What Should Download Songs Cost? [Archive] - Rock Band Forums // Rock Band®

rspooky

04-12-2007, 01:26 PM

seriously? *I am not a big fan of this downloadable content , but is the new generation of things. Personally I'd rather buy an expension disc ( for instant, clasic rock, country,heavy metal etc) But if *a must I would say keep a structure close to what Itunes and similair websites ask for songs. So something like $0.99 /song *********************and $9.99-$12.00 for a "album" (14 songs prechosen by hamonix) Secondly I find the $60,- price for games a bit much, it is mostly a psycological thing perhaps, but the rise in games this gen cooincides with me now having 3 kids to care for. I tend to be more picky with my game purchaes, Where as$50,- and under*makes*me*impulse*buy*more*often*and*in*the*e nd*spend*more*money*on*games.* It might seem odd, but that is the way it works for me. About mega-hit songs, what is this concidered to be ? for some it is the latest release, for others a good old classic. Therefore I think it can be dangerous to end up with a higher priced "hit" song. Honestly I do believe that after the success of GH, and because the collanoration with MTV some (if not all) artists will be practicly paying you guys to please be put in the game :) On the question of orginial masters or cover, I have said this before and I wills ay it again , I am a GREAT fan of the cover artists you guys at hmx use. Especially for some of the older tracks, because the quality is outstanding and often even better then the original recording. So as far as that is concerend the covers are NOT a problem for me. Lets hope for a great pricing structure.

Huskie

04-12-2007, 03:08 PM

Using the price points for the Guitar Hero games at which I purchased the games at, they come out like this:Guitar Hero: $40 game / 30 tracks (not including bonus) = $1.33/song$40 game / 47 tracks (includes bonus) = $.85/songGuitar Hero 2:$50 game / 40 tracks (not including bonus) = $1.25/song$50 game / 64 tracks (includes bonus) = $.78/song ===========================I made no attempt to guess at a price for the game engine itself and the encoding of these tracks. That has to be factored in there somewhere. If it is not, then Harmonix makes these games for free? I think not but for the sake of this discussion, I'll just divided the total cost of game by the tracks. 
 ... 40-50 songs costs $59.95  This breaks down to $1.20 => $1.50 per song. This comes within the range above without counting the bonus tracks. So what about the bonus tracks? Should we treat them as free content , gifts from the bands that make them, handing them out like business cards? Should they pay Harmonix to encode their song(s) and let us download them for free? I haven't, in my entire life, payed for a business card that was handed to me. Wasn't it mentioned in one of the recent articles about Rock Band that the DLC will be used to promote new bands/songs? Now there's a great concept. We get to hear (just like the radio - free) and play their new songs, free. We like their music and we go out to buy their album. Sounds just like the radio, something that has been going on since a long time ago with the added bonus of us playing on a plastic guitar as opposed to tapping our fingers on the steering wheel. 
... but many of those are
songs you probably wouldn't have chosen. If you could add one of your
favorite songs, what's it worth to you?That's for sure. That is the main reason behind me buying Guitar Hero 1 this past Friday but that one isn't much different to GH2 in regards to songs I do not want. IF we have the choice to purchasing one song and not packs of songs containing tracks we could care less about, using the above prices per songs from above, I would say somewhere around $1. Like I mentioned before, the engine must be factored into the base game cost because that is not free. Arguments about it can't be compared to iTunes is correct ... for different reasons. Songs downloaded from iTunes are not restricted to be heard from the computer that downloaded it. They can be enjoyed elsewhere. DLC on consoles can not. DLC does have to be encoded for the game but with this restriction to where you can enjoy it, I think it's a wash and $1 per song sounds reasonable to me... with a catch.I am not a fan of having to pay for something I do not want. That will usually lose the entire sale from me. If DLC will only be in bundles which include tracks I do not want, I will not buy it. Doing so changes the price per song for me as I will not be including the ones I do not want into the 'savings'.
If we could only get a mega-hit song by charging a higher price,
should we? Should there be more than one price point? Although it sounds like a fair way to release those songs, you might still be accused of trying to take advantage of the buyers if it is not the same prices across the board. And one's mega-hit song is not everyone's mega-hit song. For me, everything that I enjoy hearing is a megahit song. 
Are songs from
original masters worth more to you than covers? Only if I downloaded them from iTunes and were listening from my car, home, iPod, etc. I'm playing notes from a song that band wrote, I'm not in that band. But if the cover is really unlistenable, then the answer would be ... yes.

Kaboobi

04-12-2007, 03:24 PM

I'd be hard pressed to pay more than $1.50 a song except for special cases. "If we could only get a mega-hit song by charging a higher price,
should we?" I don't see why not, I'd pay $1-$1.50 for pretty much any song released on the marketplace, and maybe $1.75 for some crazy awesome mega song that I've been dying to play.  But $2 on a song?  Probably not. <div style="padding: 10px;"> Should there be more than one price point? I don't really want to say there should be more than one price point, but like the case above, I wouldn't mind paying a little more for some crazy awesome song, or if you released, say a pack of 10-12 songs for $10, I'd get that if most of the songs were good and the regular price point was $1.25 for each song. "Are songs from
original masters worth more to you than covers?"It really depends on the artist.  Wavegroup does a great job with a lot of their covers, but there are a few songs, namely the singing, that sounds off.  I'd easily pay $1.50 for a cover of say, a Muse or Radiohead or RATM song that has a distinctive singer that Wavegroup won't be able to touch, but other than that, I'm fairly indifferent.  </div>

xarexerax

04-12-2007, 03:47 PM

Personally, I think that a range of prices should be available, depending on the sort of content that is being sold; also, there should, as mentioned above, probably be some sort of free or near-free distribution under certain circumstances.
For instance -- say I'm in a small-time (local) band, and I'd like to get some of my content out there for people to hear and/or play around with. I pay a small fee to HMX (should be possible if I've got enough time and cash to do gigs) to have the song encoded and then released to DLC status, available for free. Alternatively, you could get the same songs offered sans the fee paid by the artist for a lesser cost than you'd expect from a big-name artist/song, cover thereof, or whatever else. This way, those who have the means (and the desire) to get their songs out there can eat the cost themselves, or they can let the more adventurous pay small amounts to get their hands on up-and-coming artists.
As for charging more for "big hits" or for master copies vs. covers, I agree that it depends on the band. Now, I know that Harmonix is teeming with musicians, so I'm sure they can agree that, within certain restrictions based on the licensing, this kind of thing could again be brought back to the real source of the music -- the artists. Now, I understand that the label group(s) are gonna want their cut as well, so that's only so far -- but some artists, I'm sure, would again be willing to "eat" the cost of encoding and releasing these things to get their music out there.
Overall, I think the $0.99 song should be the "standard" for known/label-signed artists and bands (again, I cite the iTunes pricing strategem), and other material should be available based on its own pricing guide influenced by all the things that come forth from the recording industry. And honestly, with the quality of cover recordings that HMX has put out there in the past, I'd say that using the same pricing for both is the best way to go. If you're willing to charge full price for the game full of 'em, why would you bend the precedent rules just because you're now talking expansion content rather than core content? It doesn't make sense; besides, with the deals that have been released, I think quite a bit of high-quality master cuts will be available so that it won't be as much of an issue.

miketoast

04-13-2007, 11:11 AM

I agree, I think $1 would be a fair price for a new song and would personally like to see an a la carte menu of songs rather than only prepackaged groupings.  Maybe something along the lines of a build your own set list.
That being said I wouldn't be against purchasing songs that I didn't know/like since they're basically more songs to play rather than playing the same stuff over and over until new songs dropped
As far as original recordings I would prolly pay a little bit more but not much.  Most of the covers are pretty good on GH 1 & 2 so it really doesn't bother me.
 Would I pay more for the newest megahit?  Who's claiming it's a megahit?  Alot of people like that emo crap that's all over now but I can't stand the ???.  So prolly not.  I would expect all songs to be the same price with the possible exception of songs that have been posted for awhile and have gone kinda stale.  Drop the price and sales pick back up.

Trevor

04-13-2007, 12:54 PM

I feel that for Rock Band, songs should be more affordable. I mean, according to the information I have received, the instruments to play this game will be rather expensive. Then you have the console, which is $400+. I know there will be a marketing scheme involved, just like the old 8-track tapes. You have to buy some other songs before you can play the song you want.  I believe a good pricing for:Cover song: $1.00 USOriginal song: $1.60 USOriginal song by unsigned artist: $.25If Harmonix can make a section that features bands that are unsigned, they can make more money, and some of the audience playing the game might strike gold and find a song they like. Just my two cents!

sfu_lifer

04-13-2007, 01:48 PM

I just feel like you should aim as close as you can to iTunes pricing (unless the tracks are not covers then feel free to double).  500 points for 3 songs is pretty much uproar territory as Activision has seen (doesn't seem like they care so hopefully it will once it hits them where it hurts: the bottomline).  I think as many polls in many gaming forums have shown, 100 points seems to be very acceptable territory.

tbradshaw

04-14-2007, 12:04 PM

What an important topic, and I'm amazingly pleased to see some constructive commentary on the subject here in the forums.  I'm almost surprised to see how many people have came to similar conclusions as my friends and I have.  However, I still can't resist posting my commentary.
Guitar Hero 2 Downloadable Content
I'm still in the process of acquiring GH2 for the 360, after buying the GH games and several after-market guitars it's been difficult to justify the new expense.  However, the news of GH songs released for the GH2 engine and the thought of playing any of the difficult tracks with GH2's new hammer-on and pull-off system was just too much to resist.
So my roommates and I had a friend bring over a 360 and we immediately went to critiquing the game and it's new content.  I purchased the "second" song pack, Frankenstein, Killer Queen, and Take It Off for my friend's system, just so I could try things out.
The price was the only downside to the acquisition, but after experiencing the content I came to different conclusions about the price than I expected.
Is $2 a song too much?  It depends on how you define "too much".  After experiencing the great GH songs on the GH2 engine, there's no doubt that rhythm games as a platform for content consumption is a huge winner.  Would I pay $2 for every single song in GH?  Well, yes.  And the economist in me says that this is the price that the market will bear, so it's probably a fair price.
The gamer in me?  I'm bummed.  At $2 a track, I'm not happy or proud about my purchase.  In economics terms, my consumer surplus is pretty much zero.  While I would still buy every single song from GH at $2, I feel absolutely zero good will towards the providers or the tunes.  Certainly my tolerance for mistakes or poor interpretation in the songs is less than zero.  The first time I purchase a new track for GH and I feel the sequencing is poor, I'm going to be pissed.  The price makes me critical of the product and those that are releasing it.
Also, this lack of consumer surplus means that I'm not interested in buying the system.  If the tracks were less, I would use that consumer surplus to justify purchasing the platform.  As such, I will not be buying an xbox 360 for GH2.  (Hopefully one of my roommates will not come to the same conclusions and will buy the game anyway. :)
Rock Band Downloadable Content Pricing
To say that I'm excited about the game is an understatement.  Sometimes I fear I might be obsessive about the prospect of Rock Band.  I think about it at least once every day, a frequency which few of lifes pleasures enjoy.
But the prospect of paying $2 per song has me feeling anxiety about the investment.  I'm going to be purchasing a PS3 for the release, along with one of each of the peripherals.  It's a big purchase for me, and will probably force me to leave my dated and beat up Powerbook G4 in commission for another year or two.
But you know what?  That's fine.  I've already thought it over, and I think a game with the amazing potential as Rock Band is worth 600+80+80+80+40+60 dollars for a PS3, guitar, guitar, drums, microphone, and game.  But a huge portion of that potential is the downloadable content.
Most importantly, that means as a consumer I'm expecting the consumer surplus I experience from purchasing a butt-ton of extra songs to eventually outweight the expense of the platform.  But remember, at $2 a song I would have zero consumer surplus from the extra tracks!  I'm now very nervous that Rock Band isn't worth the investment.
Conclusions
$2 is right on target for the maximum that the market will bear.  The commentary all over the web supports this.  Lots of fans are "begrudingly" purchasing the content.
Does this mean that it is the best price?  The most profitable price?  I'm betting not.  The price elasticity of demand for me, a hardcore fan that dreams GH at night, is pretty inelastic.  Gouging me for profit would work.
But if Rock Band is to be a true platform for music enjoyment, if it is going to be the breakout success that GH already is, it's going to want to reach more than just the "hardcore fan" audience.  You're going to want to reach everyone!  The casual gamer has a much more sensitive approach to price and as such as a much more elastic demand.
$1 is often mentioned in this forum, and everyone I've talked to seems to agree that the "iTunes model" is generally considered the exciting price point.  At $2 a song, I buy a lot of songs but casual gamers buy little or none.  At $1 a song casual gamers buy tracks habitually and I buy every freaking track that's released.
I think the "iTunes model" is the most profitable, both for you and for us--the gamers.

Edgehopper

04-14-2007, 02:41 PM

At some bundle size, it should be about $1/song.  That's the standard iTunes model, and it's the average price for songs with game engine and all for most music games.Note that the more tracks we get to play, the more we'd be willing to pay for a song.  A Rock Band version of Bark at the Moon will probably be more valuable than a Guitar Hero version of Bark at the Moon, since it'll have additional vocal and drum game tracks.  With that in mind, 160 points for a new song, master recording, with all 4 game tracks in Rock Band, might be reasonable (though on the high end.)  But that can't be the only pricing available, because the hardcore fans will want to buy every track and should get the chance to do so at a more reasonable bulk price.

FrankieB

04-15-2007, 12:55 AM

Lots of you have been contacting us regarding the uproar today over
Activision's pricing of the download songs for GH2 for Xbox 360. First,
I feel we should point out that Harmonix does not set those prices, nor
did we put the song packs together. We just encoded the songs.But the reaction today does raise some interesting questions and we'd love to hear your thoughts.A
next-gen game with 40-50 songs costs $59.95, but many of those are
songs you probably wouldn't have chosen. If you could add one of your
favorite songs, what's it worth to you? 
If we could only get a mega-hit song by charging a higher price,
should we? Should there be more than one price point? Are songs from
original masters worth more to you than covers?Thanks for providing input.  I am new to these forums and I would like to give my opinions and share my thoughts! I was one of those very upset fans when the song packs came out at such a high price, especially when I did the math and figured how much it'd cost if I bought all of GH1 that way. Not very happy, and the biggest reason is because I can get the game much cheaper...if I didn't own it already. I feel ripped off. But lets say those song packs had something brand new. Giving me the same song with an extra note chart for another instrument feels like a rip off to me, especially at the price. If the song packs had 3 new songs, covers or originals, with both a lead and rhythm/bass lines, I feel I would have gladly paid the 500 Microsoft Points.So far I feel the covers in both Guitar Hero games have been phenomenal (with the exception of a few, in my opinion) and therefore it does not matter to me whether or not the song is an original, although it is a pleasant surprise to hear it on another medium and know I can play that note chart. I hope that was clear enough to understand!

Diapason

04-17-2007, 01:40 PM

I truly believe that 150 points is the maximum I would be willing to pay for one tune.I
won't get deep into real money pricing, as I'm from Europe and the
change rates could be confusing. But I'd say that the maximum for me
would be 1.50 euro for a single song. 
In addition, considering how music taste is completely
subjective, I believe that setting a higher price for "the new big hit"
is okay, as long as the price goes down to normal rate after a while (2
months?). This way, if I really like it, I download it immediately and pay for the
"It's so great, I want it now" factor (maximum 1.80 euro) otherwise I can
wait and pay the normal rate. 
Also, I completely agree with the idea of allowing small
bands/unsigned artists in the whole DLC project. Maybe it is
possible to add a feature (just like in GH2) for DLC where the game
plays a medium-to-low quality version of the first 15/20 seconds of the
highlighted downloadable song. The user would then be able to get a
hint of the unknown band/song and see if he likes it enough to download
it.

Randy_McOwen

04-23-2007, 07:09 PM

I dont know really, maybe you should sell "song packages" instead of one song only - or you could do both - but 0.99 seems like a nice price for one song.

bounchfx

04-24-2007, 01:30 AM

I would personally LOVE it if they were itunes priced, but you guys gotta realize theres a lot more work put into making one of these than what itunes does.

But honestly, they should be cheaper. On that note - if they aren't cheaper.. at least get GOOD bundles, not this bull where you pack three totally unlike songs. Better yet, do single songs, and offer an option for downloading all of them for a huge discount, say, 40$, the price of the ps2 game. seems fair enough to me.

For the love of god though, do not bundle Pantera with two incredibly easy and annoying songs, etc. Put Cowboys From Hell, Bark At The Moon, and Frankenstein or whatever together in one. Or bundle by tier. Whole last tier 7 bucks how about that.

but the current structure? I broke down and bought one yeah, but only because I really wanted bark at the moon. As for the others? I will not spend a dime until the price is lowered more, (and maybe it'd be nice if you reimbursed those who had bought some with one free DL of another song pack) and theres a lot of guitar hero freaks like me who, as much as they love the game, feel betrayed at the prices asked.

Please do something about it!

If you're asking me: Single Songs, 1.25-1.50 each, or 40 for all of them, and if you DO continue bundles.. please put like together with like. It's really annoying buying a song pack with only one song you like. Ugh.

Thanks!

EvilAvatar

04-28-2007, 03:57 AM

Reaction from my readers indicates that the most a downloadable song should cost is $1.00 per song. It isn't about making a price comparison between an iTunes song and a programmed song cover for a video game - it is a cost expectation built up from the price of Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II.

If you are going to charge $60.00 for 40 - 50 songs then the most you can charge per song is $1.00 - $1.25, not the $2.00+ that Microsoft wants Activision to charge.

I suspect that as more Guitar Hero II song packs come out and Microsoft finds less and less people buying each pack that they will finally realize the price that the market will support.

