Would you accecpt $millions to release ps3 rb a few weeks late?

[asdfghjk]

It's mentioned SO often, every ps3 user seems so pissed off, but would you take it?

And don't you think it's a good thing any way? More money for them = more dlc for you, be patient!

And that's IF they accepted money for releasing ps3's game late, we're not entirely sure.

[lanceuppercut55]

It's mentioned SO often, every ps3 user seems so pissed off, but would you take it?
i live in the UK, so for RB1 there was a huge delay, but its not a matter of "taking it", you just have to accept it, which is something the PS3 whiners cant seem to do and no amount of online petitions or "sod you i'm going to buy GH:WT" threats is going to change that fact.

[killer_roach]

Depends on the terms attached, but probably yes. Makes economic sense for the most part.

[Samuel346]

It's mentioned SO often, every ps3 user seems so pissed off, but would you take it?

And don't you think it's a good thing any way? More money for them = more dlc for you, be patient!

And that's IF they accepted money for releasing ps3's game late, we're not entirely sure.


How relevant is this?


Not at all.


I am not a large multi-national corporation with millions of dollars in revenue every year and millions of customers to which my every decision could effect the loss of them or not.

[Xero314-2]

At face value this looks like a good thing, taking free money up front and all you have to do is delay the release of a game for the console with the least market share, to instead release early to the console with more market share.

To bad the equations is not that simple. So lets look at the real facts.

1) The consoles in question have the least and second least market share, so by market share alone we are talking about the bottom of the barrel for both consoles.

2) The console being delayed is currently the second fast selling console.

3) The console being delayed is on an identical track as the best selling console of all time, it's predecessor.

4) The delay may allow the only competitor, who has considerable name recognition, to release their product first for all but the console with the second to least market share.

This is just the beginning.

So to answer the question it's all comes down to how many sales will be lost by favoring the slowest selling console with the second to least market share, over all other consoles. Then factor in the down stream effects of losing market share to a direct competitor. And lastly you have to know if a simultaneous release is even possible, and if you could still beat the competition to market, and if so what the cost is. Once you figure these things out, and a bunch of other market effects then you can determine how much pay off you need to take.

My guess at this point would be that the time frame of releasing RB2 on all major systems would have pushed the entire release past it's competition, so this move allows the company to at least save market share in it's strongest market, and only risk losing market share in it's weaker markets. If this is true than any amount of money is more than you would otherwise have. If this is not true then you better get a big pay off because you are putting 100s of millions of dollars of revenue at stake.

But since HMX are musicians before they are developers or business men, or so they would like us to think, they probably did it for hookers and blow, I know I would.

[SlivedCupWinner]

__:):):)__:):):)__:):):)__:)
____:)____:)___:)___:)____:)
____:)____:):):)____:)____:)
____:)____:)___:)___:)____:)
__:):):)__:):):)____:)____:):):)

[ironman126]

Who needs money?! Hell I'd do it for free;)

[Ventura]

Money buys everything these days. Everything. Does anyone truly believe any more that the best things in life are free? They'd charge for air if they could get away with it.

My point? Would Harmonix take a buck to release the ps3 version late? You better believe they would. Hell if Sony ponied up enough they'd have released the ps3 version first. Money buys it all. There's no such thing as loyalty these days, or if there is, it can just be bought.

[toMsons1987]

1) The consoles in question have the least and second least market share, so by market share alone we are talking about the bottom of the barrel for both consoles.

2) The console being delayed is currently the second fast selling console.

3) The console being delayed is on an identical track as the best selling console of all time, it's predecessor.

4) The delay may allow the only competitor, who has considerable name recognition, to release their product first for all but the console with the second to least market share.

This is just the beginning.

So to answer the question it's all comes down to how many sales will be lost by favoring the slowest selling console with the second to least market share, over all other consoles. Then factor in the down stream effects of losing market share to a direct competitor. And lastly you have to know if a simultaneous release is even possible, and if you could still beat the competition to market, and if so what the cost is. Once you figure these things out, and a bunch of other market effects then you can determine how much pay off you need to take.

