Ballpark DLC Pricing

[Xanthous]

I think we can get an idea today in what range Rock Band's DLC will be priced.

Activision released their first two sets of DLC for that other game. Each three-song pack will sell for 500 MS Points (or $6.25 US for those of us who prefer to pay for goods and services with, you know, currency).

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/08/velvet-revolver-foo-fighter-guitar-hero-iii-track-packs-hit-xbo/

That's $2.08 a track, plus they're forcing customers to buy bundles of three. HMX has said they plan on releasing individual songs as well as full albums.

I think it would be fair to assume DLC will most likely be in the $1.49-$1.99 range per song.

Harmonix seems really dedicated to turning Rock Band into a platform to enjoy music. Exploiting their customers with forced purchases (bundling one good song with two poor songs) and inflated prices are counter-intuitive to this goal.

I'd expect an approach closer in line with iTunes. Low, baseline price for individual tracks. Slight discount per song for full albums.

[Bakkster]

That's $2.08 a track, plus they're forcing customers to buy bundles of three. HMX has said they plan on releasing individual songs as well as full albums.

I think it would be fair to assume DLC will most likely be in the $1.49-$1.99 range per song.

I don't expect the Rock Band DLC will necessarily be cheaper. I think they'd like to stay competitively priced, but they do have higher production costs. Of course, this is the same price point as the GH2 DLC. I'm guessing the price point is being mandated by an outside force (aka, Microsoft).

I'm guessing the DLC will cost between $2-$2.50 per song, possibly less for full albums.

[Xanthous]

I don't expect the Rock Band DLC will necessarily be cheaper.

I agree. But even at $2 a song for a single Rock Band track, you're getting more for your money because you can choose individual songs that you truly want, rather than being forced to purchase three-song bundles.

It's common knowledge that Microsoft has some pretty strict guidelines on that DLC can be placed on Marketplace, and takes a healthy chunk of revenue from sales. Hopefully that inflation doesn't keep DLC from really taking off, and doesn't reach out and negatively effect PS3 DLC.

[The_Vampire_Lestat]

I agree. But even at $2 a song for a single Rock Band track, you're getting more for your money because you can choose individual songs that you truly want, rather than being forced to purchase three-song bundles.

It's common knowledge that Microsoft has some pretty strict guidelines on that DLC can be placed on Marketplace, and takes a healthy chunk of revenue from sales. Hopefully that inflation doesn't keep DLC from really taking off, and doesn't reach out and negatively effect PS3 DLC.

Microsoft does charge a fee I'm sure... but game companies split it into packs so they make more profit.

They could put 15 songs per pack and charge 500 MSP. But they do not.

Blaming only Microsoft is just BS. The PSN downloads will cost the same.

But I do agree that overpriced DLC will really make or break this game. If there is as much DLC as they say... the average player isn't going to spend $50 a month.

[Thrashdragon]

$2.00 a song is too high. I realize a lot of time, work and money goes into making the songs available, but frankly, your average consumer will not pay that much money for a song unless it's one they really, really like. Albums need to be well under $20.00...when you get close to the $20.00 mark, you run the risk of people seeing that as an investment in a new game or buying a used game.

If they wanna move DLC and really establish Rock Band as the music platform they want it to be, they need to keep it cheap. $1.50 or less. If they can keep it at $1.00 they will make a pile of money and kill Activision's DLC in one shot.

[admanimal]

They could put 15 songs per pack and charge 500 MSP. But they do not.


That would be cheaper than the normal album price...that doesn't really make any sense.

[Bakkster]

Microsoft does charge a fee I'm sure... but game companies split it into packs so they make more profit.

They could put 15 songs per pack and charge 500 MSP. But they do not.

Blaming only Microsoft is just BS. The PSN downloads will cost the same.

But I do agree that overpriced DLC will really make or break this game. If there is as much DLC as they say... the average player isn't going to spend $50 a month.

1) I'll bet you the cost of Whos Next DLC that 15 songs in a pack would cost more than $6 (500MSP) in licensing alone.

2) MS takes a flat cut from all DLC sales (30%, I believe). They also mandate a minimum amount that some content can sell for. I believe this was why the GoW pack cost $10 (they wanted it to be free, MS wanted them to sell it for $10, made a deal where it became free after x time). It's true that they don't hold the entire blame, but they certainly have an influence. I also doubt they would charge differently for DLC on the two consoles.

3) I don't think the goal of the DLC is for everyone to get every song. Most people won't spend $50 a month on DLC because there might not be 25 songs they really want that month. People will not buy DLC they don't want, regardless of price.

