The Beatles: ROCK BAND - Rumors and Facts

Comments

  • iamtheddrmaniamtheddrman Merch-Table
    edited February 2009
    TheGodFather73;1950195 said:
    A real example is Blizzard, which makes HUGE content patches for WoW, for free. Why? It keeps people coming back and maintaining their subscription.

    The RB corollary would be DLC. Patch the game to improve it, more people keep playing the game and buying DLC, AND are also more inclined to buy RB3 when it comes out. Thus keeping the programmers paid.
    Except that the average Rock Band owner has downloaded 4 songs. That's about 8 bucks per copy of Rock Band (1 and 2) over the course of about 16 months. That's nowhere near the $15 per MONTH you pay for WoW. Valve is a good example since you aren't really paying them for any subscription, but they also tend to have lots of repeat customers because of Steam (hacked accounts, more games, etc)

    I've bought a lot of DLC. Does that entitle me to a patch for free? Nope. It entitles me to play the songs I've paid for and nothing more. The sense of entitlement in society these days is really sad
  • cmenearcmenear Rising Star
    edited February 2009
    whofan;1950547 said:
    /facepalm

    Why does everyone assume that Beatles fans are old? Beatles fans cover all age-groups.

    I went to a Paul McCartney concert in 2002 and was one of the oldest people there! (and I was 20 at the time). Most of the crowd was made up of teens.
    For the same reason they assume that all old people think that video games are dumb...and by that comment I'm guessing the "dad" in question was probably in my age group (40s)...you know, the age group that was young when the Atari / Intellivision hit the scenes, revolutionizing home video gaming...

    Because all of us "old" guys can be placed in the same bucket...I guess i still have my 2600, 5200, Nintendo base, Genesis, Dreamcast, Genesis 32X, Genesis CDROM, PS1, PS2, N64, Gamecube, Xbox and Xbox360 because I felt they were so dumb that I purchased them, the games associated with them and decided to hang on to them to prevent some young punk from being morally dephiled by them.

    Love the blanket statements.

    BTW, my 15 yr old son loves Metalica, Dragonforce (lord only knows why), Tool, The Beatles and Elvis (to name a few). I hope he grows up to be a DUMB old guy too.
  • AlacrityFitzAlacrityFitz Unsigned
    edited February 2009
    Bottom line it is insane to devote the manhours and other resources to producing a standalone game for beatles when there ARE enough people who will buy them as DLC. Everyweek I was checking for Beatles songs until I found out about this train wreck. Build the songs and let the market decide for you. And hurry cause I wanna play em
  • Julio_Strikes_BackJulio_Strikes_Back Headliner
    edited February 2009
    AlacrityFitz;1951447 said:
    Bottom line it is insane to devote the manhours and other resources to producing a standalone game for beatles when there ARE enough people who will buy them as DLC. Everyweek I was checking for Beatles songs until I found out about this train wreck. Build the songs and let the market decide for you. And hurry cause I wanna play em
    The Beatles are too big to be download content- mere extras.
  • TheGodFather73TheGodFather73 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    iamtheddrman;1951138 said:
    Except that the average Rock Band owner has downloaded 4 songs. That's about 8 bucks per copy of Rock Band (1 and 2) over the course of about 16 months. That's nowhere near the $15 per MONTH you pay for WoW. Valve is a good example since you aren't really paying them for any subscription, but they also tend to have lots of repeat customers because of Steam (hacked accounts, more games, etc)

    I've bought a lot of DLC. Does that entitle me to a patch for free? Nope. It entitles me to play the songs I've paid for and nothing more. The sense of entitlement in society these days is really sad
    While WoW isn't the best example, it was the first I could think of off the top of my head. I suppose Valve is better, but my whole point is that there are companies that release updates and upgrades FOR FREE. Whofan's statement that no one would do that except for a fee is incorrect. Nothing to do with entitlement.
    cmenear;1951262 said:
    For the same reason they assume that all old people think that video games are dumb...and by that comment I'm guessing the "dad" in question was probably in my age group (40s)...you know, the age group that was young when the Atari / Intellivision hit the scenes, revolutionizing home video gaming...

    Because all of us "old" guys can be placed in the same bucket...I guess i still have my 2600, 5200, Nintendo base, Genesis, Dreamcast, Genesis 32X, Genesis CDROM, PS1, PS2, N64, Gamecube, Xbox and Xbox360 because I felt they were so dumb that I purchased them, the games associated with them and decided to hang on to them to prevent some young punk from being morally dephiled by them.

    Love the blanket statements.

