RB2: Backward compatible with RB DLC

[Keldog]

I'm typically not the kind of person that starts screaming for features in a sequel just after release of a title, so please hear me out.

If Harmonix would implement backwards compatibility from the ground up in Rock Band 2 so we would have access to the Rock Band DLC it would greatly benefit both them and obviously the gamers.

If the DLC worked for both, they could continue to sell the same music that is already available to people who buy the sequel, but didn't previously own RB AND people who just hadn't downloaded what is available and upgrade to the seqel. Obviously this would be a plus for us (the gamers) because we would have a growing library of tracks instead of starting over from scratch if/when we bought RB2.

This would be great for any game franchise, but it makes the most sense for the music games since the core gameplay changes VERY little. At the very worse, they may have to port over the old animation/lip sync'ing code I would think and only if they bothered changing it.

I'm sure there is some system limitations on the marketplace side tie-ing the DLC to specific games, but this could be overcome or worked around given enough attention and revenue potential.

[FultonPub]

WTH? RB just came out a month ago. It's a little early to be talking about RB2, if there ever is one.

[Parodygm]

WTH? RB just came out a month ago. It's a little early to be talking about RB2, if there ever is one.

No it isn't. If there are plans to work towards an RB2 within a year and the DLC isn't going to be compatible, I think it would influence my decision on whether to invest in DLC and/or a potential sequel.

I'd simply like to know if the licensing agreements on the songs preclude them being available in a sequel. That would satisfy me.

[madhat]

It is my understanding that there not be a Rock Band 2. They can just patch problems with this one and add new features that way. Why would they? Everything is included with this one. In an interview, they said that they plan to buuild this library up to 100's, possibly even over 1000 songs.

It looks like this is just the base platform.

[barbasol]

Well announcing such compatibility now could encourage people to buy more DLC if they knew it would be work for sequels. Perhaps not so much now that the game is just released but in a few months people will start being more wary.

Personally, I'd love to see all the on-disc songs work for a future sequel, but I admit there are technical and licensing problems to solve with that. As a consumer, it would be a great move though, it's not like they are going to repeat the same songs, and starting over from scratch with a sequel is kinda silly.

They've talked about RB as more of a platform than a game so it'll be interesting to see how they handle this.

[Keldog]

It is my understanding that there not be a Rock Band 2. They can just patch problems with this one and add new features that way. Why would they? Everything is included with this one. In an interview, they said that they plan to buuild this library up to 100's, possibly even over 1000 songs.

It looks like this is just the base platform.

While I hope you are right, that isn't really the "EA way". EA, Ubisoft and Activision crank out sequels for many of their big titles year over year. Can you say "Madden?" I guess the difference here is that there is more money to be made in the DLC, but they will want to keep up with GH and if they release another sequel in a year or so it will get all the attention. They keep releaseing things like Madden, Ghost Recon, etc. to keep up the hype. The engines are only marginally improved ever other year with more dramatic changes in between.

[barbasol]

It is my understanding that there not be a Rock Band 2. They can just patch problems with this one and add new features that way. Why would they? Everything is included with this one. In an interview, they said that they plan to buuild this library up to 100's, possibly even over 1000 songs.

It looks like this is just the base platform.


There's always going to be new features that could warrant a sequel. Some of it could be done in a patch though. It'll be interesting to see which way they go with it—from both a business and technical perspective.

A mere "expansion patch" does have a lot of positives. You still have the original disc and songs in the drive to start, and DLC would be expected to still work.

[Keldog]

WTH? RB just came out a month ago. It's a little early to be talking about RB2, if there ever is one.

I did preclude my statement acknowledging the timing you are speaking of. Maybe you skipped that part :) Either way, thanks for contributing.

[jakeacc]

I agree. Harmonix has said themselves that they sorta consider "Rock Band" almost like its own console, like an XBOX or PS3. They have very ambitious plans for the DLC and I can't imagine them restricting songs to a certain game. (ie. RB1, RB2)

In fact, I don't t see any reason why they need Rock Band 2 except for new game play options that aren't possible of fixing through patches.