Brock_Landers

05-05-2007, 05:13 AM

I would pay extra for mega-hits and think most people would actually be okay with it, as long as Harmonix/MTV didn't stretch the label too far. Led Zepplin, Metallica.. that kind of stuff seems fair (especially considering how much trouble it is to get stuff from these guys). But just getting #1 on the billboards charts isn't enough.. it's really gotta be some timeless tracks that everyone can instantly go "oh yeah, classic."

------------------

and I think there may be some key factors in why the price point for GH DLC has to be higher than itunes... coding is one that's also been mentioned, but there's most likely also a fee that needs to go to the artists/labels and/or royalties with it (since DLC probably wasn't included in the original contracts).

And there's also another factor for the bundling + price.. the simple point that yes, buying all DLC will cost you around the same as GH2 with a controller.. but Activision most likely are banking that people wouldn't buy all DLC no matter what the cost

... So when you buy a game with 50 or so tracks for a certain price point, you're buying bulk and they're not going to be stuck with a bunch of tracks that may possibly have cost them more to re-licence than what they make from them.

Course, this is all just conjecture on my part. It may just be money grubbing executives for all I know. If Harmonix was forced to go higher than this $1 price point that seems to be the general consensus, for Rock Band, they'd do best to explain the reasoning why or face the wrath of angry internet forums :D

----------------------

EDIT** Oh yeah, as far as masters or covers go.. the cover job seems to be pretty damn good so far.. I'd only ask for original masters for vocalists with really distinctive/hard to imitate voices. As such is obvious with the lack of an original Axl Rose or Zach De La Rocha in GHII

SoraRikuVGM

05-05-2007, 10:40 PM

I say you choose what 3 you want for 1.50 bucks.

vichnaiev

05-08-2007, 03:16 PM

My opinion is: I don't care much about individual songs. I have my favorites, of course, but what's important for me in the micro transactions / DLC is that I have the option to buy the whole stuff for a lower price.

I mean 500 MPs for 3 songs is not bad, but I would like to get something like 6 songs for 800 MPs (instead of 1000), 12 for 1500 and so forth.

If you don't provide discounts for largers packages we'll end up paying 200 bucks for the same 50 songs (or whatever the qty of songs is) we got at GH 1 for $50.

deathstick

05-08-2007, 11:52 PM

Even KR's pricing was reasonable....$5 for 5 songs, and there was a little bit for everyone to enjoy. But that was the past....and those songs were covers. Of course with master tracks (not to mention Microsoft DLC servers, bandwith, etc...) comes more licensing and more people to pay, so it gets complicated, naturally.

If RedOctane put the whole GH1 game up for $50 I would have bought it in a heartbeat, but they decided to charge approx $20 for 9 songs, which ends up being more than GH2 for the 360 to buy all the tracks.

Itunes pricing has become an online standard because so many people understand it and it's reasonable compared to the $18 you pay to get a cd at the mall. They've eliminated the middleman and Apple takes their cut, and the labels and artists get the rest.

(BTW, on a totally unrelated sidenote...Joel Zumaya from the Tigers is going to miss 12 weeks with a ruptured tendon in his right hand. GH-related, perhaps ;) )

Just keep it reasonable, plain and simple.

WildWalker

05-09-2007, 02:53 AM

Downloadable content is there to keep peoples interest in the game. Of the games I have downloaded content for so far on xbl (PGR2, Links 2004 and GH2) none have been free.

I think the pricing is a little high, it was about 800 points for a few songs, to us in the UK that is around $3 a song, a bit high, especially as a lot of the songs are old (I could buy a greatest hits album with most of these songs on for a few dollars)

I guess we have the choice to buy or not, but like a lot of GH players, I want the songs from GH1 as I think a lot of the are better than the GH2 tracks. But at the current pricing it's going to cost me 10 times more to donwload the tracks in drip drip fashion that it cost me to buy GH1 with a guitar for my PS2.

Miffed :mad:

WW

vichnaiev

05-09-2007, 08:55 AM

But at the current pricing it's going to cost me 10 times more to donwload the tracks in drip drip fashion that it cost me to buy GH1 with a guitar for my PS2

That's my point. I'm didn't buy any of the packages yet. I'm waiting and hoping that someone with a nice business feeling on RedOctane will say: "hey guys, let's keep charging the same for 3 songs packs, but let's offer some larger 20 songs packages where the price per song is WAY lower."

TheLastDeadMouse

05-10-2007, 12:22 PM

Paying $1.50 to $2 dollars for new songs does not seem unreasonable to me. What bothers me is the price to download songs from the original guitar hero to guitar hero 2. New songs would have to be recorded, edited, mixed, and have the input programmed for them, so that price range is entirely reasonable. This work has already been done for original guitar hero songs, so there's no reason a should pay that much just to move a song from playstation to xbox.

vichnaiev

05-10-2007, 12:34 PM

I guess the reasons why it's not cheaper are:

1 - they have a license to use that songs in a PS2 game, they can't simply use the same license to insert them as DLC on xbox360, that license has to be extended and more money has to be spent. (not saying you implied that on your text, it's just that some people seem to believe they have no licensing costs)

2 - GH songs did NOT have the coop, so they have to go back to their masters, separate the guitar/bass track and create new inputs for all 4 difficulties.

In the end it's not as simple as copying and pasting the files in a different folder. I'm not justifying the high prices, I'm only thinking about some reasons why it isn't cheaper even if the songs are already there.

Brock_Landers

05-14-2007, 12:23 AM

and let's all keep in mind folks, that for RB they're going to have four instrument tracks to code as well as each's difficulty level. Which if that's the same as GHII, makes for 16 different things HMX has fiddle with before it's ready.

like I said, if they are going to have to release higher than the $1.50 price point they'll be best served explaining to the public whyso. Coz there's obviously more going on behind the scenes than many of know.

BeckRokk

05-18-2007, 01:46 PM

Honeslty, you people who keep saying iTunes this and iTunes that are disgusting. What can you do with songs besides listen to them? Maybe watch visual plugins via Winamp or what have you, but there's not much else to it. That's why 99 cents is so reasonable.

Now, with GHII and Rock Band, what do you get to do with your songs? You can INTERACT with them. With the GHII DLC, they've reworked GHI songs to not only utilize the changes of the GHII engine, but also added bass parts (!) and reworked two player modes in general. Honestly, they should probably be charging $3 a song. I would pay it because I understand the work that goes into what HMX puts out for us. Those of you who are outraged probably don't know the value of a dollar nor the worth of labor. You're spoiled.

Now with Rock Band, there are going to be four instrument tracks, and an indeterminate amount of interactivity(we don't know the details yet, do we), and most of them are supposed to be master tracks. The problem here becomes what the worth of master tracks are. Would Ziggy have had the same impact in GHI if it hadn't been so drastically reworked and yet sound so authentic? Yet Possum Kingdom is a very solid master track that is an excellent song as well. Concurrently, while it's a great song, John the Fisherman wasn't exactly challenging.

I guess the problem is whether or not a master track of a song has diverse enough parts to justify using it. If it's not challenging enough, I don't think it's worth it. I'd rather have a reworked cover. So as far as pricing goes, I'm more than willing to pay $3.50 for a cover and $4.50 for a worthy master track.

I'm sure most of you are D: right now, but that's fine. I'm not exactly rich here, folks. I work at Target for minimum. I just think that HMX is more than worth my money considering all the hours I spent online with Frequency and Amplitude for free. It's going to cost a lot to run those Rock Band servers, and I'm more than willing to contribute.

Maherj

05-18-2007, 02:05 PM

For Master Tracks, I'd be willing to pay up to 100 MS Points per song, maybe 150. The GHI DLC was a bit higher then most would have liked, I doubt there would have as many angry posts if these songs were new and master tracks of songs we haven't played yet.

Just as long as the DLC keeps flowing I'll be happy with whatever price is set! Just do us all a favor and don't promise us monthly content only to shaft us after the release dates.

kjetterman

05-18-2007, 02:31 PM

Honestly, the most i'd want to pay ever would be $1.50/song. That to me is reasonable seeing as how the game and the controller are both fairly expensive. JMO

cyan1de

05-18-2007, 05:02 PM

About a $1.50 is as high as I would go. I pray there aren't random bundles either... I'd like to be able to pick out individual songs, but then again, having either tiered bundles and bundles by genre with an exclusive song might also be reasonable.

As far as covers vs. masters, I'm torn on the subject. With certain artists, I want the song to be spot on, vocals especially. However, many of the songs from the GH franchise lended more character to the game as covers. Simple songs became more fun to play.

Brock_Landers

05-18-2007, 06:26 PM

Another thing is that I kinda feel as though any big songs saved for the moneyshot really need to be master tracks.

It can be a little dissapointing when you're like "I reached this track, finally! ROCK N ROLL BABY YEAH!!" and then realize that the vocals are off. Course it really only makes a difference if you're familiar with the song in the first place, which is why it's all the more important for rock anthems and such.

Of course the big-name artists are probably gonna the ones HMX has the most trouble coughing up master tracks for a reasonable price as well, unfortunately :/ Ah well, I'm pretty confident they'll try to do what's best for us

c0nd0rd4myt

05-18-2007, 10:55 PM

personally, considering dev time and how much work would be going to keying these songs, as well as paying the artists to make covers (or getting the actual songs) and all the extra costs that you guys face in making these songs available to us, i think 2 bucks for 3 songs is dirt cheap.

benjamin

05-19-2007, 06:09 PM

jameskopacz

06-07-2007, 05:26 PM

i wouldnt pay more than 1.25$

in the end would it be better if they sold 500,000 @ 1$ or 200,000 at 2$? (i think thats what activision has said theyve sold so far of the gh2 downloads.)

im 100% sure that if the price was 1$ per song they would of sold a TON more DLC.

Brock_Landers

06-07-2007, 05:51 PM

The guys investing the money in the DLC should have gotten your 100% assurance beforehand then, I guess :P

Yeah, but seriously.. unless licencing and coding was dirt cheap (which you might say I'm 100% sure it wasn't) I can understand where they're coming from.. I just think they would have had a lot less backlash if they explained the reasoning for the cost, when people--perhaps unfairly--expect a certain price point due to the iTunes model.

c0nd0rd4myt

06-07-2007, 06:56 PM

nah theyd still whine and moan, and just say that they were making excuses and more concerned about making money than making a good game, which to some extent is correct.

ANY businesses prime goal should be to make money. i hate these gamer people who think game developers are doing this stuff out of the goodness of thier hearts.

bpaty22

06-07-2007, 08:33 PM

I think 50 mp (microsoft points) for 4 songs is a good deal!

sa_nick

06-07-2007, 10:32 PM

I live in Australia and there's pretty much no doubt they'll cost 1.5x more down here, which sucks.

I wont be paying anymore than $1.50 per song. 5 bucks for 4 songs sounds cool.

How much $$ is 50 "microsoft points"?

Huskie

07-09-2007, 03:27 AM

*bump because this topic should never be on page 15*

Folks,
Here's your chance to voice your concerns for DLC pricing.
This topic was started by the Big Daddy himself at Harmonix.

sa_nick

07-09-2007, 04:00 AM

5 bucks for 4 songs? nah that aint gonna happen. I'm gonna change to 5 bucks for 3 songs.... 4 would be nice though... And what's up with a few ppl on this thread, says they have 0 posts, but they've posted here.

Huskie

07-09-2007, 04:23 AM

And what's up with a few ppl on this thread, says they have 0 posts, but they've posted here.
It was an original topic from the old forums. Post counts weren't carried over.

DrIsosceles

07-09-2007, 04:28 AM

I wouldn't mind up to $2 a song, I'm the only member of my "band" with a 360 so whenever we want new songs we'll all just chip in.

What I really want is the option to go to Best Buy and pay an extra $10 for an album and get a special code with it that I could use to download the album for Rock Band

idiotec

07-09-2007, 04:34 AM

TheRocker

07-09-2007, 04:42 AM

In my opinion , the extra .99 is because as you know it isnt just the song for the guitar its also vocals , and drums

1 song 1.99
5 song pack 5.99
10 song pack 10.99
20 song pack 20.99

sushi111

07-09-2007, 08:09 AM

1 song should be about one dollar US, and an album should be anywhere between 10-20 dollars. They could include MTV Urge in this service.

masterx1918

07-09-2007, 08:41 AM

$2-$2.50 ONLY if we can buy ONE song at a time. I'd only pay $3 for a said pack of 3 songs where there's 1 song I want

Brock_Landers

07-09-2007, 09:32 AM

TBH, I think most people on this board are willing to pay a higher price than "average" people.

In GH2, you get 74 tracks (360 version) for $60 (not including price of guitar controller). That works out to $0.81 a song. Now, if you split it between the well known tracks (46), and the bonus, less known tracks (24), it works out to about $1 for each "well known" track, and $0.50 each for the bonus tracks. Now, the cost to the game maker for those songs are higher than add-on songs since the first batch also included all the other cost to develop the game.

Now, the cost to produce the songs for RB with all 4 instruments would be higher, but how much?

IMO, $0.50 for less know artists, and $1.00 for popular artists, each, is right about on par with what I think is a fair price for DLC songs.

There is one flaw with this way of thinking (and it is a fair enough calculation mainly).. now I won't mention that they've got double the amount of work to do for Vocals and Drums, because that's pretty obvious.. but what you do have to take into account is that those 74 tracks that came with GH2 were garaunteed sold.

Anyone who bought a copy of GH2 was saying "yepp, I want all 74 tracks.. here's $60 thanks" So it was essentially buying in bulk.

DLC, however, there's no garauntee.. maybe 80% of people with Rock Band will buy a song they licenced.. maybe only 40% will.. the cost needs to be higher to account for the sales they don't make.

BUT... it does depend on how they're licencing it all.. if they're just paying a lump sum to the record company for rights then I think anything around $1 is a pipe dream that will have you all weeping in your sleep.. if it's royalty based and the musician/label gets a percentage of what gets sold.. then we may actually be able to see reasonably priced DLC. (But I still think expecting itunes prices is pretty unfair, considering the extra work that goes into it)

xCHRISx

07-09-2007, 01:25 PM

I would say between $1 and $1.50 per song is a reasonable price point. I think we've all seen the uproar the GHII pricing has caused, and hopefully it will make a difference when HMX are figuring out the economics of their DLC.

I only wish us Canadians didn't get so screwed on the price of MS points, it makes things so much more expensive. We pay $1 for just 60 MS points up here, so the GHII stuff is almost $9 per song pack. Ouch, no?

sushi111

07-09-2007, 01:34 PM

AdamBomb629

07-11-2007, 12:28 PM

First, thanks for letting us voice our opinion on this. It is appreciated.

I'll add on to what others have said already in this thread... I am totally behind the pricing in proportion to an entire game. I would gladly pay $60 for an expansion disc with another 40 - 70 songs (like the original game itself). That keeps it in line being around $1 per song. Honestly, if you want me to buy a ton of content, it needs to be priced aggressively. The GH2 packs (which I understand you had nothing to do with the pricing) were just too expensive. To pay about $2+ per song and essentially pay $20 or so for 9 songs is just way too much. That is about my maximum output. Keep them inline with buying a whole disc of new songs and I'm in... WAY IN.

Can't wait for the game!

Jerrid_DOMN8R

07-11-2007, 12:51 PM

Hard to make multiple price points for DLC tracks.
It's definately worth it for me to play a little more than $.99/song, because I get to "play" it. But it's not worth the $2+ we are paying for the few and far between DLC track packs right now.
$1.50 is my threshold - maybe even 125Microsoft points, but this bull**** right now is going to backfire if they are promising all kinds of downloadable content.

Albums - full albums, or "career-spanning" compilations like the mentioned Metallica one would be worth up to $20 for me (1600 microsoft points) - as long as there's a minimum of 12 songs. If 10 songs, I'd pay $16, <10 songs, $12 or less

sushi111

07-11-2007, 01:06 PM

Id say 15 bucks is fair for something like Whos Next, with each song costing about 1.50. Cheaper would be even great. Maybe 1.20 a song or even a buck?

All I know is Im paying ANYTHING to get my hands on Whos Next. Jesus this game is amazing.

LoneRanger17

07-12-2007, 05:59 AM

I would guess with licensing fees, royalties, and development costs, I would expect to pay about $1.50 on the low end and $2.00 on the high end per song.
I know some said earlier that ITunes only charge $.99 per song...but that has been increased to $1.25 (I think) if you want the mp3 version and not the DRM version.
I'm not sure how much that is when translated into Microsoft points :-)

Magnet

07-12-2007, 07:00 AM

If you could add one of your favorite songs, what's it worth to you?

I'd pay pretty high for one of my favorites, maybe even up to $5 for one. But most of the DLC songs offered probably won't fall into my favorite category. I think, considering the scope of gameplay with these songs (that 5 way sound switch on the Strat will be amazing to use), $2 would be the most fair price per song. Maybe offering three songs bundled for $5 would be good too. The highest fair price without delving into unfair territory is probably $2.50 per song.

If we could only get a mega-hit song by charging a higher price, should we?

Definitely, you should. If it's that big of a hit, you'll probably (at the very least) break even with the profit. Less people might buy it due to its higher pricing, but more people would be interested in having it and sales wouldn't suffer there.

Should there be more than one price point?

Absolutely. A "Farewell Myth" Made In Mexico song is probably worth $0.03 to me, while a good "Paradise City" Guns N' Roses song would be worth about $2.50 to me. I think there's two good possibilities with indie bands. You could offer them for free (which might drive interest in priced songs if people start downloading free ones and realize how cool the idea is). Or you could charge a much lesser price than the other songs. If you had to charge for Indie songs, the most fair price the consumers are likely to pay would probably be $0.50. I think the highest fair price for Indie songs you could get away with without hurting sales would be $1.00.