    BTW, my 15 yr old son loves Metalica, Dragonforce (lord only knows why), Tool, The Beatles and Elvis (to name a few). I hope he grows up to be a DUMB old guy too.
    I'm also one of the "old guys" at 35. And I didn't make a blanket statement that NO Beatles fans play video games, just that most probably don't. I did make an assumption; GH:Metallica will outsell the Beatles Rock Band game. You can look at the DLC stats and guess that much. There's a few classic rock tracks at the top, but the majority of top sellers are songs from newer artists. Also, from what I've read, GH: World Tour outsold Rock Band 2 by a 2:1 margin. So GH:Metallica has Metallica (a relatively younger group than the Beatles), and the GH brand. The Beatles are definitely a much more influential and famous band than Metallica, but I don't think their appeal will translate into sales equal to or greater than GH: Metallica.

    I'm also not a GH fanboy; I have GH:WT and only play it when I really want to play a song not on RB, otherwise the disc collects dust on my shelf, same as GH: III.
  • Julio_Strikes_BackJulio_Strikes_Back Headliner
    edited February 2009
    Who gives a crap if that ****ty GH spinoff sells more than The Beatles game? The first Halo outsold Shadow of the Collossi and Ico, does that make it better?
  • cmenearcmenear Rising Star
    edited February 2009
    TheGodFather73;1951463 said:

    So GH:Metallica has Metallica (a relatively younger group than the Beatles), and the GH brand.
    This is a beautiful statement. Truth be told, some of us "old" guys were in college when Metallica first hit the scene. Wonder if there's some similar discussion going on over on the GH forums about "FTW...why are they wasting their time on an old band like Metallica! Give us our Breaking Benjamin game!"
  • TheGodFather73TheGodFather73 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    Julio_Strikes_Back;1951475 said:
    Who gives a crap if that ****ty GH spinoff sells more than The Beatles game? The first Halo outsold Shadow of the Collossi and Ico, does that make it better?
    It's not about "better." These games are very expensive to make. If HMX spends a huge amount of resources on the Beatles game and it flops, then they won't get much financial backing for RB3, which could mean it wouldn't improve much, have as good of a setlist (since it costs money to license popular groups), etc. I would rather see Rock Band at least do as well (financially) as the GH franchise so they can keep putting out a great product. And in my opinion, they would make more money with a Metallica game instead of a Beatles game, and I would rather not see any specific band-based game and get a lot more DLC and a patch or two for RB2.

    That's all, and it's all my opinion. Everyone can chill out a little; it's not like I insulted anyone's mothers here.
  • whofanwhofan Headliner
    edited February 2009
    TheGodFather73;1951463 said:
    While WoW isn't the best example, it was the first I could think of off the top of my head. I suppose Valve is better, but my whole point is that there are companies that release updates and upgrades FOR FREE. Whofan's statement that no one would do that except for a fee is incorrect. Nothing to do with entitlement.



    I'm also one of the "old guys" at 35. And I didn't make a blanket statement that NO Beatles fans play video games, just that most probably don't. I did make an assumption; GH:Metallica will outsell the Beatles Rock Band game. You can look at the DLC stats and guess that much. There's a few classic rock tracks at the top, but the majority of top sellers are songs from newer artists. Also, from what I've read, GH: World Tour outsold Rock Band 2 by a 2:1 margin. So GH:Metallica has Metallica (a relatively younger group than the Beatles), and the GH brand. The Beatles are definitely a much more influential and famous band than Metallica, but I don't think their appeal will translate into sales equal to or greater than GH: Metallica.

    I'm also not a GH fanboy; I have GH:WT and only play it when I really want to play a song not on RB, otherwise the disc collects dust on my shelf, same as GH: III.
    The thing is that you're basing this off of:
    1) Two games that are clearly quite different. One has the name to it (GH) and the other doesn't yet (RB)

    2) You're assuming again that "most" Beatles fans don't play games. Where are your numbers for this? It's still a blanket statement. I'd like to see someone pull out age group numbers of Beatles fans and then see how many of those Beatles fans have a system. You might be surprised by the numbers. The Beatles were and still are a far reaching group.

    3) You're also assuming that a game on the shelves will sell equivalent to DLC. This is simply not true, because not everyone has an internet connection nor even knows about DLC and how to access it. It is generally the more tech-saavvy players (or uber-fans) who know about this stuff. Everyone else goes to the store to find their game.
  • Julio_Strikes_BackJulio_Strikes_Back Headliner
    edited February 2009
    TheGodFather73;1951534 said:
    It's not about "better." These games are very expensive to make. If HMX spends a huge amount of resources on the Beatles game and it flops, then they won't get much financial backing for RB3, which could mean it wouldn't improve much, have as good of a setlist (since it costs money to license popular groups), etc. I would rather see Rock Band at least do as well (financially) as the GH franchise so they can keep putting out a great product. And in my opinion, they would make more money with a Metallica game instead of a Beatles game, and I would rather not see any specific band-based game and get a lot more DLC and a patch or two for RB2.

