Is The Beatles DLC overpriced?

[quida03]

I may not be able to stop myself from buying the DLC, but it sure seems expensive when the beatles songs are so short, and I already paid for some of the songs from every album.
$17 for 24 more minutes of Abbey Road ?!?
I wonder what Sgt. Pepper's will cost for 8 songs / 21 more minutes and the original version of Within you without your.
It sucks to be a huge fan and a cheap bastard.

Is there any other DLC that has a worse price per minute ratio?

I played the game through on expert drums and beginner vocals once.
I Played the chapter mode through on expert drums.
I played the easy songs on expert vocals.
I played the easy songs on expert guitar.
I played the game through in performance mode on vocals to watch all the background animations. They are beautiful!

That was three good days maybe fifteen hours total.
I'll go back to it occasionally to sing with my kids, but I am back to RB2 for the drums.

I LOVE the beatles and I LOVE RB2, so it was worth the money to me, but I wouldn't recommend the game to anyone else.
;):p

[Branr]

Once again, it's a question of quality over quantity. This is the frakking BEATLES, not Honest Bob: Rock Band :)

[ArothmanMusic]

If I was just buying the song, sure, I'd consider it overpriced. But I'm paying for the re-mixed version from the masters with the note highways, lyrics, visuals, etc. It's not just buying a song... it's buying a playable Rock Band song. That's gonna cost extra. Sure, I'd love it cheaper, but I'm a Beatles fan and the price is still within reason.

[tcole6]

I say given the % of work required to turn one Beatles mono analog recording into a Rock Band 2 song versus the amount of work required to take a song that is already digital multi-track, the price is excellent. I bet they make 1/2 the money on a song that is only 1/2 as long. A definite indirect proportion of profit to work.

And it IS the Beatles.

[Sportzter]

Well -
The market can bear $60.00 for the songs they have on the disk. Since you have the ability to look at the number of songs, determine which songs are disk, and review gameplay video, you as the consumer have a great opportunity to make that decision on a purchase by purchase basis.

For those that bought it, I would assume that the cost is acceptable. For those that didn't make the purchase, probably think it is too pricey.

[onidragon]

Yes, the price is outrageous (Nothing's Shocking had 2 more songs than AR will have, and it was $14), but I got the Gamestop pack, so I'll probably just get the remaining songs.

[Jorm]

Given the re-mixing work for the older stuff and the dreamscape work for the newer stuff, I'm shocked (and grateful!) they aren't charging more for it.

Length of the song has never had any bearing on the cost of the track, each track is $2 (generally, sometimes we get the promotional $1 price tag, but that's never due to track length).

HMX prefers to keep it simple, $2 a track. If they started to charge by the length, would you be among the whiners when you had to pay $3 for a track that runs over 5 minutes? It cuts both ways.

[Moiread]

If I was just buying the song, sure, I'd consider it overpriced. But I'm paying for the re-mixed version from the masters with the note highways, lyrics, visuals, etc. It's not just buying a song... it's buying a playable Rock Band song. That's gonna cost extra. Sure, I'd love it cheaper, but I'm a Beatles fan and the price is still within reason.

Summed up in much better words than I could put together, so I'll just say: ^THIS

[aristonle]

The DLC situation really makes me mad - I paid $60 for less songs than what a usual rythm music game has and then I am expected to pay more to round out the discography?!

The game is fun, but I have played through all of it in less than a week. I am not going to give Rock Band anymore money when they should have put way more songs into the game in the first place.

[Branr]

The DLC situation really makes me mad - I paid $60 for less songs than what a usual rythm music game has and then I am expected to pay more to round out the discography?!

The game is fun, but I have played through all of it in less than a week. I am not going to give Rock Band anymore money when they should have put way more songs into the game in the first place.

Nice first (and, I hope, last) post. Buh bye!

[T-Hybrid]

Price per minute is a horrible measure. So the thread fails for using length as a measure.

And I go back to the original RB announcement from like 2007..."DLC prices will range from $0.99 to $2.99 depending on the band"

We've seen what can go as low as a dollar. And we've seen what can go as high as three (AC/DC, Beatles).

