Idea for Old DLC (as well as future DLC) HMX please Read!!!

[Sublim3]

I think, after a DLC song has been out for 3 months or so the price should drop down to .99 cents a song and vice versa for song packs.

As i see it, only good can come out of this...

1. The people that really want a song, album, or song pack are still going to nab it as soon as it comes out, no matter the price. No one wants to wait 3 months to play a song they really want to play.

2. For all those sitting on the fence about a song, they can now wait and grab it later. In an example, let's say 100 people are sitting on the fence about getting the song "all the small things" at 2 dollars for the song but most are leaning towards no. the way it works now 40 people decide to cave in and get it, 80 dollar profit.
Now, in a reduced price after 3 months world, all 100 wait for the 3 months, and 90 decide to get it at 1 dollar for the song while 10 still decide no, 90 dollar profit.

3. Finally, I beleive it could quiet a decent ammount of DLC complaining. In a final example, if there is a die hard punk fan waiting for some Dead Kennedy's (a.k.a. myself, lol) to come out, but the week's DLC turns out to be a Motley Crue 3-pack, usually all they would do is complain (where is my punk!) But in the reduced price world, instead of complaining immediately, they might now see that a ramones song or clash song that they were hesitant to get is now only a dollar. They can grab it and be almost as happy for the week as a die hard Motley crue fan.

In the end, everybody wins :)

[PaperMario21]

everybody wins except harmonix.
that would cause losses, because people already agreed to pay $2 a song, I'm sure hmx want to stay in business and if they want to, they need to earn money.
I don't know what's wrong with people saying they cannot afford these songs, are you that poor?
I don't believe it, cut on your bad habits such as smoking or junk food and you'll be in the clear.
think about it.

[Sublim3]

alrite man, ill try to cut down on the smoking and drunk food

but the hookers, the hookers i need

[Ultrace]

3. Finally, I beleive it could quiet a decent ammount of DLC complaining. In a final example, if there is a die hard punk fan waiting for some Dead Kennedy's (a.k.a. myself, lol) to come out, but the week's DLC turns out to be a Motley Crue 3-pack, usually all they would do is complain (where is my punk!) But in the reduced price world, instead of complaining immediately, they might now see that a ramones song or clash song that they were hesitant to get is now only a dollar. They can grab it and be almost as happy for the week as a die hard Motley crue fan.
In addition to the point made by PaperMario that this wouldn't make any money for Harmonix, don't kid yourself that this would help quiet DLC complaints. People complained about Still Alive and Promised Land, two free DLC songs, and they've complained about songs that debuted at $1.00 as well (such as this past week.) Low price only makes a happy person happier, it's not going to make someone appreciate the song choice if they wouldn't have before.

[sevenduffs]

What you're saying isn't some kind of new idea. It's economics 101. I'm sure they've thought of all these things.

[krammkracker]

Maybe after like 6 months or so.

[ftmsanchez]

Someone doesn't know how "profit" works. When you create a product that costs $1.50, and sell it at $2, you get a $.50 profit.

Your example is so awful as it's not $80 profit vs $90 profit, it's REVENUE, sure, but whether or not ANY of that would be profit in comparison to their $2 pricepoint, that's a question that only Harmonix could really answer.

But in all reality, Rock Band is not the type of game where everyone who wanted it bought it right away, people are still buying it all the time. Sure, for current owners it may be logical to drop the price after a few months but think about it this way, if Harmonix continues selling a large number of Rock Band copies, why should they reduce the add-on cost when there's such a large opportunity for $2 purchasers, even if the fence-sitters stay upon the fence.

Looking to the future, with Rock Band DLC becoming just "Rock Band" dlc and not specific to either game, what about people who are just first hopping into the franchise this September? If you were Harmonix, would you want your songs in September to cost $2, or $1 for all the new purchasers? I think it's fairly obvious their current pricing structure is working well and anything like this isn't very well thought out despite the OP trying to pretend it was.

EDIT: And one last point, knowing there's a reduced price in the future will cause a lot of people who currently pay $2 for songs to hold out longer. Not exactly a genius idea.

[54x]

I'm sure if a piece of DLC isn't selling as well as they'd like they'll lower the price. Given they've had 15 million downloads of non-free DLC, I think they're pretty comfortable with their price points though, lol.

[Maelphaedor]

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that once the DLC is "old", basically everyone with any serious intention to buy is has already done so.

By dropping the price of old DLC, it's a reason to perhaps reconsider some of the DLC you'd already passed on. Example, I don't have the punk pack, I don't care for any of the bands in the pack or for punk in general. HMX is never going to sell me the punk pack at $2 a song. I don't miss not having it.

