Explaining why Downloads cost so much.

[Tiberiouslb]

I get tired of seeing people complain about the pricing of downloads. It might have been appropriate when Guitar Hero 1 songs were being regurgitated, but not any more. Especially with Rock Band. Already owning the CD should have no bearing on the price either, because you personally owning the CD does not save Harmonix or anyone else the cost of licensing it.

iTunes is often quoted as a base price of @ $0.99. Thats the price of for distributing ready to go music over the internet. That does not cover the cost of the developer mapping the notes/vocals for the instruments/vocals. Four instruments and four difficulty levels lead to quite a bit of work. For really popular downloads this cost will end up being rather small but to cover for average and less popular songs a range of $0.50 to $1.00 should cover it.

This puts individual songs from $1.49 to $1.99 and hasn't even covered additional fees that have to be paid to Microsoft / Sony for the use of their Marketplaces, server space, and bandwidth.

If and when there are actually some songs for $0.99 everybody should be amazed at the bargain being passed on to us.

If you are still not convinced, go out and try to buy real authorized copies of the sheet music, or tab, for each instrument (sometimes vocals are combined). An album worth of music or tab (@10-15 songs) will run you between $15 and $20 dollars. Thats more than $1 a song for just one instrument. Rock Band, on expert, essentially amounts to another form of tablature for each instrument, and the current price standard is very reasonable.

Harmonix can sticky this, post it (or any part thereof) in their FAQ's, or whatever they want. Of course any thanks or recognition is appreciated.

[polishdog90]

Yeah thats how I think of it. 1$ for the song and 1$ for the chart.

If they ever do release $0.99 songs its probably for underground bands who you don't need to pay for the song because they just want the exposure.

[stratn]

I get tired of seeing people complain about the pricing of downloads. It might have been appropriate when Guitar Hero 1 songs were being regurgitated, but not any more. Especially with Rock Band. Already owning the CD should have no bearing on the price either, because you personally owning the CD does not save Harmonix or anyone else the cost of licensing it.

iTunes is often quoted as a base price of @ $0.99. Thats the price of for distributing ready to go music over the internet. That does not cover the cost of the developer mapping the notes/vocals for the instruments/vocals. Four instruments and four difficulty levels lead to quite a bit of work. For really popular downloads this cost will end up being rather small but to cover for average and less popular songs a range of $0.50 to $1.00 should cover it.

This puts individual songs from $1.49 to $1.99 and hasn't even covered additional fees that have to be paid to Microsoft / Sony for the use of their Marketplaces, server space, and bandwidth.

If and when there are actually some songs for $0.99 everybody should be amazed at the bargain being passed on to us.

If you are still not convinced, go out and try to buy real authorized copies of the sheet music, or tab, for each instrument (sometimes vocals are combined). An album worth of music or tab (@10-15 songs) will run you between $15 and $20 dollars. Thats more than $1 a song for just one instrument. Rock Band, on expert, essentially amounts to another form of tablature for each instrument, and the current price standard is very reasonable.

Harmonix can sticky this, post it (or any part thereof) in their FAQ's, or whatever they want. Of course any thanks or recognition is appreciated.



With this logic, the game its self should have cost at least 100 dollars, I can't remember off hand how many songs there are on disk, but I know there was at least 50. So you’re telling me that it's actually more expensive to put songs up for down load, than it does to manufacture a disk? You are the reason the price of DLC is out of hand right now.

[560sdl]

With this logic, the game its self should have cost at least 100 dollars, I can't remember off hand how many songs there are on disk, but I know there was at least 50. So you’re telling me that it's actually more expensive to put songs up for down load, than it does to manufacture a disk? You are the reason the price of DLC is out of hand right now.

Right and boxed sets should cost $1M, but they don't do they? Don't be an ass. The cost of a CD is probably $.02 and to press them at mass production is probably $.15. The problem is shipping, marketing and middle men and retailers all get their cuts. CD retail sales is a dying delivery medium because there are better mediums such as downloads.

I personally think that $2 is an absolute bargain. In additional to all the points made by the original poster, what about all the code to make the graphics in the game recognize the songs? You think the characters change sex and mouth the exact words by accident? Is the fact that they show a guitarist simulating actually playing a lead just dumb luck? Someone had to code this for each song.

Fact is that the reasonable people on this forum will see that there is value in what they are paying for. The ones who feel ripped off because of a compatibility issue, want to file a lawsuit because they have waited longer than anyone else and think the world is ending because the developer is not issuing their "entitled" statements about daily progress are the ones who feel the DLC should be basically free. Hell, the bands got their money 20 years ago, right? Why should they get more now?

Just compare the "value" of a $2 downloaded song you like for rockband that you might play for hours with your friends to the cost of an $8 beer at an NFL football game. Which is the value and which is the ripoff?

[stratn]

Right and boxed sets should cost $1M, but they don't do they? Don't be an ass. The cost of a CD is probably $.02 and to press them at mass production is probably $.15. The problem is shipping, marketing and middle men and retailers all get their cuts. CD retail sales is a dying delivery medium because there are better mediums such as downloads.

I personally think that $2 is an absolute bargain. In additional to all the points made by the original poster, what about all the code to make the graphics in the game recognize the songs? You think the characters change sex and mouth the exact words by accident? Is the fact that they show a guitarist simulating actually playing a lead just dumb luck? Someone had to code this for each song.

Fact is that the reasonable people on this forum will see that there is value in what they are paying for. The ones who feel ripped off because of a compatibility issue, want to file a lawsuit because they have waited longer than anyone else and think the world is ending because the developer is not issuing their "entitled" statements about daily progress are the ones who feel the DLC should be basically free. Hell, the bands got their money 20 years ago, right? Why should they get more now?

Just compare the "value" of a $2 downloaded song you like for rockband that you might play for hours with your friends to the cost of an $8 beer at an NFL football game. Which is the value and which is the ripoff?


So you’re saying that they actually lost money with the game its self? Thant makes NO sense! By what you just said proved my point even further, it costs more to manufacture the CD than it does to put it up for download, therefore it should actually be CHEAPER to download. How can this even be an argument?

I am just stating the obvious; there is no need to get nasty over it!

[Lady Siara]

I am just stating the obvious; there is no need to get nasty over it!

You were the one who blatantly called a person out and saying that they were the reason why DLC is so much. While it is true that digital music is cheaper to buy than a CD, they still charge $0.99 a song on iTunes. Anyways, I agree with Tiberiouslb because you're paying for the song rights, and 4 different difficulties for 4 different instruments.

[pntbllrspdr]

OOooo. I always thought it was because rising gas prices made it more expensive to ship to the PS Store and Marketplace

[Zach Attack]

I have to agree with the above poster. Your argument makes no sense. If Harmonix paid that much to license songs, they'd have lost money making Rock Band and Guitar Hero II.