[mva5580]

...........sigh. I think this board has pretty much run its course for me. Exactly as I predicted, the mental midgets have come out in force after the game's release. I'm outta here, nice talking to most of you.

[aristonle]

Nice first (and, I hope, last) post. Buh bye!

Not quite.

Honestly, maybe they should have just sold the game for $100 and included more tracks. At least they would have been upfront about the REAL COST of what a truly fantastic Beatles game would have been.

I really love the Rock Band franchise but I feel completely burnt by this incomplete game.

[elfreako]

Meh, considering how much the remasters costed me, I think it's only fair that the Beatles should get a little extra this way.

[T-Hybrid]

At least they would have been upfront about the REAL COST of what a truly fantastic Beatles game would have been.
You mean $60? What they charged for a fantastic Beatles game?

I can't believe how many people are whining about not getting the entire discography on disc. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

[dinga6969]

This has nothing to do with song length or how many songs are on disc. It is The Beatles. They demand more money than newer bands because they have higher demand and they can. I was somewhat surprised that the dlc was the same price as the other stuff we already get in RB1 and 2. If I'm just starting out I charge ten bucks for a ticket to my show. If I'm considered one of the best bands ever, guess what my concert tickets are 100 bucks and up for the same show. If you think they are overpriced the only answer is to not buy them but you know you want them, Harmonix knows you want them, and The Beatles know you want them....because they are some of the best songs ever. Be glad you can buy a Beatles song for the same price you can buy an Anvil song or some other mid level band (in terms of popularity). I don't mean this as a shot as I will be spending my money happily because I too want them. I'll take a different route though. Thank you to those involved for not charging even more for these songs knowing full well that people would pay more for them.

[Abaddon]

Given the re-mixing work for the older stuff and the dreamscape work for the newer stuff, I'm shocked (and grateful!) they aren't charging more for it.+1, I was expecting $2.49 a track at least, given that it's The Beatles and the Dreamscapes (hopefully the DLC Dreamscapes are good... I'd be willing to pay an extra $0.50 per song for that).

[CloudWolf]

This is the frakking BEATLES, not Honest Bob: Rock Band :)
I'd buy Honest Bob: Rock Band, too.

[Lawl01]

If I was just buying the song, sure, I'd consider it overpriced. But I'm paying for the re-mixed version from the masters with the note highways, lyrics, visuals, etc. It's not just buying a song... it's buying a playable Rock Band song. That's gonna cost extra. Sure, I'd love it cheaper, but I'm a Beatles fan and the price is still within reason.

And this is exactly the reason why I don't buy that much DLC to begin with. I have my reasons why I don't buy extra songs but unless I really want and can justify it, I won't buy it. As much as I like the Beatles, I would rather have their CDs, which I know will continue to work on most, maybe all, kinds of future formats to come (whether its soft- or hardware). I'd rather not waste my on money digital content that only one console and software franchise. With CDs and the ability to rip songs, I can play them back almost anywhere.

[Rod_Stixx]

They are priced just right. Beatles music is notoriously difficult to license, so the fact that we are getting it is pretty sweet. They aren't charging more for the tracks individually, so that is kind of nice. Yet we are getting dreamscapes for some of the later stuff, and the tracks in general cost a lot more than the average modern track for DLC in RB2. If you think a song is too short, you don't have to buy it. You aren't expected to do anything. The option is available for those who would like to add to their Beatles DLC.

I like the added gameplay of getting a new song. I don't mind that it is playable only on the console. I already have all the CDs, LPs, 8-tracks, etc. The question is ultimately, "Will I get $2 worth of enjoyment out of this song as long as I'm playing the game, the life of the console, etc.?" The answer to this is a big "YES!" for me. Will I get $12 or so enjoyment out of playing the rest of Abbey Road. I will easily get that and more. Going to a movie, buying a few drinks out, buying a DVD (or Blu-Ray)...all these things may cost money, and it is up to you to decide how much value you will get out of it.

[Sportzter]

Not quite.

