Unofficial "We Refuse to Spend $3 On One Song" Thread

Comments

  • SpiderSamboSpiderSambo Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    Rather than Bawing... why not buy a 4 month Creators club licence?

    I got one last night and have been reaping the rewards of playing these songs... AND by the time my licence ends people will be changing their song pricing.

    So rather than BAW I get to play whatever I want, test whatever I want and save money by constantly playing new things for free.
  • Thom1234Thom1234 Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    I don't want this thread to devolve into bickering and personal insults. If you disagree, fine, but let's not get this thread locked.

    Also, I feel that the people who disagree are making very valid points, but it's gonna take a lot to convince me that EMI should be charging $3 for one song.
  • TroodonTroodon Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    BTW in case it isn't obvious to anyone here, would like to point out the most effective protest against charging $3 for a song, if you think that's too much, is to vote with your wallet and just not buy it. If Harmonix sees that nobody is willing to pay that much, they may very well lower it. The easiest way for you to get your message heard by a for-profit company is with money, not words. Whining about it here won't mean anything to them.
  • T-HybridT-Hybrid Washed Up
    edited March 2010
    RealMessiah;3552598 said:
    What impression is that? That if you are not putting out an epic song from an epic band or if your song is not ultra long, don't charge 3 dollars for it or most people will not buy it?
    Nope, what I don't want them to think is that everybody who doesn't buy $3 thinks like Thom. And that is, immediately crying foul...accusing the bands involved of extortion, and taking up the self-rightous flag "FOR FREEEEEEDDOOOOOOM!"

    Seriously, go back and look at that OP. Even if I agreed with the guy I'd be embarassed that this was going to be "the post" that represents our stance.
  • MagnetMagnet Moderator
    edited March 2010
    This version of Atomic doesn't even have the bass solo. At $3, forget it.

    They're more than welcome to charge $3 though. I'm curious to see how many people are actually willing to pay that for a pretty famous hit. It's an interesting experiment at any rate.

    Anyway, looking forward to a price drop.

    Also, keep the discussion civil, folks.
  • edited March 2010
    Thom1234;3552514 said:
    Or spend 240MSP, the price of "Atomic," on 3 songs at 80MSP, all of which will likely be much more fun than that song.

    Also, for the record, HMX could've charged anything for the Cartman song and I'd still buy it. It transcends earthly concepts like price.
    This is the part of the argument that I really take issue with. I'm all for a discussion of pricing, and I'm all for promoting the visibility of this thread (please do not bump it, I will pass it along to the RBN folks regardless of whether it's at the top of the page) but a lot of this boils down to personal opinion.

    You say (half jokingly, I'm sure) you would pay anything for Cartman singing Poker Face because "It transcends earthly concepts like price." but do not hesitate to knock the pricing of Atomic. Who is to say that the song won't sell well? Who is to say that female vocalist, an intense section of the RB community, won't be thrilled to pick up another song by a popular female vocalist? Who gets to decide how much a song is worth and whether or not it's fun enough to justify a $3 price tag? Do you judge by length? Quality of chart? Challenge? Fun?

    Well it's up to the label and it's up to the members of the RBN community. If you don't think Atomic is worth $3 you don't have to pay the price. Same goes for any $2 or $1 (or free) songs floating around in the RB set list. But the $3 option has been common knowledge for a few months now, and I'm sure this won't be the last song we see with that pricing. It's unfair to use words like "extortion" or "insulting" just because you don't feel like this particular song measures up to your personal guidelines of what's worth $3.

    Pricing in RBN can be changed, so I'd really rather not get into a similar discussion every time a song is priced at $3, since it's clear that there are people in this thread who would be willing to pay $3 "for the right song"... so please use your own judgment in determining which songs are "the right songs". Otherwise, try to keep this thread focused on general discussion of $3 pricing rather than $3 pricing for one specific song.
  • BaindreadBaindread Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    RealMessiah;3552610 said:
    You just going to stick around and keep on trolling?
    I'm not sure if it is an actual poster or an advanced AI Harmonix created to agree with everything that is related to this game or the company :confused:
  • T-HybridT-Hybrid Washed Up
    edited March 2010
    Thom1234;3552611 said:
    I don't want this thread to devolve into bickering and personal insults.
    Little late for that buddy.
    Thom1234;3552438 said:
    Blondie's classic song "Atomic" is now available on the Xbox Live Marketplace, as part of the RBN.

    However, it is being sold for 240MSP/$3, in a blatant effort by a dying label in a decaying industry to make a quick buck off of us, at the same time insulting the intelligence of every single one of us who they expect to play their game.

    As a show of integrity and solidarity, I have created this thread to express our intense dissatisfaction with this extortion, and to show that we will not entertain the fantasies of money-grabbing record labels who are panicking because nobody's buying their product anymore. Please post if you agree with this, and will refuse to buy this song and any other songs the major labels think that we'll pay more for.
    And since we're revisiting it:
    Thom1234;3552438 said:
    ...at the same time insulting the intelligence of every single one of us who they expect to play their game.
    There are things that will insult my intelligence.