Are songs from original masters worth more to you than covers?

Definitely whenever possible the original masters should be used. I realize some older songs can't be used due to their age and either need to be covered or not used at all. I'm perfectly fine with covers for those, but otherwise original masters are worth so much more than covers.

Thanks for asking for all of our opinions. I realize this topic is three months old already and the DLC pricing point might already be internally resolved, but posting thoughts can't really hurt.

defmonkey

07-12-2007, 07:19 AM

Okay, here's my 2 cents. Everybody is giving great advice and I'm borrowing bits.

I would pay probably 2.50 tops. Maybe 3.00 if its a master track of a 'must own' awesome band (Metallica, Led Zeppelin etc) that you know you would want to play forever because of how diverse it is in vocals, guitars and drums.

Song packs should be discounted. You buying a bundle, skim off a bit of the price. I think thats where GHII song packs went wrong, because there was no indiviudual choice and there was no bundle discount savings. Almost any store you go into, you buy alot of crap you could get a bundle (Best Buy, buying a TV, Computer etc).

And Song Packs in general. Group them in categories that they belong in. Don't put a Metal song, a Pop song and a Punk song in the same group. Maybe somebody isn't a big Punk Fan or something. Put them in their own genre groups.

And finally... Albums. This is a real toughy. Some CD's you have to pay 10-20 for. FYE is a bioatch for CD's (I Hate paying 18 bucks for a CD). Who's Next, I'm def. gonna buy. There's so much great stuff on it. I almost Joygasmed when I seen that Behind Blues Eyes is on that disc. Thank you guys so much for putting this song on DLC. I sing that song way too many times at work and its one of my favorite Who Songs (now you just gotta get Teenage Wasteland and My Generation ;-) ).

But back on topic... Unless its a really really good album. Maybe 25 tops. 10+ songs is 2 bucksish. I would be able to deal with that. Not so great albums. Or good but not legendary. 15-20. But thats me. If you put Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lighting, Master of Puppets, ...And Justice for All and The Black Album. I would probably offer you my first born Son and first draft pick of next years Fantasy Football league!!

sushi111

07-12-2007, 07:25 AM

And finally... Albums. This is a real toughy. Some CD's you have to pay 10-20 for. FYE is a bioatch for CD's (I Hate paying 18 bucks for a CD). Who's Next, I'm def. gonna buy. There's so much great stuff on it. I almost Joygasmed when I seen that Behind Blues Eyes is on that disc. Thank you guys so much for putting this song on DLC. I sing that song way too many times at work and its one of my favorite Who Songs (now you just gotta get Teenage Wasteland and My Generation ;-) ).

Teenage wasteland is a nickname for the song baba o riley which is on Whos Next, so you get it!

Atomixor

07-12-2007, 08:02 AM

Here is the problem. I know it takes a lot of work to make these songs, but I don't really look at how much work went into something when I buy it, I look at the end product.

Most art takes a lot of time to make, but if it sucks, I'm not paying you any money for it no matter how long it takes. It's the end product that counts, not the work that went into it, and I think a lot of people feel this way, even if they don't realize it.

With that said, guitar hero/rock band songs have more to offer than regular music, but also less. I can't listen to it on my mp3 player, my computer, heck, I can't listen to it at ALL without playing it... So it has restrictions, it's not the same as a regular song. But it does give me a lot of enjoyment.

So what would I pay? If I love a song, I'll pay $2, heck, if I really really wanted a song I'd pay $3. But that's only if I love it, and there aren't many songs like that. If the songs were $1, or $1.25, I'd buy songs if I just like them. "Hey, I like that! I think I'll buy it" and you'd probably sell me like 50+ songs. So basically it's your average demand/price curve. You just need to find the point where the price maximizes profits. $1 might mean you have almost no profit, but if you sell 100,000 copies of each song then it makes up for it.

I will buy a lot of songs at $1, or $1.25(probably 1/2 of all that are released). I'd probably still but a lot at $1.50 (but hitting that 50 cent mark trips a little subconscious trigger that makes me think about it more). $2 means I'm going to really think. Heck, for $2 I could make TWO 20 minute phonecalls

defmonkey

07-12-2007, 08:06 AM

Teenage wasteland is a nickname for the song baba o riley which is on Whos Next, so you get it!

D'oh!!

I always thought You Better You Bet was the nickname for Babo O'Riley, Hell I have both songs on WMP! This makes it just even better now!

*gets inside time capsule*

sushi111

07-12-2007, 08:09 AM

One buck for every song would be great because it would still not feel like a big deal to people who may not have heard the song before and want to give it a shot. One buck means nothing to poeple. ANything above that makes them think.

defmonkey

07-12-2007, 12:11 PM

BlackHole

07-12-2007, 02:37 PM

DLC should be FREE! You heard me F R E E. Covers are worth more because classic songs that have hard bad sounding covers Bark at the Moon would sound weird to the public

WildWalker

07-12-2007, 04:44 PM

If it costs say $60 to buy the game, and you get (in the case of GH2) 48 songs PLUS THE GAME then why am I going to pay more than $60 to download less than 48 songs????

48 songs at $60 is $1.25 per song. So that has to be the TOP PRICE for any song, whoever it is by.

I don't think I will buy DLC anymore, I bought the GH11 ones, they worked out to be a complete rip off and cost me almost half as much as the game, so I will wait until there is a RB11 because the 'per song' price is much lower when buying a whole game.

WW

Mystophales

07-12-2007, 05:55 PM

Price point is such a sore subject right now you will probably get a wide array of reaction.

I think the that a individual song should not be more than 150 ms points.

Being a metal fan as well as writer for a metal website I think having the master track is VERY important. I loved the fact that GH 2 for 360 had Iron Maiden but there are not many people that can imitate Bruce Dickinson and the guy who did it for GH 2 wasn't even close. Same goes for most of the actual "Metal" songs. (Ozzy, Pantera etc...). I would actually be willing to pay more for a master track.

The "mega hit" costing more is very dependant on what one considers to be a Mega Hit. Me being a metal fan there are songs that I consider a mega hit (Hallowed Be Thy Name, Number of the Beast, Breaking the Law, Screaming for Vengeance, Master of Puppets etc etc...) that non metal fans will have no idea who even did these songs.

Ghostrider2112

07-13-2007, 12:05 AM

I wouldn't mind paying for DLC as long as it is what i want, ie a single album at a time, because i dont want to pay more for, say, 15 songs when i only want the 4 included of the band i like.

However i wouldnt pay for any covers, I was really excited to find out Tom Sawyer by Rush was on but when i realised it was a cover i was gutted, as no-one can match Geddy's vocals, im sure the cover band are good, but no thanks, i like to listen to the real thing.

But i agree with the price of around which Itunes sets as it is not too much.

SpeedMetal09

07-13-2007, 02:12 AM

cover songs should be free
and mastered songs should be $1.00
I know im def not buying covered songs unless their free or like 4 for $1.00

NorrenRadd

07-13-2007, 02:23 AM

I would pay $1-$2 per song as long as perceived work was put into making the track (it wasn't just ported from a previous game).

A good idea would be to start the price at the highest point, say $2 and then have that depreciate over time. Cost $2 when it comes out in December, $1.50 in March, $1 in June, where it will bottom out.

$2 per song seems quite a lot when 10 songs are released at a time however. So for the Albums, perhaps they could have a reduction in price due to the fact that they are a bundle?

As for tiered pricing for more desirable songs, I think this is a bad idea if it gets out of hand. Pricing Metallica songs above Foo Fighters or whomever just doesn't make much sense. Pricing Metallica over some NEW BAND that is trying to "make it" is a good idea though. For example, if artists who want to "make it" want to get their music out there, they could offer it cheaply for the game.

Master Tracks are very important to me, I much prefer them to the covers.

What is even more important to me is song availability though.

Please, please, please, when Rock Band 2 comes around, if you are thinking about DLC in the form of Rock Band 1, do not make the songs from the previous version cost much more than they would if the game was bought.

The "other guys" are taking advantage of the fact that their first game is not available for play on the newer system.

JesusSilencio

07-13-2007, 03:18 AM

A good idea would be to start the price at the highest point, say $2 and then have that depreciate over time. Cost $2 when it comes out in December, $1.50 in March, $1 in June, where it will bottom out.

I think that's a pretty good idea, except I think that individual songs should start at $2, then if a certain song isn't being downloaded very much, make the price go down. That way the popular songs will stay at $2, and people could get less popular songs for cheaper.

A good starting price for an album like who's next would be around $15, with the price going down if it isn't downloaded as much as you hoped (though I doubt that will happen with who's next).

For some songs, I would pay a bit extra for a master track, although it depends on the song. With metal songs and songs with a vocalist that is hard to imitate, I would say a master would be quite a bit better (Laid to Rest was not a very good cover imo). But other than that, the covers in guitar hero were surprisingly well done, so most songs I wouldn't mind too much whether its a cover or the original.

Rock_Starman

07-13-2007, 09:45 AM

$1 wich would be $1.20 here in Canada for a standard price. Could go up to a $1.50 for a long song (Kashmir for example) and low as 50 cents for a short song. (most punk songs)

Also I think there should be code for 5 free songs with each instrument.

Angry_Games

07-13-2007, 09:51 AM

cover songs should be free
and mastered songs should be $1.00
I know im def not buying covered songs unless their free or like 4 for $1.00

this is a good idea. Maybe not the exact pricing (I wouldn't mind paying $.50 or even possibly $1 for a cover as long as we could hear the preview first to make our minds up). Free or $.25 is probably a bit to low, though I'm with you, I wouldn't mind getting some free stuff here and there.

it might even be good idea if Harmonix takes some of their covers and just offers them up for free, or very very reduced prices (licensing restrictions have a lot to do with this...even a cover song has to pay royalties to the original artists/writers), then offer maybe the master track for a reasonable price (however, reasonable price is subjective to each individual)

As for tiered pricing for more desirable songs, I think this is a bad idea if it gets out of hand. Pricing Metallica songs above Foo Fighters or whomever just doesn't make much sense. Pricing Metallica over some NEW BAND that is trying to "make it" is a good idea though. For example, if artists who want to "make it" want to get their music out there, they could offer it cheaply for the game.

I agree. If you are a Metallica fan (as almost all of us seem to be lol), putting their songs up at a higher price than other popular bands would really keep me from purchasing it. I love Metallica, but I'm not paying more for their songs than I am for Foo Fighters, whom I love, but not nearly as much as Metallica.

As for the bands trying to 'make it', I think this is a great idea. One step maybe better is to have the band give a master to Harmonix and have Harmonix code it for the game and offer it up for free. Why free? Well, the band wants to get their name out, and there aren't many of us (if any at all lol) that would be willing to pay for an untried, untested band. Part two of that is I feel Harmonix really would concrete themselves as fan favorites if they offered some freebies here and there.

I mean, I don't mind paying for DLC if it's good...but if I buy $50 worth of songs, and then saw Harmonix release say 10 FREE songs, I'd definitely know I would go broke supporting this game with future business.

I am sure even if Harmonix never offered a free song ever, I'd still buy as many good songs as I wanted...but there's something about a company working hard and handing out something free once in a while that keeps me almost fanboy-loyal.

A freebie here and there is always a good way to tell your customers "hey, thanks for supporting us and being excellent customers!"

They don't have to give out gold bars and free booze, just a little something-something here and there ;)

Error302

07-13-2007, 10:31 AM

i dunno i think $1.50 - $2.00 is fair, given that it really shouldn't cost more than a buck to get the rights for one person, but i think harmonix should get a LITTLE something for the encoding, charts and such.
i think you guys calling for a dollar or less per song are just bein cheapskates =p

personally tho. what would make me squee for joy when it comes to rhythm games, is rewarding players that can play at a high level with.. an original version of the song. something new and suprising to sink their teeth into. in house groups like freezepop shouldn't have much of a problem doing this, coming up with an alternate mix of the song, with harder rhythms and more challenging riffs.
back when i used to play beatmania many of the songs would change dramatically when you would play them on the "another" difficulty setting. personally i'd like to see that spirit revived =p even if it's only possible with the in house bands, most of which are pretty kickass!
anyway, i know you guys at harmonix can do just about all of this stuff, you already proved it back when you made frequency! (which i still play on occasion)

Xzyliac

07-13-2007, 10:31 AM

$1.00. I mean that is the standard for music why break it? Albums can range anywhere from $10-$15 for me. I don't have any stats or big words like the guys above me but I do have common sense and it tells me no music outlet online has ever succeeded on selling a single song over $1.

And gaming, in an attempt to solidify itself as a valuable interactive outlet for other mediums, should do no less.

sushi111

07-13-2007, 10:53 AM

I think we can all agree 1.00-1.50 per song is perfect as long as we get to download individual songs.

Metallica songs would be 1.50, and smaller and indie bands could be 1.00.

For albums they should just multiply the total cost of songs times like 0.7-0.8

Xzyliac

07-13-2007, 11:06 AM

You know everybody is pointing at Microsoft but Activision and RedOctane are the ones who keeps saying "we're not changing the price".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070712/tc_nm/gamesexpo_activision_dc_2

Sonofmogh

07-13-2007, 04:21 PM

Here's what I think:

The pricing will depend on the DLC.

I know that sounds like an all-encompassing answer that doesn't quite narrow it down, but let me explain...

If your downloading an album it'll cost more than a song or a "track pack" with a few songs right? DUH! Everyone her already knows that, but I think the popularity will matter the most...

If you are downloading a legendary/kicka$$ album like Who's Next, The Who obviously don't need anymore 'exposure' and thus Harmonix/MTV Games probably had to shell out more cash to get the rights to use it...thus the album will cost us more money to download (makes sense)

Now on the other hand, if your downloading an album from a band that is trying to get started, they're not well known, Harmonix may not have to pay as much, or the band may have to pay harmonix to offset the cost of them releasing the album at a reduced price (to get the band publicity)...thus the price will be lower.

If all of a sudden they release Stairway to heaven, it's gonna cost a s&%#load of money, because they know everyone will buy it (no matter what cost) :D

StartSomething

07-13-2007, 04:30 PM

I think 100-130 Microsoft Points for a song sounds fair. I think you guys should throw in free songs from unsigned artists or something every now and then, that'd be cool ^_^
But I'd be more then willing to buy a lot more songs from the marketplace if they are at a good price.
If they were at what the GH2 songs are priced at now I would only buy must haves

JimNasium

07-13-2007, 10:11 PM

If you guys were offering songs at around $1 a piece, you'd absolutely kill Guitar Hero. I know for me, I'd end up spending much more money the cheaper it is. If there was a price point like GH2, I would maybe get one pack. But with $1 per song price, I would spend much more. And in the end, make much more money for you guys. And I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this

ajretz

07-13-2007, 11:37 PM

ThePaska

07-14-2007, 01:27 AM

The record labels are most likely going to want 99 cents themselves like Itunes charges. And the developers will most likely want 50 to 99 cents themselves. So don't be surprised to see extra tracks range into the $2.00 to $3.00 range. I would gladly pay $2.00 or 15 for a whole CD worth of songs.

That is exactly what I expect to see. Think about what you are paying for. Not only are you getting the song which would be .99 on iTunes, but also getting to sing it, and play guitar, bass and drums for it. I say that is well worth $2 and I wouldn't expect anything less than that.

Although I would like to see some deals like 5 songs for $7 or something and like you said, $15 for an album, which will be around 10 songs. Buying songs in bulk will definately be the way to go.

ajretz

07-14-2007, 02:28 AM

That is exactly what I expect to see. Think about what you are paying for. Not only are you getting the song which would be .99 on iTunes, but also getting to sing it, and play guitar, bass and drums for it. I say that is well worth $2 and I wouldn't expect anything less than that.

Although I would like to see some deals like 5 songs for $7 or something and like you said, $15 for an album, which will be around 10 songs. Buying songs in bulk will definately be the way to go.

2 Dollars is a fair number. Of course I would love to see 99 cents per song, but I just don't see any major record company willing to accept anything less than 99 cents themselves, what does iTunes make per song anyway? I'm guessing maybe 20 cents to itunes, 79 to label?

JimNasium

07-14-2007, 02:59 AM

Error302

07-14-2007, 03:04 AM

well yeah there's 64 songs, but nearly half of them are "bonus songs" which generally means in house stuff that they really don't have to pay liscencing fees on. so it's not really fair to average them in when trying to decide how much "songs" are worth

hmxsean

07-14-2007, 03:09 AM

JimNasium

07-14-2007, 03:28 AM

Licensing songs for disc and licensing them for DLC are two totally different animals.

Ahh, I see. Interesting.

Also (Re: Error302), forgot about the bonus songs. You're right

ajretz

07-14-2007, 03:52 AM

But the thing is, on the regular game if there are 64 songs, and the game costs $60 (not including the instruments) 60/64 = about .94 per song. Why would downloading them cost more? If anything it should cost less. The game itself is already there, and there is no extra production or advertising costs.

If you think about it, licensing for the game itself would be less than 94 cents. Being that production costs go into the $60 game price tag. And who knwos, it might not be $60 for the game itself.

Theoretically they probably spent 35-45 dollars on licensing for each game, and the rest in production costs. Making this up in DLC would help, cause they could charge $1.50+ per song.

xCHRISx

07-14-2007, 05:15 AM

Ahh, I see. Interesting.

Also (Re: Error302), forgot about the bonus songs. You're right

Off-topic, but great userpic.. :) Fugazi ftw!

IbanezBassist_v2

07-16-2007, 02:30 AM

I don't think it's fair to pay more than $.99 for one song.  Apple iTunes can do it with original masters, so I don't see why you guys couldn't have price points in that area either.  

You are not only paying for the song, but the encoding as well. Think of it as buying the song and a piece of the game.....