[Bakkster]

So you?re saying that they actually lost money with the game its self? Thant makes NO sense! By what you just said proved my point even further, it costs more to manufacture the CD than it does to put it up for download, therefore it should actually be CHEAPER to download. How can this even be an argument?

On-disc songs were negotiated at a single price (for example, $100,000 for Metallica) which doesn't change based on the number of sold copies.

DLC costs a per-song royalty fee. For every song someone downloads, the label gets $X.XX.

This is why DLC is more expensive than on-disc songs.

Edit: MS and Sony also charge a percentage of DLC profits (MS is around 30% I believe) which also adds the the cost of DLC.

[Demon_Slayer]

There are 58 songs on the $59.99 game. That comes out to about $0.97 per song. In addition to the songs, the game also includes the entire engine, tons of clothes and customization, online play, all the loading screens, 41 venues, making-of videos, Band World Tour, and much more that was completely separate work from just making note charts. Not only that, but most of the music on the games are originals, while many of the downloadable tracks are covers.

I'm not anti-DLC (I've downloaded five songs) but, if the songs were $0.99 each, I definitely would be downloading much more. For me to buy the remaining 16 songs now, it would cost me $29.92, almost half the price of the game.

[560sdl]

So you’re saying that they actually lost money with the game its self? Thant makes NO sense! By what you just said proved my point even further, it costs more to manufacture the CD than it does to put it up for download, therefore it should actually be CHEAPER to download. How can this even be an argument?

The reason this can be a disagreement is because you do not address the real issues here. If you could run out and buy a MP3 and just run it through RockBand and those pretty little notes came automatically scrolling at you, then you might be right. But there is a lot of manipulation that goes on in addition to additional license fees, and plenty of middle men related to the game that were basically eliminated when just basic music is issued via download.

By your logic, volume has nothing to do with this? Do they recoup their costs of they sell only 10 games instead of 1 Million? I would bet money they they have not made a nickel on this game yet. At some point, and none of us know when that is, they break even and then after that it is making money. With all the equipment problems they have had, that breakeven point is pushed much farther out.

I am not trying to be nasty, but when you argue something, you cannot just ignore the most important aspects of the debate. Yes, downloading songs is a less expensive delivery system than producing cd's. But that is not the real debate is it? If I recall correctly, the OP was trying to justify why the cost of DLC for Rockband would be more expensive than the same song would be as a simple music file.

[Snaffles]

I don't own the game yet, (it's in the mail) but i find the prices of DLC pretty much perfect. Any more expensive and i'd only buy 2 or 3, but as it stands i'll probably buy about 80% of the songs on offer.

For 4 instrument tabs, song rights, creating the audio file from masters or setting up and paying for cover band sessions, plus any additional animation for the stage or characters, as well as lip-sinking for the singer animation and you have a lot of work gone into each song for your money. (i'm not a HMX plant by the way, just appreciate hard work)

If they keep this price point, it should do very well plus with new DLC every week and licencing out deals with manufaturers for bigger and better guitars and drum kits they hopefully won't have to start work on RB2 for ages.

With all this forum talk, i can't wait to get my greasy rock hands on this puppy.

Well done all the team at harmonix for what looks like a fantastic game. Don't let the naysayers and complainers get to you!

[Tiberiouslb]

Stratn you don't have to flame and try to bash us.

Digital distribution does cost more than burning a CD. CD's can be mass produced at a cost down to about $0.02 each, for 700 MB. Try to find some one to host 700 MB on the web for that. Also the licensing for digital distribution is totally different. You know how much rappers are making off stupid ring tones these days?

Yes the game has 53 songs in it. You save when you purchase in a bundle. However you also just got a bunch of songs you probably didn't really want for your $60. If I was choosing songs I would keep less than 20 of the original songs that came on the disc, that would mean I was paying about $3 each for the songs I actually like. By comparison DLC is a bargain.

There are also other factors like the shrinking audience for DLC. First the customer has to own Rockband. Anyone in the future who buys the ps2 version, and probably the Wii version will not be buying DLC. Anyone who doesn't ever purchase stuff from the online Marketplaces isn't going to buy. And best of all people who don't like the music aren't going to be forced to get the songs. That means that Harmonix/MTV can guarantee much greater sales on the songs that are pre-negotiated to be on the disc, and get a much better rate.

[Tiberiouslb]

So you’re saying that they actually lost money with the game its self? Thant makes NO sense! By what you just said proved my point even further, it costs more to manufacture the CD than it does to put it up for download, therefore it should actually be CHEAPER to download. How can this even be an argument?

I am just stating the obvious; there is no need to get nasty over it!

No one ever said they lost money on the game, that was you jumping to conclusions. The on disc content was all pre-negotiated at a cheaper cost per song per disc. Usually on disc content is paid for up front with no per song charge, eg. $100,000 dollars for song A, and it doesn't matter if they print or sell 50 Rockbands or 30,000,000. Since Rockband was going to be a hot seller I guarantee it ended up costing them a lot less for the songs on the disc than it does for individual song downloads.

[dodgyknees]

We can speculate about how HMX are paying licensing fees, whether they've made a profit, how much a CD costs to print, etc forever. The simple fact is we don't know.

As has been mentioned before, in addition to the cost of a song on itunes for $.099/£0.75, those greedy breadheads at HMX have to make money. Obviously they waste this money buying food, clothing and a place to live which isn't on. They should give us DLC for free, live at the HMX offices and churn out countless amounts of songs like battery hens. However, this is the real world and they have pesky things like human rights and employment laws.

These people are a business. They are here to create a great game, but ultimately to continue to justify the existence of this game, they need to make money. Why people choose to ignore one of the first rules of commerce is a mystery to me. I'm assuming they're either not in the real world, or haven't had the responsiiblity of making a living and paying bills yet.

The price point is accurate. Get over it!

[MF-PO'd]

I can gripe about the price of the songs... because I'm Canadian. $2.99 per song here? Please. :rolleyes:

[stiper327b]

HMX listened to our worries and concerns over the GHII DLC. They listened to our ideas about being able to download individual songs. They basically came to us for advice, and we gave it to them. And they took all of that advice and gave us a better package all around than what was previously known:

Ability to download individual songs from a pack? Check.
Discount for downloading packs? Check.
Lower price point per song than the DLC found in GHII and III? Check and check.

So they didn't go as low as you wanted them to. That's fine. Nobody is ever going to be truly happy, and if you're a business, you've just got to be okay with that. All they have to do is provide a better product and/or price point than their competition and let the market determine what is "right" or "wrong."

If you don't like the price point, then don't buy them. Personally, I think HMX found the sweet spot between what GHII and III is providing and what some people think they "deserve."

