The Beatles: ROCK BAND - Rumors and Facts

Comments

  • mimicmimic Fairly Great Poster
    edited February 2009
    Ventura;1949840 said:
    Drama queen FTW.

    How does improving their own software not benefit them? It makes for happy customers; happy customers are generally loyal customers, and loyal customers come back for more. They tell all their friends how happy they are that you're not abandoning each version of your software just to cash in at their expense, and that boosts sales even further.

    Really, this isn't brain surgery mate.
    Exactly. Lack of stars is hurting my dlc purchases. Without that pretty list with stars next to it I don't feel the need to buy songs unless it's something huge.

    When they flat out ignore their biggest request from their loyal fans that makes me feel activision isn't so bad afterall.
  • JordashebasicsJordashebasics Rising Star
    edited February 2009
    Back to topic, I would suggest withholding judgment on if this will be exportable or not.
    I strongly suspect that HMX is interested in making it possible, but the last updates we got were very vague, which only indicates that they don't know yet - it hasn't been ironed out.
  • jeccanekojeccaneko Headliner
    edited February 2009
    Ventura;1949840 said:

    Drama queen FTW.

    How does improving their own software not benefit them? It makes for happy customers; happy customers are generally loyal customers, and loyal customers come back for more. They tell all their friends how happy they are that you're not abandoning each version of your software just to cash in at their expense, and that boosts sales even further.

    Really, this isn't brain surgery mate.
    Agreed. And sometimes developers do give out free patches or free downloads that add in new features. For a very recent example, Valve is giving out the upcoming new Left 4 Dead DLC for free that adds in new gameplay features.
  • moose39moose39 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    Just give me Paperback Writer and Helter Skelter and all will be good in the world. It's a Harmonix product--I'm already buying it as it is.
  • Bosco32Bosco32 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    Jordashebasics;1950136 said:
    Back to topic, I would suggest withholding judgment on if this will be exportable or not.
    I strongly suspect that HMX is interested in making it possible, but the last updates we got were very vague, which only indicates that they don't know yet - it hasn't been ironed out.
    I'm in the "assume it's not, but be pleasantly surprised if it is" camp.
  • SayburrSayburr The Always Informative Rock Band Forum Guru
    edited February 2009
    Bosco32;1950175 said:
    I'm in the "assume it's not, but be pleasantly surprised if it is" camp.
    That is almost the camp I am in... Actually, I am in the camp that the current songs might be playable within the newer "Beatles" environment rather than the Beatles songs being exportable to the older 'RB2' environment.

    What if this new game uses the already saved to hard drive songs in some way, Hmmmm?
  • TheGodFather73TheGodFather73 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    whofan;1947654 said:
    You do realize that programmers need to be PAID for their work, don't you?

    Here's a tip for you, and listen closely, programmers don't work for free. And how do you make money?

    All together now: NOT ON FREE PATCHES!
    And making a good product and then improving it discourages future purchases? Seriously, this is one of the least thought out posts I've seen you make. And you have the nerve to be condescending in it.

    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.
  • White_PawZWhite_PawZ Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    I agree that playing your DLC, RB1 and RB2 songs in the Beatles game is the most likely option.
  • TheGodFather73TheGodFather73 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    mimic;1948057 said:
    I heard a rumor that most people that play this game like bands like blink 182 and metallica.

    I heard that most people who like the beatles are like my dad, who is old and thinks video games are dumb.

    I heard that gh metallica will sell well, but the beatles will not.

    I also heard there will be no rock band 3 this year because of this dumb game.

    Sorry I have no links to back me up. Except the first one according to dlc sales.
    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 believe there's a post from an HMX guy stating that they aren't working on RB3 due to the Beatles game (may have been from an interview also), so that would be more than hearsay.

    I could see Beatles DLC selling well, but not a game dedicated to the Beatles, especially if it doesn't export to RB2, or vice versa. I think GH: Metallica will triple its sales, regardless of game quality and features.