TheTogfather

07-16-2007, 02:45 AM

You are not only paying for the song, but the encoding as well. Think of it as buying the song and a piece of the game.....

And not just encoding for one part (GH1) or two parts (GH2/3), but four separate and distinct parts. I would be perfectly ok with 2 bucks per song. I could accept higher than that, but if that were the case, I would have to be given the chance to buy them individually instead of in packs where I would be paying more than 2 dollars for a song I don't necessarily want. Now, individual sale at 3 dollars a song, then song packs that offer a discount down to about 2-2.25 per song I could totally support.

idiotec

07-16-2007, 02:53 AM

Licensing songs for disc and licensing them for DLC are two totally different animals.
Why is that?

NorrenRadd

07-16-2007, 02:54 AM

Licensing songs for disc and licensing them for DLC are two totally different animals.

Why? Are they not licensed at the same time? It would seem to play out to me like this,

EA\MTV\HMX: Hey band, we want to use your song in our video game. We'll pay you XX for each disc we make with your song on it and XX for each time it is downloaded.

Can you explain why it might possibly cost more for DLC than it would if they were licensed for a disc? I think that the lack of information as to the cost of the DLC is one of the major problems and the reason there are many many complaints.

Coldplayer

07-16-2007, 04:56 AM

Are songs from
original masters worth more to you than covers?

Well, it depends on the band you will cover. Bands with a remarkable singer, like Tom Delonge (Angels & Airwaves, Blink 182), are hard to cover I think, but I was actually very surprised how great the covers in GH2 were. Sting really sounded like Sting, but it wasn't Sting. lol

Anyway, of course I prefer master songs, but if you really can't get the real song (unless I pay a high price maybe) then I'd be happy with a cover version, at least I can play those songs too!!

What I really want is the option to download just one song, and not 3 songs where in reality I only want one of them!

Brock_Landers

07-16-2007, 07:33 AM

Okay, I'll say this again since it's come up.. again

If Harmonix licences 60 songs for the game.. that's 60 songs GARUANTEED sold. It's essentially a bulk package deal you're buying. They licence 60 songs for DLC that's 60 songs that only a percentage will buy.. and of that percentage some songs will sell better than others.

The pricing of DLC has to reflect all the people who might not buy it as well (in a roundabout way).

WHY does noone listen to logic?? *sob*

------------------------

However, that is under one licensing model.. where they just pay a sum of money upright for a song.. if DLC is solely on royalties to the record label they wouldn't have to worry as much

(although there still would be upfront costs (developing, possibly lawyers, possibly microsoft certification, maybe cover bands, etc) needed to make back before anything could be profitable. If the label wanted a sum of cash + royalties then it's a whole other bag of fish)

Eman311

07-16-2007, 08:14 AM

40 DLC songs should cost as much as it cost to put the 40 songs on the disc.
(and no that would not come out to be 60 bucks.......probably 40-50. you pay for everything else in the game as well)

edit: Brock Landers i also approve of black betty for RB

Brock_Landers

07-16-2007, 09:11 AM

appreciate the Black Betty nod, but does that mean you disagree with my post above saying that x amount of DLC songs does not = x amount of on-disc songs because you're not buying them bulk?

40 DLC songs should cost as much as it cost to put the 40 songs on the disc.

You would have to buy a 40 song mega-pack of DLC for the theory to hold up the same.

*edit: and even then it's different because only a fraction of those who bought RockBand would be getting the DLC

Plekto

07-16-2007, 09:20 AM

This all distills down to about 50 cents a song. Release a "pack" of 40 songs for $19.95 and everyone will buy it. More expensive than that and you've lost your market, since $20 is a definite hard line for kids and college students, which is your main audience.

Brock_Landers

07-16-2007, 09:37 AM

Yes, and for $25 a song-pack Harmonix can send us out credit cards in their name which we can all use to buy private yachts and candy.

College students can't afford $20? How are they gonna buy the game in the first place?

I'm sorry if I'm snarky, but can we all be a little realistic? I don't know all the ins and outs behind what it takes to get a song licensed and made, nor what hoops they have to jump through with the record labels and Microsoft.. but I'm pretty sure it's more than what some people are thinking, as they just pull out their calculators to come up with a magical figure.

benjamin

07-16-2007, 09:41 AM

I hate to be some jackass economist but I think the correct price is what the consumer is willing to pay.

Electric_Zen

07-16-2007, 10:29 AM

I think the correct price is what the consumer is willing to pay.

Yup. I don't care whether it cost Red Octane 25 cents a track or five dollars a track to license their music. I have not bought any of the DLC for Guitar Hero II, because I think it is too expensive. I am willing to wait for GH3 and Rock Band, when I will get 40-50 songs plus extras on a sixty dollar disc.

Electric_Zen

07-16-2007, 10:31 AM

does that mean you disagree with my post above saying that x amount of DLC songs does not = x amount of on-disc songs because you're not buying them bulk?

I think it depends entirely on the licensing arrangement, and that you don't have any inside knowledge as to whether the licensing is done as an up-front fee, or per track.

Eman311

07-16-2007, 11:54 AM

appreciate the Black Betty nod, but does that mean you disagree with my post above saying that x amount of DLC songs does not = x amount of on-disc songs because you're not buying them bulk?

You would have to buy a 40 song mega-pack of DLC for the theory to hold up the same.

*edit: and even then it's different because only a fraction of those who bought RockBand would be getting the DLC

yea youre right on the "mega-pack theory" but what i am saying is what a consumer will EXPECT DLC to cost........ and the fraction thing is only true if HMX pays to license song beforehand and there are no royalties involved.

this brings up an interesting idea........if HMX can generate enough interest in DLC to the point where a music company could profit on DLC royalities (instead of licensing) then i think we'd see a DLC format for RB like itunes. and that would be a good thing.

Brock_Landers

07-16-2007, 01:45 PM

^^ Yeah, I think royalty based is the only way we're ever gonna see prices resembling the ever holy itunes (that, or dlc continues to overshoot projected expectations). And with such a confident outlook at DLC after the gh2 fiasco, it makes me wonder if that's exactly the sort of scheme they've managed to cook up.

I think it depends entirely on the licensing arrangement, and that you don't have any inside knowledge as to whether the licensing is done as an up-front fee, or per track.

Well said, and I couldn't agree more. None of us know.

(And yet here we all are, saying why it should cost this or that based on our own (mostly) single-minded perception of how the music/game industry works)

Plekto

07-16-2007, 03:11 PM

And this is exactly why it needs to be in the form of a booster pack/CD that you load onto the hard drive. Content is controlled and there's no credit card or whatnot - you pay $20 and you get tunes. Tons of genres and styles - maybe as many as ten or more different CDs!

As for the price, most kids get their parents to buy it. Expansion packs won't be on the parent's radar and $20 a booster/song CD is about right. $30, tops. Me? I'll but every single expansion CD(think of how Beatmania was in Japan - 20+ games/expansions)

Btw, that's several million CDs times 10-20 cents in royalties per song, or about what they get from ITunes at best(Apple are cheap to put it kindly - other uglier words come to mind...) 200-500K or more in hard cash doesn't suck for most bands.

That's the only way to do it considering that the $200 up front cost has to give you the basics for a generation/series of games to be worth it. If the controllers worked with ten games/expansions over five years or more, it would be a very sound investment to buy the entire setup.

Lyberator

07-16-2007, 03:57 PM

Wow this just sealed my descision on which game to get. I really appreciate you guys listening to the community and taking feedback to heart.
Now for my $0.02. I think 100-120 points per song sounds reasonable. Guitar hero 2 may have sold 300,000 song packs but I guarentee that if they didn't rob their customers everyone who bought GH2 would have bought them.

CENACHAINGANG54

07-16-2007, 04:43 PM

I agree with the others that songs should be $1.00, and that there should be single songs as well as song packs. Like others I have paid the high price of 500 points for three songs, and I only wanted one of the songs listed. The thing with Activision is that they now have competition in the music game genre. When Harmonix and Red Octane came out with GH 1 & 2, it was the only thing like it out on the market. At that time then yes you can pretty much charge anything you want within reason and people will buy it because it is the only thing out. Well when Activision got these games from Harmonix. it was still the same until now. So if Rock Band has songs that the fans feel is affordable, then I believe this is going to put the squeeze on Activision to lower prices. Plus from what I have read in official statements made by Harmonix, they want to have new songs out every week. If this is the case I believe you will make money hand over fist at a price point of $1.00. In microsoft money I would even spend 100 points for a new song. On the cover VS. original question, I go with the majority on this one. Harmonix has AWESOME studio bands that actually sound like the artist and some time better. So it makes me no difference if the songs are covers or originals. Harmonix make these affordable, and I know Rock Band will corner the music gaming market!:cool:

Plekto

07-16-2007, 05:03 PM

The thing is, that points suck. It's exactly like those lame tokens you get at the amusement park. You put money in and you are stuck with their pricing and can't use it anyplace else.

Songs on a CD:
- Don't require a credit card. Any kid can grub together $20 or $30 and get it at the local GameStop.
- Don't require a supscription, either. Many parents loathe the idea of attaching a credit card to a child's game as much as they dislike cellphones - because the potential for abuse is there. If you go to the local Best Buy and it's a buy/don't buy scenario, it's easy to do.(plus a game CD/DVD would be a good present, maybe?)
- You buy more songs at once - you might want only ten, but you pay for 20(good for the publisher)
- If you want to resell it, you have something tangeable. This makes it have a real value, used, which is critical for the long-term success of a franchise. Sony's online pay nonsense(what it boils down to) forces you to pay to play and not get anytihng physical in return(which is why a dollar a song that you don't own on a game CD won't work very well)

Note - this directly counters the "paid for songs you didn't want" issue. Fine. Trade it in for volume 2 or 3 then.

- The CD can be sold everyplace. Those who aren't online at all can still play. Even if Sony collapsed and/or no longer gave suport for the PS3, you could still use the CDs to update an old system.(I can do this with PS2 copies of DDR or Beatmania IDX, for instance)

- The "CD" can easily also be donwloadable like Valve and Driect 2 Drive currently do. win-win fomr a marketing standpoint as it covers both areas. Online only covers only the smaller one of the two.(retail being the other of course)

Phiromos

07-16-2007, 05:09 PM

you have a very good point there...the whole credit card thing is a pain

Brock_Landers

07-16-2007, 05:31 PM

problem with a physical disc is that aside from it stuffing up their couple of songs a week, choose what you want, and whole album gimmicks.. is that getting shelf space at a retail store is a) expensive, due to packaging, shipping, etc.. and b) hard, due to there only being so much space available..

Just check with Stardock, makers of Galactic Civilization II about the issues with getting expansions in retail outlets (that's why they eventually released online). Admitidly, EA and HMX have much more muscle than these guys and their 4x turn-base game, but Harmonix also wants to have hundreds of songs out there.. so we're talking multiple boxes per year (and they probably want to keep them out, with long term being the idea of making a profit) along with the already ludicrous amount of space they're taking up with their game peripherirals.

That was a little long winded of me but yeh. Probably off topic anyway since it's definitely going to be Xbox Live and this topic is really just about how much you expect to pay for a song that you can also play with four different instruments.

Maybe payment concerns could go in new topic?

admanimal

07-16-2007, 05:49 PM

You don't really need a credit card or subscription to buy DLC. Just go to Best Buy or any one of the number of stores that sell the point cards, buy one, and you're set for a month or however long until you run out of points.

One major problem with distributing new songs on a CD is this: in order to play these new songs you're going to have to copy them to the 360 or ps3. That's fine, but then you don't need the CD anymore, which opens up the possibility for easy piracy. Once the record labels realize this, they are either going to charge more or just stop "sharing" their music with Harmonix altogether.

monlienNH3

07-16-2007, 06:29 PM

Here's what I think is fair from all standpoints:

Don't release songs until you have 3 ready to go... or an album. Then set the prices as:

*1 song 160 MS points ($2) - 200 MS points at most ($2.50)
*The 3 song bundle 400 points ($5) 500 points at most ($6.25 current GHII pricing)
*Entire album 1000 points ($12.50) for a 8-10 track album 1200 points ($15) for 11-13 track album and maybe more for even lengthier album. - also allow for individual track DL from albums at the $2.50 price point.
*And finally promotional tracks (at cost of band for advertising) 80 points ($1)

While I think 500 points for 3 GH1 songs is a ripoff, I don't think it would be the same for Rockband. I hope for cheaper prices as I'll be buying every song - I know I will, but I'll be able to play these songs on the guitar and drums. I don't care about the singing, but with a few friends over that might even be cool. Also GH1 tracks feel like a ripoff because I can get GH1 for $40 - which I did today after seeing the Track Pack 4 release - cause at that point I knew I needed a PS2 guitar for Rock the 80's anyway.

Different prices for bigger hits: that's just too complicated to tackle. The only songs I think could be justified costing more are Zeppelin songs which are known for being nearly impossible to license.

Covers vs. Master Tracks: of course, I'd prefer the master track but NOT at the cost of $1 more a song.

Finally, the only downside to all of this is DLC being nontransferable, nontangible. If my XBOX 360 breaks, it's gonna be a hassle to get those 50+ songs back. This might be a plus for the PS3 version... I think their DLC policies are more user friendly, but I know I'm getting the 360 version (achievements). Speaking of which, the first 10 album releases should come with a 25 point achievement (5 star album on at least Hard difficulty) - putting the game at the total 1250 point limit.

Thanks for caring about your community - something the other guys apparently just don't want to do. No matter what pricing you choose, as long as you continue to communicate with your customers, it will be better than the GHII DLC fiasco.

Huwonk

07-17-2007, 01:16 AM

$1.25-$1.75 for most songs. I think $1 is asking too little (since someone at Harmonix will have to program the notecharts), while asking $2 is asking too much. Full albums in the $12-15 range depending on length and popularity/licensing fees, I'd guess. Also, I doubt we'll see any expansions via disc. Digital distribution is far more popular and feasible now.

Edit: To the poster above me, if you've downloaded anything via the Xbox Live Marketplace under your account, no matter what Xbox you are on that DLC is tied to your account. You will have access to re-download it with no hassle as long as you are under the same gamertag.

Terranova

07-17-2007, 01:21 AM

Hi i'm new here and this is my first post and seeing as Harmonix are giving the chance for us to air our views on the pricing for the DLC i thought i would add my thoughts.

First I'm based in the UK so i'm not exactly sure how the system is going to be here i'm hoping it's going to be as it is for the U.S, and i hope we also get the same downloads etc i'm also a PS3 owner so points have no meaning or baring to me so i'm dealing in currency only here. now lets get to the main point which is pricing.. many are comparing to Itunes which to be fair isn't a bad model to go on as i said i'm in the UK and the pricing here for Itunes is £0.79p ( $1.6) per track or £7.99 ($16) per album.. yes exchange rates etc factor in to it but if it could be around this price point that would be great but whether that can be a possibility is another matter.

If the pricing was a little higher i wouldn't mind as long as it didn't go to high I would even pay £1.00 ($2.4) per track if and this is where I would only be interested is If I could pick the tracks myself.. i'm all for bundles and packs if i can pick the tracks i want within them.. there is nothing worse than a pre-made pack with only 1 or two songs of worth and being charged a high price for them.. yes i'm talking about you Activision/Microsoft. If Harmonix want to do Recommendation packs like a best of the 70's 90's etc then that's fine and also the idea of downloading albums is great, but let us pick our own stuff i'm sure if it was done this way you would get more people buying in bulk then you would from pre made packs that you had no choice over.

Just my thoughts... and I can't wait for rock band to arrive in the UK.. it's going to rock hard.. :)

lithiumkc

07-17-2007, 02:37 AM

I'd say double the cost of licensing. That way prices will vary according to the artist or whoever they have to go through to license the song. Putting a static price on songs won't work, otherwise you end up with 2 crap songs and 1 good one like with GH2. I'd be willing to pay maybe 1-2 bucks per good song no problem.

rcf1105

07-17-2007, 03:00 AM

Around $2 per song, and for the love of God, please, please don't bundle them.

VixDiesel

07-17-2007, 04:17 AM

I'll be happy with a dollar a song just like itunes. i don't think i would pay more than 5 or 6 bucks for only three songs like GHII. Maybe 4 songs for 5 bucks? That's a steal and a deal.

bigheb774

07-17-2007, 05:24 AM

They should cost a number of points equal to $1.

x3ar23

07-17-2007, 05:46 AM

100 points max.

MrGlass214

07-17-2007, 05:48 AM

monlienNH3

07-17-2007, 06:58 AM

Edit: To the poster above me, if you've downloaded anything via the Xbox Live Marketplace under your account, no matter what Xbox you are on that DLC is tied to your account. You will have access to re-download it with no hassle as long as you are under the same gamertag.

Yes. I know that's true; however, I have multiple people in my household who want to play it on their gamertag and also you'd always have to be connected to live - which isn't a problem right now, but was at the last place I was living - had to use satellite internet which was unreliable and useless if I wanted to actually "play" online as opposed to just being connected.

The only reason I say the PS3 DLC setup (even though I rarely use it) is better is because they allow you to transfer your purchase up to 3 times (it may be 5, but I think it's 3) - meaning if I had two PS3s I could tie the content to both - whereas with 2 360s, I either have to purchase it twice, or tie the content to one and play online with my gamertag on the other every time I play. Basically it just bothers me, when I buy a retail game, anyone can play it any time, any system. But with DLC, it's a one tag ownership with limited sharing capability. So far my 360 (knock on wood) hasn't had any problems. But when I'm looking at the prospect of hundreds of dollars of DLC for one game over the next year, I think it's fair to be a liitle paranoid about being able to keep for as long as I'd like - with no hassle. I'd probably even be willing to repurchase the content on a disc for the sake of longevity.