[eeenvyyy]

i think $1.99 for a song is an awesome price considering all the work they have to do to make it playable in the game. someone has to create the note charts for the different instruments and they have to figure out the pitch for the vocals and time it all along with the scrolling lyrics. i'm glad they're actually creating all these song packs and releasing them weekly. anytime i feel a little bored and want to try something new i grab a pack of songs.

[Bakkster]

If you don't like the price point, then don't buy them.

It's the beauty of the market system!

[Alphadown99]

Just compare the "value" of a $2 downloaded song you like for rockband that you might play for hours with your friends to the cost of an $8 beer at an NFL football game. Which is the value and which is the ripoff?

Exactly. People don't get it. Or think about buying a $50 tee-shirt at a concert that probably won't fit after a couple of years (especially when you're my age and still growing) or paying a few dollars for a song that you may have listened to at that concert and being able to emulate actually PLAYING it...

[jmiscavish]

Believe me, I've never bought any DLC. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a big scam. People release half a game (or a game with only 58 songs), then gouge us for the rest of it later. Especially with day-of-release DLC.

However, when I purchase a song on itunes, I actually buy and own the song. I can put it on my computer, Ipod, a CD. Whatever. The DLC for this game is trapped on my xbox. That enough should drive the price down not up.

Even though I think the DLC is too expensive (although I'm happy it's less than the GH2 stuff), I'm more concerned about not being able to play it when RB2 comes out. I'd love to get metallica and the police, but I'd hate to have it all be obsolete when the next iteration comes out.

[dfjdejulio]

Even though I think the DLC is too expensive (although I'm happy it's less than the GH2 stuff), I'm more concerned about not being able to play it when RB2 comes out. I'd love to get metallica and the police, but I'd hate to have it all be obsolete when the next iteration comes out.
Yeah, this is a big deal.

Upon seeing that the GH2 DLC does not work in GH3, I am not purchasing any more GH DLC. I've only done free downloads since that was proven.

Harmonix presumably has the ability to ensure that RB DLC will work in RB2. If they make a public statement promising that it will, I will be a lot quicker to buy more DLC for RB.

(But, I had to buy the Police pack for RB before any such statements, because I have to see what happens when my co-workers attempt to sing "Roxanne".)

[560sdl]

Believe me, I've never bought any DLC. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a big scam. People release half a game (or a game with only 58 songs), then gouge us for the rest of it later. Especially with day-of-release DLC.

However, when I purchase a song on itunes, I actually buy and own the song. I can put it on my computer, Ipod, a CD. Whatever. The DLC for this game is trapped on my xbox. That enough should drive the price down not up.

Even though I think the DLC is too expensive (although I'm happy it's less than the GH2 stuff), I'm more concerned about not being able to play it when RB2 comes out. I'd love to get metallica and the police, but I'd hate to have it all be obsolete when the next iteration comes out.

This thread has already shown that with 58 songs, the initial purchase is a real bargain. Any number that you pick that "should" have been included is totally arbitrary. Is the magic number 60? 100? 1000? I think 58 is more that reasonable for a $60 game.

And when you buy a song for your Ipod, you do not OWN the song. You have bought a license. If you own it, you could negotiate to sell it to Harmonix and they could use it. I do not think you own those rights. Evidence of this is that you are limited by how many times you may copy it to a limited number of devices. The fact that it is restricted clearly means you do not own it. Sure, you can cheat your way around the restrictions, but that is not part of this discussion.

I do agree with the comment about upward compatibility. I do think that is important.

[Sonofmogh]

right on...sticky!

[Bakkster]

Believe me, I've never bought any DLC. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a big scam. People release half a game (or a game with only 58 songs), then gouge us for the rest of it later. Especially with day-of-release DLC.

If this were any other game, I would agree with you. The problem is with music licenses.

They cost money.

There's no way around it. Metallica's not going to give their songs away for free, nor are they going to let HMX use them for free. Unless the DLC is promotional, this is the reason DLC will always cost money.

I'd like to bet that if HMX could find a way to get all the songs they did for free and then make free downloads, they would. As for me, I'm going to keep waiting for the Halo 3 map pack to be free ;)

[NismoRR]

Those complaining about the cost are just plain cheap. C'mon, two bucks for a song that you supposedly would like enough to download. That's cheap! And, if you think it's too expensive, don't get any and get songs from iTunes and listen on your ipod or whatever. As a disclaimer, I haven't gotten any DLC yet...waiting for stuff I want, like Who's Next, some Rush, Yes and Genesis hopefully, and other music I'm really into. If/when DLC comes out that I like, I'm buying in a heartbeat!

[toefer]

Two points that I feel like throwing out there. Saying "if you don't like the price, don't buy them" isn't completely fair. The people who don't like the price might like getting Rock Band 2, with 50 new songs for $59, somewhere down the road. But if people support the $2 DLC, RB2 is never going to happen. So I think people that are mad about the price can justify being mad because they may never get any new songs (through a sequel).

Second point. I don't mind the $1.99, but I'm pretty selective with what I buy. I bought 4 songs so far, and don't plan on buying anymore of the announced stuff, except maybe a couple from the Nirvana and Who albums, whenever they show up. That being said, if I'm going to pay $2, I'd like for the songs to be just like the disc songs, in terms of quality. And with the lack of crowd sing-alongs in the DLC, that's not the case. I hope they fix this, somehow, someway.

[Siberian]

Songs are cheaper on the disc because more folks buy the discs vs the DLC. For instance while Rock Band has probably easily sold say a million copies I highly doubt any of the individual downloadable songs have even sold even 1/2 of that. Many many folks who buy the game will never pick up any of the extra content.

As a result the extra content is more costly on an individual level because Harmonix puts the same amount of time into it but isn't able to market it successfully to as many people.

[Quastor]

Two points that I feel like throwing out there. Saying "if you don't like the price, don't buy them" isn't completely fair. The people who don't like the price might like getting Rock Band 2, with 50 new songs for $59, somewhere down the road. But if people support the $2 DLC, RB2 is never going to happen. So I think people that are mad about the price can justify being mad because they may never get any new songs (through a sequel).


It's certainly a valid point, but from where I stand, I'd prefer not to have a RB2. I don't really see any new instruments being able to be added, as 4 players is a lot as it is. So the real only change would be a graphics upgrade, and I could really care less. Harmonix could easily continue to patch in features to RB that could be in RB2.

But, more than anything, and as silly as it might sound, I hate having similar content spread around multiple media. I love my iPod because I have all my tracks accessible there, I can plug it into my stereo in my car and listen to anything - I don't have to drag my entire CD library around with me anywhere I go.

Among the same lines, I'd much prefer to have one disc (Rock Band), and from that be able to access any song from the game without having to switch discs.