    That's all, and it's all my opinion. Everyone can chill out a little; it's not like I insulted anyone's mothers here.
    You're an idiot if you think it will flop. The Beatles are miles ahead of Metallica anyway.
  • iamtheddrmaniamtheddrman Merch-Table
    edited February 2009
    Julio_Strikes_Back;1951609 said:
    You're an idiot if you think it will flop. The Beatles are miles ahead of Metallica anyway.
    This, and what whofan said on the last page (and I don't agree with him much :D)

    The Beatles are huge. Discs on shelves in stores sell astronomically compared to DLC. HMX has said that the average RB owner has 4 songs as DLC. With 84 songs on the disc at a $60 price tag and 4 songs at a $8 (est.) price tag, where do you think the majority of the money is coming from? The people on these forums are generally the hardcore fans who buy lots of DLC (WARNING: blanket statement). There are hundreds of thousands of people who've NEVER bought a single song from the Music Store.

    In short: Beatles game on the shelves will sell far more than Beatles DLC would. Especially if they make a pretty box, add some interesting new features, and do some sound marketing. HMX knows what they're doing here.
  • VenturaVentura Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    White_PawZ;1950200 said:
    I agree that playing your DLC, RB1 and RB2 songs in the Beatles game is the most likely option.
    I don't mind if that's how it would work. Wouldn't mind atall.

    But having to swap disks, one for the Beatles, and one for everything else, goes against everything that (I feel) Rock Band is supposed to be about.

    I can picture it now... they were in a boadroom, and they were talking about setting up the deal of a lifetime with quite possibly the biggest band the world has ever seen. That's fair enough.

    But didn't someone at Harmonix think to pipe up and go "maybe we shouldn't do this to the fans"?
  • cherokeesamcherokeesam Washed Up
    edited February 2009
    TheGodFather73;1950236 said:
    I agree with your points here also. Most Beatles fans probably don't play video games. A lot more Metallica fans play GH, and the ones that don't may very well start when they see GH: Metallica in Best Buy and Gamestop.

    I don't think GHM will sell as well as Metallica and Activision hopes. For one thing, there's a pretty big backlash against Metallica in the tech-savvy geek world over the whole Napster war....a lot of dedicated geeks (i.e., gamers) are firmly in the "I HATE METALLICA" camp.

    Even more so, I think both GHM *and* HMX Beatles will suffer in the gameplay department for entirely opposite reasons. Assuming that neither game develops an entirely new song-tracking system (and that's a reasonable assumption....so far, they seem to be working on the standard GH/RB formats), then most of The Beatles songs will, unfortunately, be largely unchallenging and frankly easy on the instruments. There's just not a lot of technical challenge there (although the vocals will certainly range into very hard levels on most songs).

    Metallica songs, on the other hand, will likely *all* be mind-numbingly hard....hell, even on Easy, "Battery" and "And Justice For All" and the rest of the RB songs are nearly impossible. Imagine a game composed of 30,40-some odd "Battery"s.....even the most dedicated Metallica fan will quickly get frustrated with that. All the Expert FCers looking for a challenge will, of course, love it, but the casual guitar hero/drummer is going to go ballistic when he fails out on every frickin' song on the list....
  • instantdeath999instantdeath999 Washed Up
    edited February 2009
    I think I'm the only one who really doesn't give a **** about stars.
  • justin19954justin19954 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    We have around 9 and a 1/2 months left before this hits shelves. Im gonna die from waiting :p
  • 7RgCz77RgCz7 Unsigned
    edited February 2009
    Got 3 words for you guys: Guitar Hero Metallica
  • BruceDickinsonBruceDickinson Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    How did this turn into a GHMetallica thread?
  • iamtheddrmaniamtheddrman Merch-Table
    edited February 2009
    Bruce****inson;1953935 said:
    How did this turn into a GHMetallica thread?
    That's what I'd like to know. Back to speculation on the Beatles game!
  • SayburrSayburr The Always Informative Rock Band Forum Guru
    edited February 2009
    The thing about ONLY getting Beatles DLC is I doubt they would have licensed the songs for DLC. Don’t forget, it took Harmonix 17 months to get the license and the OK to make the game. That tells me they had to come up with an “outside the box” idea to present to them in order to get the OK.

    Thus, IMHO, the only way to get the Beatles was to create a game for them that was something different… Thus, the “Art Project” this game has become. So, for all of those saying The Beatles should only be released as DLC, put it in perspective and realize this was the only way to get them into a rhythm game.

    I am excited to see what Harmonix comes up with. The have revolutionized the rhythm gaming sector several times. Guitar Hero was the first successful rhythm game. How did it get that way? Harmonix thinking outside the box. Then, they did it again with Rock Band by adding three more instruments and co-op play. Now, they are working on a new revolution with The Beatles game.