My guess at this point would be that the time frame of releasing RB2 on all major systems would have pushed the entire release past it's competition, so this move allows the company to at least save market share in it's strongest market, and only risk losing market share in it's weaker markets. If this is true than any amount of money is more than you would otherwise have. If this is not true then you better get a big pay off because you are putting 100s of millions of dollars of revenue at stake.

But since HMX are musicians before they are developers or business men, or so they would like us to think, they probably did it for hookers and blow, I know I would.
2) Actually, the PS3 is selling more consoles right now ^_^ Beating 360 sales for a while now, so yea!

3) I think it was said that there are 5 PS2's for every 360.

Overall: I don't think it will effect RB2 sales that much, maybe a 3-5% loss of buyers on the PS3 due to this. But I think if RB2 comes out after GH:WT this number can easily be 20-33%; So hopefully they didn't accept a stupid deal from Microsoft. You don't want to be looked down upon by Sony fans, as Sony is the most respected console developer (yes, easily over MSoft). I think it would be funny to release RB2 a week to a few days before GH:WT comes out -- Totally bone them!

[PaperMario21]

this topic is incredibly stupid, please people give it up.
whine all you can, it won't change anything.

[Lithium_666]

I think its bad that HMX would accept money to do this (if they did), because obviously M$ is just trying to get ppl to change over from ps3 to 360, and that isnt going to work, the only thing that is going to happen is that consumers get mad at HMX, not switch consoles, and i know if the delay is more than a week, i will not be buying RB2 but will buy GHWT. I guess well just have to wait and see, but i know it will be at least a month. this is poor marketing to me

I dont think any amount of money M$ gave them will make up for the loss of these things in the long run
1. PS3 owners buying the full bundle
2. PS3 owners even buying the game period
3. The millions of DLC sales that they will lose from these ppl no longer wanting the game
4. The extra PS3 instruments a lot of them would eventually have to buy when warranty is up.

[ftmsanchez]

As a 360 owner, I'd do it for a free copy of RB2 ;). There's no benefit to me for the PS3 version coming out at the same time.

If I had a PS3 or was in a position like Harmonix/MTV Games could have possibly been in (it doesn't mean they received compensation for MS for the timed exclusive, it could possibly mean that maybe it just takes them longer to finish the PS3 version), if I was able to get the Xbox version done in September and be in quality shipping status, then yes. I'd do it all day long.

And to the people providing recent facts regarding PS3 sales, you must remember more homes still have Xbox 360s over PS3s in the United States. Xbox 360 is about to receive a price drop that'll probably cause a bump in sales, not to mention it has a fairly strong fall line-up, both in the family friendly side and the adult side of the games. PS3 doesn't seem to have all the bases covered, so it'll be interesting to see how the two compete for the rest of the year.

[Lithium_666]

imagine if a gas station opened up in your area, guaranteed to never go above $2.00 a gallon, but for the first year they will only sell to ppl who drive toyota's.
Why would they even do that?

[Samuel346]

this topic is incredibly stupid, please people give it up.
whine all you can, it won't change anything.

I think this is a "stupid" poll because none of us arelarge multi-national corporations with millions of dollars in revenue every year and millions of customers to which my every decision could effect the loss of them or not.

We aren't in such a position- so asking if we would take the money is completely irrelevant.

[TuesdaysGone]

i live in the UK, so for RB1 there was a huge delay, but its not a matter of "taking it", you just have to accept it, which is something the PS3 whiners cant seem to do and no amount of online petitions or "sod you i'm going to buy GH:WT" threats is going to change that fact.

Haha, I remember those petitions after the high RB1 price in Europe. I signed one!

[gmagnus]

IBFL

and

Console manufacturers paying devs/pubs for exclusive releases is not new or unethical. I didn't see any complaints when Sony did it all the time for PS2 games.

[TuesdaysGone]

How relevant is this?


Not at all.