[Xanthous]

Microsoft does charge a fee I'm sure... but game companies split it into packs so they make more profit.

They could put 15 songs per pack and charge 500 MSP. But they do not.

Blaming only Microsoft is just BS. The PSN downloads will cost the same.


1.) If EA/MTV/HMX are really interested in making profit off of Rock Band, they'll make DLC accessible to it's customers. iTunes became by far the most successful MP3 download service largely in part to it's low prices and freedom to choose individual songs.

Losing money in the short term by selling inexpensive single tracks will net more profit in the long run.

2.) Microsoft has blocked several developers from distributing free or inexpensive DLC through Marketplace. Your example was clearly a huge exaggeration, but something like this could not happen.

3.) It's not BS, and yes, DLC for the 360 and PS3 will have to cost the same. Is it fair that PS3 consumers pay for more DLC because a competing company demands a larger percent of a DLC song's revenue? Microsoft's policy toward micro-transactions is one of the reasons I stay away from the company. I, as a PS3 owner, shouldn't be punished for Microsoft's greed.

[Eagoyle]

RB contains 45 songs for a price of $60. If the development of the general game were free, then each song would be only $1.33.

When I bought Rock the 80s, I got 30 songs for $50, and there definitely wasn't any new game play there (except for slightly modified character). I was pissed that they only gave me 30 songs and charged full price. If I had known that before buying, my money would have went elsewhere. If DLC comes out at $2 per song, there is no way they will be getting any of my money. For that price, I might as well wait for RB2 to come out.

[tbradshaw]

A previous interview regarding GH3 laid out the licensing costs and such. It's 40% to Microsoft to be on XBox Live, it's about $0.70 to the labels on a $0.99 iTunes purchase. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that they can get similar rates as Apple, that would mean that at a $1.00 price point MTV/Harmonix would lose $0.10 a track, cash.

In addition, surely everyone has heard the media CEO's whining about the pricing on iTunes and how they hate that they can't set their own prices. There is no way that MTV/Harmonix has negotiated the same deal as iTunes.

Make no mistake, less than $2 is just fiscally impossible. Not to mention that when you get a Rock Band track, you are getting so much more than an iTunes track. You're buying a wonderfully choreographed participatory experience, not just an audio file.

If $2.50 to $3 is above your price point, then there's just nothing that can be done for you. That's barely above cost.

[thorn_9]

People complain about paying a dollar for a song yet pay up to three dollars for a 15 sec version of the song as a ring tone for their phone.

I think $2-$2.50 is perfectly reasonable per song, with bundles being less. Theres a lot of work after the artist records the song that goes into making it playable, everyone needs a piece in the chain.

[Bakkster]

People complain about paying a dollar for a song yet pay up to three dollars for a 15 sec version of the song as a ring tone for their phone.

Quoted for truth.

[tbradshaw]

RB contains 45 songs for a price of $60. If the development of the general game were free, then each song would be only $1.33.

When I bought Rock the 80s, I got 30 songs for $50, and there definitely wasn't any new game play there (except for slightly modified character). I was pissed that they only gave me 30 songs and charged full price. If I had known that before buying, my money would have went elsewhere. If DLC comes out at $2 per song, there is no way they will be getting any of my money. For that price, I might as well wait for RB2 to come out.

With the exception of a few special cases (Metallica, maybe others?), on the game disk they were able to negotiate fixed fees. (Instead of royalties which are a percentage of each sale.) This means that on the first X units MTV/Harmonix will lose money, but as the game sells higher numbers they can make their money back and eventually profit.

No one does fixed fees for digital downloads, they are all royalty based. Without a "guaranteed" number of sales, like the game disk has, it is impossible to get these same rates.

Sadly, this common analysis is just an apples to oranges comparison. Prices of music on the game disk cannot be compared to downloadable prices. (Well, of course they can be, but those comparisons have no economic significance.)

[tbradshaw]

Following that similar line of analysis, this might also be a reason why the suits share in Harmonix' desire to feature unsigned artists. Harmonix obviously contains a ton of employees that are passionate about music and just want to help out small bands. The suits would see this as an opportunity to get fixed fee deals with unsigned artists for distribution.

I know my friends would gladly take a couple grand to have a song on Rock Band DLC. If it's a great track and takes off, MTV/Harmonix would make money hand over fist. And if it didn't take off, it would be a very minor loss.

I really hope to see a Rock Band + iTunes combination really launch some new acts. If we could get some moderately successful professional artists to explode without the assistance of vampiric labels, it could really change the face of modern entertainment.