I have been hesitant to purchase DLC until Harmonix can confirm that these songs will be compatible with future releases of the game. (just like they've said that their hardware will be compatible with future games)

[Keldog]

In fact, I don't t see any reason why they need Rock Band 2 except for new game play options that aren't possible of fixing through patches.

I also think that there really would be no "need" for a sequel, but it would most likely be done for marketing reasons. Just look at Dance Dance Revolution. For the most part, the game hasn't changed with the exceptions of a few tacked on modes, but there is a new one on every platform every year.

Granted Harmonix is a few (dozen) steps above the DDR team, but still something to consider.

[dfjdejulio]

Well announcing such compatibility now could encourage people to buy more DLC if they knew it would be work for sequels.

Yeup.

Promise me the DLC will work for sequels and I will be a lot quicker to download it.

Example: I have not downloaded the Metallica pack or the Punk pack yet. If I could get a clear statement that I could keep using them for the lifetime of the RB franchise on the XBox, I would, just to have them in reserve. Without such a statement, I will just buy the things I want to play Right Now. With such a statement, I'll buy things I might want to play, just to have them available to me.

[Ultrace]

Yeup.

Promise me the DLC will work for sequels and I will be a lot quicker to download it.
There will be no promising. And if there is, you need to take it with a grain of salt. A legal issue can always arise. Or the sequel may take a few years and appear on a different console altogether, making it impossible for compatibility. There are a lot of reasons why they can't possibly offer this promise.

I would be more than satisfied if someone from Harmonix indicates they intend to make the music compatible. That way, I'll feel confident that they will do so if they can do so.

[dfjdejulio]

There will be no promising.
Promise?

(Sorry. I have some habits left over from my time on the "World of Warcraft" forums. I'll try to stop, honest.)

[Asimovian]

While the talk of having a platform as opposed to multiple sequels makes sense to me, I also recall an interview with Harmonix just before RB came out that said, for example, that there would be no patch to allow online BWT play in this version. So I have to imagine there will be another major release down the road in a year or so.

What effect that will have on DLC is anyone's guess, of course.

[darknessmoon]

While I hope you are right, that isn't really the "EA way". EA, Ubisoft and Activision crank out sequels for many of their big titles year over year. Can you say "Madden?" I guess the difference here is that there is more money to be made in the DLC, but they will want to keep up with GH and if they release another sequel in a year or so it will get all the attention. They keep releaseing things like Madden, Ghost Recon, etc. to keep up the hype. The engines are only marginally improved ever other year with more dramatic changes in between.

The reason why there is a new Madden every year is because rosters and team stats change every year. For example, this year's Madden game probably had the Saints and Chargers as strong teams. But, for next year's Madden, seeing the way both of those teams are playing right now, they probably won't be as strong...

As for Rockband: If Harmonix has stated that they don't intend to release a Rockband 2, then I would be happy. If they do release it, then I would be happy as well, so long as I can use my peripherals from Rockband, and the DLC, and the songs from the Rockband disk.

But, we never know anything for sure...

[espher]

While I hope you are right, that isn't really the "EA way". EA, Ubisoft and Activision crank out sequels for many of their big titles year over year.

Oh, is this an EA game?

That's news to me.

[Keldog]

Oh, is this an EA game?

That's news to me.

If that was sarcasm, it was lost on me. If it wasn't, then the answer is "yes".

[Keldog]

The reason why there is a new Madden every year is because rosters and team stats change every year. For example, this year's Madden game probably had the Saints and Chargers as strong teams. But, for next year's Madden, seeing the way both of those teams are playing right now, they probably won't be as strong...

A roster update doesn't require a new game to be released. That is just data that could be added via a patch or at the worst a small DLC with new player's face models.

[Parodygm]

Aside from catering for multiple tracks, the actual song file format probably isn't that much different from the Guitar Hero franchise. I'm not sure what innovations would need to be added for a sequel. A sequel would probably change non-song related facets of the game - new venues, character models, instruments, game modes etc.

For me then it would boil down to licensing. Wasn't that a concern with potentially reprising songs for Guitar Hero (eg. GH1 songs in GH2 or GH3)? I was hoping that Harmonix had stipulated in the licensing agreements that the songs and note charts would be good for future updates, add-ons and sequels. I don't expect to hear any confirmation of that though... trade secrets and all.

