Activision's Genius Plan to make more money.

[dady5000]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54774
Activision is considering a subscription service to deliver new songs monthly for its music-rhythm series Guitar Hero, according to Activision Publishing CEO Mike Griffith during Activision Blizzard's Analyst Day event yesterday. As Griffith explained:

Looking even further out, we're exploring new models, like an annual pass subscription where players can subscribe and get a certain number of songs downloadable each month.

No further details, such as a price or a start date for such a program, were made available. The plan would, however, be just part of Activision's plan to "monetize" the Guitar Hero series.

"We've learned that the consumer still has an insatiable appetite for more," said Griffith. "Consumers have downloaded over 20 million individual songs for the franchise, and they still tell us they want more," he added.

"In fact, the Guitar Hero: Aerosmith game delivered 10x the revenue compared to Aerosmith's most recently released CD in 2004, when comparing equivalent launch periods," Griffith continued. Most of the revenue from the game, of course, went in Activision's direction instead of Aerosmith's.

I'd love a subsriciption service for RB. :D

GH guys actually have a great idea there.

[Gatorguy91]

SUBSCRIPTION?

MONTHLY?


THAT'S NOT GREAT

That's HORRIBLE

[CableCarrier]

20 million individual songs, huh? Songs usually sold in packs of 3 or for free or both. Or Metallica.

Yeah, that figure is just a little bit crap, I'd say.

[dady5000]

SUBSCRIPTION?

MONTHLY?


THAT'S NOT GREAT

That's HORRIBLE

Uhm. Provided it's 1. Optional and 2. Provides a bulk discount.

It's a great idea.

[killer_roach]

Hey, why not? WoW is making them cash hand over fist...

...that being said, like it takes that much skill extracting cash from Blizzard fanboys.

I don't think GH has proven itself to be on that level.

[macdaddy3598]

Subscription? Really - what next? A NASCAR endorsement?

They are going to continue to milk the GH name and make so many products at so much cost that they are forcing their teen to twenty-something's demographic to flock to Rock Band.

[gosox333]

Subscription? Really - what next? A NASCAR endorsement?

They are going to continue to milk the GH name and make so many products at so much cost that they are forcing their teen to twenty-something's demographic to flock to Rock Band.

Well this milking isn't so bad, really. It's a convinience for the consumer, and it could be a great idea. I like the sound of it. (As long as it's optional. If it for some reason isn't, then that's a different story.)

And to all naysayers, you know if RB did something like this there would be nothing but praise. There really isn't anything all that bad about this.

[fiasco]

Subscription? Really - what next? A NASCAR endorsement?

They are going to continue to milk the GH name and make so many products at so much cost that they are forcing their teen to twenty-something's demographic to flock to Rock Band.

Too late. There's a RB2 one as well.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nascar/photo?slug=37d5778368c555b3d13a802d623760ee-getty-82660399jm005_emerson_radio&prov=getty

http://kotaku.com/5017547/guitar-hero-aerosmith-does-nascar

[rockerbabyy]

Subscription? Really - what next? A NASCAR endorsement?

funny you mention that...my father in law was just telling me about a nascar race he saw with a Rock Band 2 logo on one of the cars a couple weeks agao

anyway. i think its a great idea - however with GHs track record of releasing dlc id want to wait a bit and see how often they even make songs available. if rock band did it, i would for sure sign up

[instantdeath999]

Man, I could have sworn it would be a joke topic...

Step 1: Make the plan.

Step 2: ????

Step 3: Profit!

[Cpt. Overkill]

It actually sounds like a good idea.

Pay for a subscription and get your weekly dose of DLC.

Id do it if it were for RB.

[Bobman32x]

Id subscribe to a rock band dlc plan. i buy dlc atleast on 2 of the 4 releases a month, and a subscription would allow me to pick up the stuff that catches my attention, but i really dont want to spend the extra cash on (ie the pixes or disturbed)

[ELDUDEARINO69]

I don't think its a good idea because what if they put out **** every week ya know? Something I don't want to play. At least with Rock Band you get the choice of what songs you want

[rgdrafting]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54774
Activision is considering a subscription service to deliver new songs monthly for its music-rhythm series Guitar Hero, according to Activision Publishing CEO Mike Griffith during Activision Blizzard's Analyst Day event yesterday. As Griffith explained:

Looking even further out, we're exploring new models, like an annual pass subscription where players can subscribe and get a certain number of songs downloadable each month.

No further details, such as a price or a start date for such a program, were made available. The plan would, however, be just part of Activision's plan to "monetize" the Guitar Hero series.

"We've learned that the consumer still has an insatiable appetite for more," said Griffith. "Consumers have downloaded over 20 million individual songs for the franchise, and they still tell us they want more," he added.