[Eagoyle]

It may not be a reasonable analysis for the developers, but for the consumers, it is how we think. The only difference between the songs that I got on the disc, and those that I can download, is I get to choose. They still will have 4 instruments, 4 difficulties, and be as enjoyable as hell.

As a consumer, there is no way that I would pay $90-110 for the original RB disc. I am sure there are others that will, and since we live in a capitalistic society, prices are always set by the consumers. The price will always gravitate to whatever level maximizes profit.

Eagoyle

[Edgehopper]

Sadly, this common analysis is just an apples to oranges comparison. Prices of music on the game disk cannot be compared to downloadable prices. (Well, of course they can be, but those comparisons have no economic significance.)

Half right; the costs to the seller can't be compared, but the prices still can be. The obvious fact is that at $2.50/song, the consumer is getting less for his dollar through DLC than through the main disc; fewer songs per dollar, and no ability to resell the content, vs. the ability to buy individual songs rather than in bulk.

If DLC can't do better than twice the unit price you get on a disc, then some business model is flawed (either they're overcharging for DLC, or undercharging for the main game). Sadly, given Activision's experience, I fear that the DLC model is sound, and they could increase revenues by increasing the disc's price to $80.

[toefer]

I don't expect the Rock Band DLC will necessarily be cheaper. I think they'd like to stay competitively priced, but they do have higher production costs.

True, except let's not forget, it probably takes a lot of work for Activision/Neversoft to make up some of those note charts on Expert. It's more of an art than a science, figuring out where to cram those extra notes.




Following that similar line of analysis, this might also be a reason why the suits share in Harmonix' desire to feature unsigned artists. Harmonix obviously contains a ton of employees that are passionate about music and just want to help out small bands. The suits would see this as an opportunity to get fixed fee deals with unsigned artists for distribution.

If I was an unsigned artist, I'd consider being in Rock Band a gift. If they insist on paying me $10, that's just a bonus. It'd be win/win in the sense that my band could get a boost from the exposure, but if that doesn't happen, I can always look back fondly on being in a video game.

Unrelated, are you the guy that used to have the Jambi-ish avatar?




Half right; the costs to the seller can't be compared, but the prices still can be. The obvious fact is that at $2.50/song, the consumer is getting less for his dollar through DLC than through the main disc; fewer songs per dollar, and no ability to resell the content, vs. the ability to buy individual songs rather than in bulk.

I agree. I completely understand the reasoning behind $2+ DLC, but understanding the reason behind it isn't going to convince me to actually pay for it. "I guess this is a good deal" No. I'd rather just enjoy the 45 songs, and hope DLC fails, and wait for Rock Band 2. If they can keep pumping out discs with an assortment of roughly 45 decent songs, I'd rather buy that. I really like some of the DLC "announced" today, but I'm not sure if there's more than a song or two in there that I'd pay $2.50 for. I understand people pay a lot for ring-tones, but I don't. Even then, it's different, because I think every song in the world is available as a ring tone, whereas with DLC, you're still limited to what is offered.

[Smokey_Lemon]

I just find it strange how everyone is all over the DLC already! We (majority of us) haven't even played and finished the game itself!!!! Why are we discussing DLC and what it will be before we have even enjoyed the game??!! Build the house first before you shop for the furniture!! As for the DLC pricing: It really doesn't matter because whatever it is, we will buy it--I have a feeling they won't give us a handful of the classics, but instead will try to promote some new bands out there. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not going to be a weekly downloading thing for everyone. It will be cool because you can check the DLC out weekly and see if it's for you and your friends. I doubt every DLC pack is going to be for everyone's taste. Sure, there are some songs I don't like in RB, but there are a lot I do like. We need to remember tha this is 2007 and not 1973....it would be different if it were, so they need to make it marketable to everyone. Do you know how many 12-15 year olds don't even know who Metallica is/was? We just give them some FOB instead and they're happy. :>

[Eagoyle]

The DLC is the major item left that we don't know much about.

Sure, you need your house built before you can put your furniture in it, but wouldn't you rather have your furniture picked out, so that when your house is done, it can be furnished.

[hankmallon]

I really hope its reasonable. Do keep in mind they have to develop the notes to play for all 4 peripherals per song, but if they manage to have full albums for reasonable prices it'll make up for the high cost of the bundle and compete directly with GH's ridiculous 500 song packs.

[tbradshaw]

Unrelated, are you the guy that used to have the Jambi-ish avatar?

Yeah, I guess so. I had to look up Jambi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jambi_(Pee-wee's_Playhouse)) on wiki to know what you meant. We've always called them hackergochis. (Here's some more (http://planet.gnome.org/) in the wild.)