Honestly, maybe they should have just sold the game for $100 and included more tracks. At least they would have been upfront about the REAL COST of what a truly fantastic Beatles game would have been.

I really love the Rock Band franchise but I feel completely burnt by this incomplete game.

I am not sure where to begin. I am going to try and reason my way to your conclusion, but I may need your help.

Do you equate the number of tracks with a complete game? If so, is the AC/DC Trackpack complete? The Country Track pack got 21 Tracks but the Classic Rock Track Pack only got 20. Does that mean that the Classic Rock Track Pack was incomplete?

Each song on the disk is approx $1.40.

The game performs as advertised right?

Follow the Legendary career of the Beatles... ( you can read the box)
3 Part Harmonies
Dreamscapes, Studio, and concert Locations.


I reread the back of the box and I got to play all the songs that they listed plus the mystery song. HMX has promised album DLC which they have scheduled 3 to release before the end of the year.

So far it is a Win, Win Win - what is incomplete again?

[blzbub74]

Not quite.

Honestly, maybe they should have just sold the game for $100 and included more tracks. At least they would have been upfront about the REAL COST of what a truly fantastic Beatles game would have been.

I really love the Rock Band franchise but I feel completely burnt by this incomplete game.

You don't seem to understand the concept of dlc. Do you ***** that RB2 doesn't have all 800+ songs on disc? 45 songs is not an unreasonable number of songs. RB1 only had 58 and 13 of those were bonus songs. RB2 was the first time that we saw a setlist significantly more extensive than what's on the Beatles.

[noogai]

As with everything else in the Marketplace, yes.

[Ehfahq]

The DLC situation really makes me mad - I paid $60 for less songs than what a usual rythm music game has and then I am expected to pay more to round out the discography?!


Youre not expected to pay for anything. its optional content.

[Runesmith]

As with everything else in the Marketplace, yes.

I definately agree about avatar stuff on the 360 being overpriced, but I think RB DLC is priced appropriately considering all the work that is put into them.

[dabrry0523]

Its the same price as rock band DLC is now so i don't care. now your going to say the songs are shorter but you gotta pay a Beatles Tax!!

[wwonka]

Nice first (and, I hope, last) post. Buh bye!

He is entitled to his opinion and yeah, it is overpriced, but then again, it is The Beatles. I am hoping that they put the content out on disc someday when it's finalized and give a discount for the rest of the content.

[DEMON212]

Once again, it's a question of quality over quantity. This is the frakking BEATLES, not Honest Bob: Rock Band :)

I don't think so though, because I've noticed I'm paying more for my RB tracks than I do for my CD's.

Chinese Democracy cost me about £7 (On release too) but the RB album cost me £35, as I also had to buy RB 2. But even without RB2's exclusive, that's still £3 more for game content which can ONLY be used in games.

My CD can go onto numerous iPods and can be played in numerous machines. I also get artwork and other things.

So yeah, I think all the RB DLC is a bit overpriced, but not by much, because afterall it still takes HMX work to give us these tracks.

[aristonle]

You don't seem to understand the concept of dlc. Do you ***** that RB2 doesn't have all 800+ songs on disc? 45 songs is not an unreasonable number of songs. RB1 only had 58 and 13 of those were bonus songs. RB2 was the first time that we saw a setlist significantly more extensive than what's on the Beatles.

Do I expect 800 songs? No. Do I expect more than 43 playable tracks for $60? YES.

This game is nowhere close to complete with its limited setlist. If one of the achievements in the game is to finish it in 24 hours - then you do not have a full game.

If you are happy with the price you paid - then fine. I am not and I will not be giving anymore money into DLC. If this game had 60-80 tracks to begin with maybe then offering more DLC would make sense to me. But what they have done is sell an incomplete game for full price and then expect the consumer to pay more to complete it.

At least if they had charged me the $100 for ALL the tracks they intended on releasing I could have gotten it all on one disc and not had to worry about downloading or storage. But they knew that price would be daunting to a customer. They sold half a game for full price, in my opinion. I regret buying this game.