"In fact, the Guitar Hero: Aerosmith game delivered 10x the revenue compared to Aerosmith's most recently released CD in 2004, when comparing equivalent launch periods," Griffith continued. Most of the revenue from the game, of course, went in Activision's direction instead of Aerosmith's.

I'd love a subsriciption service for RB. :D

GH guys actually have a great idea there.

I thought it was interesting how much they've "learned".

Seems to me they've "learned" this from RB's DLC, and not their own...since their DLC selection and release frequency sucks.

Should have said, "We've seen how much DLC Rock Band has (and sells), and we want to be like that too. Plus, we think subscription would be cool if we had good Rock Band's DLC selection, release frequency, and reputation." ;)

[Bobman32x]

rg, its called market research. theres absolutely nothing wrong with it

[darkbhudda]

Horrible idea. Not just because GH has had so little DLC. If Rock Band did it, and I've got almost all the DLC, I'd be cheesed off on paying for songs I don't want. My greatest concern is that even if they start off with a model of subscribe for 10 a month, and they release 20 a month to choose from, after a few months the bean counters will change it to 15 to choose from then 10 then it will be 5 but that's okay because you can choose from previous months. They will take the constant income stream for granted.

The currently pay for content model forces companies to deal with the realities of what people want to purchase, not what the loudest people on the forums say they want or what some higher ups want to push. A subscription model will open up new possibilities but opens up the possibility of the consumer being screwed.

[toymachineSH]

subscription is a great idea

OMG HOW TERRIBLE WOULD THAT BE BUYING DLC EVERY WEEK *looks around at DLC whores*

[Magnet]

"Consumers have downloaded over 20 million individual songs for the franchise, and they still tell us they want more," he added.

I think this is first time Rock Band has surpassed the Guitar Hero franchise in DLC downloads. Rock Band has over 21 million currently according to the latest press release.

[ZortheConqueror]

Assuming you'd be able to get dlc without the subscription, then yeah, that could be okay.

I for one don't buy nearly enough dlc to justify a subscription. In the end I'd probably save a ton of money by not having a subscription at all. For those who get dlc every week regardless of what it is, a subscription could be a godsend.

But for everybody else, a subscription would probably end up netting Activision way more money due to people getting it, forgetting about it, and not downloading that many songs. Which will probably happen in bulk quantities. Activision wins monies for a service that's practically stealing. No one's the wiser.

[killer_roach]

subscription is a great idea

OMG HOW TERRIBLE WOULD THAT BE BUYING DLC EVERY WEEK *looks around at DLC whores*

Agreed if the reputation was there. So far GH's DLC has been so spotty and so inconsistent of quality (although lately it has been improving) that there's a significant risk inherent to taking a subscription.

Not to mention, what happens when you stop paying the subscription?

[Bullseye]

What a rotten idea. This is the same business model that all media outlets want. Hmmm, look at all these people that enjoy our product...let's see how much money we can milk them for on a guaranteed basis. Subscriptions just scream of scam. Instead of having to make wise choices on song selection and quality control, they can push out whatever they want because you've already paid. The customer gives up any hope of having any effect on supply and demand. Discounts? When was the last time you actually got a good deal from your cable company or phone company? They'll most likely fix a price that basically will be a compromise on the $2 per song times the average monthly downloads and $2 for every new monthly DLC release. For those that DL everything, it'll be a steal; for those that are selective, you'll get the shaft.

Now if they want to offer an optional subscription plan, I can see some merit to it, but I've yet to see this done fairly. I just feel we do better as customers when we have choices in what we buy and don't buy.

Oh, and before the flames start, I am not an economics/marketing major, nor expert, and my opinion is based on my personal experience.

[paulstyles78]

Just a simple way of jacking the price more and more...Garbage

[LZ_69]

Nope...nope...nope!! No subscription! no matter if it's at a discount! (which I doubt). When it comes down to it, it's always better if you have a choice. Imagine if you subscribed for XM radio and they only had one station and you had no say as to what they play on it. Would you pay??!!

Subscriptions are for magazines and such. I sure haven't bought every song HMX has put out, only the ones that I like. You just can't beat freedom of choice.

[CaptainPasty]

If the subscription was cheaper on a per-song average than just outright buying all the DLC, what is wrong with that? I'm sure the standalone purchases will still be available - if you don't buy a lot of DLC, I'm sure you'll be fine.

Subscriptions do two things; 1) They guarantee the company an income each month, 2) If done right, they can save the DLC-heavy users a bit of cash.

[Hugoku]

I would see a subscription make sense only if we would see a high-volume library of DLC made available monthly, instead of the handful of tracks we get today.

What good would it be otherwise, if we could not peruse the subscription to download tracks that suit our taste.

There would have to be lot of tracks, lot of genres/artists, etc.