I agree. I completely understand the reasoning behind $2+ DLC, but understanding the reason behind it isn't going to convince me to actually pay for it. "I guess this is a good deal" No. I'd rather just enjoy the 45 songs, and hope DLC fails, and wait for Rock Band 2. If they can keep pumping out discs with an assortment of roughly 45 decent songs, I'd rather buy that. I really like some of the DLC "announced" today, but I'm not sure if there's more than a song or two in there that I'd pay $2.50 for.

Oh definitely, I'm not trying to convince you to pay for it. I just was expressing my opinion that a sub $2 price is an unreasonable expectation for DLC. I understand that not everyone is going to pay that much. However, more than enough people will. There were over 650,000 sales for GH2 downloadable content at this same price point, which is an amazing market penetration for an "up sell". DLC is here to stay.


I understand people pay a lot for ring-tones, but I don't. Even then, it's different, because I think every song in the world is available as a ring tone, whereas with DLC, you're still limited to what is offered.

Of topic, but ring-tones are insane. And no, it turns out that (legal) ring tones are only available for selected singles approved and prepared by the music labels. Most phones don't even allow for "off the market" ring tones to be added. It's much more (outrageous) like DLC than you thought.

[tf5_bassist]

Most people I know have furniture picked out while or before building the house, so they know what they're doing big-picture-wise. Just a random thought.

But really, the whole issue comes down to this: HMX is really, REALLY banking on DLC with Rock Band, more than any other game to date, I'd say. The pricing for DLC is going to be the difference between RB fanboys/rich people buying a bunch of DLC and your average Joe McGamerson buying a bunch of DLC. We want to know what we're up against, pricewise, of course. $170 at launch and then the possibility of another Strat in Jan, and THEN XBLM purchases? It's a lot to put down, and we want to be prepared for the long haul, for the lifecycle of the game.

Much like buying a digital SLR high end camera, we're buying into the SYSTEM, not just the camera itself.

Also note an interesting tidbit of info. On the www.rockband.com, when you click on User Submitted Content or whatever at the bottom, it takes you to a ton of legalese (and links to more) wherein it refers to Rock Band, and the Rock Band community site and affiliated companies as "The Platform". That sounds rather auspicious to me. :D

[angry_jonny]

I'm not so sure the iTunes model is directly applicable. It's not like DLC is as flexible as an AAC or MP3 file; its only utility is for RB, and nothing more. Are you going to fire up RB to listen (and only listen) to music? All this talk of a new platform to deliver music doesn't resonate with me. It's a game. It's going to be fantastic, but if you love a band (set of songs, etc.) you're going to buy their content independently of RB. I'm sure they'd love to sell you that content all over again for RB, but it isn't really the same content at all.

No question that HMX is adding value with the note charts and the software platform, and MS/Sony with the hardware platform, and everyone has to get paid. But I think the .99 (or 1.29) starting point isn't right. RB isn't adding value on top of the song: there is no "song" there independent of RB.

None of which has much to do with what they'll end up charging (they'll charge what they can get away with, probably $3). I'm just pointing out that the speculative reasoning here has a (IMHO) faulty starting point. Apples and oranges.

[toefer]

For what it's worth, the PS store was updated, and they're selling the GHIII packs (3 songs each) for $6.25.

Which means its the same as the 360.

[angry_jonny]

And that's a *bundle* price, so you don't get exactly what you want. Yeah, I just don't see RB's songs being less than $2.50, and that probably puts their album costs at $20. Eesh.

[tf5_bassist]

I hate to agree with you, Angry_Johnny, but you (and the others saying this) are right with the pricing not being that low to match iTunes. That'd be nice, it'd be VERY nice, but I don't think it'll be that low. I'm hoping it will be affordable though.

Your comment about not buying songs JUST to listen to in RB because there isn't a capability of doing that made me think... If a custom app were to be written for the dashboard, or if a patch was implemented in the Media blade to allow you to play the songs you download as if they were standard audio files, that wouldn't require a duplicate file to be downloaded for just listening... It's probably kind of random, but it'd be completely possible to write an app for the dashboard to interpret an RB downloaded song and piece it all together to play as a song in the dashboard.

Okay, I'm done with the babbling, off to lunch break.

[defmonkey]

500 ms points = 6.25

And if its 500 points per pack for RB. I'll be happy. Its its 400. I'll be estactic. So I can actually buy 4 packs instead of 3. And have 100 points left over for some crappy theme that I just had to have.

