, etc.  Not only giving all this "profit" back to the artists generates more problems than it solves, it also stagnates OCR's mission.

Brandon, you're literally sounding like Donald Trump right now. I hope you realize that is not a compliment.

As has already been said, you initiated a much needed conversation on this subject as it needed to be exposed and addressed. We all have varying opinions on the YouTube monetization issue but right now you're derailing it by being a knucklehead. 

I've been a part of or around the staff for over a decade and a half and i have yet to catch any inkling that anybody was pocketing any kind of cash off the site. I surely haven't seen a dime. Honestly, you need to knock it off and get back on the subject at hand which is the ethical and legal ramifications of monetizing fan arrangements and stay off that wonky tinfoil shit.

I have more to write and not a lot of time, but...
"We" are not getting money, OCR (the organization) is. 100% of that money is spent on making remixes more visible. That's the entire purpose of the site. To say that not paying remixers is not showing "respect and class" strikes me as very bad faith. The staff of OCR, especially Dave, have collectively spent tens of thousands of hours on promoting video game music, remixes, and the site. That's an enormous sacrifice of time strictly spent for the benefit of art and other people. More often than not it's completely thankless - just ask any judge. And for a long time, we actually spent money out of pocket (our own personal pockets) to do things like go to conventions to promote OCR at panels, or print up albums to give away as prizes (again, to PROMOTE the music.) It's only relatively recently in the site's life that revenue has exceeded expenses, which Dave spoke to in an earlier post.

Fewer people come to OCR, which is not something unique to OCR but that is happening to pretty much every community out there as more people are less likely to keep up with an external website when they can just get all the information on all the comunities they belong to in their social media feed.  This is interesting of you to point out since if that's the case, it makes more sense to move the ads to where the people would see them and where it would help OCR more.

Facebook is monetizing people and their information.  Facebook's product is people, information, not facebook itself.  OCR product has always been Remixes, that's what draws people to the site and that is what we're monetizing with ads.  If we remove the remixes from ocr people won't come, there would be nothing to monetize, same as if we remove people and their information from facebook.  CNN's product isn't CNN, it's the news.  That's what they monetize with ads.  It's their product.  Radio stations monetize the music they broadcast, not the station, etc.  If people PERCEIVE that OCR is monetizing the remixes now and not before, they're just wrong and have no grounds on that argument, because that has always been OCR's product.

Using that line of reasoning, a more accurate statement would be "all DAWs suck at orchestral music." [1]
 
 
References                 
1. My entire SoundCloud page.

Talk about spoilers. Thanks for ruining Tetris for me... 

So the deadline has passed, and we received 2 new WIPs, one from Zyko and one from Bowlerhat that we're eager to see the next version of. If you're a remixer working on the album, go check them out in the project forum and give feedback!
We also got a sweet update from Tuberz McGee and DusK will send his WIP on August 6th. If you didn't send in anything yet, consider August 6th your extended deadline
New check-in deadline is September 18th, roughly 6 weeks from now. After that we have a final deadline on October 30th, any tracks not finished by that date will be cut.
Good to see the activity so far people, keep it coming!

Another tidbit I'd add: If you pitch a perfectly reasonable rate, and they freak out about it, move on. Don't waste your time negotiating, at least not that much. If a game developer is not willing to pay a reasonable price for music, then they're not willing to get good music, which usually means they're not likely to care about conducting good business, hiring good artists or designers, or -- simply put -- releasing a good game.
Also, if it's some first-time indie dev, and they're short on cash, remember that not all payment has to be monetary or up-front. You could request to retain full distribution rights to the soundtrack and have them put an obvious link on the game's main website to the soundtrack on Bandcamp (kind of a risk, but less so if you're confident in your music's quality). You could ask for services from their developers to help code and design your website. You could even work out some sort of word-of-mouth networking endorsement, and have the developer spread the word to other game developers about your services and their positive experience working with you. There are a lot of good things you could ask for besides money.
Like Nabeel said, always get something out of it. It doesn't always have to be just money, but it should always further your goals.

The biggest mistake a dev can make is concealing their budget from the person they're entrusting with their audio vision.  Unfortunately, a lot of devs "shop around."  Treat yourself with some respect but be objective and sincere about what price will yield your best results.
You can't deliver a killer soundtrack if you're on your third week of revisions for a single minute loop and you're now realizing that you're getting paid about 3 bucks an hour to write it.
Think about your skill level, be honest in your evaluation of how well produced/professionally produced your music is (as honest as possible) and come up with an optimistic fee, be open to negotiation and maintain a firm minimum.  If you have no credits, then money is probably not your primary objective for the work, that's important to evaluate as well.  I definitely charged low when I was starting out, never charged as low as $100/min, but low.  I had my minimums and sometimes that meant it didn't work out.  Sometimes that meant the dude who was charging $50/min got the job, but they almost always SOUND like it too.  I knew a guy who was trapped in $50/min, couldn't seem to work his way out, kept getting gigs by low-balling and then he grew a customer base of cheap devs looking for the bottom line.

He was not happy with the work he did and he had to do a high volume to maintain a steady income, so he burnt up all his creative juices just trying to churn out 40-60 minutes a month just to pay the bills.
Most importantly: NEVER, EVER POST YOUR RATES ANYWHERE--JUST DON'T DO IT.