[soup567]

If you download all of Abbey Road at once its not $17, it $16.98 to be exact lol, or 1360 mp.

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/101/1015733p1.html

[SonicRocker15X]

Do you realize what we're getting here? We're not just getting the usual formula.
We're getting the songs from the original album masters from over 40 years ago, taken through special technology to separate the tracks, plus the midi file for the tracks themselves, plus the programming for the dreamscape... At TWO DOLLARS a song.
I'm surprised it wasn't more.

[snwns26]

It's not like the songs are $2.99, $17 is fine for 11 songs and a medley AND all of them have dreamscapes. The price is fine.

[PCTraitor]

If you haven't worked on harmony vocals then you haven't done squat in this game. That alone adds hours to your gameplay.

Also, we don't care that they usually charge you $10 less for your wii games. There is a trend starting of Wii games charging more, this is not limited to the Beatles.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are being unrealistic.

It is obvious that band games require greater access to an artists library. These types of agreements are made with the artist and promises greater profit to the artist or the artist wouldn't do it. Greater commitment from the band equals a higher price point to make it worth the bands time. That is why all the solo band games have less songs. Expecting the Beatles to put 80 songs on a disc for $60 is unrealistic. If Metallica wouldn't do it what makes you think the Beatles would? At least in this game we are getting a disc full of songs from the same artist. So it's 45 songs for $60 (minus the cut that the developers, publishers, the console liscensing fee and everything else). Let's not forget that there are many parties involved that own rights to Beatles music and they all have to get paid also.

Getting 82ish bands, many of which are unknown or not so popular for $60 is one thing, getting 45 songs from the Beatles is another. If you don't get that then there is no reasoning with you.

Lets also not forget the level of detail that went into this game. This wasn't a GH Metallica style reskin of a game that came out before it. Did you watch all the videos? Look at all the pictures? I'm guessing you didn't.

PS you can do the endless setlist in well under 24 hours is Rock Band 2 not a complete game?

[RoofTopRookie]

sure RB2 came with 84 tracks, but 60 of those songs suck.

[aristonle]

It looks like I had a post deleted where I outlined my opinions as clearly as I could - NICE.

This confirms that I am done with Rock Band. Rock Band 3 will have 38 tracks or something and you guys will still worship it even though they just release games to get $2 out of you at a time with their DLC.

I will be trading in my Rock Band Beatles game and I will not be purchasing any more Rock Band 2 DLC. But honestly, with people on the forums so quick to defend a game that is a ripoff - they have an avid customer base so they have no reason to change.

[Young Bloodlust]

The DLC isn't overpriced at all if you want the songs. I mean, it's the ****in' Beatles, man. It's either this or nothing at all.

[Shaggz]

I once seen a local no-name band called (honestly can't remember right now) for free = free portal song/free charlene.

I paid $120 to see Rob Zombie in a small intimate venue = The Beatles DLC.

You pay for what you get.
I've wanted to play The Beatles every since the first RB. So I'm fine with the pricing :D

[Moiread]

But honestly, with people on the forums so quick to defend a game that is a ripoff - they have an avid customer base so they have no reason to change.

Just because you say something doesn't make it so.

[SamStone]

The pricing is fine, because it's the Beatles.

There's a reason why you can go into a Best Buy and get a 'greatest hits' CD from an average band for $5, whereas a single Beatles album is still $20 or so. The Beatles box set is over $200, while you can buy larger box sets of music from lesser artists for $30.

The fact is, the Beatles didn't produce all that much music, so there's a limited quantity of material available. But the material that is available is not just good, but perhaps the most significant music ever made. Quality should be worth more money, or the Mona Lisa wouldn't be worth any more than your kid's school paintings.

If 'Abbey Road' cost the same as, say, a Weezer album, I'd think there was something wrong with the market.

[colossamite]

Yes, The Beatles DLC is overpriced. But to me it's still worth every penny. I can't believe how much joy this game has already brought me and the future DLC will only add to that.

Although for people who don't have much money to spend it is really expensive and that's kinda sad.