But maybe I'm just lazy. ;)

[Parodygm]

Harmonix presumably has the ability to ensure that RB DLC will work in RB2. If they make a public statement promising that it will, I will be a lot quicker to buy more DLC for RB.

Lack of compatibility for Rock Band DLC with any future sequels will absolutely guarantee a no-sale to me. The business model for Rock Band is obviously heavily weighted towards DLC.

If licensing hasn't been arranged that integrates into potential upgrades or sequels then that model is flawed.

[RX King]

Second point. I don't mind the $1.99, but I'm pretty selective with what I buy. I bought 4 songs so far, and don't plan on buying anymore of the announced stuff, except maybe a couple from the Nirvana and Who albums, whenever they show up. That being said, if I'm going to pay $2, I'd like for the songs to be just like the disc songs, in terms of quality. And with the lack of crowd sing-alongs in the DLC, that's not the case. I hope they fix this, somehow, someway.

Cause Rock Band is about prerecorded crowd tracks, right?

Give me a break, man. It would be completely and totally impractical to record crowd sing-a-longs for every song. There were over thirty people listed on the credits as 'crowd vocalists.'

To add to the rest of the discussion, the OP makes perfectly understandable and reasonable points why $1.99 is fair, and I stand by that statement. Anyone who can't wrap their brain around that must be an adolescent or an imbecile.

[Bluvox]

On-disc songs were negotiated at a single price (for example, $100,000 for Metallica) which doesn't change based on the number of sold copies.

DLC costs a per-song royalty fee. For every song someone downloads, the label gets $X.XX.

This is why DLC is more expensive than on-disc songs.

Edit: MS and Sony also charge a percentage of DLC profits (MS is around 30% I believe) which also adds the the cost of DLC.

By this logic they got 2 different licensing agreements, one based on a certain number of discs pressed and one on infinite download capabilities. This is possible, but not very practical to do. The % that the distributor gets would be my guess on the pricing for the DLC, that or they are making up some of the original development costs in the cost of the DLC.

My question is why this thread even exists. There are at least 3 other discussions on DLC, several started before they introduced the pricing. The bottom line always is that none of us as "armchair developers" know what the deals they struck with the owners of the original masters (they need the 4 track masters, not the final mixed product that you get from iTunes) is/was, nor what their pricing structure with Sony/Microsoft is, nor what the actual development costs. We're not sure if they have a royalty fee per unit sold, or if they got the rights to produce the song in-game for up to x number of sales, x being higher than the expected take rate. We have no data on the exact deals and their exact costs. There are enough variables in there that the costs cannot be assumed, and we shouldn't have to.

If you think the pricing is good, buy them. If you think it's bad, don't. Just as simple as that. If the pricing is high because of Microsoft/Sony, they'll renegotiate their take to get more folks using DLC. If the pricing is high because of the owners of the masters, they might be able to strike a deal showing more profits if they can manage to lower the price per unit sold. If the price is high because of actual production costs, they can review the # of units sold per price point, and find a point where they are the most profitable.

Unless there are documents that can show where the costs are, anything else said can just be taken as speculation.

[RayRay]

Why argue over cost? either you buy it and like it or buy it and hate it.
Those that cant afford to buy it.. save your money buy it later or get a better job.

I personally rather pay 2.00 for downloads then have to wait 2yrs for the next
Rock Band II disk to ship out to stores.

I rather build my music set list a little at a time over the course of a year.

2.00 a week @ 52 weeks = 104.00
-VS- 59.00 in two years.

Just a thought.

Oh by the way... maybe they will offer discounted prices, if they dont code the visuals of lip sync and characters. I mean really how many people take their eyes off the scrolling fret bar when playing lol.

I can deal with a black screen and just have the music notes falling.

Ehhh.. thats just another thought.

[DesiredFX]

DLC is self-regulating, based on value, not price.

I paid $170 for a game that allows me to play 58 songs out of the box, and for the ability to download additional songs that I want to play.

I didn't pick a single one of those 58 songs. Sure, I'm glad that about 40 of them are there, but I actually paid for 18 songs that, at best, I don't care about and, at worst, I strongly dislike (hate is such a strong word)...but the design of the game forces me to play even the ones I don't like if I want to proceed, so those 18 songs actually have a negative value for me.

If a $60 game provides me with 40 songs I like, the real cost to me is $1.50/song. If it provides me with only 30, it's $2.00.

Since getting the game, I have downloaded 10 songs at a total cost of $18.46, or $1.85/song. But the songs I got are songs I wanted, not a random assortment that I had to take my chances with.

[Bakkster]

Give me a break, man. It would be completely and totally impractical to record crowd sing-a-longs for every song. There were over thirty people listed on the credits as 'crowd vocalists.'

To be fair, Bryn could always bribe Bang Camaro to do the crowd vocals. HMX would probably only need to buy them beers :D


By this logic they got 2 different licensing agreements, one based on a certain number of discs pressed and one on infinite download capabilities. This is possible, but not very practical to do. The % that the distributor gets would be my guess on the pricing for the DLC, that or they are making up some of the original development costs in the cost of the DLC.

Actually, this is the opposite. On disc tracks they paid a one-time licensing fee for all the discs they will ever make. For DLC they pay a per-download royalty. This info came from an old interview (I'm too lazy to find it, should be on the forums somewhere) and at least partially explains why DLC is more expensive per-song than the on-disc content.

I think you are correct that the distributor (MS and Sony) fees are a large part of the pie as well, maybe even more than HMX's share.

[IbanezBassist_v2]

I am very happy with the price of the DLC.

[gsu_paintballer]

With this logic, the game its self should have cost at least 100 dollars, I can't remember off hand how many songs there are on disk, but I know there was at least 50. So you’re telling me that it's actually more expensive to put songs up for down load, than it does to manufacture a disk? You are the reason the price of DLC is out of hand right now.

Im PRETTY SURE they were banking on alot more people buying the disk than the DLC

[Highlandlassie]

I get tired of seeing people complain about the pricing of downloads. It might have been appropriate when Guitar Hero 1 songs were being regurgitated, but not any more. Especially with Rock Band. Already owning the CD should have no bearing on the price either, because you personally owning the CD does not save Harmonix or anyone else the cost of licensing it.

iTunes is often quoted as a base price of @ $0.99. Thats the price of for distributing ready to go music over the internet. That does not cover the cost of the developer mapping the notes/vocals for the instruments/vocals. Four instruments and four difficulty levels lead to quite a bit of work. For really popular downloads this cost will end up being rather small but to cover for average and less popular songs a range of $0.50 to $1.00 should cover it.

This puts individual songs from $1.49 to $1.99 and hasn't even covered additional fees that have to be paid to Microsoft / Sony for the use of their Marketplaces, server space, and bandwidth.

If and when there are actually some songs for $0.99 everybody should be amazed at the bargain being passed on to us.

