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.
whofan;1950547 said:/facepalmWhy 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.
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
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
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.
TheGodFather73;1951463 said: So GH:Metallica has Metallica (a relatively younger group than the Beatles), and the GH brand.
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?
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.
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.
Julio_Strikes_Back;1951609 said:You're an idiot if you think it will flop. The Beatles are miles ahead of Metallica anyway.
White_PawZ;1950200 said:I agree that playing your DLC, RB1 and RB2 songs in the Beatles game is the most likely option.
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.
Bruce****inson;1953935 said:How did this turn into a GHMetallica thread?
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.
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.
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.
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.