[HeadHunter67]

The "quality vs. quantity" argument will fail the moment we compare $2 for Her Majesty to $2 for Hey, Jude. They're both Beatles songs, they'll both have dreamscapes, but how can you justify charging as much for one as the other?

I don't think anyone can - so it's obvious that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's got to be based on duration. Paying $2 for a 23-second song is like buying a Tyson fight on pay-per-view in the late 80s - since it's over almost as soon as it began, you wonder what the Hell you bought.

[cutmaclass]

The DLC situation really makes me mad - I paid $60 for less songs than what a usual rythm music game has and then I am expected to pay more to round out the discography?!

The game is fun, but I have played through all of it in less than a week. I am not going to give Rock Band anymore money when they should have put way more songs into the game in the first place.
I wonder what you must think about Guitar Hero: Metallica, Aerosmith, and Van Halen.

You're paying $60 for the same amount of songs that are in TB:RB, except that they're not Beatles songs and only half of each disc actually consists of music from the headlining bands.

You didn't get an "incomplete" game. You just got a game with as many songs as the Beatles were willing to put on the disc itself, and songs that they felt were the best to put on disc.

[chumsicles]

I don't get this thread. Is the Beatles DLC gonna cost more than $2 each?


The "quality vs. quantity" argument will fail the moment we compare $2 for Her Majesty to $2 for Hey, Jude. They're both Beatles songs, they'll both have dreamscapes, but how can you justify charging as much for one as the other?

I don't think anyone can - so it's obvious that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's got to be based on duration. Paying $2 for a 23-second song is like buying a Tyson fight on pay-per-view in the late 80s - since it's over almost as soon as it began, you wonder what the Hell you bought.

Don't they charge the same individual price for songs like Thank You Boys and They're Red Hot as they do for songs like ...And Justice For All or The Camera Eye? Why would it be any different for the Beatles?

[deathmonkey]

The "quality vs. quantity" argument will fail the moment we compare $2 for Her Majesty to $2 for Hey, Jude. They're both Beatles songs, they'll both have dreamscapes, but how can you justify charging as much for one as the other?

I don't think anyone can - so it's obvious that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's got to be based on duration. Paying $2 for a 23-second song is like buying a Tyson fight on pay-per-view in the late 80s - since it's over almost as soon as it began, you wonder what the Hell you bought.

So then what would you charge? 1 cent per second? Let's see...that would mean Free Bird would cost $5.46.

[McCREE]

Do I expect 800 songs? No. Do I expect more than 43 playable tracks for $60? YES.

This game is nowhere close to complete with its limited setlist. If one of the achievements in the game is to finish it in 24 hours - then you do not have a full game.

If you are happy with the price you paid - then fine. I am not and I will not be giving anymore money into DLC. If this game had 60-80 tracks to begin with maybe then offering more DLC would make sense to me. But what they have done is sell an incomplete game for full price and then expect the consumer to pay more to complete it.

At least if they had charged me the $100 for ALL the tracks they intended on releasing I could have gotten it all on one disc and not had to worry about downloading or storage. But they knew that price would be daunting to a customer. They sold half a game for full price, in my opinion. I regret buying this game.


how did you not know any of this before making your purchase?

the number of songs on disc was information that was released long before the game hit the shelves. heck, they even told you which songs came on the disc. dlc information, including what it will be and how much it will cost, was mentioned prior to release day. everything you complain about was public knowledge long before anyone had even purchased the game.

seems silly to get on a forum and whine about something you should have known in the first place.

[bobellis75]

I don't get this thread. Is the Beatles DLC gonna cost more than $2 each?

Don't they charge the same individual price for songs like Thank You Boys and They're Red Hot as they do for songs like ...And Justice For All or The Camera Eye? Why would it be any different for the Beatles?

Yeah. What he said.

[Lily_Mu]

They're Red Hot cost me 2$.

It's about 50 seconds long.

I love it.


Bought ...And Justice For All.

It's like 10 minutes long.

Deleted from my Wii.

Quality>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Quantity

[dabrry0523]

It looks like I had a post deleted where I outlined my opinions as clearly as I could - NICE.