But back on topic, I just hope they listen to our feedback (within reason, those who want $1 DLC shouldn't get their hopes up); and they live up to this promise of constant DLC and it doesn't become worthless when the inevitable Rockband 2 is announced next E3.

Eman311

07-17-2007, 02:44 PM

I don't know if somebody said this, but the songs have a chance of costing less on the PS3 than on the 360, being that Micro$oft is more controlling when it comes to prices and they make game companies charge even if the companies want to give downloadable content for free. Also, Rock Band is not being published by Activision, so that could also factor into prices being different.

I suppose that's possible, but i doubt it. EA is publishing, they're the type who would make prices equal even if it could be less for the ps3, simply for the sake of more money.

Consolcwby

07-17-2007, 02:47 PM

I'd pay a nickel a song! :mad:

...okay, a buck at most! But don't be pushing any BS on me! (By BS, I mean Britney Spears!) :p

GrayInvisible

07-17-2007, 03:44 PM

I would pay .70 cents for a cover, and 1.50-2.30 for a master track. Master tracks are important. Especially for bands like queen and other hard to sing bands.

TheRocker

07-18-2007, 02:52 AM

1.99 Each Song Remember Your Not getting Just a Guitar Song But Drums , Bass and Singing

JB4GDI

07-18-2007, 04:26 AM

I think tbradshaw on the 2nd page was dead right, especially from an economics standpoint.

At $2.00 per song, I might buy it, and the market has definitely shown that people are willing to pay, but I definitely won't feel great about the purchase.

At $1.00 per song, I'll be buying a lot, and I'll definitely feel like I'm getting my money's worth since that's the going iTunes rate, and in reality, a song in Rock Band would be worth more to me than a song on iTunes.

One thing that is important to note is that there's nothing out there right now that we can use to see how price will relate to sales. People have been saying that $1.00 isn't enough to cover all the work put it, but if 10 people would buy the song at $2.00, and 21 people would buy the song at $1.00, then the argument doesn't matter because the cheaper version makes them more money. But, like I said, there's nothing to go off of other than Guitar Hero 2 DLC pricing.

I'd be really happy to buy songs at $1.00. I'd be less willing to buy songs at $2.00, and I'd certainly buy a lot less.

Edit: Just for the record, I don't care about master/cover/unsigned band songs. I'd pay just as much for something like a Goo Goo Dolls song as I would for Trogdor.

-Jaime

sa_nick

07-18-2007, 01:06 PM

I agree with almost everything JB4GDI said in the above post.

Low price = more sales and the same price is cool for cover/master/unsigned band. If its a good fun song then its worth the money, weather its a master or not.

in reality, a song in Rock Band would be worth more to me than a song on iTunes.
With songs on i-tunes your paying to buy the song and have and it be able to put it on cd or usb and take it with you anywhere. Rock Band songs are only for use in Rock Band. Artists record sales could go up if they have a song in Rock Band, people play the song, they like, they go and buy the album, or jsut the song off i-tunes.

tharshmetalUK

07-19-2007, 12:59 AM

TheTogfather

07-19-2007, 02:04 AM

They should cost NOTHING!!! If i pay 40 - 50 quid for a game i should not have to pay anything extra a few months later for one or two extras. If there was an expansion with around 20 - 30 songs then id be prepared to pay for that. Other games on 360 offer free downloads so why shouldn't guitar hero or rock band. Anyone who expects people to pay extra for small downloads is taking the piss and is ripping off its loyal customers.

Umm, we have been working under the assumption that what Harmonix has been saying all along is correct and that they will be releasing new songs every single week, beginning the very first week after release. It also appears that some of these weekly releases will be entire albums. We are not talking about one or two songs months after release. The plan is, within the first year of release, to have literally hundreds of songs available for download. I do not consider this a 'small download' and I completely expect to have to pay for them.

stunner1210

07-19-2007, 05:08 AM

The pricing shouldn't come close to what Guitar Hero 2 had. $6.25 for three songs is too far for me and a majority of people (look at the 15% buy rate for the songs). I'd gladly pay 100-125 points per song, making that song round out at around a dollar. Full albums being priced at the same amount as the album is priced in stores sounds like a good idea to me too. If you buy a ten track album at the store for $10, you get to listen to it when you want and where you want. I understand that when you buy the game and content that the songs can only be played in Rock Band, but does that make a difference? I don't expect to download songs in Rock Band and then pop in Assassin's Creed to hear the song. It's somewhat of a moot point.

Back to the album pricing. If I buy a full album for Rock Band, I get to listen to the song over and over again, just like I would if I bought the CD. Yes, I get to play the game with the song, but you're still listening to that song. I'm not second guessing any work that goes into the game or anything, I can only imagine what it takes to make a game playable. What I'm saying is, if the price point is right, you're going to get a high buy-rate which could generate more money than if you priced it at a point where you're trying to get just enough buys to cover the cost. With the ambitious DLC release stance that has been announced, the two or more songs a week, I can honestly say that if the price point is in the range that I'm talking about, I will buy every single song released. I'm at the point where not only am I going to pay the $200 for the game and full bundle, but I'm willing to buy all the songs released to get the full experience if it's priced right.

I have way more confidence in Harmonix than I did with Red Octane. After seeing what Red Octane did, there's no doubt in my mind that Harmonix will take advantage of the situation. I've already decided to go with Rock Band and not Guitar Hero 3 simply because of the communication and openess that Harmonix has had with the community. This thread proves that they are at least willing to listen to the community.

As for Master Tracks/Covers, I actually prefer Master Tracks because it's like I'm buying the actual album. Some of the covers I liked better than the originals, but with bands like Metallica and Nirvana, you just can't duplicate their sound. For me it all depends on the artist.

Huwonk

07-19-2007, 05:25 AM

They should cost NOTHING!!! If i pay 40 - 50 quid for a game i should not have to pay anything extra a few months later for one or two extras. If there was an expansion with around 20 - 30 songs then id be prepared to pay for that. Other games on 360 offer free downloads so why shouldn't guitar hero or rock band. Anyone who expects people to pay extra for small downloads is taking the piss and is ripping off its loyal customers.

Maybe you don't understand the whole aspect of "running a business" or "making money," but it would be ridiculous for them to pay to license tracks (not to mention pay people to write the note-charts) and then distribute them for free. I'm sure we'll see some free promotions, but you're going to pay for downloadable tracks in general.

I forgot to mention in my initial post that I prefer masters over covers of iconic songs, but in general it isn't that big of a deal as long as the covers still sound good. I'd also be willing to pay more for masters since I know they cost more to license.

Ebiggs

07-19-2007, 05:59 AM

I'd love to see the songs going for $1-$1.50 (and their MP equivalent on the 360) if at all possible. I do realize that several people have to get money off of these, but look at it this way. How much time does it take to encode one of these songs (16 tracks = 4 "instruments" x 4 difficulties)? That is a one time cost, so unlike a physical product, the cost of labor shouldn't really be factored into the price of the song, rather it should just come out of the profits. No raw materials are needed to keep the product available.

What should be done:

1. Set a sales goal for each song/bundle/album/whatever
2. Find out how much the total cost was to make the DLC available (licensing, paying workers, artists, etc)
3. Figure in bandwidth cost (related to #1)
4. Add $0.10 and round up to the nearest $.10, for a bit of profit and to even things up.

smellsam44

07-19-2007, 06:02 AM

they're gonna charge about tree fiddy

Phrank-E

07-19-2007, 07:18 AM

.99 to 1.50 would be the best price. I'd gladly pay upwards of 15-20 for full length albums of really good stuff.

idiotec

07-19-2007, 07:20 AM

they're gonna charge about tree fiddy
Gah damm thas a lot of money!

Motleyluke

07-19-2007, 08:18 AM

99 cents per song

12 dollars for an album

Erevahn

07-19-2007, 11:02 AM

First let me state the caveat that I am a newbie to the forums, so any replies, please be gentle.

As for my thoughts on the cost of downloadable songs...

1) It is nigh impossible to determine what anyone individual feels is a worthy song to download, regardless of posts in a forum. Everyone has differing opinions and tastes. So basing a cost on that type of criteria is a maddening idea.

2) What makes a song valuable, is it's overall replayablity. I mean I like the song "Strutter" by Kiss, but I couldn't play it very often without going a little bonkers. So the cost for a song with very little replayability should be low. But again we hit the proverbial wall of opinion and varied tastes. However, replay value is an important factor in determining the cost of such a bit of download content. I liken it to many of the XBLA games, whose costs I am only willing to pay based on how much I feel I might replay them. Not just because they're "cool".

3) Overall, the cost should be dependent on replay value, interest from the wide market of players, the quality of the song(s) in question, and finally the number of songs available in a download package. 5.00 for three songs? Maybe. 5.00 for five or six. Sure!

Anyways, I hope I made some sense, logical or not.

By the way... I want to see Bowie, Golden Earring, and a little known metal band that goes by the name... MANOWAR!

Thanks for your time.

WhetWurm

07-19-2007, 11:24 AM

I have heard a lot of good ideas on this thread regarding prices but I'm afraid many of them are simply not viable from a business standpoint. Remember, EVERYONE involved has to get their cut of the pie and there are a lot of people involved:

1. The artist
2. The publisher who owns the rights to the song
3. The developer
4. The publisher of the game (assuming it's different)
5. Microsoft for publishing content on XBLM

I've heard from sources that MS charges upwards of 30% for DLC on the Marketplace. That's a pretty hefty sum of money and goes to show what a monopoly will do (seriously, what competition does MS have to XBLM?).

So, assuming MS takes their 30% of $2.08 per song, that leaves 70% for the other 4 parties (even less if I missed anyone). That leaves ~$1.46 per song to divide up among 4 people. That's about $.36 each per song. I'm sure there are lots of fights about the percent each gets, so lawyers have to be brought in to arbitrate... but I won't get into that. For now, we'll just say $2 per song is good business sense and makes sense considering how many people are involved. Add in that the songs are in 5.1 audio at a higher bitrate than 128Kbps. Moving along...

Considering there isn't a game developer/publisher for iTunes, that is not a fair relationship to make; therefore, we must take into consideration what EvilAvatar said. If you're going to charge $2 per song for DLC, then you should charge $100 for the game. But that's not going to fly with the market, so you're at a loss there. It seems nobody wins in the DLC arena despite promises of it being "cheaper and easier". But that's not the case. Moving along...

I propose a sales tier program on songs similar to what they do at retail. Here's how it works:

1. Popular songs (Top 20, Platinum hits, etc.) should be sold individually and at a premium. Say 200MSP per song. This is analogous to a "single" CD at the store. They can be discounted when they aren't so popular.

2. Not so popular songs should be sold individually at 150MSP and again in a LARGE package (10+ song "albums") for a discount. Say 1000MSP for 10 songs. This appeases the "but iTunes does it for $1" crowd and includes artists that fly under the pop radar.

3. Full albums for singular artists (Metallica, The Who, Pantera, AC/DC, etc.) should be offered at premium discounted prices. Say 1200MSP for 10 songs. This is analogous to a $15 CD at Best Buy.

4. Finally, "anthologies" should be sold at retail as an expansion pack at $40 for 50 songs. You could offer a similar pack every 3 months on the Marketplace for 3200MSP. Each of these quarterly anthologies should include every song released as DLC between set months. This would appease those people who don't mind waiting for content at a discount.

There are already countless examples of this structure working on the marketplace. See Oblivion's success with everything from their Horse Armor to the Shivering Isles. Gears of War is another example. They are offering their content for a reduced price (FREE!!!) after a set number of months. Epic also managed to get a sponsor for their Gears of War map pack. Rainbow Six Vegas too. Perhaps Harmonix could get band sponsored "concerts"?

In the long run, all a consumer really wants is choice. Not choice to buy or not to buy... they want options to buy. Someone who wants to buy something is damn well going to buy it, happy about the price or not, but to keep them happy about buying content, they just want pricing options. Personally, I won't pay more than 400MSP for 3 songs.

I hope that helps answer your question and you get an achievement unlocked if you actually muscled through my long-winded answer to your short question. Thanks for giving me the chance to voice my opinion on open ears. Cheers!

Weezy24

07-19-2007, 01:25 PM

-80 points = 1$
-80 pts=1 song
-if the album has 15 songs it should be 1200 pts which is 15$.
-not all songs are hits and even though you may have to pay big for licensing rights for mega hits, i'm sure songs that will be out out that are not as popular will cause you to make big profits off the dlc.
-its a fair exchange to your fans
-as for the opinion of master to non master tracks, i have no problem, playing the covers because all of them are increible, but i prefer the master track because i enjoy playing the song that it was meant to be heard and played

monlienNH3

07-19-2007, 01:26 PM

I hope that helps answer your question and you get an achievement unlocked if you actually muscled through my long-winded answer to your short question. Thanks for giving me the chance to voice my opinion on open ears. Cheers!

[Achievement sound] WhetWurm Achievement - 10 GS - You made it through the entire post.

Great post. I also hope they offer a solution for people who would prefer an expansion disc (every 3-4 months or so). I'm sure I'm in the minority, but they'd make a killing off of me - for I'd purchase it as DLC, but also buy the disc so I'd always have it in my collection.

Supergeek

07-19-2007, 02:59 PM

Just want to chime in with $0.99 per track, less for bundles. I know a lot of people have already said it, but majority rules and all that.

Electric_Zen

07-20-2007, 01:44 AM

1. The artist
2. The publisher who owns the rights to the song
3. The developer
4. The publisher of the game (assuming it's different)
5. Microsoft for publishing content on XBLM

Nice points, WhetWurm. Now the good news is, MTV owns Harmonix so the publisher and the developer are the same financial entity. Now we're down to:

1. The artist
2. The music publisher
3. Harmonix / MTV
4. Microsoft / Sony (30%)

This is the model we're going to see initially. Now, the artist cut is going to be very small here. Artists don't get jack**** on CD sales, they don't get jack**** on ITunes sales, so they're not going to get a lot off of the DLC sales. That's unfortunate, but it's between the artist and the publisher.

So, a big question is going to be: what does Harmonix / MTV need to make off of this? Apple does not make money off of ITunes. It is a very expensive operation that ends up being close to break-even after they get their cut. However, Apple does very well because ITunes prompts people to buy very expensive, high-margin iPods and iPhones.

Can Harmonix / MTV work under the same model? Break even on the DLC sales, but make all of their money on software + peripherals?

Here's what the money would look like on a per-song basis at $1.25 per song:

67.5 cents - Publisher / Artist (Now the publisher makes about what they get for selling a song on ITunes)

37.5 cents - Microsoft / Sony (Distribution cut)

20 cents - Harmonix / MTV

So, let's say that in the first couple of months a publisher releases ten singles and three albums, coming out to 40 songs at $1.25 a pop. And let's say each song averages 100,000 copies sold. Now we're at:

$2.7M - Publisher / Artist

$1.5M - Microsoft / Sony

$800,000 - Harmonix / MTV

That looks like a nice chunk of change for everyone involved. Clearly, once the catalog diversifies you're going to see most songs sell fewer than 100,000 copies, but economies of scale will eventually bring down the production costs that Harmonix incurs for each song.

Now after a year, Rock Band is a megahit, and MTV is tired of breaking even on the DLC sales. Well, remember what Guitar Hero 3 did to get Cult of Personality in their game? That's right, they brought In Living Colour in studio to make a brand new recording just for their game. Uh, oh, who's getting a cut now?

1. The artist
2. Harmonix / MTV
3. Microsoft / Sony

Publisher, where are you? Publisher? Oh, right, now MTV is the publisher! So suddenly the artist is now making nice jack for a one-day recording session with Harmonix:

Artist: 43.75 cents per song
Harmonix / MTV: 43.75 cents per song
Microsoft / Sony: 37.5 cents per song

Harmonix is turning good change on the DLC sales (plus the software, plus peripherals), and the artist can get rich or die tryin'.

Anyway, I go through all of this because $1.25 is the magic price point for me where I would start popping these songs like candy. I would have no problems shelling out $60 - $80 per year on DLC at that price (I have spent $0 to date on GH2 DLC because I don't like the price point).

There seems to be concern that nobody can make enough money at that price point, but when I run the numbers I'm not convinced that's true.

xenopherus

07-20-2007, 01:45 AM

I would pay $0.99 cents for a RB song easily over a song from iTunes. ( I always thought $0.50 should be what iTunes songs should cost...) And albums for RB should cost $9.99. I think that's perfectly fair.

WhetWurm

07-20-2007, 02:02 AM

Good breakdown Electric Zen.

My only disagreement is the economies of scale bringing down the prices. Unfortunately, Harmonix/MTV aren't putting up some kind of assembly line to break down costs. They have to take the same amount of care for each song every time. Now, you did point out that Harmonix/MTV can increase their profit take by shutting out the publisher, but the publisher never really goes away in the music industry. They literally own the souls of artists until they release them from their contract. Your solution DOES work for older artists or artists that publish their own CD's (Metallica is a great example). However, for pop bands, the publisher would never let go. And if you start shutting out publishers by force, you start pissing off influential people in the industry and that can only lead to a unified boycott on Rock Band by the publishers. Nevermind the legal ramifications of an artist breaking contract.

So I do agree that your $1.25 is the sweet spot, but I think Harmonix would be better suited soaking those people who gotta have the newest and most popular songs (like ringtones... ugh) right away and breaking even on those who can wait for a discounted price or want to pay for bundles songs.

hmxsean

07-20-2007, 02:03 AM

TheTogfather

07-20-2007, 02:09 AM

That's one Sean-Point for WhetWurm. Someone keeping track of these? Cause we should...

lithiumkc

07-20-2007, 02:13 AM

That's one Sean-Point for WhetWurm. Someone keeping track of these? Cause we should...

Yeah, but koolaid points are so much easier to get.. And you get free frisbees!