[toefer]

Your comment about not buying songs JUST to listen to in RB because there isn't a capability of doing that made me think... If a custom app were to be written for the dashboard, or if a patch was implemented in the Media blade to allow you to play the songs you download as if they were standard audio files, that wouldn't require a duplicate file to be downloaded for just listening... It's probably kind of random, but it'd be completely possible to write an app for the dashboard to interpret an RB downloaded song and piece it all together to play as a song in the dashboard.


Or how about they just bundle an mp3 with the RB file. Problem solved. It'd at least make it somewhat more attractive to purchase.

[admanimal]

Or how about they just bundle an mp3 with the RB file. Problem solved. It'd at least make it somewhat more attractive to purchase.

If they did that, the labels would almost certainly ask for more money. Harmonix has said part of why the labels are willing to deal with them is that the RB format, not being playable anywhere else, is inherently piracy-resistant.

[toefer]

If they did that, the labels would almost certainly ask for more money. Harmonix has said part of why the labels are willing to deal with them is that the RB format, not being playable anywhere else, is inherently piracy-resistant.

So shouldn't HMX be paying lower licensing fees than iTunes?

[Bakkster]

It's not like DLC is as flexible as an AAC or MP3 file; its only utility is for RB, and nothing more.

If the labels had their way the only way you could use an AAC file from iTunes would be from within iTunes and on your iPod. If they could, they would lock every single song to the format you bought it on and never let you use it anywhere else without paying for it again.

It sucks for us, but the labels will never think like this. They will just see this as the way it 'should' be.

[tf5_bassist]

If they did that, the labels would almost certainly ask for more money. Harmonix has said part of why the labels are willing to deal with them is that the RB format, not being playable anywhere else, is inherently piracy-resistant.

Precisely. Because the ability to "steal the label's property" is so inherently slim with this model, that helps HMX negotiate deals on the cheap. Hence why having some sort of app that basically FCs the song and plays the original vocal track is a very viable option, if it can be written in a way that can't be reverse-engineered or altered to output to mp3s, which I highly doubt could be done, at least not without some SERIOUS effort.

[Electric_Zen]

So shouldn't HMX be paying lower licensing fees than iTunes?

Doesn't matter what they should or shouldn't be doing. The fact is, Charles Huang has said the labels are charging iTunes fees because that's what they are "comfortable" with.

[LongDarkBlues]

iTunes doesn't pay licensing fees - they are a distributor. The labels pay them to carry the content by giving them a cut.

[mohkilla]

id be extremely upset if DLC is over 1$ reason being is because we already spent 180 (thats including tax) for a game and paying extra for songs is already rediculous for the amount of money spent .... 1 dollar should be fine... if Harmonix is considerate about the money people spent on their game.

[toefer]

id be extremely upset if DLC is over 1$ reason being is because we already spent 180 (thats including tax) for a game and paying extra for songs is already rediculous for the amount of money spent .... 1 dollar should be fine... if Harmonix is considerate about the money people spent on their game.

I'd like it to be $1 too, I just don't think its possible at all. Unless HMX hires some little kids, and make them work 16 hours a day for 5 cents. Even then, it might have to be like $1.10.

[toelessfoot]

A previous interview regarding GH3 laid out the licensing costs and such. It's 40% to Microsoft to be on XBox Live, it's about $0.70 to the labels on a $0.99 iTunes purchase. Assuming (and this is a big assumption) that they can get similar rates as Apple, that would mean that at a $1.00 price point MTV/Harmonix would lose $0.10 a track, cash.

In addition, surely everyone has heard the media CEO's whining about the pricing on iTunes and how they hate that they can't set their own prices. There is no way that MTV/Harmonix has negotiated the same deal as iTunes.

Make no mistake, less than $2 is just fiscally impossible. Not to mention that when you get a Rock Band track, you are getting so much more than an iTunes track. You're buying a wonderfully choreographed participatory experience, not just an audio file.

If $2.50 to $3 is above your price point, then there's just nothing that can be done for you. That's barely above cost.

Listen to this guy.

[admanimal]

id be extremely upset if DLC is over 1$ reason being is because we already spent 180 (thats including tax) for a game and paying extra for songs is already rediculous for the amount of money spent .... 1 dollar should be fine... if Harmonix is considerate about the money people spent on their game.

Prepare to be extremely upset...

Sure in absolute terms $180 is a lot of money, but is it really that much for what we are getting? I think Harmonix is doing everything they can to keep the prices on everything low, but there is a limit to what they can do.

[mohkilla]

Prepare to be extremely upset...