[Ultrace]

For me then it would boil down to licensing. Wasn't that a concern with potentially reprising songs for Guitar Hero (eg. GH1 songs in GH2 or GH3)? I was hoping that Harmonix had stipulated in the licensing agreements that the songs and note charts would be good for future updates, add-ons and sequels. I don't expect to hear any confirmation of that though... trade secrets and all.
You're also forgetting: to my knowledge, no other two games have ever shared DLC. It might not even be possible due to the way the games interact with the system. DLC files may actually be "flagged" to be readable by only one game or such. There could be technical reasons why it doesn't work. We don't know that, but we do know that there's no precedent for DLC being shared between multiple games. I'd love for it to happen, but it might simply be impossible.

[dfjdejulio]

Aside from catering for multiple tracks, the actual song file format probably isn't that much different from the Guitar Hero franchise. I'm not sure what innovations would need to be added for a sequel.
Well, here's my idea (http://community.rockband.com/vbforum/showthread.php?p=205207#post205207)...

[espher]

If that was sarcasm, it was lost on me. If it wasn't, then the answer is "yes".

Well, that would be fine, if the answer wasn't in fact 'no'.

[SoKGiX]

so, where's our HMX guys in here to tell us that all our songs from the disc and DLC will be available for RB2?

=D i can dream... just hope that's not all it is

[Parodygm]

You're also forgetting: to my knowledge, no other two games have ever shared DLC. It might not even be possible due to the way the games interact with the system. DLC files may actually be "flagged" to be readable by only one game or such. There could be technical reasons why it doesn't work. We don't know that, but we do know that there's no precedent for DLC being shared between multiple games. I'd love for it to happen, but it might simply be impossible.

Previous non-sharing doesn't really mean anything. Be creative, be innovative. Plenty of game series have allowed importing of saves from previous versions so what's the difference? Flagging the files is something you'd have to code to detect and react to. That would mean in-house enforcement of non-compatibility or a system limitation dictated by the console's manufacturers.

Those are technical reasons for it not working. But I can't think of a solid technical reason why they shouldn't, barring major developments on the actual gameplay side of things. I don't think adding more instruments would be constructive. Even if they did, it would be trivial to allow a cut down version of the updated gameplay in a sequel.

[Ultrace]

Previous non-sharing doesn't really mean anything. Be creative, be innovative. Plenty of game series have allowed importing of saves from previous versions so what's the difference? Flagging the files is something you'd have to code to detect and react to. That would mean in-house enforcement of non-compatibility or a system limitation dictated by the console's manufacturers.

Those are technical reasons for it not working. But I can't think of a solid technical reason why they shouldn't, barring major developments on the actual gameplay side of things. I don't think adding more instruments would be constructive. Even if they did, it would be trivial to allow a cut down version of the updated gameplay in a sequel.
Certainly, they could program RB2 to recognize DLC from RB1. That's a given. Backwards compatibility with software formats is quite feasible... It's reverse backwards compatibility (RB1 recognizing RB2 DLC) that would be trickier--and even that might be possible if they were to patch RB1 after RB2's release.

No, my post was entirely about system limitations--i.e., if the PS3 or XB360's interfaces are coded in such a way that each file for DLC has a "marker" that prevents other games from accessing the file. I'm not saying this is true or even likely, but it's possible, and an example of the sort of thing that might be in play which could prevent cross-compatibility from being an option. Until we know these kinds of details, we can't have well-informed expectations of what Harmonix has to provide.

[Parodygm]

No, my post was entirely about system limitations--i.e., if the PS3 or XB360's interfaces are coded in such a way that each file for DLC has a "marker" that prevents other games from accessing the file.

Absolutely, that would be the kiss of death. It would seem unecessarily draconian for the consoles to have that built in but it's not beyond the realms of belief in this day and age. ;)

[the_spike]

I think that's one of the things they'll be definitely working with.

[Monkeychow01]

I'll say this again, just like the LAST time this thread was brough up *sighs*.