This confirms that I am done with Rock Band. Rock Band 3 will have 38 tracks or something and you guys will still worship it even though they just release games to get $2 out of you at a time with their DLC.

I will be trading in my Rock Band Beatles game and I will not be purchasing any more Rock Band 2 DLC. But honestly, with people on the forums so quick to defend a game that is a ripoff - they have an avid customer base so they have no reason to change.

The ONLY reason the beatles rock band had 45 songs was becouse that takes a lot of time and they didn't have a lot of time. sure rock band 1 and 2 were built in the same amount of time but they didn't have all the complexity of turning single tracks into four tracks or putting as much time into every song with the whole realistic look of it all. im sorry but your just being an *** when your getting upset about only having 45 songs and everything else being DLC and how its overpriced. THE DLC PRICE HASN'T CHANGED FROM ROCK BAND, so i don't understand what your problem is. sure the songs are shorter but their putting much more time and effort in into the song That i think they should be payed for

[nbalive2005]

The "quality vs. quantity" argument will fail the moment we compare $2 for Her Majesty to $2 for Hey, Jude. They're both Beatles songs, they'll both have dreamscapes, but how can you justify charging as much for one as the other?

I don't think anyone can - so it's obvious that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and it's got to be based on duration. Paying $2 for a 23-second song is like buying a Tyson fight on pay-per-view in the late 80s - since it's over almost as soon as it began, you wonder what the Hell you bought.

Called optional content bro.

[HeadHunter67]

So then what would you charge? 1 cent per second? .

How about we do it like it's already done? A song as short as some on Side 2 of Abbey Road should only be $1 instead of $2.

Again - can ANYONE justify charging $2 for a 23 second song? Yes, it's "optional" - news flash... so's the game. And if they'd charged $60 for 5 songs on the disc, no one would buy it.

But if you gobble up all the DLC you're given, regardless of the price, that will only encourage this sort of thing in the future. Yes, I will concede that DLC tracks for TB:RB will give you more bang for the buck, with dreamscapes and harmonies... but seriously, the dreamscape for Her Majesty is likely going to be 15 seconds or less. If you blink at the wrong time, you'll miss it.

[Whiplash]

We were told at one point DLC could be as much as $3 for really great artists. We are pretty lucky that these didn't end up $3. Considering the quality of the songs and the length, though, $2 is perfect. $2 is the RB standard anyway, so I don't see why it's even an issue unless you think DLC in general is overpriced.

[kitlerc]

I would suggest thinking of the shortness of the song being made up by
-Inclusion of Harmonies
-Inclusion of Dreamscapes (different per song)
-The fact that they are even doing DLC. Name another Band specific game that had DLC after ther game's release.

[Runesmith]

Considering we are getting these...

1. Specially made dreamscapes for each individual song
2. Four instrument charts on four difficulties each
3. A unique mixing of a Beatles song
4. The animations for each Beatle on every song
5. Lighting effects unique to each song
6. Vocal harmonies on the songs that use them

...at 2 bucks a pop, I'd say the price is about as fair as it gets.

[Punk_Floyd76]

Given the re-mixing work for the older stuff and the dreamscape work for the newer stuff, I'm shocked (and grateful!) they aren't charging more for it.

Length of the song has never had any bearing on the cost of the track, each track is $2 (generally, sometimes we get the promotional $1 price tag, but that's never due to track length).

HMX prefers to keep it simple, $2 a track. If they started to charge by the length, would you be among the whiners when you had to pay $3 for a track that runs over 5 minutes? It cuts both ways.
Not to mention that with this album we get the medley, which really should be considered a seperate track and will be well worth the money in itself.


The DLC situation really makes me mad - I paid $60 for less songs than what a usual rythm music game has and then I am expected to pay more to round out the discography?!

The game is fun, but I have played through all of it in less than a week. I am not going to give Rock Band anymore money when they should have put way more songs into the game in the first place.