Sure in absolute terms $180 is a lot of money, but is it really that much for what we are getting? I think Harmonix is doing everything they can to keep the prices on everything low, but there is a limit to what they can do.

i think it IS alot for what were getting. you know what u can get with 180? 3 other games, Mass Effect, Call of Duty 4, assasins creed, And all different in content not the same game but different instrument. Also if you put the cash ull spend on DLC .. .thats another game or two youd letting go for DLC. Dont get me wrong Rockband Is on my Purchase list and its a kickass game but if you think outside of the box, outside of "Rockband", there is much more for 180 than a single game with 3 instruments.

[admanimal]

i think it IS that much for what were getting. you know what u can get with 180? 3 other games, Mass Effect, Call of Duty 4, assasins creed, And all different in content not the same game but different instrument. Also if you put the cash ull spend on DLC .. .thats another game or two youd letting go for DLC. Dont get me wrong Rockband Is on my Purchase list and its a kickass game but if you think outside of the box, outside of "Rockband", there is much more for 180 than a single game with 3 instruments.

True, but again, what do you want them to do? I think the price for the bundle is about as low as it's possible for them to go. And I'm sure the DLC price will also be as low as they can go considering the number of companies with their hands in the pot there.

Maybe they could take a loss on the game itself if the franchise was more established and they were totally sure it would be a success and they would get millions of DLC downloads...but alas that's not the case yet.

[mohkilla]

true, i just hope it isnt alot for DLC.... i dont know honestly im still thinking if i should buy Rockband or not, I was until a friend told me "dude u can just get 3 other games for that price instead of one" and me i personally get bored of games in general really quick...and im fearing that i might get bored of rockband quick..i dont know ...

[admanimal]

true, i just hope it isnt alot for DLC.... i dont know honestly im still thinking if i should buy Rockband or not, I was until a friend told me "dude u can just get 3 other games for that price instead of one" and me i personally get bored of games in general really quick...and im fearing that i might get bored of rockband quick..i dont know ...

Well you can always wait until next year when you can buy instruments separately and you don't have to spend all that at once.

[mohkilla]

i dont know man, i might just get the bundle and have it closed (which will be extremely hard) until i see prices of DLC, and if they are not reasonable... ill return it. I just saw the prices for GH3 DLC and it made me want to sell my game...

[scourge]

I know they are gonna be as expensive as hell. :(

If it was somehow a dollar a song, I would buy them all. And I mean all of them.

[espher]

You never know, there could be a miracle.

We all remember how silent they were on bundle pricing, and bam, $30 cheaper than forecast. ;)

[Catalytic]

In one of the other threads, someone pointed out that the labels only get 30-40% of the $0.99 price tag for ITunes songs. Assuming that it is cheaper for Harmonix to license each song than $0.30 to $0.40 that ITunes pays the labels to sell the song, it is not unreasonble to think that a lower price tag is in line than $2-$3 dollars per song. That said, a RB song requires much more work than a GH song, so to think that RB bundles will be less than GH bundles seems wishful thinking to me. I think the interesting cases are single songs and albums. Usually, when you bundle a product, you get a break on the per unit price, so taking the $6.25 for 3 song baseline, each unit costs just over $2. So, my guess is that you are looking at a $2.50 price point for individual songs and more like a $15 price point for albums (which need a price reduction since most people don't want the whole album except in rare cases). I hope the individual songs come out to be a little less, but I doubt it. And if the albums come out to be $20, I personally would have a hard time justifying buying any album, even classic albums that I love like "Who's Next" and "Nevermind".

[Eman311]

It is very imossible to guess DLC pricing at this stage. however, i think a song likeeeeee fortunate son would come much cheaper than a song by metallica.

edit: 2,000 posts! damn i gotta get away from here.

[Jimmik]

yea.....Thinking about DLC makes me sad. If they somehow make it $1-1.50 a song, I will be so happy and blown away, they'd actually make more money since I could justify buying the songs at that price to myself I'd end up spending more in the long run :P But its okay. The songs they announced are good enough to warrant a more expensive purchase. But for the record, cheaper is better, if you're listening HMX :D

edit: Oh btw grats on 2000 posts eman

[Edgehopper]

With the new DLC announcements:

At $1-$1.5/song, I'd buy everything
At $1.5-$2/song, I'd buy everything I don't actually dislike listening to.
At over $2/song, I'll only buy stuff I like.
At over $3/song, I'll only buy stuff I and my friends agree that we all want to play for BWT.

These numbers also apply if bulk pricing reduces the effective unit price.