[illgreen]

No thank you. I do not want a commitment to DLC. I prefer to pick and choose.
What if you don't use all of your downloads?
What if you pay your subscription fee and are presented with a month of The Jonas Bros?
Hmmm...

[Bullseye]

If the subscription was cheaper on a per-song average than just outright buying all the DLC, what is wrong with that? I'm sure the standalone purchases will still be available - if you don't buy a lot of DLC, I'm sure you'll be fine.

Subscriptions do two things; 1) They guarantee the company an income each month, 2) If done right, they can save the DLC-heavy users a bit of cash.

The problem is traditionally, to offset costs, companies either abandon the a la carte menu, or they raise prices on the stand alone purchases. Sort of an "incentive" to subscribe. Seriously, look at phone, satellite and cable TV bills to see how a company can milk you. Again, knowing that they have a captive audience in subscribers, why worry about what people want or the quality. I agree with point #2, "that if done right, they can save those DLC-heavy types, but I doubt that companies are in business to save you money. As it stands, the prices for DLC are fair (not great) and the consumer can make an educated decision before purchase (youtube, previews, announcements, reviews, etc). Subscribers get no say in this choice and gives a much greater control to the supplier. I think subscriptions are a sure ticket to abuse the consumer.

[brobot]

Horrible idea. Look at the music outlets that have a subscription based service. If you are not paying anymore they cut off the ability to play the music. I don't know about you but if I download something that I want to play but for some reason can't afford it later and it is gone I would be pissed.

Subscription models on digital media is a bad idea all around. Why do you think apple hasn't done a subscription bassed service.

No if it is for a game (example WoW) that's one thing. You know that in order to play the core game you have to pay a fee. But when it comes to downloads that enhance a game that you have purchased and want to have the ability to play offline then a subscription would just not work.

Also, If Hmx did this I would ***** about it to them too.

[FloodOne]

Subscriptions are for magazines and such. I sure haven't bought every song HMX has put out, only the ones that I like. You just can't beat freedom of choice.

QFT...............

[CaptainPasty]

The problem is traditionally, to offset costs, companies either abandon the a la carte menu, or they raise prices on the stand alone purchases. Sort of an "incentive" to subscribe. Seriously, look at phone, satellite and cable TV bills to see how a company can milk you. Again, knowing that they have a captive audience in subscribers, why worry about what people want or the quality. I agree with point #2, "that if done right, they can save those DLC-heavy types, but I doubt that companies are in business to save you money. As it stands, the prices for DLC are fair (not great) and the consumer can make an educated decision before purchase (youtube, previews, announcements, reviews, etc). Subscribers get no say in this choice and gives a much greater control to the supplier. I think subscriptions are a sure ticket to abuse the consumer.

The incentive to subscribe would be the lower DLC prices, if you take advantage of it. The benefits for the company would be the guaranteed income. I don't think they can afford to jack the price of DLC up considering Rock Band is already well established. A subscription model probably won't appear as an option until there is a decent library built up (and really, who would subscribe to no content??), so the educated decision process still applies - you review your songs before downloading.

I don't see why people are *****ing other than because its Activision and not Harmonix.

[killer_roach]

Track record comes into play here. Simply put, Activision doesn't have one in terms of DLC. If they went to that sort of a model, you have no idea when and how much DLC you'd actually get, not to mention what would happen to said DLC if you stopped subscribing.

[CaptainPasty]

Like I said, who subscribes to an empty magazine or channel-less cable. I don't think it will be available immediately. It will take time to built up and maintain the library to a point where it becomes worthwhile. Rock Band probably already has the library to do this, and it wouldn't surprise me if they came up with something similar.

If you could get 5 downloads/month for the cost of 3-4 individual songs and there were 50-100 songs in the catalog you could easily spend a few months selecting songs until you reached a point where you felt like the remaining songs weren't worth a subscription. If you add in weekly releases, then it takes longer to reach that point.

Their track record isn't that great with DLC, but it would seem that with the emphasis on GHTunes and other online material they are starting to get serious about provided content online. I would wait 6mo-1yr post-release to determine whether they live up to the hype.

[Gatorguy91]

It actually sounds like a good idea.

Pay for a subscription and get your weekly dose of DLC.

Id do it if it were for RB.

So you'd be forced to buy all the DLC but at the same price?

[illgreen]

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169972
Ugh.

[IRockSoAwesome]

Track record comes into play here. Simply put, Activision doesn't have one in terms of DLC. If they went to that sort of a model, you have no idea when and how much DLC you'd actually get, not to mention what would happen to said DLC if you stopped subscribing.

I agree, but I imagine that if Activision is seriously considering this, they must plan on having new DLC on a much more regular basis. Now, if that basis would be weekly or not, I have no idea.