    It’s not just a bunch of songs that you play along to. While they are holding their cards close to their vest and we can’t really see what is coming, we do know that it will be something special and unique to rhythm gaming. This was the only way to get The Beatles to agree to add their music, thus, they could not just provide gamers with DLC of the songs.
  • HetzHetz Rising Star
    edited February 2009
    Yep, I really do think this game is going to be something special. I can't wait to get this game! Playing the Beatles in a game like Rock Band is what I have been dreaming about for years.

    Thank you for making this game, Harmonix.
  • justin19954justin19954 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    Yeah I hope it's really good. I've been waiting since they announced to see what it looks like.
  • 1rish Shaman1rish Shaman Opening Act
    edited February 2009
    Only heard about this a few minutes ago...

    At least now I can finish a Rock Band game on Expert Drums :D
  • Rockbandfan23467Rockbandfan23467 Headliner
    edited February 2009
    About how many songs do the Beatles have? Not counting remasters or unreleased tracks, but counting Free as a Bird and Real Love. Also counting covers, by the way.
  • Julio_Strikes_BackJulio_Strikes_Back Headliner
    edited February 2009
    Rockbandfan23467;1964606 said:
    About how many songs do the Beatles have? Not counting remasters or unreleased tracks, but counting Free as a Bird and Real Love. Also counting covers, by the way.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Discography

    About 180 on their albums, not counting singles. But rumor says that there will be only 45 Beatles songs in the game.
  • mimicmimic Fairly Great Poster
    edited February 2009
    I see most of us playing this game, going through the whole setlist and beating every song on our sightread. Then what? Play it again I guess, beat every song again. Then what? It's going to get VERY old playing the same band over and over again.

    I see most of us wishing there was a rock band 3 so there is some variety. To those that think you'll be able to export the songs to rock band you're living in a dream world. They've cleary stated it's not part of the rock band series and the rock band platform.

    I'll be renting it for the achievements most likely. Then I'll be coming on here to whine about the lack of stars in rock band 2 and the lack of rock band 3. I suggest you all brace yourselves for it.
  • cherokeesamcherokeesam Washed Up
    edited February 2009
    mimic;1964676 said:
    I see most of us playing this game, going through the whole setlist and beating every song on our sightread. Then what? Play it again I guess, beat every song again. Then what? It's going to get VERY old playing the same band over and over again.

    I see most of us wishing there was a rock band 3 so there is some variety. To those that think you'll be able to export the songs to rock band you're living in a dream world. They've cleary stated it's not part of the rock band series and the rock band platform.

    I'll be renting it for the achievements most likely. Then I'll be coming on here to whine about the lack of stars in rock band 2 and the lack of rock band 3. I suggest you all brace yourselves for it.
    You know what really pisses me off?
    ...The fact that I actually have to agree with Mimic for once.

    I hate to say it, but if Beatles turns out to be issued in standard RB format, there's *not* going to be much challenge there at all. Hopefully there'll be other features to make it worth the while (and money) --- like a keyboard peripheral! Exporting songs to RB setlists! Totally new gameplay features!

    Otherwise, I just don't see it having a lot of replay potential at all.
  • instantdeath999instantdeath999 Washed Up
    edited February 2009
    I still play Guitar Hero Aerosmith, and has a huge, huge Beatles fan, I doubt I'll get tired of it. This is bigger news than a Rock Band 3 for me... and I don't care about stars :)
  • justin19954justin19954 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    I agree with instantdeath999, I am a huge Beatles fan and even though the game might not be challenging I know I will still play it a lot. So really this will be a really good game for Beatles fans.
  • mimicmimic Fairly Great Poster
    edited February 2009
    cherokeesam;1964743 said:
    You know what really pisses me off?
    ...The fact that I actually have to agree with Mimic for once.

    I hate to say it, but if Beatles turns out to be issued in standard RB format, there's *not* going to be much challenge there at all. Hopefully there'll be other features to make it worth the while (and money) --- like a keyboard peripheral! Exporting songs to RB setlists! Totally new gameplay features!

    Otherwise, I just don't see it having a lot of replay potential at all.
    Hehe welcome to the dark side my friend.

    I'm holding out hope for a huge patch. Maybe even a dlc package where they have clothes, new gameplay, stars etc. If all we get is beatles it will be a sad day for this genre.
  • Julio_Strikes_BackJulio_Strikes_Back Headliner
    edited February 2009
    mimic;1964803 said:
    Hehe welcome to the dark side my friend.

    I'm holding out hope for a huge patch. Maybe even a dlc package where they have clothes, new gameplay, stars etc. If all we get is beatles it will be a sad day for this genre.
    But The Beatles will have new clothes and new gameplay...

    HMX aren't stupid. They know if it's standard RB format it will be too easy. That's why the beatles game isn't standard.
Sign In or Register to comment.