Phiromos

07-20-2007, 02:14 AM

haha...i want some sean points..if i can get on his good side maybe i could make some worthwhile suggestions for you all...and yes koolaid points are pretty awesome..i might start a thread keeping track of sean points

TheTogfather

07-20-2007, 02:44 AM

We would need to define a scale for awarding them. For instance, WhetWurm probably gets at least two Sean-Points, because not only was he quoted, but he was specifically told his post was awesome. Like, referenced by name would get you one point, just quoted for use in a witty comment would be one point, but quoted AND complimented would be two points. Hmm, what would be worth three points...quoted, complimented, and expanded upon I guess?

Electric_Zen

07-20-2007, 02:50 AM

If you start shutting out publishers by force, you start pissing off influential people in the industry and that can only lead to a unified boycott on Rock Band by the publishers.

Yes, you are correct. My whole scenario about freezing out the publisher is fantasy for that reason.

Unfortunately, Harmonix/MTV aren't putting up some kind of assembly line to break down costs. They have to take the same amount of care for each song every time.

This is not an assembly line, and there are fixed creative costs per song, but the costs do scale. I do software development, and when we need to do a series of one-off custom jobs for clients we can scale the costs by maturing our processes, and getting people experienced with the processes over time.

I think Harmonix would be better suited soaking those people who gotta have the newest songs right away and breaking even on those who can wait for a discounted price or want to pay for bundles songs.

I am purely speculating here, but I doubt that music publishers will support discounting prices over time.

Game software publishers recognize that their content devalues over time. Eventually, they give away map packs, and you can usually buy their game for half cost a year after release.

Music publishers don't work that way. You still pay full retail for a Beatles album 30 years after its release, and they fight tooth-and-nail against pricing structures that devalue their content. It's a great idea, but I don't think it's going to happen.

tharshmetalUK

07-20-2007, 03:12 AM

[QUOTE=Huwonk;17672]Maybe you don't understand the whole aspect of "running a business" or "making money," but it would be ridiculous for them to pay to license tracks (not to mention pay people to write the note-charts) and then distribute them for free. I'm sure we'll see some free promotions, but you're going to pay for downloadable tracks in general.

How much do u think the actual game will cost? I assure u it will be more than guitar hero 2. They'll be "making money" thats for sure and plenty of it. Id be prepared to pay for an entire album, but as for the same price i would in a shop just for a game NO.

idiotec

07-20-2007, 03:47 AM

It sounds like HMX might need to try to get creative in how they structure the business model.

If they go status quo and have to charge 2+ dollars a song, I think it will hurt the game in the long run.

Hopefully with all their connections they can structure a deal that will benefit everyone. Only time will tell I guess.

karlkaza

07-20-2007, 06:00 AM

I say in between 100 and 300 points a song.

Apples

07-20-2007, 06:07 AM

A lot of folks keep coming back to the $0.99 iTunes price for a song. But a number of labels have expressed deep dis-satisfaction with that price point, and that Apple is basically railroading them into it with their stranglehold on the market.

I think folks expecting that price are not in step with all the real-world costs that go into the production. The GH2 strategy of 2$/song and mandatory bundling is not attractive to the consumer as well.

I'm hoping there's a happy medium between 1$ and 2$ that satisfies all parties concerned... perhaps a staggered tier system that has 2$ at the high end for premium master track singles, $1.50/song for albums in bulk, and $1.25 to $1.75 for independent titles.

We shall see, I want lots of songs so I hope they can make it work.

zepplinmike

07-20-2007, 07:49 AM

I agree completely with WhetWurm, and furthermore:

I think that $1 per song would be great, but is not realistic or fair to expect. Personally, I think something like $2 per individual song would be generally accepted by most. As for full albums, I think 800-1200MSP would be a good price point.

The main problems with the GH2 DLC prices was that 1) they were old songs from GH1, 2) you had to buy them in groups of 3, and 3) you couldn't choose what those 3 songs were.

I think Whetwurm's greatest point was that people just want choices in how they can get this content.

Lushin

07-20-2007, 09:40 AM

The_Fallen

07-20-2007, 12:53 PM

Yes to keep the price of smaller groups/songs I do think big mega hits should cost more like ACDC,Metallica,Aerosmith. If I can choose which songs I want then I would be willing to pay $2.50-$3.00 a song and $3.50-$4.00 for big bands songs such as Aerosmith-Dream On, Metallica-Nothing Else MATTERS-Unforgiven, ACDC-Back in Black. Although I know it cost to have these songs prepared you have to understand a lot of us have limited funds. Considering I paid $50 for guitar hero 2 and, have about 10-15 songs I like to play regularly I could see paying same for 20 songs. I think I come out better that way. But as far as entire albums with say 15 songs unless it's a greatest hits album should be no more than $15.
yeah i agree with that for the most part....
I think $2.50 is the most I would pay for an Individual song and as far as albums depending on the number of tracks I think that $15-$18 is reasonable considering that you aren't just listening to the music but playing it online with 3 buddies so I think those prices are pretty reasonable, but I do think the GH track packs are way overpriced

Akaymay

07-20-2007, 01:23 PM

Hm...this is a tough question.

It all really comes down to how many people are playing Rock Band and are downloading the songs. If (For some reason) This game isnt a crazy mega-hit, they could go bankrupt if they put up new songs every week like promised. Because it costs a fortune to get those rights to songs. They would need tons of people ready to download the songs. And if it's a cazy mega-hit (Like I'm predicting), it shouldnt cost much. They could get the rights, get tons and tons of people to download the song(s), that would pay off the rights to the song(s) and they would make a profit, so they could lower the price so even more people can download them. But if it's not a mega-hit, the songs will cost more because they need the money to pay off the rights to the song(s).

So, if Rock Band is as huge as I think it will be, the songs should only cost $1.00 (USD). But then you have to take in perspective of how much work is put into the song. Such as animating the characters to move to the guitar/drums/vocals. As well as the notes and lyrics. So the length of the song is also a variable. So, if the song is longer than 5 minutes, it should be raised 50 cents every minute.

karlkaza

07-20-2007, 02:06 PM

I thing we should be able to beat careers and get acheivements and beat songs to get money and then use them for DLC. (downloadable content)
It would make the game more fun and people would play it longer.

Supergeek

07-20-2007, 06:38 PM

A lot of folks keep coming back to the $0.99 iTunes price for a song. But a number of labels have expressed deep dis-satisfaction with that price point, and that Apple is basically railroading them into it with their stranglehold on the market.
A CD costs what, $13, for 10-13 songs? And the vast, vast majority of that goes back to the publisher, ostensibly for production, manufacturing, distribution. and promotion.

- Production

The master tracks already exist. The only reasons to have a cover made is if (1) the license for the master track is completely unavailable for whatever reason, or (2) the cost is significantly cheaper to have a cover band do it. I'd love to hear some figures for costs for licensing some tracks, but I'm sure that's confidential. Thing is, with the 700-lb gorilla MTV behind this, I bet it's much easier to get those licenses...

The translation to Rock Band: Besides licensing a master track, I'm assuming this is the biggest expense. Some guys sit in a studio with mixers and computers and figure out where the notes go, figure out special gameplay issues such as star power notes, etc. And from what I hear, songs are being choreographed with mo-cap. For an existing master track, these items are the only real expense aside from licensing. I'd like to hear a figure on how many man-hours go into translating an average track into Rock Band.

- Manufacturing
There is no physical product. Cost $0.

- Promotion
Someone uploads it into the marketplace and a code monkey adds it into a database with a few clicks and typing in the titles. Cost: $negligible.

I think folks expecting that price are not in step with all the real-world costs that go into the production. The GH2 strategy of 2$/song and mandatory bundling is not attractive to the consumer as well.

I'm hoping there's a happy medium between 1$ and 2$ that satisfies all parties concerned... perhaps a staggered tier system that has 2$ at the high end for premium master track singles, $1.50/song for albums in bulk, and $1.25 to $1.75 for independent titles.

We shall see, I want lots of songs so I hope they can make it work.
With reduced distribution and manufacturing costs (negligible), and an unknown quantity for production, it's impossible to guess what the real world costs are without insider info.

Of course, the studios are going to charge as much as the market will bear to maximize profit. This is unavoidable and to be expected. But if we educate ourselves and others, maybe we can force the studios' expectations lower.

Supergeek

07-20-2007, 06:43 PM

It all really comes down to how many people are playing Rock Band and are downloading the songs.
Exactly right. Thing is, there are deep pockets behind this, and they don't have to release ten thousand downloadable tracks. They can test the waters by releasing some at a time. If sales suck, they can try to adjust the prices or type of music they're releasing.

If sales are great, once they pay for production and licensing, it's all pure profit. There are no ongoing shelf costs for a digital product, no returned merchandise, no shipping, and very little overhead.

WhetWurm

07-21-2007, 12:54 AM

Awesome post! That was really well reasoned!Thanks! I hope it helps. It's hard to be well reasoned in an online forum but the guys and gals on rockband.com are a great bunch so far.

I'll have to get some background about the "sean-points" from someone... :cool:

psychoboy

07-21-2007, 03:15 AM

I think its safe to say that this isnt just about what songs people really want,if the cost is low people are more likely to buy songs just to play something new whereas if the cost is high people are only going to pick a few favourites. Songs from artists i dont really listen to will be bought as long as they are cheap. $1 to $2 is the sweetspot I'd say. If getting original recordings is going to launch the price up to $5 then whats the point.

Phrank-E

07-21-2007, 03:42 AM

Hm...this is a tough question.

It all really comes down to how many people are playing Rock Band and are downloading the songs. If (For some reason) This game isnt a crazy mega-hit, they could go bankrupt if they put up new songs every week like promised. Because it costs a fortune to get those rights to songs. They would need tons of people ready to download the songs. And if it's a cazy mega-hit (Like I'm predicting), it shouldnt cost much. They could get the rights, get tons and tons of people to download the song(s), that would pay off the rights to the song(s) and they would make a profit, so they could lower the price so even more people can download them. But if it's not a mega-hit, the songs will cost more because they need the money to pay off the rights to the song(s).

You forget... Viacom bought up Harmonix and EA is publishing it.. Both of these companies own a fair deal worth of record lables themselves.. So they got a good library of tunage to pick from for use till the ball really gets going and need to pony up the big money for stuff they don't have easy acess to... Like Zeppelin. Not all bands own thier music. Not all lables own the controlling intrest in what they published. The business behind licensing is ridiculously difficult.

Cr1ckt

07-21-2007, 05:12 AM

The reason that the GHII downloadable track prices were ridiculous was that I would have to pay $100 to get all of the tracks from the original game, when I paid $40 to buy the game in the first place. Activision would have me believe that the higher costs were necessary, even though:

1. The original GH paid for the costs of conceiving the notecharts, recording the cover tracks, and developing the original game engine and assets, while the DLC was simply porting the existing notecharts into the new engine and creating bass notecharts, which are much less complicated than the guitar charts.
2. When the original GH came out, licensing famous songs was more difficult and more expensive because the property was unknown, whereas, by the time that the the Xbox 360 version had been released, the franchise was a household name, thus making bands and record labels more receptive to the use of their songs in game. I find it hard to believe that licensing the downloadable songs for a second time would be more costly.
3. The original GH had to be distributed through normal retail channels, in physical form, whereas the DLC was distributed in digital form, through a well-established network.

For all of these reasons, it is impossible that charging a dollar per song would not have been profitable for Activision, as the cost of production could only have gone down since the songs were originally released. If the price of $1 a song could not yield a profit when the costs of production were lower, then the original model was financially unsound, and Red Octane and Harmonix would not be in the position they are today.

Of course, so far, I have only demonstrated that the excess prices, charged for "premium" content, are pure economic profit. I have not yet given a satisfactory reason as to why Harmonix should choose to forgo such an enticing level of revenue. My answer is quite simple: I believe that, at a lower price point, you can actually make more total revenue.

Take the GHII's DLC, for example. Red Octane has confirmed that they have sold over 300,000 song packs. In fact, they have smugly bragged about the fact that "so many" people were satisfied with the $2.00/song price point. They failed to consider the fact that nearly 600,000 people have played GHII while logged in to Xbox Live. This means that, with four song packs available, they could sell a potential maximum of 2,400,000 song packs. Of course, the idea of everyone buying every song is quite difficult to realize. However, it is not difficult to imagine selling more than 600,000 packs to that market.

My point is this: If a price point ($1) at half of their current asking price ($2) can more than double the quantity of tracks sold, then the total revenue for the operation will increase. If the demand for DLC packs is elastic, as I suspect, Red Octane could certainly be making more money off of their venture, if they would lower the price.

Of course, total revenue isn't the only factor to consider when pricing a product. Marginal cost is also important, to make sure that maximum total profit is achieved. Since the product being sold is digital, it costs nothing to produce extra units. The server costs are fixed, so it doesn't matter, in terms of production, whether you sell 2 units or 2 million units. The costs of making that packet of data remain the same, as it can be replicated with virtually no marginal cost.

However, I do realize that licensing is an issue. As far as I know, the statutory rate for covers of songs is 8.50 cents or 1.65 cents a minute, charged on every copy sold. If a song is available to cover, this is the maximum you could be charged, unless the mechanical rate doesn't apply to you, due to the unique nature of your utilization of the recordings. I believe that you are probably getting a good deal with the record labels that you have pre-standing agreements with, so I don't buy into the argument that licensing fees prohibit Red Octane from lowering the price to a dollar. If they are much higher, for some reason, please correct me.

Most importantly, I feel it would be unwise of Harmonix to charge a premium price for Downloadable content. If you are serious about being the "iTunes of gaming," and you want your downloadable songs to reach a mass market, than I would advise that you charge a price that is directly comparable to the price charged for the songs that come on the disc. Your site claims 40 songs will be available, for what I would assume would be about $60 for the game disc itself. This would make a price of $1.25 to 1.50 per song reasonable. At that price, people can justify buying most of the tracks because it would be equivalent to purchasing a new game. (I would be willing to buy every song you release, if they were sold at that price point.) However, at Red Octane's current pricing, I have to choose only the select few songs that I really want. This way, the publisher loses potential revenue, and the gamer loses the ability to experience music that he/she would not normally desire.

I honestly believe that you could persuade a significant fraction of your customers to purchase a majority of the tracks you release if you use a price point comparable to the retail pricing. At the very least, if you choose not to offer each individual song for $1.25 to 1.50, give us, your most loyal fans, the opportunity to experience everything you make for that reasonable price. I would love to be able to play every song you put in the game, and I would be extremely disappointed to find out that it would be finacially irresponsible to do so.

Some ideas for alternative pricing: Song packs (These are okay, as long as you give the gamers a discount for the lack of choice.) Season Pass (Allow hardcore followers to subscribe with an upfront fee, which allows them to download all of the songs you make in a year for free.) The Synergy option (Allow gamers to purchase the real songs on CD or iTunes and receive a code for downloading the song in the game.)

I hope you guys read this and consider it seriously. I have been disillusioned with the way that Red Octane had regarded their fans. I am truly excited that you are taking the DLC seriously, and I hope that you allow your fans to access it at a reasonable price, so that Rock Band can truly become the definitive way of experiencing music. This project is shaping up to be one of the most ambitous video games ever, and I really want it to succeed in the best possible way. I would love to hear your thoughts on the ideas I have offered you.

Electric_Zen

07-21-2007, 06:09 AM

Very well said, Cr1ckt.

That is the core issue for me. Clearly, everyone has figured out how to stick 30 licensed songs (plus a bunch of other stuff) on a $40 disc and make enough money, even after retailers get their cut. And I would have gladly paid $40 to get the Guitar Hero songs for download.

Earlier in the thread, Sean implied that there were arcane cost structures that causes DLC to be more expensive than what's sold on disc through retail.

Maybe that's true. Maybe for whatever reason it actually costs twice as much money to sell content as part of a DLC bundle, as it does to sell it as part of a disc anthology. In that case, I would like to see the content released as disc anthologies.

If it costs $2.50 a song to buy stuff as DLC, but $1.25 per song as part of an anthology lovingly selected as Harmonix, then please offer both options, because I will go for the disc.

Cr1ckt

07-21-2007, 08:35 AM

I found that post by Sean, and I think he's referring to the digital licensing, which is separate from the mechanical licensing required for songs on CDs, and the like. As far as I can tell, digital licensing isn't more expensive than mechanical licensing. Rather, it is just separate. Nothing from his post leads me to believe that digital distribution should be more expensive than physical distribution. Sean was simply arguing that licensing the songs for GH 1 did not entitle them to redistribute the songs on Xbox live. However, most of these fees pertain to covers, not original recordings. I suspect that a lot of the "deals with major record labels" have served to reduce the cost of obtaining original recordings.

I also noticed that others had brought up the idea of releasing the a song with a premium price and lowering it after a few months. Bungie does this with its map packs for Halo 2, and I think it works wonderfully (although they offer the packs for free after a certain period of time.) Reducing the price of individual songs or offering a discounted bundle for, let's say, all of the songs released during the month, would be a great concession. Also, I would definitely choose the cheaper anthology, if given such a choice. If Microsoft really is charging 30% on DLC, then maybe the anthology would be the more profitable option for Harmonix. However, if such options are to be made available, I'm sure most of us would appreciate knowing about them ahead of time, so we don't purchase the two songs we really like out of the DLC and repurchase them when we decide to buy the anthology.

To address the original questions of the thread, I would be willing to pay the occasional premium on a hard-to-get original recording of a legendary band, but only as long as the songs that Harmonix can get through its special relationships with record labels are made available at a much lower price. In conclusion, no more than $1.25 to 1.50 a song as a general rule. If a legendary song is a possibility, but the band requires a hefty fee to use it, I could understand a special "premium" price for that one song.

Electric_Zen

07-21-2007, 08:49 AM

If Microsoft really is charging 30% on DLC, then maybe the anthology would be the more profitable option for Harmonix.