If it were suddenly $1 a song instead now that it's basically sold everything it's going to sell (excepting new RB purchases, of course), there very well may be people that would buy it at that price that had previously already passed on purchasing it.

As the OP said, "everyone" wins. That INCLUDES HMX, since they are getting to sell DLC at some price to people that had already decided not to buy it. As the OP also said, anyone that seriously wanted the song will almost certainly have it by then.

I picked up serveral songs during the last McDonalds Promo that ran that I'd passed on earlier because I either just didn't care for the song/band/genre. I'm sure others did too.

Downstepping the price of "old" products is a fairly common practice across most industries including software, no good reason RB DLC couldn't follow a similar pattern.

[Apples]

Does iTunes discount tracks after a set period of time?

[TwitchtheDj]

Someone doesn't know how "profit" works. When you create a product that costs $1.50, and sell it at $2, you get a $.50 profit.

Your example is so awful as it's not $80 profit vs $90 profit, it's REVENUE, sure, but whether or not ANY of that would be profit in comparison to their $2 pricepoint, that's a question that only Harmonix could really answer.

But in all reality, Rock Band is not the type of game where everyone who wanted it bought it right away, people are still buying it all the time. Sure, for current owners it may be logical to drop the price after a few months but think about it this way, if Harmonix continues selling a large number of Rock Band copies, why should they reduce the add-on cost when there's such a large opportunity for $2 purchasers, even if the fence-sitters stay upon the fence.

Looking to the future, with Rock Band DLC becoming just "Rock Band" dlc and not specific to either game, what about people who are just first hopping into the franchise this September? If you were Harmonix, would you want your songs in September to cost $2, or $1 for all the new purchasers? I think it's fairly obvious their current pricing structure is working well and anything like this isn't very well thought out despite the OP trying to pretend it was.

EDIT: And one last point, knowing there's a reduced price in the future will cause a lot of people who currently pay $2 for songs to hold out longer. Not exactly a genius idea.

Well said sir... i think that DLC prices are about right. Love that I have been able to pick up stuff for both $1 and $2... don't like the idea of a new owner of rock band buying up all the same things I have for essentially half price... not that i dont want everyone to have the DLC, but i think it's fair :)

[bood-boy]

I think, after a DLC song has been out for 3 months or so the price should drop down to .99 cents a song and vice versa for song packs.

As i see it, only good can come out of this...

1. The people that really want a song, album, or song pack are still going to nab it as soon as it comes out, no matter the price. No one wants to wait 3 months to play a song they really want to play.

2. For all those sitting on the fence about a song, they can now wait and grab it later. In an example, let's say 100 people are sitting on the fence about getting the song "all the small things" at 2 dollars for the song but most are leaning towards no. the way it works now 40 people decide to cave in and get it, 80 dollar profit.
Now, in a reduced price after 3 months world, all 100 wait for the 3 months, and 90 decide to get it at 1 dollar for the song while 10 still decide no, 90 dollar profit.

3. Finally, I beleive it could quiet a decent ammount of DLC complaining. In a final example, if there is a die hard punk fan waiting for some Dead Kennedy's (a.k.a. myself, lol) to come out, but the week's DLC turns out to be a Motley Crue 3-pack, usually all they would do is complain (where is my punk!) But in the reduced price world, instead of complaining immediately, they might now see that a ramones song or clash song that they were hesitant to get is now only a dollar. They can grab it and be almost as happy for the week as a die hard Motley crue fan.

In the end, everybody wins :)


if anything.. they should give valued customers credit... like for every 10 or 15 songs you buy as a single.. you buy you get 1 for free.. theyve made that much profit off of you, they can give u a lil somthing back you back.

im happy the way it is now. there are definately songs that im sitting on the fence on as to whether ill buy em or not.. cause theres a few songs i have DL'ed that i just never play. and thats what a lot of the songs im sitting the fence over would probbly end up being. just because you can get it doesnt mean you should. i have been diggin the 2 pixies songs i DL'ed and i want to get a couple more i think.

[Dzhokhar]

Does iTunes discount tracks after a set period of time?

My thoughts exactly.

[ThatAuthoringGroup]

Do you know why this won't work?

Because a LOT of people will just start waiting to purchase the tracks for the discounted price.

They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. Because if you could just wait for three months for the first pack to drop, then every week there would be a new pack at the lower price, and you'd never pay full price for a pack again.