Yes because I'm sure the licensing cost for The Beatles is roughly the same as Abnormality :rolleyes: BTW RB1 had roughly the same amount of songs, was still given good reviews, even though it was half the game the Beatles is with much lower licensing costs. People forget HMX is a business, their goal is to make money. Luckily for us they choose the customer satisfaction angle to making money instead of the bombard us with fancy advertising and a ridiculous number of discs per year. I apologize that HMX doesn't wish to operate in the red just to give you a couple more tracks, but maybe you should spend more time developing common sense than ranting on a forum.

[HeadHunter67]

I would suggest thinking of the shortness of the song being made up by
-Inclusion of Harmonies
-Inclusion of Dreamscapes (different per song).
How much of either of those are you going to get in 23 seconds? I know I'm dwelling on this one song in particular, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm pleased with the high quality of the songs in the game and I know the DLC will be of equal caliber. I just don't understand people who are willing to pay more than something's worth, just because they're pleased with something else.

We want to be careful that our enthusiasm and willingness to pay is not used to justify a higher cost for DLC in the future.

[PaperMario21]

I was really expecting higher prices on Beatles dlc.
do you guys remember back when rockband launched, there were figurative prices thrown by harmonix, that depending on songs - dlc will be priced between $1-$3.
almost two years later and he haven't seen song costing over $2, and if Beatles songs aren't over $2, then nothing else ever will hehe.

[chumsicles]

How much of either of those are you going to get in 23 seconds? I know I'm dwelling on this one song in particular, but I'm trying to illustrate a point.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm pleased with the high quality of the songs in the game and I know the DLC will be of equal caliber. I just don't understand people who are willing to pay more than something's worth, just because they're pleased with something else.

We want to be careful that our enthusiasm and willingness to pay is not used to justify a higher cost for DLC in the future.


What part of "they charge the same individual price for songs like Thank You Boys and They're Red Hot as they do for songs like ...And Justice For All or The Camera Eye" do you not get? Individual songs will cost $2 wither they are 17 seconds or 17 minutes long. It's that way in Rock Band, so why should the price be lower in TB:RB?

[instantdeath999]

If each song has a unique dream scape, then I can almost say they're under-priced.

[nbalive2005]

How about we do it like it's already done? A song as short as some on Side 2 of Abbey Road should only be $1 instead of $2.

Again - can ANYONE justify charging $2 for a 23 second song? Yes, it's "optional" - news flash... so's the game. And if they'd charged $60 for 5 songs on the disc, no one would buy it.

But if you gobble up all the DLC you're given, regardless of the price, that will only encourage this sort of thing in the future. Yes, I will concede that DLC tracks for TB:RB will give you more bang for the buck, with dreamscapes and harmonies... but seriously, the dreamscape for Her Majesty is likely going to be 15 seconds or less. If you blink at the wrong time, you'll miss it.

Dont buy it then, the people who do buy it know what theyre getting and if they dont, its their fault

[hshizzle]

This would be a more effective argument if you actually demonstrated what 44 beatles tracks are really worth to you by waiting for the game to hit that price before purchasing it. Apparently you valued them at $60?

[RockBandoleer]

If your decision comes down to weighing the content versus the cost, then don't do it, and the lack of sales to such consumers will make the licensors think again.

My favourite Beatles album is Abbey Road, and I thrill to the idea of playing it, start to finish, in all four ways.

I look at the songs on standard DLC, and think... $2 a piece? No way. But, Abbey Road? No question. And my wife's a Revolver fanatic, so that one's going in our sack, too.

Microtransactions are the new marketing ploy, and the idea is to work the edge, while still having a standard. After paying out $150 for the game and instruments, $17 for DLC that's going to get played into the ground is nothing.

If you divided the cost by the amount of time I've played, RB/GH are some of the most cost-effective gaming I've ever spent money on.

What people pay for this album may or may not affect future pricing. Lot of people are looking to get rich of the Beatles, again. And since I flatly refused to buy all those CDs in their varied forms, for $2-3 more than a standard band's CD, I feel I have money to burn for this format.

Bring it on.

[gamrrpol]

I completely agree with the OP. I played TB:RB with my wife last weekend (before my XBOX died) and after a few hours we went back to RB2. I love The Beatles and think the game is done about as well as it can be done.