If you are still not convinced, go out and try to buy real authorized copies of the sheet music, or tab, for each instrument (sometimes vocals are combined). An album worth of music or tab (@10-15 songs) will run you between $15 and $20 dollars. Thats more than $1 a song for just one instrument. Rock Band, on expert, essentially amounts to another form of tablature for each instrument, and the current price standard is very reasonable.

Harmonix can sticky this, post it (or any part thereof) in their FAQ's, or whatever they want. Of course any thanks or recognition is appreciated.


No complaints here, the price seems more than fair, just hope they keep them coming, and I will keep the money flowing to feed the fire.

[Parodygm]

I think the pricing is decent, given the licensing issues, creation of note charts and playtesting.

Of course, the value goes up for me if these are automatically licensed for future Rock Band upgrades and/or sequels and they transfer across seamlessly to any hypothetical future version. The value drops dramatically if the opposite is the case.

EDIT: LOL, thanks FX... omitting words kind of tends towards changing the meaning somewhat. :D

[DesiredFX]

Of course, the value goes up for me if these are automatically licensed for future Rock Band upgrades and/or sequels and transfer across seamless to any hypothetical future.

Yeah, DLC with built-in time-travel would be awesome!

:p

[toefer]

To add to the rest of the discussion, the OP makes perfectly understandable and reasonable points why $1.99 is fair, and I stand by that statement. Anyone who can't wrap their brain around that must be an adolescent or an imbecile.

Great arguing tactic. Insult your opponents, and it makes them realize you are right.



Give me a break, man. It would be completely and totally impractical to record crowd sing-a-longs for every song. There were over thirty people listed on the credits as 'crowd vocalists.

Just because thirty people are listed in the credits doesn't mean they had 30 people in a booth singing along. They might have done some songs here and there, and could've just had a few people around to do each song. But another great arguing tactic. Act like you are clever because you read the credits, and then just draw assumptions.

Plus if you read the names, there are like 4-5 that have the same last name, which was probably a guy who works for Wavegroup who invited his family in to come record with them for fun (read: they weren't paid), and the rest of the names tend to match up with the Wavegroup musicians. So it's not like they put ads out in newspapers asking for backup singers. This is their job, and they spent a few minutes adding in some crowd singing. Big deal.

And if that's too much to ask for, I'm sure you can record a couple backup singers, and make it sound like a muffled crowd by adding in that generic crowd murmur.

[SenRaq]

Wow, is all I have to say. So much frustration over the price. It is simple for me. I don't mind paying $2 a song. But I would not pay $5.50 for a 3 pack of songs, if I don't really care for the songs. If the 3 pack was $5 bucks, then I would buy the 3 packs in a heart beat. For me now, I will be very selective when I buy songs at $2 a pop.

Anyone else think Harmonix would sell more 3 packs set list for $5 instead of $5.50?

[DesiredFX]

Anyone else think Harmonix would sell more 3 packs set list for $5 instead of $5.50?

Probably, but not that many more.

To me, it comes down to what you said: you'll pay for songs you want, but not for songs you don't. It seems like the people feeling most put out or ripped off by this are people who feel the need to own every song available.

If I was forced to buy these or if they downloaded automatically and charged me using a CD-club type approach, I'd definitely feel ripped off, but since I get to choose, it doesn't bother me.

There are songs out there that I would buy for this game at pretty much any price. $50 for my favorite song ever? Sure, if that was the only way I could get it. And there are some songs you could post for a nickel and I wouldn't bother to download them--wouldn't want to give up the time or HDD space.

I've bought $15 CDs for one song that I liked in the hope tha I would like the other nine, and sometimes it didn't pan out, sometimes it exceeded my hopes. I consider it more of a gamble than a rip-off: I decided to take the chance, I take the responsibility for how I spend my own money.

When downloading DLC, you have much better options than the random gamble: you can wait a day or so to see the YouTube videos post and decide if you like the song (or the cover of the song). Nobody is forcing you to download every track they offer.

[threeos]

I don't care too much about the price of the DLC. If I like the song, I'll buy it. Two bucks a song is fair. I think people get upset because if there are a lot of songs available buying content can get very expensive.

I would guess that licensing fees are not static and that the first Guitar Hero game cost them more to license the songs. Now, bands are probably begging to be included in the game to get exposure (both older bands and new ones as well).

I just hope the DLC keeps coming and is of good quality.

It seems that RO has abandoned DLC for GH III. I'm sure they haven't but they don't seem as motivated as Harmonix to provide consistent content for the game. I think that's because Harmonix is a made up of musicians that remain focused on providing a real music experience while the suits at Activision are sitting around a table thinking up more silly, cheesy features like battle mode.

[MF-PO'd]

I don't care too much about the price of the DLC. If I like the song, I'll buy it. Two bucks a song is fair. I think people get upset because if there are a lot of songs available buying content can get very expensive.

I would guess that licensing fees are not static and that the first Guitar Hero game cost them more to license the songs. Now, bands are probably begging to be included in the game to get exposure (both older bands and new ones as well).

I just hope the DLC keeps coming and is of good quality.

It seems that RO has abandoned DLC for GH III. I'm sure they haven't but they don't seem as motivated as Harmonix to provide consistent content for the game. I think that's because Harmonix is a made up of musicians that remain focused on providing a real music experience while the suits at Activision are sitting around a table thinking up more silly, cheesy features like battle mode.

Well, Activision too, could have decided to put only 58 songs on the disc and saved the rest for first day DLC. People have to give them credit for giving more with the actual game.

With that said, it does seem strange they have no future DLC announced.

[Bakkster]

Well, Activision too, could have decided to put only 58 songs on the disc and saved the rest for first day DLC. People have to give them credit for giving more with the actual game.

They have about the same number of licensed tracks, though. Several of the tracks are also only unlockable through GH3's co-op career, so if you thought people here complained about song unlocks...

As far as the bonus songs, it's a matter of opinion. RB has the in-house bands which many of us love. GH3 has more and from "bigger" artists.

As for first day DLC, it would seem kind of odd to have 4 Metallica songs on the disc.

Add that each song in Rock Band can be played 4 ways, and in GH3 only 1.5 (Bass is only available in co-op, not quickplay).

I've never looked at Rock Band and felt screwed out of songs. I have a bit of trouble seeing how anyone would.

[rockst01]

Great arguing tactic. Insult your opponents, and it makes them realize you are right.



Just because thirty people are listed in the credits doesn't mean they had 30 people in a booth singing along. They might have done some songs here and there, and could've just had a few people around to do each song. But another great arguing tactic. Act like you are clever because you read the credits, and then just draw assumptions.