[Jimmik]

Yea, that reminds me, a pool for money would be a good way to help pay for DLC costs. With BWT I'm going to "encourage donations" (read: enforce donations [read: bully my friends into giving me money]) from my friends who play along with me, especially if DLC pricing is high. Hey, I paid for the game, didn't I? ;)

[King_Nuthin]

I have no problems paying 200pts for an individual song if I really want it. At 100pts I might just buy everything but that seems optomistic. 150 would be a bargain. 500 pts for a bundle that isn't totally random doesn't sound too bad either - if they bundle by genre I'd be cool with that especially if the songs were available a la carte if I only liked one or two of the songs. And anywhere between 1000-1500 for an album depending on the amount of tracks and the hits vs. filler.

If what we are hearing is true about labels pitching artists to for marketing purposes than over time I'd expect to see the occasional freebie too.

[fried_blowney]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

They'll offer it at a price that's both reasonable and that will maximize their profits. For purposes of this example, let's assume RB gets all the money from DLC. So, let's say they offer $2.50 a song, and perhaps 100,000 people buy that song. That would make $250,000 in revenues for RB. Now, example 2. RB offers a song at $1.75. 150,000 people buy the song, making $262,500. Example 3. $1.25 a song, 175,000 people buy. Notice they make less than Example 1, at $218,750. Remember, for this example ONLY we're assuming RB takes all the revenues from DLC (which we know IRL they won't).

Using this, I find it safe to assume we're looking for something in the middle when it comes to DLC pricing.

[Rocket9]

Looking at the list of DLC just announced (which looks like a really great list to me)...

Police pack (Masters) [Roxanne, Synchronicty II, Can't Stand Losing You]
Queens of the Stone Age pack (Masters) [3s and 7s, Sick Sick Sick, Little Sister ]
Metallica pack
Black Sabbath pack (Covers): [N.I.B, Sweet Leaf, War Pigs]
David Bowie (Masters): [Moonage Daydream, Heroes, Queen *****]
Punk Pack (Buzzcocks Cover, Rest Masters): [Ever Fallen in Love by Buzzcocks, I Fought the Law by The Clash, Rockaway Beach by The Ramones ]
Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival
Juke Box Hero by Foreigner
My Sharona by The Knack
Cherry Bomb by The Runaways
Bang a Gong (Get it On) by T-Rex
Joker and the Thief by Wolfmother
Brass in Pocket by The Pretenders
My Iron Lung by Radiohead
Buddy Holly by Weezer

At $1 a track, I'd see myself immediately going for everything except perhaps the Metallica, so 24 tracks, $24 and being really happy for getting what I think is a fair deal (based on the established market for retail release in-game music pricing (GH1, GH2, GHII, RockBand, Singstar, Karaoke Rev, etc).

At $1.5 a track, I'd see myself at 8 songs, so $12 total.

At $2 a track, somewhere in the 0-4 song range.

I really don't think the market pricing for DLC for music games has been established yet, and don't want to let my support to it being established as overpriced, greedy or out-of-line with the established market pricing that seems to be working for everyone on the retail releases (gameplay plus 40-50 songs for $50-$60). And as others pointed out comparing to the itunes model... the per song value for the music is much much lower that buying something from itunes, as you can't play it anywhere else, and probably can't even hear the song played straight through perfectly unless you can play it perfectly. The gameplay value per song is very real, but getting 6 songs to play in game (ala the just announced GH-3 packs) for $12.50 is definitely not better than getting a good XBLA game for less than that.

I really want RB to do well and have a ton of DLC selling really well making money hand over first for Harmonix and really establish a long-term platform for music gameplay, but that will only happen if it's priced correctly with market desires. Otherwise I expect interest will wither pretty quick for a lot of people, as it did for me with the GH-2 pricing.

[MaineDrummer]

I know this means next to nothing but I'm tossing it out there anyways :p


I KNOW Rock Band's pricing will be cheaper from a source. They see the potential of winning over GH fans with "fairer" pricing.

Moving on..

The thing on my mind is this, HMX has said they are shooting for thousands of songs,


We're really trying to turn this into like the iTunes of music videogames.

We don't just see it as a game. We really do see this as a platform for experiencing music
etc., etc....

Now I just don't see that happening at a price point that's on the high side. Looking the the charge less-more downloads-less profit scenario, I think that's the way to go. Yeah less profit but when you have a "little" profit on a thousand(s?) songs that ends up as a pretty good chunk of cash.

I am going to predict we will see more FTW's then WTF's once things are finalized.

[Bakkster]

I am going to predict we will see more FTW's then WTF's once things are finalized.

I hope your source is right. That would seal the deal on awesome.