Sure you might have to wait to start playing some songs, but a lot of people would wait.

Which is why they won't do it ;)

[not4you]

I don't see them dropping the price after a set time but I do think they should occasionally run promotions like the McDonald's dollar menu promo. I picked up a couple songs because of that.

Any price cuts will be for a limited time only.

[SJBenoist]

It's a bad idea.

I personally didn't purchase RB until late Feb, and I did not begin purchasing DLC until about a month after that.

Much of what I've bought was past your 3 month cut-off.

It is very unlikely I'm the only person on earth this is true for.

Since all DLC is compatible with RB 2, every song will be "new" to those who buy into the sequel and skipped the original.

Lastly, these songs are licensed. Prices are agreed upon before the things are made available to the public, and the only discount HMX could offer is their own profit margin.

[gamrrpol]

Downstepping the price of "old" products is a fairly common practice across most industries including software, no good reason RB DLC couldn't follow a similar pattern.

They do with PHYSICAL products, not digital products. Physical products take up valuable retail real estate that could be displaying other, better selling, more profitable products so retailers will drop prices in order to just get product out the door.

But digital products take up almost no space and have already incurred all fixed costs. Software becomes obsolete fairly quickly, which can sometimes result in discounted prices. RB songs, however, are not software and the value of an individual song is the same today as it was yesterday and will be next week or next year.

Pricing for RB games will be based more on costs, not digital "shelf time". For instance, all the songs that have been priced $0.99 have been from Indie bands, where the license fees were cheap or possibly even free. I'm sure if Led Zep released their catalog to RB it would be for an inflated license fee, meaning we'll see higher per song costs (I could easily see $2.99 for LZ songs).

I tire of everyone coming in here an proposing "solutions" to a problem that doesn't exist. The current pricing is obviously working as RB DLC is the most popular down-loaded product in gaming history and has set a new standard for what is possible for DLed product. It doesn't need to be "fixed".

[Bearclaw]

Do songs become less enjoyable the longer they are out? Seems a little backwards to me.

[fatcity42]

I think the point the OP is trying to make is that once the DLC is "old", basically everyone with any serious intention to buy is has already done so.

By dropping the price of old DLC, it's a reason to perhaps reconsider some of the DLC you'd already passed on. Example, I don't have the punk pack, I don't care for any of the bands in the pack or for punk in general. HMX is never going to sell me the punk pack at $2 a song. I don't miss not having it.

If it were suddenly $1 a song instead now that it's basically sold everything it's going to sell (excepting new RB purchases, of course), there very well may be people that would buy it at that price that had previously already passed on purchasing it.

As the OP said, "everyone" wins. That INCLUDES HMX, since they are getting to sell DLC at some price to people that had already decided not to buy it. As the OP also said, anyone that seriously wanted the song will almost certainly have it by then.

I picked up serveral songs during the last McDonalds Promo that ran that I'd passed on earlier because I either just didn't care for the song/band/genre. I'm sure others did too.

Downstepping the price of "old" products is a fairly common practice across most industries including software, no good reason RB DLC couldn't follow a similar pattern.



Couldn't have said it better... Absolute ditto for me.

[TheGodFather73]

Also, look at the sales rate for some of the most popular songs, like ones nearing the 100k cutoff on Statosphere. They're selling 2-3k a week. This probably means that around that many people are getting the game a week and are accounting for these purchases. People who've had the game for 3, 6, 9 months already have them so it must be 'new' people. The Rock Band DLC purchasing population isn't static so an 'old' song to us is brand new to someone who just got the game.

[master2uall]

hell yeah lower them, then i can go back and get the songs i didnt buy before......wait a minute, ive bought them all.l.o.l. but i think there should be discounted songs that didnt sell very well after say 3 months or 6 months, cause if they arnt selling well then they still want sell well, unless they were cheaper.

[master2uall]

another way to look at is this

cherry bomb says only say 5000 copies at 2 bucks=10g
but stays there for a long period of time,=not making any money
drop the price to a buck says about the same=5g

=an extra 5 grand that they wouldnt have gotten if thy hadnt droped the price, is does work people.

[Dzhokhar]

another way to look at is this

cherry bomb says only say 5000 copies at 2 bucks=10g
but stays there for a long period of time,=not making any money
drop the price to a buck says about the same=5g

=an extra 5 grand that they wouldnt have gotten if thy hadnt droped the price, is does work people.

It doesn't work if Harmonix has to pay $0.50 to MS/Sony and $0.50 to the artist/record label for that song. The post about the difference between physical products and downloadable content is definitely applicable too.