They are a business folks. The likelyhood of DLC being BC is pretty slim. While YES it would be a great idea and be nice, it does not jive with a business trying to make profit. Harmonix is a BUSINESS. They want to do whatever they can to make money. Hense if/when they release RB2, why would they make DLC compatible from RB1? Think like a BUSINESS. People who only buy RB2 would have no real reason to buy RB1. They wouldn't use to to play the DLC. Point being it is VERY unlikely businesswise that they would do this.

Look at the DDR or Beat-mania series. Look at Guitar Hero series. All of those they make you buy a new game, with new features, and new songs. The company profits because they KNOW you are going to buy the new one regardless, and STILL buy the DLC for the old game as well as the new one. Then word of mouth about songs will be to buy each game separate.

As much as it would be nice for them to help fans out that invest a lot of money in DLC, you people need to honestly not hold your breathe on this one.

[Comedian]

I agree with your assessment of their motives, but it leads me to a different conclusion. I think that the DLC will be backward compatible, simply because that is the best way for Harmonix to make money.

It's all about scale. For previous music games, the majority of the songs are on the disc and sold as part of the game. New DLC was limited, if it existed at all. In order to make money on the game, the game bundle itself had to be sold for a profit. But for Rock Band, by far the majority of the songs will be sold as DLC at $2 a pop. At this point you can afford to LOSE money on the bundle and still make cash. In fact, with all the returns I don't see how they CAN'T be losing money, but that's another topic.

Let's suppose that they release 200 DLC tracks in the first year. They've indicated there will be "hundreds", so I've picked the smallest possible number that still meets that definition. If Rock Band 2 comes out next holiday and it is NOT backward compatible with those 200 DLC, then there is no motivation for people who buy the new game to purchase that content. Sales will be limited to those customers who bought the first game, who already had a chance to buy those songs. If they had wanted them, they would have bought them already.

But if they ARE backwards compatible, then you've suddenly got a whole new group of customers who just bought Rock Band 2 but never bought the first game who can now look at this large catalog of music and start buying things they like. All of that work you sunk into creating those 200 songs is already done - you're getting new sales with no additional investment. Cha-ching, baby! This can continue over the life of the console (and both Sony and Microsoft are talking about possible 10 year lifespans for the current generation).

Of course, there are things that need to be done for this to work - which have been touched on already. The licensing must have been written to accomodate this. The infrastructure of the console must allow for this to happen. Since Harmonix has conintued to refer to Rock Band as a "platform", I'm going to assume that they've been preparing for this since day 1.

Now, there is one other option here that would fit this model and NOT make the DLC songs compatible. They could release RB1 and RB2 versions of each song, so you'd end up with a seperate library of songs on each version of the game. But I gotta think at this point that how much you would be ticking off your customers would start to enter into the equation. Customers that feel they are being ripped off (like being asked to pay again for songs they already bought once) are customers that stop buying your products and move on.

So, while I would love it if they would specifically say one way or the other (and they have not to my knowledge), I would bet hard cash that the DLC will be compatible with any future versions of Rock Band.

In fact, I AM betting hard cash. Over $40 of it so far. :)

[dfjdejulio]

Absolutely, that would be the kiss of death. It would seem unecessarily draconian for the consoles to have that built in but it's not beyond the realms of belief in this day and age. ;)
So, if they made it so one game couldn't read another game's data, how would they do it? I think each game would have to have it's own encryption key, at least on the DRM-rich XBox environment. (I do not know enough about the PS3 to speculate there.)

One would think (or at least hope) that they could include the keys for older games in newer games by the same company.

There is precedent for newer games to use game data from older games -- plenty of such precedent on the PS1 and PS2. Monster Rancher, Silent Hill, Katamari Damacy, the ".hack" series -- all have examples of newer games poking into the data from older games for some reason or another. Yeah, it's theoretically possible that something in the OS infrastructure of the PS3 or XBox 360 will forbid that, but if Sony and MSFT were paying attention to what was going on back then, I doubt they'd have done that on purpose. I mean, don't you imagine that people are going to want to move characters between games in an RPG series, as we did with the ".hack" games? Even if the support is only limited to saved games, HMX could in theory patch RB to load some DLC into a special save file to move it forward. Remember, on today's platforms we can patch the older games to help with data migration.

Anyhow. I won't give up hope yet. And hopefully the whole issue is years away from being important anyway.