Plus if you read the names, there are like 4-5 that have the same last name, which was probably a guy who works for Wavegroup who invited his family in to come record with them for fun (read: they weren't paid), and the rest of the names tend to match up with the Wavegroup musicians. So it's not like they put ads out in newspapers asking for backup singers. This is their job, and they spent a few minutes adding in some crowd singing. Big deal.

And if that's too much to ask for, I'm sure you can record a couple backup singers, and make it sound like a muffled crowd by adding in that generic crowd murmur.

Are you actually trying to argue that because the DLC doesn't have the crowd sing along that means it's a ripoff? Because if you are that's pretty pathetic.

[DesiredFX]

Well, Activision too, could have decided to put only 58 songs on the disc and saved the rest for first day DLC. People have to give them credit for giving more with the actual game.

Not necessarily.

GHIII offers 71 songs, but six of them are available only if you're playing in co-op career mode or online, and 25 of them are bonus tracks.

The actual in-game tracks offered by the game in either career mode is 40 (not counting boss-battle tracks), compared to 45 offered by Rock Band which are accessible in any mode with any number of players.

Bonus tracks are just that: a bonus. They were set apart in each game because the developers thought the appeal of those tracks wasn't as great as the tracks that appear in the career modes. Even so, I've heard a lot more excitement generated about the likes of Honest Bob and Freezepop than about any of the 24 bonus tracks on GHIII.

But we'll still go with the straight numbers. 71 songs vs. 58.

Plug those songs into the career modes in each game and what do you get: GHIII gets you the equivalent of Solo Tour Mode in Rock Band: play through the songs one at a time, straight down the list from easiest to hardest. Shake it up a little by unlocking bonus songs either with money (in GHIII) or by playing and beating one for a cash prize (in RB).

Now look at the multiplayer modes: Co-Op Career in GHIII is identical to solo career except that you get six different encores and only get to play 30 songs without going into the bonus songs.

BWT gives you all 45 songs in a sandbox format, plus includes all 13 bonus tracks and any DLC in a way that will help you advance your band's career by earning stars, money, and fans.

As a result, as of next week, there will be 85 songs for Rock Band that can all contribute to your career mode, no matter whether you approach the game as a solo player or with a band. Even without DLC, the number of career songs in RB is 58 vs a maximum of 40 (plus two boss battles) in GHIII.

And this doesn't even factor in my personal song preferences. If we do that, the score becomes something like 53-20 in favor of Rock Band.

[Parodygm]

Even so, I've heard a lot more excitement generated about the likes of Honest Bob and Freezepop than about any of the 24 bonus tracks on GHIII.

I dunno... I'm going to have to stick my hand up and give some props for "Avalancha" (Héroes del Silencio), "Hier Kommt Alex" (Die Toten Hosen) and "Ruby" (Kaiser Chiefs).

Of course I was really amped by having "Outside" (Tribe) on Rock Band. I bought the Abort album back when it was released.

[DesiredFX]

I dunno... I'm going to have to stick my hand up and give some props for "Avalancha" (Héroes del Silencio), "Hier Kommt Alex" (Die Toten Hosen) and "Ruby" (Kaiser Chiefs).

Yeah, as it turns out, I found quite a few more songs in the GHIII Bonus Tracks that I liked more than the bulk of the main campaign, but I didn't really hear the buzz about them until after the fact.

Of course, my pig-headed avoidance of all things Guitar-Hero-III-related may account for my ignorance on this point.

[Xzyliac]

Wait did I miss something? Who's complaining?

[Parodygm]

Of course, my pig-headed avoidance of all things Guitar-Hero-III-related may account for my ignorance on this point.

Activision are really doing a bang up job for us PS3 owners. They really know how to keep the level of interest up in a franchise. I give you "failed to connect" and "guitar compatibility".

[XquietusX]

I dont agree with the pricing on the DLC either $2.00 each is more than the game costs, if the game cost $2.00 per song for 58 songs it would be $116.00 for the game not to mention they actually have other stuff besides songs in it.

I think it should be $1.00 per song to more equally represent the game's price.

I just hope down the line they might even just add all the DLC songs to an expansion pack which would be awesome, id pay $60.00 more for the same game that had 60 more songs in it, almost like rock band 2 except for still being able to play the old songs also

[DesiredFX]

I dont agree with the pricing on the DLC either $2.00 each is more than the game costs, if the game cost $2.00 per song for 58 songs it would be $116.00 for the game not to mention they actually have other stuff besides songs in it.

But if you love the gameplay but hate 38 of the pre-packaged songs, the songs are actually costing you $3 each.

Part of the "bargain" of the game packaging is the "take it or leave it" aspect of it. Unlike DLC, you have no say at all about what songs you get.

[560sdl]

People just seem to have it in their head that $1 per song is all it should cost not matter that there is tons more to a rock band song than a downloaded mp3.

Using that logic, if you wreck your car, you should be able to completely rebuild it with all brand new parts for the exact cost of the original. I believe the average car part is about 4-5 times the cost of the original.

[toefer]

Are you actually trying to argue that because the DLC doesn't have the crowd sing along that means it's a ripoff? Because if you are that's pretty pathetic.

No. I'm not arguing anything. If you read my first post, the main point was that I can see why people can argue about the pricing, even if I think the pricing is fine. After that, I made a second point which was me just saying I'd like the crowd singing along to be in the DLC, but I never complained about it.

I knew there was no crowd singing along after buying my first DLC song, but that didn't stop me from getting more. The reason I've only purchased 4, is because there were only 4 songs I actually really wanted, not because I refuse to buy things because of lack of singing along.

The second post (if you read that one) was just me responding to some genius who posted something. Nobody really knows why there is no crowd sing alongs in the DLC. You can assume its to cut the costs, but who really knows. If it's a master track, then they'd have call up Wavegroup to record some stuff just for that song. But if its a cover version that Wavegroup has to make to begin with, whats preventing the crowd singing?

[chillzatl]

Believe me, I've never bought any DLC. As far as I'm concerned, it's all a big scam. People release half a game (or a game with only 58 songs), then gouge us for the rest of it later. Especially with day-of-release DLC.

However, when I purchase a song on itunes, I actually buy and own the song. I can put it on my computer, Ipod, a CD. Whatever. The DLC for this game is trapped on my xbox. That enough should drive the price down not up.

Even though I think the DLC is too expensive (although I'm happy it's less than the GH2 stuff), I'm more concerned about not being able to play it when RB2 comes out. I'd love to get metallica and the police, but I'd hate to have it all be obsolete when the next iteration comes out.

Why would you make a post, *****ing about something 2-3 years in the future, that may or may not happen in the first place... swiss cheese logic

[chillzatl]

I dont agree with the pricing on the DLC either $2.00 each is more than the game costs, if the game cost $2.00 per song for 58 songs it would be $116.00 for the game not to mention they actually have other stuff besides songs in it.