    A band charging $3 for optional content they have produced is not one of them.

    However, some whiner on a forum taking it upon themselves to speak for me and telling me when I should be offended does. Quite a bit actually.
  • bigmfbigmf Tiny Hulk Smash!
    edited March 2010
    Three bucks is the wrong price for most people, I suspect. I certainly won't buy it if it comes to the PS3. I can't say there is much I would buy for $3. I'm glad this thread was brought up. I think it's probably pretty important that people get a feel for what the community will and will not pay for Rockband songs.
  • Nitz13Nitz13 Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    Wasn't planning on buying it anyways. Though I'll happily purchase a song for $3 if It's one I love or from one of my favourite bands. For most people they are gonna look at the list and see numerous songs for $1 and others for $2, they are gonna skip this one altogether when they see the $3 price. Bad choice on EMI's part.
  • EhfahqEhfahq Headliner
    edited March 2010
    Wow, really? We were listening to Blondie the other day and this song came on, and I really wanted it to be in RB.

    Id pay 4 bucks for it.
  • TroodonTroodon Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    HMXHenry;3552618 said:
    TWell it's up to the label and it's up to the members of the RBN community. If you don't think Atomic is worth $3 you don't have to pay the price. Same goes for any $2 or $1 (or free) songs floating around in the RB set list. But the $3 option has been common knowledge for a few months now, and I'm sure this won't be the last song we see with that pricing. It's unfair to use words like "extortion" or "insulting" just because you don't feel like this particular song measures up to your personal guidelines of what's worth $3.
    /amen. Finally someone gets it. You think something (and this applies to anything, not just Rock Band DLC) isn't worth what the seller is charging for it, vote with your wallet and don't buy it, problem solved.
  • GeneralGilliamGeneralGilliam Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    Ehfahq;3552632 said:
    Wow, really? We were listening to Blondie the other day and this song came on, and I really wanted it to be in RB.

    Id pay 4 bucks for it.
    ...Or for 40 cents more we could make that an Extra-Large! that's three times as many songs for only 40 cents!
  • Thom1234Thom1234 Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    T-Hybrid;3552627 said:
    Little late for that buddy.
    No, I'm sorry, but that is an obvious attempt to derail this discussion by continuing to justify what this thread is turning into.

    And I agree that my choice of words in the OP was inappropriate, I was very annoyed at the time.
  • JoshuaB81285JoshuaB81285 Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    HMXHenry has spoken!!! Let it be.
  • T-HybridT-Hybrid Washed Up
    edited March 2010
    HMXHenry;3552618 said:
    Who gets to decide how much a song is worth and whether or not it's fun enough to justify a $3 price tag? Do you judge by length? Quality of chart? Challenge? Fun?
    This needs to be quoted, recorded, and printed on a banner on the top of the forums.

    Regardless of what one person thinks, somebody else will have a different view. Heck, I just dropped 240 MPS on a Twins MLB jersey for my 360 Avatar the other day. To me, being able to show off my favorite team's colors was worth the price of the item. And I'm sure if I told another person (even a Twins fan) that I did that...they'd look at me like I'm crazy.

    And what's funny was when the 360 Avatar Marketplace hit, I scoffed at the idea of buying gear for them. But then look what happened, something I liked enough came along and I did it.

    But like you said, everybody (yes EVERYBODY) has that one song they will cave in and spend $3 on. Maybe for you that's not "Atomic", but I bet for somebody else it will be.

    Just like I said in the thread complaining about indie artists charging $2, people will always come up for an excuse as to why the price of an RBN song isn't fair. Heck, we see it all the time in RBDLC where people complain that Song Y should've been free for whatever reason.

    You wonder why I'm not getting the torches and pitchforks like the OP would want? You wonder why I'm not acting like Blondie or EMI just descrated the graves of my ancestors? It's because I know that while "Atomic" isn't a $3 song for me...at some point there's going to be a $3 song that I cave and buy.

    And when I do, there's going to be somebody else that looks at me and says: "Wow? That was really worth it to you?"
  • GameRansoMGameRansoM Rising Star
    edited March 2010
    Thom1234;3552640 said:
    I agree that my choice of words in the OP was inappropriate, I was very annoyed at the time.
    I'm glad you acknowledge that. It struck me as a bit inappropriate as well.
    I do, however, think this has become a fair discussion on justifying price points, by-and-large.
  • I_Love_YouI_Love_You Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    Here's how I look at it. Many more people are likely to buy a song they're on the fence about for $1 than $2 (let alone $3).

    If you get 30% that's 30 cents for a $1 song, or 60 cents for a $2 song, clearly you get more per $2 song.

    But...

    The $1 song is apt to sell at least 4x as much, thus the band would actually make twice as much money. Not to mention the increase in numbers of listeners to that band, which could lead to increased sales in their other music and products, and an increased chance that their songs will make it to the PS3 / Wii (due to high number of sales) and thus be even more profitable.