I am not a large multi-national corporation with millions of dollars in revenue every year and millions of customers to which my every decision could effect the loss of them or not.

That's an excellent point. Would I take a million? Sure, I COULD RETIRE IF I DID THAT!!! I don't think Harmonix is going into retirement...

[PaperMario21]

imagine if a gas station opened up in your area, guaranteed to never go above $2.00 a gallon, but for the first year they will only sell to ppl who drive toyota's.
Why would they even do that?

because they have partnership with toyota and contracts are already signed? :p

[TuesdaysGone]

At face value this looks like a good thing, taking free money up front and all you have to do is delay the release of a game for the console with the least market share, to instead release early to the console with more market share.

To bad the equations is not that simple. So lets look at the real facts.

1) The consoles in question have the least and second most market share, so by market share alone we are talking about the bottom of the barrel.

2) The console being delayed is currently the second fast selling console.

3) The console being delayed is on an identical track as the best selling console of all time, it's predecessor.

4) The delay may allow the only competitor, who has considerable name recognition, to release their product first for all but the console with the second most market share.

This is just the beginning.

So to answer the question it's all comes down to how many sales will be lost by favoring the slowest selling console with the second most market share, over all other consoles. Then factor in the down stream effects of losing market share to a direct competitor. And lastly you have to know if a simultaneous release is even possible, and if you could still beat the competition to market, and if so what the cost is. Once you figure these things out, and a bunch of other market effects then you can determine how much pay off you need to take.

My guess at this point would be that the time frame of releasing RB2 on all major systems would have pushed the entire release past it's competition, so this move allows the company to at least save market share in it's strongest market, and only risk losing market share in it's weaker markets. If this is true than any amount of money is more than you would otherwise have. If this is not true then you better get a big pay off because you are putting 100s of millions of dollars of revenue at stake.

But since HMX are musicians before they are developers or business men, or so they would like us to think, they probably did it for hookers and blow, I know I would.

I changed every "second least" to "second most". Your post is just more positive that way :). And still true.

[ftmsanchez]

I think its bad that HMX would accept money to do this (if they did), because obviously M$ is just trying to get ppl to change over from ps3 to 360, and that isnt going to work, the only thing that is going to happen is that consumers get mad at HMX, not switch consoles, and i know if the delay is more than a week, i will not be buying RB2 but will buy GHWT. I guess well just have to wait and see, but i know it will be at least a month. this is poor marketing to me

I dont think any amount of money M$ gave them will make up for the loss of these things in the long run
1. PS3 owners buying the full bundle
2. PS3 owners even buying the game period
3. The millions of DLC sales that they will lose from these ppl no longer wanting the game
4. The extra PS3 instruments a lot of them would eventually have to buy when warranty is up.

Have PS3 owners even started buying games to go with their movie players yet? Last time I looked at sales figures (which has been a few months, honestly) only rarely did a PS3 game even crack top 10 for a week, let alone a month. When you've got the Xbox 360 version of the game selling a MILLION more copies than the PS3 version, what choice would you REALLY make in this situation?

1 - PS3 owners just aren't buying the bundle. If they were, there'd be more than 680k copies sold. Not saying that's a small figure (especially looking at a $170 game) but in comparison to 1.6 million sold on Xbox, it's just not that many.

2 - See 1.

3 - If the DLC is truly inexclusive to a specific copy of the game, then this is a completely moot point. If DLC comes out post-RB2 on Xbox, if the trends continue from today they'll still have the exact same songs released on the Playstation Store on the Thursday of the week.

4 - Once again, this is a non-point. People aren't BUYING replacement instruments, they are still doing the whole "Send it in under my 'should be expired' warranty" thing. And if the bundle is as sturdy as they're saying it should be in comparison to Rock Band one, then people shouldn't be needing to replace their items. But having owned Rock Band since day 1 just under 8 months ago, all of my stuff still works fine. A key to keeping your stuff operational is to not be rough with it, and it's worked fine for me.

[Der_Lex]

I also have to admit that I don't see the point of this thread, besides attracting more console war-type flaming.