Possibly, but I suspect that if you go through retail you're actually giving up more than 30% for distribution.

karlkaza

07-22-2007, 01:25 AM

i think we should be able to pay with microsoft points not real cash

thats all

Cr1ckt

07-22-2007, 07:15 AM

Possibly, but I suspect that if you go through retail you're actually giving up more than 30% for distribution.

I suspect that might be true as well. But then, the cost of going through Xbox live is less than the cost of going through retail, and the songs should cost no more than they do at retail.

Electric_Zen

07-22-2007, 07:25 AM

But then, the cost of going through Xbox live is less than the cost of going through retail, and the songs should cost no more than they do at retail.

Exactly...

karlkaza

07-22-2007, 01:07 PM

I thing ALBUMS should cost about........500-600 points each
and songs should cost about 100-200 points each
that be nice

coheedandcambriaman1

07-22-2007, 01:17 PM

u need all coheed and cambria albums there a amazing band

i5hawn

07-22-2007, 02:54 PM

For me the realization just hit that while the roughly $6.00 per pack was rough, it still added new gameplay to an already solid replay experience.

rock band is going to what...double, or quadruple that experience? at the same price point? seems pretty fair to me. not to mention that this is next generation gaming and as we've come to except that comes with a price. the game companies had to figure out a way to make money after the arcades died and here it is. i'd pay the retail price of an album to what hte market rate is for the album, as some albums may be out of print or just old stock or what have you so roughly 9.99 to maybe 24.99 for something that's just really rare like a hendrix album or a prince album since i think thier estates are really odd about where the work is used. although, they did get that hendrix track in the first GH. however i do feel like the option to buy only the tracks you want from an album should be an option and you shouldn't be forced to buy the whole entire album. for instance they've stated that the who's - who's next will be the first album available for download but one of the tracks from that album is already in the game's retail lineup so right there you've got a weird discrepancy.

most likely the pricing for individual tracks will be higher and the album price will be a few dollars cheaper so the entire album seems more appealing, i would think that these numbers would be attached to the groups official album sale tally? seems to make sense, from a business perspective to me.

domintor023

07-22-2007, 05:41 PM

yea as long as there cheaper than guitar hero 2

Quitsquirrel

07-22-2007, 05:55 PM

......................$.99 a song

domintor023

07-22-2007, 06:16 PM

Yea that would be good but the 360 goes be microsoft points

Quitsquirrel

07-22-2007, 07:46 PM

then 99ms points

benjamin

07-22-2007, 09:15 PM

I would actually rather pay 200 MS points then 99 MS points.

But I REALLY hate uneven numbers like that.

Quitsquirrel

07-23-2007, 01:15 AM

..........then 100

Lushin

07-23-2007, 01:33 AM

lithiumkc

07-23-2007, 01:37 AM

I think people have the wrong idea. They keep saying gh1-2 songs add up to $1.00-$1.25 per song(for songs game developers/popular demand puts in)so I think songs that I get to pick are worth more. Covers are fine too but, masters are worth more. So covers-$2-$2.50 per song and masters-$2.75-$3.50 per song. Small bands being the lower and, big bands being the larger.

Those are ridiculously high prices. At 3 bucks a song for masters, youre looking at 120 bucks for 40 songs, which is double the cost of the game. Way too high.

No more than 2 bucks a song, period.

Maggot_Brain

07-23-2007, 07:12 AM

Put my vote down for no more than $1.50 per song. No bundles unless they are compilations that save money over buying them individually.

Harmonix: you've got an opportunity here to do much better than Activision with the GH2 DLC. Take it and lock up our business for ever and ever......!

crovaxthecrazy

07-24-2007, 12:05 AM

I think that we should get a few albums for free with rock band, thus somewhat customizing the game. So instead of guitar hero where you get 30 random songs for $40 instead you get x songs + x albums of your choice, so more of the songs you get are what you want. Especially with the price tag that the game will most likely carry I think it's only fair. People will have to invest heavily to get needed new equipment like the drum set and microphone and 2nd guitar if they are coming to this from guitar hero, so it seems only fair to include some downloadable content free with the game. After that nothing more than $1 a song, the prices for downloadable songs for the xbox360 guitar hero are ridiculous, espcially with Microsoft's awkward point system.

that's what I think,
Noah

StrikerD

07-24-2007, 04:07 AM

First Off, I'm a 360 user, so I'm going to talk in MS points.
Secondly, I want my 360 guitars to be wireless, they're too cool for USB, but I guess I don't have to worry about batteries.

Alright, MS already sells music digitally via the Zune marketplace, and their stuff is 79 points a song. I wish you guys had an option like they do on their marketplace, if you're going to release entire albums (or song packs). Either buy the album at album price, or buy songs individually.

On the marketplace I should have the option to download each song for 79 points, or buy the entire album for around 800 (roughly $10).

Looking at 'Throwing Copper' by Live on the zune marketplace they have 14 songs at 79 points each. If I bought each song individually I'd spend 1106 points. Yet, there's another option to buy the entire album for 480 points. Isn't that convenient?

Now, 480 is a low price, probably because the album's aging and it's not the most popular, but who's counting? I bought it anyway.

copasetic

07-24-2007, 10:59 AM

I'd say between $1 and $1.50, and a bit cheaper for unsigned artists (or bands on small underground labels). It's the lesser known bands I'd be interested in hearing, I hope there'll be a good system in place for them to get their music out there for a reasonable price. Hell the publicity alone would be worth it for most unsigned bands.

ziggyosk

07-24-2007, 02:57 PM

i think $1 per song would be great

fried_blowney

07-24-2007, 03:00 PM

I'm probably off my rocker, but 25-50 cents a song. Think about it. If you add 20 songs that makes for a $5-$10 download. Cheaper songs = more people downloading them = more $$$ for HMX. That and a lot less complaints.

PS. No pun intended for 'off my rocker'.

Alocer

07-24-2007, 03:41 PM

I personnally don't care all that much about the price, as long as it's reasonable. I'd say somewhere between 1$ and 2$ per song.

The price should fluctuate by basing the cost on how much it actually cost to make the song. Like getting the original content on big hits is probably a lot more expensive than getting songs from smaller bands. Heck, I'm sure some bands would actually give them away for free, since in a way it's like publicity for them. And personally I think most of the best music there is is out there in small bands.

IOIHUMMERIOI

07-24-2007, 05:39 PM

I think $1.50 a song is about right.

I'll give the $1.00 that everyone else charges, okay, iTunes charges, for the artist and $.50 for the devs to do their work on the song. Throw in some extra goodies, and my limit is $2.00 for the song. Nothing more. Hell, there's no packaging involved. It's all electronic. I will say it shouldn't be free as people have put time and effort into the content and should be reimbursed, even if it's just a nickel.

gh2masterwellalmost

07-25-2007, 06:54 AM

GrayInvisible

07-25-2007, 11:59 AM

Yeah, everything gets overpriced in britain since the dollar is almost double the pound. Rock Band shouldn't do this.

If everything is cheaper it may end up making much more money in the long run since they will buy in bulk.

ledrums

07-25-2007, 04:14 PM

1$ would be nice, but 4$ would be totally ok, considering theyre coding and creating a music part on 4 levels for 4 different instruments.so one dollar an instrument. but PLEASE dont charge for each different part

Terranova

07-25-2007, 09:59 PM

ewanuk

07-26-2007, 12:10 AM

I would pay $1.00-$2.00 a song if I liked it, $5.00 for a pack of 3 if I liked at least 2 of them

I dont really care if it's a cover or master track, as long as the covers stay the same quality as they did from GH 1 and 2

I say $1.00-$2.00 simply because that's the price range where I just dont care and will buy about anything. Once we hit the $3.00 mark, I get very picky :P

IOIHUMMERIOI

07-26-2007, 12:25 PM

You're all talking in $ but i'm just gonna do this from a British perspective.

British things always cost more than American. So remove the exchange rate. The maximum I would pay for a song is £1. For an Album... £7.

Any British people out there who agree with this price?

Not to be an ass, but more of someone in your corner, you actually have to be given the opportunity to get content to begin with (360 speaking of course)! I know Microsoft stated everyone is getting content now, maybe this will be the start of things to come?

Necrotide

07-26-2007, 03:56 PM

I would be willing to buy up to 40 tracks each individually priced at $2.00 each, over the my entire course of playing this game.

Basically, the maximum I'll pay on DLC over a three year period is $80.

If I could download an album that I think is pretty decent, I would pay no more than $10.

gh2masterwellalmost

07-26-2007, 07:13 PM

Not to be an ass, but more of someone in your corner, you actually have to be given the opportunity to get content to begin with (360 speaking of course)! I know Microsoft stated everyone is getting content now, maybe this will be the start of things to come?

Yh I am on 360 but I think PS3 should be paying EXACTLY the same price. And what you mean "you have to get the opportunity" I have all 4 Song Packs for GH2 they were all available in the EU. With the 360 the content is worldwide.

-Xyfa-

07-27-2007, 12:34 AM

to agree with what gh2masterwellalmost said, i think that £1 a song and £7 an album is fair

id say thats probably about $1.60-$1.80 per song and $11-$12 per album

gh2masterwellalmost

07-27-2007, 01:09 AM

to agree with what gh2masterwellalmost said

after incidents involving me saying "Korn are rubbish", "Queen are rubbish" and "Avenged Sevenfold are overrated" its good to see some1 actually agree with me on the Rock Band forums. Oh and by the way... MCR ARE EMO! GET OVER IT!

stinkdog2007

07-27-2007, 07:49 AM

I think it shouldn't go over a $1 a song. $1.25 at the most. Over that I think is ridiculous.

AceFrehley

07-27-2007, 09:20 AM

gh2masterwellalmost

07-27-2007, 09:30 AM

I am not sure if anyone has stated this yet, but EA, MTV, and Harmonix for that matter will not have alot of say when it comes to the prices for songs and albums on the Xbox Live Marketplace. I am not sure how Sony will handle the pricing of the songs and albums since I don't own a PS3, but Microsoft pretty much sets the prices for everything that is offered in the Marketplace. I remember Epic wanting to offer multiplayer maps for free for Gears of War, but Microsoft said no and made Epic charge for them. I just hope that the prices of songs and albums are competitive with online music services like Napster and I Tunes.

Microsoft had control over Gears of War. With things like GH2 content Activision/Red Octane is in charge (as I remember harmonix stating they were unhappy with the prices), so with Rock Band it will be EA that will be doing the prices. So Harmonix may be unhappy again like we may be since EA are pretty bad when it comes to prices.

Prove me wrong. After all those Fifa games, make Rock Band good...

Anteraan

07-27-2007, 05:25 PM

No, I'm not referring to the Spinal Tap amplifier's "11" setting. :p

When examining a product's price point, one has to consider two factors: profit margin and expected sales volume. The product of the two will determine overall profit. In this case, I believe that volume will be the more important of the two variables. At $1.25-1.50, I'll buy a fair number of tracks. At $1, my money will flow like water. But at $2, I'll be far more selective. You'll end up getting more of my money overall when the price is lower, since I'll acquire many songs that I likely would not have otherwise.

I also want the option to purchase individual songs. I simply can not stress this enough. Full albums and era/genre compilations (at a discount) would be considered as well. But individual song choice should be the cornerstone of the model, in my opinion. This is the main reason I refuse to buy any of the GHII packs, but if they put "More Than a Feeling" up individually, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

As an alternate model, please consider a slight discount for large purchases of individual songs. Let's say (for the sake of easy numbers) that individual songs run $1.50. An option to buy 20 songs for $27 or 40 songs for $50 would be most welcome. Once again, you're encouraging volume and providing choice, both of which will drive overall sales. That would be the best way to get my money, to be quite honest.

One question that may have already been addressed (if so, please forgive me and provide me a link): If I wish to play a DLC song with friends online, will all involved parties have to own that song? I'm guessing the answer is yes, but clarification would be appreciated. If so, this is definitely a situation that supports my volume theory above. At the lower price, I would be likely to buy the song(s) for me AND for some of my friends. The transaction would be tricky (if only there were a way to gift MS points to a friend), but I'd figure it out.

Thank you so much for the open dialogue, and I look forward to enjoying your latest creation.

Sitzsack

07-27-2007, 10:29 PM

80 ms points /song
800 ms points /album

they should also offer new venues (like woodstock :D) and items for your band (like haircuts, guitars...)

and extras for albums: when you purchase The Misfits - Walk Among Us you get a new haircut (devilock ;))

or the ramones uniform, or the kiss makeup :)

gh2masterwellalmost

07-28-2007, 12:14 AM

80 ms points /song
800 ms points /album

got yourself a deal from me. Sounds good. If 2100 points is £17.50 then thats £6.66 an album and 66p a song. Thats a very good offer.

onlyrob

07-28-2007, 12:28 AM

Seriously, I hope there's some sort of iTunes-esque Store for Rock Band. I didn't say an Apple store for the game, I'm talking about Harmonix's own service where they're not bound to Microsoft's ridiculous price gauging. If I paid even $5 for that program to start up my downloadable services and paid $1 for every song henceforth, I can guarantee a library of at least 50 songs on my hard drive.

Besides, there's too much red tape when placing up downloadable content on a service like Microsoft's. Developers should be free to post up content easily without those damn strings.

Phrank-E

07-28-2007, 02:25 AM

TheRocker

07-28-2007, 05:36 AM

This also brings up a question.. Would the PS3 songs end up a little cheaper than the Xbox. One would assume no, Consistency is always strived for in business.. But if the PS3 is easier and cheaper, and they charge a lower price to obtain the same profit... who knows.

No long ago they released some extra Tunes for RidgeRacer7 and each were .99 or the whole pack for 10 , MAYBE thats how the whole RockBand downloads will work out they will be sold seperatly but you could buy the whole pack of songs ( Album ) too

DarkSide

07-28-2007, 08:08 AM

If you could add one of your
favorite songs, what's it worth to you?
For a master track that I absolutely love I would be willing to pay 2-3 (U.S.) dollars. For something really mind blowing; Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Tool, I'd be willing to pay a max of 4 dollars, providing that they are masters and not covers.

That being said, I still think the average price of a song should be no more than 1 dollar.

If we could only get a mega-hit song by charging a higher price,
should we?
Yes. It's better to have the option to download a really good song, at a higher price, than not at all. Let the fans decide whether or not it's worth it to them.

Should there be more than one price point?
Yes. Songs should be priced dynamically, depending on their value and the factors mentioned above. A cover of a Green Day song, for example, shouldn't cost as much as a master Zeppelin track.

Are songs from
original masters worth more to you than covers?
Clearly, yes. I want the originals.

One thing I would like to stress is that DLC for RockBand shouldn't follow the GHII "Track Pack" model. Rather, songs should be able to be purchased individually. Instead of forcing me to pay for two mediocre songs in order to get the third good song, I shouold be able to just purchase the one good song.

sakocs

07-28-2007, 04:36 PM

I hope they put a deal out when you get the pack deal like you would get 6 months of free DLC. It only seems fare to me as I will be taking a big hit financially to get them all at the same time. Anyone else agree? Like with GH flew through the game on a lower level and wanted more songs got bored playing songs I didn’t like on a harder level. So why not make it for people like me who are going to play the game content out as much as possible for the first week a chance to get more for free. It’s not like I’m saying keep all the songs free. Only give me enough DLC to get my mouth watering, blood flowing, sweat poring, and wallet filling so as time goes on I will be willing to get more and pay whatever the price is.

That’s all K.

Thats_Bull

07-29-2007, 01:59 AM

I don't know if anybody has mentioned this before, but maybe they should just do the downloads like they used to do records. You get one song that is big and well known, and then another, untested song for free. Somebody was talking about the radio in their post, and about how many bands will be wanting to use Rock Band as a radio to get their songs out. This way, they can couple their own song with another one, to get other people to play it and perhaps like it.

More importantly, from the players perspective, you get two songs for the price of one! (of course considering that the price will be reasonable, around $1 - $1.25 as many have said)

I also think that selling albums would be a little bit of a waste. People already complain about the fact that they only like half the songs (or less) on their Guitar Hero games... the chance of them liking over ten is very low. It would be better to just sell them individually then to sell them in albums, even if their was some small discount for buying an album. Plus, if Rock Band is just going to be used as a radio as mentioned before, a bunch of random songs could be in their that you obviously don't want.

But what to do with masters and covers... They should probably cost the same amount, because the same amount of work is being done to get them. You may think that Harmonix has to bring in the master band, and all that jazz, but think about Wavegroup. They have to figure out all the notes from the song, and then get good enough at the song to play it! Think about how difficult that would be, even as a professional musician. Masters may sound a little bit better, but certainly not enough to charge more money than the excellent work done by the cover artist.

I guess what I'm saying is that the songs should cost around $1 as everybody else has been saying, but also that Harmonix should come up with interesting ideas for discounted songs, not just use the old album trick that is used far too much.

lithiumkc

07-29-2007, 09:50 AM

I guess what I'm saying is that the songs should cost around $1 as everybody else has been saying, but also that Harmonix should come up with interesting ideas for discounted songs, not just use the old album trick that is used far too much.

The classic B-side...

That's actually a good idea, put another song by an unknown or lesser known artist for free or for like a few cents extra.

cmg4894

07-29-2007, 11:35 AM

The classic B-side...

That's actually a good idea, put another song by an unknown or lesser known artist for free or for like a few cents extra.