I think it should be $1.00 per song to more equally represent the game's price.

I just hope down the line they might even just add all the DLC songs to an expansion pack which would be awesome, id pay $60.00 more for the same game that had 60 more songs in it, almost like rock band 2 except for still being able to play the old songs also

Do you not understand the concept of bundling items that are individually more expensive than their price in the bundle? I've seen this same ridiculous post since the GH2 DLC came out and it amazes me that so many people just can't seem to grasp it. Go to any store and look around, you will see the concept in action.

[MacGrad]

Do you not understand the concept of bundling items that are individually more expensive than their price in the bundle? Go to any store and look around, you will see the concept in action.

Exactly -- if I was going to buy those M&Ms individually, it would cost me... well, a lot more than buying the bag. ;)

[Tarzanman]

The problem with DLC is that EVERYONE WANTS A CUT OF THE PROFITS.

First there is the record company... they do little-or-no work as far as producing the song (except for providing a place to record it), but they inevitably want to control the distribution rights.

Next there is the artist. The artist performed the song and is entitled to royalties (this usually comes from the record company)

Then there is Sony, the songs are being offered on their network, so they want a cut too

Last is the game developer who covers and masters the tracks on the song.

With 4 parties all holding their hands out, it is easy to see how a song that plays on the radio for free (or on a CD for ~$1.00 per song) is suddenly $2.00.

Did I forget to mention the fees for credit card transactions? VISA wants a cut, too :-)

[DesiredFX]

The problem with DLC is that EVERYONE WANTS A CUT OF THE PROFITS.

Including people complaining about the price: they want a buck right off the top.

[SSPWOLF]

I'm awestricken over the amount of people who will pay 170 dollars for a video game, then ***** about the 2 dollars.


170 dollars is more than my average electic bill.

170 bucks is half of most people's car payment.

170 bucks buys a LOT of stuff.

I paid 170 bucks because I have the disposable income and wanted the game.

I also buy all the DLC because it's more stuff for me to play.

I don't see where the argument is.

[iron_city_ap]

I'm awestricken over the amount of people who will pay 170 dollars for a video game, then ***** about the 2 dollars.


170 dollars is more than my average electic bill.

170 bucks is half of most people's car payment.

170 bucks buys a LOT of stuff.

I paid 170 bucks because I have the disposable income and wanted the game.

I also buy all the DLC because it's more stuff for me to play.

I don't see where the argument is.

Well said. I haven't read all the posts here so this might have already been brought up, but look at it this way.... Its $1 for the MP3 half and $1 for the game half. Seems pretty fair at least to me when you break it down.

[SSPWOLF]

It's all irellevent to me.

It doesn't matter what Itunes, Amazon, or the dude outside the stadium with a cardboard box charges for music.

It's the sad, cute little soul of the capitalist born and raised American who thinks that because they don't want to pay for something that a company is going to change the price.

The reality is.. I pay over 3.50 for a gallon of gas. There is not ONE SINGLE consumer who would get on Exxon's website (or Chevron, or BP, or whomever) and say "HEY listen, I think 3.50 is FAIR" but every year gas goes up.

It's not about what you want to pay, it's about what they can charge.


It works like this:

they set a price point and target sales.

For example: I want to sell pictures of my ass. I decide to charge 20 dollars and figure I should sell about 50.

If I sell 5, I might drop the price to 10 dollars.

If I sell 100, I'll get a demographic to see if it's the price or the quality that is selling my merchandise.


To bring the point home, if you don't like the price and still want the DLC.. then don't buy it. Hopefully SO many people will JOIN you in your GRASSROOTS campaign to lower the price of DLC that HMX will be FORCED to lower the price.

good luck with that, I for one will probably buy all the DLC because me, like most sane and rational people, realize that the price is actually quite a value for what you are getting.

[DesiredFX]

good luck with that, I for one will probably buy all the DLC because me, like most sane and rational people, realize that the price is actually quite a value for what you are getting.

What crazes me about the complainers is that they don't make a distinction between price and value: the more you like a song, the less the price matters, because the value of the song is higher for you than it is for someone who doesn't care for it.

It amazes me that they don't see 1) the regulatory power of buying stuff you like and ignoring stuff you don't; 2) that the value of your purchases go up if you only buy the stuff you want.

For example, not a big Metallica fan, here. Enter Sandman doesn't have a lot of value for me in this game because I avoid playing it except when the game (or online players) expect me to. I will never, EVER choose to play Enter Sandman.

So why would I go out and buy a Metallica three-pack, or even a single Metallica song? I spend two dollars on "...And Justice for All" even though I'll never choose to play it. Value of that $2 song? Zero, in my eyes.

On the other hand, I pick up "My Iron Lung" by Radiohead, also for $2, and I play it as many times as I can, on different instruments, with different difficulties--within a week of buying it, I've played it probably 20 times. For the same $2 I could have spent on a Metallica song I won't play. Cost of "My Iron Lung" in that first week? 10 cents per play. Value to me? Inestimable.

It all reminds me of the old joke about the person without a dog who buys dog food because "it was on sale."

Just because they offer it, doesn't mean you gotta buy it.

[Muuse]

i've bought three of the three-song packs (metallica, the police, and black sabbath).
all for 440mp.

that's 1320mp, i think.
which is (i'm too lazy to do the math) probably something like $15-$16? and that's for 9 songs.

so let's say they charge a dollar for each song to pay the license owner. then another $1 for their personal personal profit. then microsoft adds on another dollar so that they make a profit.

that all sounds reasonable to me... it's business.
stop whining.

if you think it's too much then so be it... i guess you just don't buy it then. what do the companies care? so what that a couple 100,000 gamers don't buy the DLC because they think it's a bit pricy. they still all make a sh**-load of money from the game itself, their past games, their contracts with other companies, all the people who do pay for the DLC, etc.

[SSPWOLF]

In essence, there's a 60s style "power to the people" idea here where those who either can't afford the DLC or feel entitled to it for free or whatever thier personal idea of a proper price point is have decided that thier voice must be heard. They are under impression that through force of thier will they can effect change.

I get the feeling that these are the same people who are rude to those in the service industry, or whom feel "entitled" to a free pizza if thier order is incorrect. They seperate humanity from industry and decide that companies can't make mistakes and that as a consumer they are the penultimate in human achievement.

Which, sociologically speaking is interesting considering that consumption has always been the result of production, creation, and artistry.....

I digress.

The value of 2 dollars in todays society is extremely small. The value of even 5 minutes of entertainment far outweighs 2 dollars.

I have this bad habit of ranting when I post... hmm....