    ---

    And more on topic, I don't think I would've bought Blondie tracks anyway. $3 is a definite no for me, I still have a bunch of great tracks from regular RB DLC I haven't been able to afford yet.
  • GeneralGilliamGeneralGilliam Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    T-Hybrid;3552655 said:
    Regardless of what one person thinks, somebody else will have a different view.

    You wonder why I'm not acting like Blondie or EMI just descrated the graves of my ancestors?
    Exactly, YOU will have different views than the other people on the forums as well, so just let them be, and don't make this a double standard.

    You're not acting like they did, but your sure as hell acting like all of us did!
  • EhfahqEhfahq Headliner
    edited March 2010
    Now can we get 'Rapture', id pay 3 bucks for that song too. Hitler's dog rules.

    It really come down to how badly you want the song. I really dont have any bad feelings towards the labels who will be charging 3 bucks.

    Then again its not the smartest way to sell the tracks.
  • Deeznutzs27Deeznutzs27 Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    Yeah I am not sure we needed a whole thread on this.. People that dont like the 3$ vote with your wallet. People who like the song and dont care the cost buy it and dont feel bad in the least.

    I think the main uproar on this is(for me atleast) the first Major Label on RBN to post a song in the store is 3$. That dosent mean all by them are going to be 3$ but the excitement of bigger labels using the network has been taken back just a bit but its way too early to tell if this is a trend or blip on the radar.
  • kravenkraven Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    For the most part DLC costs are ridiculous. Unfortunately gamers still pay it so they will keep over charging. Take a stand, and then stick by it, if you don't like it. If enough people pay the $3, get used to paying $3 for everything.
  • wrldindstries302wrldindstries302 Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    Deeznutzs27;3552677 said:
    Yeah I am not sure we needed a whole thread on this.. People that dont like the 3$ vote with your wallet. People who like the song and dont care the cost buy it and dont feel bad in the least.

    I think the main uproar on this is(for me atleast) the first Major Label on RBN to post a song in the store is 3$. That dosent mean all by them are going to be 3$ but the excitement of bigger labels using the network has been taken back just a bit but its way too early to tell if this is a trend or blip on the radar.
    The thread is so that they are aware the reason this song won't be selling is the pricetag, and not because it's a bad song.
  • AjinAjin Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    No way in hell I'd pay 240 points for something like "Atomic". While I like the song, I wouldn't pay a third more than most songs just for this tune. Hopefully this pricing scheme will fall flat on it's face, and EMI will force themselves to low it.

    Not buying into it EMI. Sorry.
  • jayou521jayou521 Washed Up
    edited March 2010
    Ehfahq;3552671 said:
    Now can we get 'Rapture', id pay 3 bucks for that song too. Hitler's dog rules.

    It really come down to how badly you want the song. I really dont have any bad feelings towards the labels who will be charging 3 bucks.

    Then again its not the smartest way to sell the tracks.
    This. Especially the part about "Rapture"~
  • BaindreadBaindread Opening Act
    edited March 2010
    HMXHenry;3552618 said:
    Who gets to decide how much a song is worth and whether or not it's fun enough to justify a $3 price tag? Do you judge by length? Quality of chart? Challenge? Fun?
    I think people expected it to take like a month before we would see a 3$ song on RBN, and then it would be something epic like "Stairway to heaven" or a Metallica song. And I also think many expected the 3$ range to be limited to songs which would be "worth it" from a sales perspective, that the song would be super well known and only because of that justify an increased price because it would otherwise sell a lot worse. And looking at it callously, there are band which falls in the category where it makes sense, and there are bands which falls in the category where it doesn't. And judging by this thread, I would say Blondie falls in the latter and the person/company who added the song to RBN should've realized that.
    HMXHenry;3552618 said:

    It's unfair to use words like "extortion" or "insulting" just because you don't feel like this particular song measures up to your personal guidelines of what's worth $3. .
    I think it was implied as a bit of a sordid joke, even though it did a poor job as being percieved as such.
  • CloudWolfCloudWolf Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    I would've bought the song, if it weren't for the price. 240 MSP is way too much for just one song.
  • EhfahqEhfahq Headliner
    edited March 2010
    kraven;3552694 said:
    For the most part DLC costs are ridiculous. Unfortunately gamers still pay it so they will keep over charging. Take a stand, and then stick by it, if you don't like it. If enough people pay the $3, get used to paying $3 for everything.
    One song +16 charts for 2 bucks is ridiculous?

    I disagree.
  • edited March 2010
    JoshuaB81285;3552651 said:
    HMXHenry has spoken!!! Let it be.
    Hey, I'm not the end all and be all when it comes to discussion, especially not when it comes to user generated content, I just want to make sure discussion stays reasonable. Do you think $3 in general is expensive? That's fine, and you can say that, and we already have another thread dedicated to RBN pricing. I just don't want new threads popping up every time someone thinks $3 is too much for this song, or $2 is too much for that song, or that $1 song should be free, etc.
  • kravenkraven Road Warrior
    edited March 2010
    Ehfahq;3552713 said:
    One song +16 charts for 2 bucks is ridiculous?

    I disagree.
    Where did I say that? $2 a song is reasonable. More games than just Rockband have DLC.
This discussion has been closed.