All rate discussions should be kept private in undisclosed email conversations with your client.  The client will want you to disclose a rate immediately, but you cannot honestly estimate a rate if you do not know what kind of music you'll be writing, what the scope or duration of the project is, whether your client is expecting any live musicians, what KIND of production they're expecting from you, etc., etc., etc.

It's not about holding something back from the dev, it's about being honest about what rate will yield your best results.

I don't think you need _my_ advice on the music. I can find things wrong with production and point out obvious flaws in the arrangement, but I don't think that's the type of feedback that would benefit you. You're at the point where you're hearing flaws in your own work, stuff you're not satisfied with. Follow that instinct. Too much overlap between instruments? Find a solution. Play fewer notes. Play different notes. Separate with EQ. Separate with pan. Try them all, see what you like the most. I don't terribly mind how you've done it so far. I listen to it and hear it as a kind of improvisation, a for-fun piece. The production makes it hard to listen more critically.
When it comes to reverb, the advice I generally follow is that I turn it up so I can barely hear it, then turn it down slightly from that. It makes for a clean and clear sound. For a two-instrument piece like this, you can probably let it have a bit more reverb than that, depending on the type of reverb and the sound you're going for. Case-by-case thing. Try everything.

You can't make a dev pay $100/minute for music anymore than Samsung can make you buy a $15,000 HDTV. There's no magic trick to landing paying jobs in music - you have to be at the right place at the right time, the right man for the job working for the right people who just happen to have thousands of bucks to spend on a new guy.
Why would they not want to spend thousands of bucks on a new guy for music? Because from a musician's point of view, the music is the most important part of the game, but from a developer's POV, it's one of the least essential components to making a game that might be quality or successful. The fact that most games allow you to turn down or even OFF the music without objectively hampering the gameplay pretty much tells you everything you need to know there. As far as I know, a game has never failed or succeeded from the soundtrack alone. If it does happen, it's very rare. They have to think about more important things like programming, gameplay and, yes, graphics are more important.
I recommend you not think about getting $100/minute without even starting to make money doing music yet and focus more on the art. Don't be "confident" in your ability, keep going and improving, because THAT is the only thing that will help guarantee you make any money at this all (notice I said HELP guarantee). You have to earn that position. You have to start at the bottom doing it for free and peanuts just like the rest of us and earn your equity as an artist. Being hardline about money and payment just for noodling around like all the composers tell you to do is going to stall or even counter your progress.

hmmm... not sure what to think of this. First thing first, this isn't jazz. It's more kinda like hip hop or some kind of hybrid, but definitely no jazz. Not that it matters, but still kind of important to know i guess. 
I'm not sure if you're actively looking for feedback or just posting this for our enjoyment, so i'm just gonna quickly mention the stuff I noticed while browsing through the multiple tracks. 
- Some harmonic ambiguous stuff happening. Clashing notes which could be easily fixed. Nothing too big.
- It could be my crappy laptop speakers and/or soundcloud, but the balance was a bit of at times. Too loud accompaniments compared to the leads.
- The drums in the first cover don't flow at all. When writing for drums, always think in patterns and fluent motions for each limb. It kinda stops right in the middle, which disrupts the flow. It could work in another context, but the piano is playing swing time, and those drums ain't swinging at all. It all kind of contradict each other which makes it sound very unnatural. 
- At quite some moments the countermelodies are going straight through the frequency of the lead melody. Take care to have a clear distinction between the multiple melodies so that they don't interfere each other.
 
Well, I think there was quite some more stuff, but this is all I can remember. If you want more feedback, some more explanations behind the things mentioned above or something else I can help with, just say so. Then I'll leisurely take the time to closely listen to your tracks.
 
Nice work!!

hmmm... not sure what to think of this. First thing first, this isn't jazz. It's more kinda like hip hop or some kind of hybrid, but definitely no jazz. Not that it matters, but still kind of important to know i guess. 
I'm not sure if you're actively looking for feedback or just posting this for our enjoyment, so i'm just gonna quickly mention the stuff I noticed while browsing through the multiple tracks. 
- Some harmonic ambiguous stuff happening. Clashing notes which could be easily fixed. Nothing too big.
- It could be my crappy laptop speakers and/or soundcloud, but the balance was a bit of at times. Too loud accompaniments compared to the leads.
- The drums in the first cover don't flow at all. When writing for drums, always think in patterns and fluent motions for each limb. It kinda stops right in the middle, which disrupts the flow. It could work in another context, but the piano is playing swing time, and those drums ain't swinging at all. It all kind of contradict each other which makes it sound very unnatural. 
- At quite some moments the countermelodies are going straight through the frequency of the lead melody. Take care to have a clear distinction between the multiple melodies so that they don't interfere each other.
 
Well, I think there was quite some more stuff, but this is all I can remember. If you want more feedback, some more explanations behind the things mentioned above or something else I can help with, just say so. Then I'll leisurely take the time to closely listen to your tracks.
 
Nice work!!

The recording isn't great, but the music is lovely (there were a few moments that reminded me of this masterpiece). Fisherman's Horizon is a lovely source, and I'd enjoy a better recorded version of your take on it (with some notes changed, but you're already aware of them). I don't think you need my advice on the music. As for the recording, I'd look into how to record the piano better, be this a change to mic placement, reverb in the venue, performance style, or using a different piano. But I don't know enough about recording to be very useful in that.
Cool stuff. This is what summer sounds like.