But from a replayability factor, it's not comparable to RB. I'd give RB a 100 replayability rating and TB:RB about a 50. I mean, how many hours can you play the same 45 songs? Even if you add the upcoming DLC you might be up to 75 songs or so? I'm guessing that a year from now there will be maybe 100 songs? All by the same band (albeit a great band).

The value, compared to RB, isn't even close. Yes, the market will support this because people go crazy over The Beatles. BUt for me this is just another game.

[RockBandoleer]

But from a replayability factor, it's not comparable to RB. I'd give RB a 100 replayability rating and TB:RB about a 50. I mean, how many hours can you play the same 45 songs? Even if you add the upcoming DLC you might be up to 75 songs or so?

So, how many songs are available for your RB/RB2? And where did they come from, DLC? So, it's the DLC, not the game?

If they release the Beatles catalogue as DLC albums, then you have 200 or so original Beatles songs.

Then, maybe... McCartney's catalogue? Lennon's? Harrison? Monstrous volume.

[Dekieon]

IT IS MY OPINION....that the tracks are overpriced because of GREED!!!! Same reason the beatles:Rock Band was released as its own game, and not just DLC.

[Ehfahq]

What your opinion based on?

[moviebuff1084]

It is over priced, but I'm still gonna buy everything.

[besitzen]

Look at it this way...Harmonix put hours of work into 1 songs and all you have to do is pay the DLC price for that one song. its not like your paying for every other persons song.

its only 2 bucks, thats what you spend on a few minutes with a hamburger. With this you get a eternity with it

[JackBNimble]

It seems to me that most Beatles fans would almost pay any price for the DLC.
As long as the TB:RB DLC pricing stays with in the RB DLC pricing then I may pick some up.

[azcoyotedog]

I would give anything to comment about the price of Beatles DLC, but since I'm on the Wii system.... guess I have nothing to say but thanks alot for making Wii users wait?? All of you who have downloaded more Beatles songs need to stop complaining about pricing... you bought the game knowing how DLC works (assuming that you have already played the RockBand game before)... ENJOY THE MUSIC and the way it's displayed in this game! By the way, I don't play my RockBand 2 or Beatles RB game for more than maybe an hour or two every other day, unlike some of you who spend up to 10 hours or more a day... no wonder many of you are complaining?? Two of the Fab Four are gone, we need remind ourselves of what the music and their lives stood for... Peace and Love! :)

[HeadHunter67]

since I'm on the Wii system.... guess I have nothing to say but thanks alot for making Wii users wait??
stop complaining about pricing... you bought the game knowing how DLC works
And, with all due respect, you bought your Wii knowing how DLC works, too. :rolleyes:

[azcoyotedog]

And, with all due respect, you bought your Wii knowing how DLC works, too. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's true, but I expected the song "All you need is Love" to be available on all platforms on release day. I recently purchased RockBand 2 so DLC was already available, thus I didn't have to wait.
I'm okay with the $2 pricetag for additional songs as long as they continue to release more Beatles songs in the future (and make them available to Wii users).

[HeadHunter67]

Yes, that's true, but I expected the song "All you need is Love" to be available on all platforms on release day.
Why would you expect that when every time they've mentioned the download, they explicitly said it was an XBox exclusive unti December?

Besides, you know that the Wii has been playing catch-up with the other consoles and still is. Your expectation isn't supported by the information available to you.

[azcoyotedog]

Why would you expect that when every time they've mentioned the download, they explicitly said it was an XBox exclusive unti December?

Besides, you know that the Wii has been playing catch-up with the other consoles and still is. Your expectation isn't supported by the information available to you.

Guess I should have wrote "I would have liked to see All you need is Love available on all systems when the game was released." My bad! (please forgive me all since I'm still kinda new to all of this)

[HeadHunter67]

OK, I can agree with that. I think it would have been nice if everyone could have gotten it at the same time. I'm not really big on "exclusives" for particular consoles, all that does is leave people out in the cold for a while.

Everyone should be able to enjoy the complete experience.