[WiseOldUnicorn]

Eh, I see it like this:

When I pay to buy a song off Napster (insert iTunes here for all ye Apple lovers), it costs me $1.00. ($0.99 technically, but let's round up to make it easier. :p) I pay to buy a single song for Rock Band, and it costs me $2.00. So I'm only paying a dollar more than I would for just the song itself, and getting the ability to play along with it on not just one, but FOUR instruments. When you take into account the amount of work that I'm sure goes into things like doing the note charts (four instruments, four difficulties...that's sixteen note charts) and programming the venue effects...paying an extra dollar is really not bad AT ALL.

Plus, like other people have said, it's not quite the same as buying the songs that come on the game disc. When I buy DLC, I know every single song I'm getting is one that I like. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. Am I willing to pay $2 to get some of the songs I really, REALLY want to play? Hell yes. There are some I would pay a lot more for, to be honest, just because that's how badly I want them.

[SSPWOLF]

Allow me to offer a twisted counter-agreement. (I just made up that term)

I'm playing a game. I'm not a real rock star (at least not playing this game anyway)

I don't play the game to hear good music. I play the game to enjoy playing a game.

So, in the effort of maximizing my personal gaming experience, I've downloaded every single song... why? Because the 20 or 30 bucks I've spent on them isn't exactly breaking my bank and it extends the game. New challenges. Even if the song sucks.. I still gotta push the buttons or hit the pads or sing the notes.

It's more.

I'm American, I like more.

I do not pay ONE dollar to download every song on Itunes because I don't want to listen to every song on Itunes.

I pay TWO dollars to download every song on Rock Band because it's more funner (I didn't invent that term, but I like it) for me.

If rock band ever gets enough DLC to where it becomes financially stupid for me to download every song I will pick and choose based on other merits.

For now.. every song, the day it's released, until it's more money than I care to spend.

See.. it's all personal for me.

I'm just no good at fighting "the good fight" alas.

[RayRay]

Oh. no I missed more complaints cause i went to sleep.
Yesterday this thread had 4 pages now its up to 7.

Look people, buy it if you want to.
Nobody is going to break your arm because your didn't buy this weeks DLC.

If price is the issue you should consider getting a job, saving your allowance, sell your old video games for store credit and buy some market point prepaid cards.

I do ask however that we..insist for a (Pre View Sample ) of a song prior to buying them.
I thought i recongnized a song title. I rushed to purchase it only to find out it's not what I was thinking of. So ... yeah a preview sample of a song would be nice.

example: I purchased " I fought the Law " by the Kinks.

What i thinking atm: " the authority song " by John Cougar Mellencamp

" i fought the law " by the Kinks ---> sucks in my opinion.
Let me hear a sample of the song prior to purchase is all I ask.

[Bakkster]

Let me hear a sample of the song prior to purchase is all I ask.

Check YouTube. Like you said, nobody's going to break your arm because you waited to see the song on YouTube before buying it. ;)

[DesiredFX]

Fun idea:

Along with DLC for the week, release a free "sample track" that includes 8-16 bars of each song patched together in a single "song."

Not sure if it could be done legally under the license agreements--though you could probably get away with distributing it for free by saying it's for promotional purposes--but it would give everyone a chance to both identify the songs and hear the quality of cover versions.

[flyin_gnome]

I agree that the current price of the DLC songs is a value. If you buy the packs of 3 its even better. I mean come on think about it. I paid 5.49 for 3 songs.. I will play them for hours, and I will continue to buy the DLC to add to my library.

Getting another 30 songs for 54.90 is like having another game to play. I am impressed with how many songs are already available and hope that HMX continues to release new tracks. Good work.

[cbntmn]

This kind of stuff never ceases to amaze me.

You purchase a video game system......400 bucksish

You buy a game. An extrodinary game. One that includes a set of drums, a video game, a guitar, and a working mic. All of which are pretty good quality stuff. 170 bucks. Hell you cant buy an electric set of drums with that. Let alone some kind of video to teach you how to play the 58 songs.

Then when the company that creates it has downloadable content, which would have not been imaginable 5 years ago, you people complain about the price??? I wont even get into what you are getting for your money (the graphics, the song rights...etc) that has been covered. Why is it such a terrible thing that a company like Harmonix can make a substantial amount of money so that they can continue development on the next RB game.

Someone earlier said "i would ahve to pay 30 dollars for all the download, thats half the price of the game" AND???????

What if you spend 100 dollars downloading songs? Then you have 108 (THATS ONE HUNDERED AND EIGHT) songs on your system for the cost of 270 dollars. What you dont think your going to get enough enjoyment out of that 270 bucks? You AND THREE of your friends? I would imagine the cost per hour would be less than 1 dollar per. Do you know what it costs to take me and my three children to a FREAKIN MOVIE????

As for Harmonix making money....isnt that what they are supposed to do?? Do you have any idea the operating expense of creating a game of this magnitude? Do you see all the companies involved??? MTV, EA, whatever else it says on the bottom of the box it came in.

Cmon guys. Nut up here. If you dont want the content then dont buy it. Play your 58 songs to death (of which i really enjoy about 25 or 30) but as for me and my family we are going to enjoy this game with cool downloaded content. And you know what???? If the downloaded content doesnt work on RB2 (which by the way RB1 JUST CAME OUT LESS THAN A MONTH AGO) then we will buy RB2 and download its content. All the while we will be smiling and having a great time with probably the cheapest entertainment my family has ever had and also learning a little about music on the way.

regards,

CBNTMN

PS. Im the CEO of a decent size company with a family of 4.

[Bluvox]

Fun idea:

Along with DLC for the week, release a free "sample track" that includes 8-16 bars of each song patched together in a single "song."

Expand it a little bit - have snipets of the game footage as "rock videos" in the community section for all the songs, maybe have it as "RBtv" or something where it plays randomly.. similar to the main rockband.com web site.

You might not hear the whole song, but you could get a listen to the track and such.

[DesiredFX]

Expand it a little bit - have snipets of the game footage as "rock videos" in the community section for all the songs, maybe have it as "RBtv" or something where it plays randomly.. similar to the main rockband.com web site.

You might not hear the whole song, but you could get a listen to the track and such.

Yeah, that's the direction I was leaning in--some sort of promo that allows "official" exposure to the songs. I liked the idea of a meta-track because it would give you a chance to play some of the song before downloading.

Of course, I have no idea how simple/complex the creation of just such a track would be.

[Bluvox]

Yeah, that's the direction I was leaning in--some sort of promo that allows "official" exposure to the songs. I liked the idea of a meta-track because it would give you a chance to play some of the song before downloading.

Of course, I have no idea how simple/complex the creation of just such a track would be.

Either would be cool, honestly. Especially on the covers I'd love to actually hear the version I'm buying.. which you can't do without waiting on youtube versions or buying the content right now. I'd think just expanding what they already do with the main page would be slightly easier *shrug*.

Plus it could tie into the MTV heritage some, of having "rock videos"