First, I like the idea of the B-side. But do people now a days know what a B-side is? I'm not going to read 21 pages of posts. I skimmed a lot and I agree with most of them. 125 points is a great price point ($1.56 a song). I think you should be able to get single songs and if you buy packs they are cheaper (BUY IN BULK). I also never use a credit card on Live. I go to Best Buy and get a points card (I have my reasons). I don't know if MS will do this but what about HMX releasing their own gift cards for the game? Parents could buy them as gifts and they could maybe thrown in free stuff. I know I have seen i-Tunes cards that had 'free' songs if you got them.

andy17null

07-29-2007, 03:49 PM

It would be a huge attraction if only the hosting member of an online band had to own a song. Is it really fair to expect 4 band members to each buy the song on their own system in order to be able to play with their friends?

You'd also make friends fast if you could commit to releasing one free song per week. Doesn't matter if it's an up and coming artist or an established one, but if people know that their library will ALWAYS be growing in size, even with just an initial monetary commitment, I think you'd sell more than enough copies of Rock Band to compensate for that lost money.

I'm in the $1 per song sounds fair camp. Charging more for masters doesn't make sense, since it takes much less work to make a master into a Rock Band track. I agree players should be able to buy an entire album for a discount, but please still offer the ability to buy single tracks from it!

Terathis

07-30-2007, 04:14 AM

I'd say that around $2 for a single song would be about right.

For an album, I'd say lower the price to around $1.25 per song, which for a standard 12 track album, would put it around $15 for an album.

As for charging more for a master as compared to a cover, I'd say it's a bit erroneous, unless Harmonix has a lower profit to loss ratio for masters. Of course, I'd say that the work it takes to produce a cover track would be a bit more than the amount to produce a track from a master.

Y'know, because you have to pay all the artists that produce it, and all that other stuff. Then again, if Harmonix has contracted artists that are only there to create cover tracks and other such things, they'd already be paying them, and would be wasting money if they didn't produce covers for the games.

So many things to think about, but I still stick to my original statements. Harmonix should look over their profit to loss ratio and decide how much they'll charge for masters and covers.

Brad_Lee

07-30-2007, 04:31 AM

I'm hoping for a timed download feature.... something that allows you to test the song with each instrument one time before you buy it.

Syko360

07-30-2007, 05:22 AM

I think if the $60 game ships with 40 songs then $1.50 a song is what it should cost to download additional songs. As my biggest complaint was having to pay more than the disc would have cost me. Then of course treating us like we're idiots after they try to rob us was funny to me as well. I just hope you guys understand that paying more for DLC than the songs that came with the disc is not acceptable and is what it will end up being compared to by all the critics and gamers. Plus Albums should be slightly cheaper than buying that many songs individually, but it doesn't have to be a lot cheaper. Just so the albums "feel" like a better value than buying individual songs.

Thanks for listening to the fan feedback also. I think more than the shock of the price was the fact that the fans were ignored. Further alienating the fanbase from Guitar Hero.

Can't wait to play your game and I actually have 16,000 MS Points waiting for this game to come out. Thanks to Circuit City's deal, LOL:D

StrikerD

07-31-2007, 08:02 AM

You'd also make friends fast if you could commit to releasing one free song per week. Doesn't matter if it's an up and coming artist or an established one, but if people know that their library will ALWAYS be growing in size, even with just an initial monetary commitment, I think you'd sell more than enough copies of Rock Band to compensate for that lost money.

I agree with andy. If each album had 1 free song, you'd see alot more purchases and stuff. It doesn't even have to be a hit song from that album, just something to let people get a feel for the band's music. It'd get me hooked.

GARahn

07-31-2007, 05:54 PM

I'd say $1... Willing to stretch to $1.25 maximum... And hopefully they don't sell songs in packs of 3... and charge like 6 bucks.

TheRocker

08-01-2007, 02:33 AM

I Will Go Up To 2.00 But No More Than That

bounchfx

08-01-2007, 10:09 AM

yeah.. I'm thinkin 1.25 to 2 (max) no more than 2.. and even 2 is pushing it.. a lot.

I stand by my statement that hmx should give a song out every week or every month to keep people going who can't afford all the extra songs.

of course keep albums coming out every week and other songs. I'll pay! bahah! but free would be so cool..

Scorp1313

08-01-2007, 10:37 AM

Flybird

08-01-2007, 05:49 PM

Well, since they're actually offering full albums for download, I'd say about $10 (or 800 XBM points)

SixFactorial

08-02-2007, 01:12 AM

In order to achieve Harmonix's vision of Rock Band being a platform for experiencing music and not just a "game"... I think it is important that when people buy songs for Rock Band, they buy the rights to use the song in all future versions of Rock Band as well. People wouldn’t be willing to spend $1 per song on iTunes if they had to re-purchase their entire collection after every software update from Apple. When people buy a song/album, they should be able to play it in Rock Band (1), Rock Band 2, Rock Band 3, etc. Similarly, songs from the Rock Band disc should be downloadable/unlockable for future versions of Rock Band with the presence of the original disc or some unique serial number.

drno830

08-02-2007, 04:21 PM

I am in agreement with the theory that if we're only paying $0.99 on iTunes, then that's all the more we should have to pay for a download song. I don't think it would really matter if it's by the original artist or not, but if we're going to be paying a premium for big name artists or songs, then that particular download should be by the original artist.

I still don't see how this comparison was ever made. You are comparing a video game to a song. Harmonix has to buy the rights to the song, and then make charts for each individual track. It just seems like an unfair assumption that since they are both songs they should cost the same.

ianian

08-02-2007, 05:43 PM

since 1.00 probably isnt going to happen because there ganna lose money because of the recording and making the song its probably going to be 1.50 for a cover and 2.00 for an origonil. i think they should have album discounts now though

fried_blowney

08-02-2007, 06:16 PM

75 cents. That's my final offer.

The_Walrus_King

08-02-2007, 06:29 PM

I dont know. I really cant see me wanting to pay more than 1.50 for any song, master track or not. I think 1.00 is what it should be, but if thats totally, and I mean absolutely impossible, then I can handle 1.50. The prices on GH2's DLC is a prime example on why they should be no higher than 1.50. I had originally planned to buy whatever they came out with, but I have yet to get any of it.

dQuarters

08-02-2007, 09:29 PM

On XBL it should be 100 points a song. No more no less. 1000 for an album with more than 10 songs.

dQuarters

08-02-2007, 09:33 PM

I still don't see how this comparison was ever made. You are comparing a video game to a song. Harmonix has to buy the rights to the song, and then make charts for each individual track. It just seems like an unfair assumption that since they are both songs they should cost the same.

I was thinking the same thing. But when you purhase a song on iTunes it's yours to burn, play, delete, share, edit... In GH and RB it's only yours in the game. Of course that's great, but you are losing something as well. I think a $0.99 is a fair price-point.

(sorry for the double post).

PurpleHaze

08-02-2007, 10:40 PM

I still don't see how this comparison was ever made. You are comparing a video game to a song. Harmonix has to buy the rights to the song, and then make charts for each individual track. It just seems like an unfair assumption that since they are both songs they should cost the same.And I don't see how anybody can think the game versions of songs are worth more?! If the game version gave you all of the same functionality of the real song as well as the ability to play it, then sure, a higher price would seem acceptable. However, that's not the case - there is, in fact, a very clear trade off between being able to listen to it and being able to play it - and therefore, to me anyway, that makes their value about equal.

JimNasium

08-03-2007, 12:04 AM

I was thinking the same thing. But when you purhase a song on iTunes it's yours to burn, play, delete, share, edit... In GH and RB it's only yours in the game. Of course that's great, but you are losing something as well. I think a $0.99 is a fair price-point.

(sorry for the double post).

I don't think you can share it........

miketoast

08-03-2007, 04:11 AM

I still don't see how this comparison was ever made. You are comparing a video game to a song. Harmonix has to buy the rights to the song, and then make charts for each individual track. It just seems like an unfair assumption that since they are both songs they should cost the same.

Okay, so they have to sit down and make charts for the music, didn't the band that wrote the song have to do that too? Write lyrics and music? That sounds like much harder work if you ask me....

I'm in at a buck a song and I'd like to see it a la carte or by album. If you must force groupings of songs by different artists together please keep it by genre and don't give me one good song packaged with 3 crappy ones, that is unless you want me and everyone else p.o.'d

tia

dQuarters

08-03-2007, 05:56 AM

About iTunes vs. gaming DLC

I don't think you can share it........

If you burn it to disc as an MP3 you can do whatever you want with it. So officially you're right, but there's an easy work around.

Agent_Of_Brutality

08-03-2007, 06:27 AM

Well this is a hot topic, here are my thoughts i don't forsee a price drop in the short future, but hear is a possible senerio for it.
One- the price being high for song downloads for Rock Band is because of the lisenceing that Harmonixs has to pay in order to use the songs (and the fee is for each individual song, not all of them at one price and that is a huge chunk of cash).
As i see it, it is up to us as the consumer to pay the high price for now and make the game a huge hit. If and when that happens the record labels may take notice(seeing that the game may make a good promotional tool for there label) and may donate a catalog of there artists songs that are interest in being a part of the game. which eliminates the lisenceing fee or at least restructures a cheaper fee for Harmonixs (if they get the songs at a cheaper price then we get the songs at a cheaper price).

So the Question should be are we the consumers willing to pay the high price now and put this game on the map and make it a force to be recond with and get the price break we all want or are we going to complain about the high price and not buy the downlaods and have the game fizzle out as just some brief fad and we get nothing but a game no one likes any more???

Edgehopper

08-03-2007, 07:39 AM

I'd also be in favor of an unlimited subscription-based model, though I guess this wouldn't be too useful until they got at least a hundred DLC songs up there. I imagine something like the Zune subscription system, or maybe a little cheaper--say, $10/mo., or $15/mo. with the ability to pay $60 for 6 months of subscription. This wouldn't be the only DLC option, people could still pay for individual tracks, but a subscription model would be great for hardcore fans who would play every song just for the added gaming content, or people who want to have the full selection available for friends at parties.

municipalblack

08-03-2007, 08:50 AM

There is a lot of good discussion going on in this thread, and I'm glad Harmonix is listening (Oh and every music game you guys have ever made has kicked ass)

I think one thing Harmonix has to consider is the price point compared to Activision. Right there that could be a selling point. For someone's choice to come down to GH3 or RB and know that DLC will be cheaper for RB I'm sure that will sell them.

And even though it's been brought up I want to remind people that the music in RB is only for RB, we can't listen to it on the go, or listen to it at home, etc. I'm sure Harmonix is reminding artists/producers of this when purchasing licensing to obtain a cheaper price (then again I'm not positive).

At $9 (Canadian) for 3 songs on 360 I would refuse to buy any DLC, that's just ridiculous. As I own a PS3 I haven't even been give the option, but if RB has pricing like this there is no way I would spend that kind of money.

I like to think of it as (And I'll keep to US currency as it's just easier) you'll be buying RB for $60 for 40 songs. That works out to $1.50 per song. Now you can also factor in the initial cost of making the game/engine, peripherals, etc.

At $1.50 US (about $1.60 CDN) that's not that bad of a price. I would buy quite a few songs, and if albums or packs were released for cheaper then I would be more inclined to buy them even if I didn't really want every song.

Now if the price goes up to $2 per song (about $2.14 CDN) I'm going to be less inclined to buy a lot of songs. Again though if an album jams quite a few more songs in to bring the price point way down then I'll be more interested.
I know that I'm getting a track that I can play with multiple instruments because I'll be buying the bundle the day it comes out (already preordered).
However I'm sure a lot of people are going to just buy the game and the guitar and wait a while to pick up another instrument or the mic.
So pricing songs high just because they include other instruments will not fly for the general consumer (speculation of course).

Now let's look at it the other way. Let's say that Harmonix charges $1 per song (about $1.07 CDN). I can guarantee that I will buy EVERY songs that is released. I don't care if I've never heard of it, it's a friggin dollar! And I'm sure MANY people would agree with me.

So back to $1.50 per song, I think that makes the most sense. The price is cheaper than Activision's, albums would have added value if priced slightly lower and you're keeping the consumer happy. And someone that is happy with their purchase will tell their friends who will tell their friends.... you get the point.

And freebies would never hurt. I don't care if it's a cover or some band I've never heard of. It's good for the band as it gets their name out, and it looks sooooooo good for Harmonix to keep their customers happy.

drno830

08-03-2007, 02:57 PM

The thing that I most want to know is the cost of making the dlc. If it cost them $1.25 to make a song on average, then it seems people would be more understanding of a price in the $1.30 to $1.50 price range.

I think that was one of the main problems with the GHII dlc. They were unclear as to the production costs, and therefore everyone assumed they were being gouged. Also, no one had ever released dlc for music games before, so it was a huge gamble no matter what price they put up.

So I think that before we can totally say what songs should cost, we should know production costs as well.

If they stated that somewhere in this thread and i missed it, please point me to it

rocker93

08-03-2007, 04:16 PM

I think rockband should have an itunes type interface that allows the user to pick and choose album or song they would like to download and i dont think they should cost more then $.99 a song

ababypenguin

08-03-2007, 04:54 PM

I think rockband should have an itunes type interface that allows the user to pick and choose album or song they would like to download and i dont think they should cost more then $.99 a song

Amen brother!

rocker93

08-03-2007, 05:00 PM

i hope they actualy read the threads .they need to let the ppl design the game.between me and you we could make a killer game

TheRocker

08-03-2007, 05:01 PM

.99 wouldnt be profitable for them plus Gh2 360 songs are 2.00 a Piece now those should be .99 , RockBand's should be at least 1.50 since Your aren't just getting the Guitar like in 360 You're Getting The Singing , Drums , Bass Portion Too

ababypenguin

08-03-2007, 05:13 PM

ugh, I guess that is true, I could pay 1.50. But $2.00 is too much for any song. I don't think I'd ever pay more than $20 for an album. And seeing as an average CD has about 12 songs that'd come out to $24

dQuarters

08-03-2007, 06:57 PM

Municipal Black you are exactly right. The cheaper it is the more I buy, period. If it were $1 a song, I'd be inclined to grab any song I don't hate. At $1.50 I'd be choosier for sure, but at least I wouldn't feel dirty pressing the "confirm download" button. And at $2 I'd roll my eyes as I bought only the BEST available track. And any higher... Forget about it.

bounchfx

08-04-2007, 07:28 AM

yeah I totally agree. the cheaper the are the more they will sell, guaranteed

Bobalicious93

08-04-2007, 09:23 AM

i just hope HMX dont use the fact that theres 4 instruments as an excuse to maybe make the price of DLC even higher than GH2

ocfanman

08-04-2007, 01:30 PM

I hope they sell songs at $1 each, and none of that package stuff, its an individual song or the album

That idea about unsigned artists actually sounds pretty cool

I would pay a few more cents for an original if I think that a cover would be undeserving for the song but I dont mind all covers

my opinion

dumari

08-05-2007, 12:24 AM

Personally I don't think paying $2 for a single song is that bad of a deal as long as the song is NEW. The problem I had with GH2's content was that it was $2 a pop for a bundle of old songs that you had almost definately paid for and played before.

Seeing as how it's an average of a buck a song for just the track I don't think charging twice that is a bad deal for what we get out of rock band (come on, it's definately worth more to play the song than to just hear it).

I do think there needs to be a discount on bundles and a much larger discount on albums. I think taking at least %10 (%20 would be nice) a bundle would be a good idea. As for albums I wouldn't pay over $15-$20 (depending on the overall length).

Captastic

08-05-2007, 12:49 AM

onlyrob

08-05-2007, 02:31 AM

Here's something else to consider:

I think there are varying degrees of worthwhile content for $1 per song. I will buy a Hendrix song for $1, but I will not buy a new band's song for $1. I'm familiar with Purple Haze, I know what it sounds like, and I'm willing to place my money in that.

Newer, lesser-known bands have a huge disadvantage when placing their content up on the network. People have no idea who they are, and what they sound like. For this reason, I think that a free song should be offered at the expense of the artist to get their name out. Like the radio, it provides a method of distribution as well as advertising.

Note: I said song; singular. Any other songs released by the same artist should be placed up to the level of other songs, or even as cheap as $.50, proving incentive for lesser-known artists. Consider the single song to be a demonstration of how well the band plays and what's worthwhile.

Even if the song is available for a week, the advertising is out there.

If the online structure was opened to having a system like this, players would be more inclined to use the system. Lesser-known bands want to advertise, and providing a lump sum of money to the online distribution team would pay off the expenses of the teams working on the songs. Provide the songs for free, have the band manager pay a lump sum of money to the song designers at Rock Band, and everyone is happy.

Prescott523

08-05-2007, 05:17 AM

Its very simple here, as it's been said so many times before. If there are 50 songs in downloadable content at $1.00 each, aka 80 MS points, I will easily buy 40 out of the 50, and that's providing I HATE 10 of the bands released. If there are 50 songs released at $2.00 each, aka 160 MS points, I will only get about 10 songs, because I would pick the ones I like the most. With this formula here, you're making $20 more from each person (providing they're like me) off of DLC. So lower priced songs will sell more. It's like a sale at a store. They don't do it to please customers. They do it so people will be more inclined to buy things, hence selling more items. $1.00 a piece is great for 1 song, and I just might buy every single one, as long as no sh*t music is released.

Now, for albums. You HAVE TO sell them for less than if you were buying each individual song. Let's say it's Nirvana's 'Nevermind'. There are 12 (without checking... don't hate) songs on the album. One is on the original disc, so that has to be excluded, leaving 11 new songs on the album. If you sell them at regular price, they'd be $11.00, or 880 MS points. Now, you have to remember some people might not like some songs, so you'd need to drop the price to ensure selling. Perhaps a percent discount, like say 15%. That would bring the CD price down to $9.35, or (a rounded) 750 MS points. That's a very fair deal, and I would probably buy all of the songs relaesed, along with other rock band enthusiasts. However, you could really stick it to Activision and release full CDs for 500 MS points per album. THEN you'd have guaranteed sales.

Well, have fun planning this stuff out.

RockBand.com