[TheTogfather]

I hope your source is right. That would seal the deal on awesome.

The deal has been sealed long ago, but that would certainly put a huge, bold f*ck yah stamp on it all...

[ThePaska]

I have a feeling individual song purchases for Rock Band will be around the same as the cost of Guitar Hero's so I would say a little over $2 for a single song and as you buy triplets and albums and larger packs of songs the songs become cheaper. Maybe down to $1.50 a song or something around there.

[LongDarkBlues]

I think a majority here are speaking in ideal terms. Does 50 cents really matter that much to you? Or $5? Is that really going to keep you from getting a couple songs you might learn to really like. I don't get how you can be up for buying 24 of the tracks at $1 and not up for buying 24 tracks for $1.50 - the difference between $24 and $36 is less than most meals. A meal that you would probably skip anyway because you were too busy rocking out to 24 new awesome songs. Or a meal that's replaced by your friends coming over to play and bringing a pizza and a 6 pack with them - it's such a trivial amount of money to quibble over 50 cents for the amount of content and work be developed here.

[Ultrace]

Looking at the list of DLC just announced (which looks like a really great list to me)...
(snipped)

At $1 a track, I'd see myself immediately going for everything except perhaps the Metallica, so 24 tracks, $24 and being really happy for getting what I think is a fair deal (based on the established market for retail release in-game music pricing (GH1, GH2, GHII, RockBand, Singstar, Karaoke Rev, etc).

At $1.5 a track, I'd see myself at 8 songs, so $12 total.

At $2 a track, somewhere in the 0-4 song range.
I continue to stress that everyone's finances and outlook are different on this issue. Myself, at $2.50 (200 points) per song, there are 13 immediate purchases available from what was listed above. That number only goes up as the price goes down, but based on Activision's moves, I expect 175-200 points per song to be charged by RB. They cost more to produce, they take up more space (which may factor into how much MS charges them for this item to be sold) and you get more for your money.

I don't think that with RB breathing down GH3's neck, RO and Activision would have released their paltry DLC (a Foo Fighters and Velvet Revolver pack? That doesn't even show up on the radar compared to what HMX announced) at the prices they did if they could go cheaper and still be that profitable.

[Xanthous]

Yea, that reminds me, a pool for money would be a good way to help pay for DLC costs. With BWT I'm going to "encourage donations" (read: enforce donations [read: bully my friends into giving me money]) from my friends who play along with me, especially if DLC pricing is high. Hey, I paid for the game, didn't I? ;)

I'm doing the exact same thing. I just paid $450 for a 60gig PS3 and am about to drop $170 on the game itself.

I've got a plastic jar labeled "Rock Band DLC Fund". If anyone playing has spare change, they can drop it in toward DLC. I'll keep a list of all DLC announced/available with the jar, and if someone donates enough for a full song, they'll be able to choose which song that money pays for.

Seems fair enough to me. We'll see how well it works out.

[BathTub]

In one of the other threads, someone pointed out that the labels only get 30-40% of the $0.99 price tag for ITunes songs.


This is around the wrong way, iTunes gets 35 cents per track and the Label takes the rest. The artist then gets a few cents out of the Labels cut. Unless you are with someone like CDBaby who only take 9% and give the rest to the artist.

[Catalytic]

This is around the wrong way, iTunes gets 35 cents per track and the Label takes the rest. The artist then gets a few cents out of the Labels cut. Unless you are with someone like CDBaby who only take 9% and give the rest to the artist.

LongDarkBlues said: "I work with them to some extent - much bigger bands probably have a better deal, but after iTunes and the digital distributor take their cut, it only leaves between 21-38 cents for the artist and label to divide."

I don't know if he is right or wrong, but he is in a better position to know than myself.

http://community.rockband.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=19&page=50

[LongDarkBlues]

yeah - that was I. I'm sure it varies depending on the deal and the size of the label.

iTunes doesn't take a fixed amount, though - they are willing to take a smaller cut to get big artists, and they take a huge cut from small artists. From the 99 cents, my label get far less than 30-40% - we get 22% and then have to split that with the artist, but we're smaller than many, so I was moving the estimate up. Many labels have to go through a distributor - we use IRIS - and this is certainly not an issue for HMX - so a lot of the cut is theirs too, but that's largely because outside of a distributor iTunes doesn't deal with labels or artists, so while that's not technically taken by iTunes, they also require you to do it - CDbaby is sort of an exception that has awesome leveraging power and does a fantastic job of getting small artists on iTunes, but they also have certain exclusivities in their contract that prevents artists signed to labels from doing certain things.