    I really wish HMX would have outbid Activision for Metallica rights instead of spending time on getting the Beatles, but that's just me.
  • SayburrSayburr The Always Informative Rock Band Forum Guru
    edited February 2009
    TheGodFather73;1950236 said:


    I believe there's a post from an HMX guy stating that they aren't working on RB3 due to the Beatles game (may have been from an interview also), so that would be more than hearsay.
    There is... its listed in post #1 in this thread along with all of the other known information about the game...

    Added 1/8/2009 - Firstly, don't expect a new Rock Band this year. The company stressed that Rock Band 3 is not yet officially an announced product; Harmonix is taking a break from the annual release cycle for Rock Band. The reason? The company is focusing on the upcoming Beatles-focused Rock Band-style game. "We want to make this an art object," Rigopulos told me as we chatted after the panel.

    Maybe I need to redesign the OP so the latest info is at the top instead of the bottom... Easier to find the latest info that way.
  • TheGodFather73TheGodFather73 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    Sayburr;1950241 said:
    There is... its listed in post #1 in this thread along with all of the other known information about the game...
    I should have looked there; you're always very thorough researching and quoting sources. :)
  • Electric_ZenElectric_Zen Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    Sayburr;1950187 said:
    Actually, I am in the camp that the current songs might be playable within the newer "Beatles" environment rather than the Beatles songs being exportable to the older 'RB2' environment.

    What if this new game uses the already saved to hard drive songs in some way, Hmmmm?
    I would be well served by the comical effect of The Beatles performing March of the Pigs. But heavily involved the licensors are in the look, feel, and content of this product, I doubt this is going to happen.
  • SayburrSayburr The Always Informative Rock Band Forum Guru
    edited February 2009
    Electric_Zen;1950302 said:
    I would be well served by the comical effect of The Beatles performing March of the Pigs. But heavily involved the licensors are in the look, feel, and content of this product, I doubt this is going to happen.
    As of right now we don't know if the likenesses of the Beatles will be used:

    Added 1/8/2009 - ...neither MTV nor Apple Corps. would comment on whether or not Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, George Harrison, or John Lennon would be playable
  • Electric_ZenElectric_Zen Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    Sayburr;1950317 said:
    As of right now we don't know if the likenesses of the Beatles will be used:
    True, but we know that the game will involve musical performances in the actual periods and locations.

    I just can't see the stakeholders here going with the lame GH:Metallica route of "you are playing a contemporaneous cover band inspired by The Beatles!"
  • SayburrSayburr The Always Informative Rock Band Forum Guru
    edited February 2009
    Electric_Zen;1950346 said:
    I just can't see the stakeholders here going with the lame GH:Metallica route of "you are playing a contemporaneous cover band inspired by The Beatles!"
    Yeah, I agree with your point there... Wonder when we will get more info? When did they announce RB2? Was it E3?
  • HyeJinx1984HyeJinx1984 Road Warrior
    edited February 2009
    New article. Not really anything new, but I was a little confused that they refer to it as a "sim"

    http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/953/953694p1.html
  • mimicmimic Fairly Great Poster
    edited February 2009
    Lionhead is another company that gave free stuff with the new island being free so you can play it online. Have to pay to play it solo.

    With no rock band 3 coming they really need to patch in stars for us to keep us playing it. I was insanely sick of rock band 1 when rock band 2 came out. No 3 and no patch means no rock band in my 360.
  • whofanwhofan Headliner
    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 believe there's a post from an HMX guy stating that they aren't working on RB3 due to the Beatles game (may have been from an interview also), so that would be more than hearsay.

    I could see Beatles DLC selling well, but not a game dedicated to the Beatles, especially if it doesn't export to RB2, or vice versa. I think GH: Metallica will triple its sales, regardless of game quality and features.

    I really wish HMX would have outbid Activision for Metallica rights instead of spending time on getting the Beatles, but that's just me.
    /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.
  • 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"?
Sign In or Register to comment.