Unofficial "We Refuse to Spend $3 On One Song" Thread

[bermuddy]

i guess i should give my 2 cents on the matter

i would pay 3 bucks for a song i wanted to play. would i be as happy as i would be if it were 2? of course not, but that's my choice. i dont think it's stupid for anyone to feel different and you're all entitled to your opinion.

however, those of you saying that $3 is too expensive or it sets a bad precedent, you'll soon learn that prices ALWAYS go up. if youre going to be outraged at something be outraged when prices go up for something you cant live without. The 2 dollar standard wont be around forever.

[Samuel346]

So all we can do is wait and see if people actually buy into raising the prices. If they do, then you can bet EMI (and other labels) will use $3 as the new standard, and will bypass HMX and RBDLC altogether in favor of self-publishing their artists on the RBN. If people don't buy it, then we can only wait and see if they're willing to come down on their prices, or just get out of the RBN altogether.

Is that clear for everyone now? Because this is what I and bmaninc have been saying for quite a while.

People buy just the same at the $3 mark as at the $2 mark and the $3 mark will become standard.

Thus, buying at the $3 mark is ENCOURAGING all DLC to be $3.

[vedis]

i guess i should give my 2 cents on the matter

i would pay 3 bucks for a song i wanted to play. would i be as happy as i would be if it were 2? of course not, but that's my choice. i dont think it's stupid for anyone to feel different and you're all entitled to your opinion.

however, those of you saying that $3 is too expensive or it sets a bad precedent, you'll soon learn that prices ALWAYS go up. if youre going to be outraged at something be outraged when prices go up for something you cant live without.

i remember when 29.99 was the standard price for every video game on the market

how dare they raise them to 59.99!

[Ultrace]

Who here believes EMI came to RBN with good intentions, show of hands.....

EMI came here for money, of course. Who here believes that more than a couple of potential bands or labels came to RBN purely out of the kindness of their hearts? Every single band, label and charter involved in RBN stands to gain something from it, as does Harmonix. Are there any artists or charters who want to pop up and say that they're bringing out songs at a monetary loss with no other incentive (such as publicity or the thrill of having their music played by people in RB) to make up for it? I want to see those people.

Just because EMI may not be altruistic in their approach doesn't make them sinister. Ask instead, "Who here believes EMI came to RBN for the good of Rock Band players and music in general?" No one would raise their hands, of course--EMI is a label, it's their job to make money. People forget that doing so is what enables businesses to keep most of us employed. And from what you yourself say, it sounds like EMI could use a helping heaping of it.

[bermuddy]

i remember when 29.99 was the standard price for every video game on the market

how dare they raise them to 59.99!

exactly. you can take a stand on principle all you want, but eventually you're going to find yourself bored and alone. luckily, you'll still have your principles.

[hmxhenry]

I'm trying to justify the price from both ends of the transaction.

Why should they charge more?

Other authors put the same amount of work into their songs, but they only charge one or two dollars. Harmonix only charge two dollars and they have to pay to license the songs on top of putting together the charts, as opposed EMI charting songs they already own. The best I can come up with is record label greed or maybe ignorance to normal Rock Band pricing. Aside from that, the best I've seen in this thread is "because they can."

So it's not EMI saying that the Dandy Warhols are worth more than The Beatles, they're saying that their charts are worth more than the company that's been doing it since 2005.

I think it might help to look at it as the label finally having to do all the leg work. As RB DLC we can license, chart and submit songs for them. In RBN they are doing all of this on their own... hiring third party charters, taking time to do it in house, breaking down their own masters, learning the tools, purchasing the tools, waiting for songs to go through playtest and peer review... but the benefits are that we'll hopefully be more likely to see more bands from more labels, and we'll see them faster than we'd be able to put them into the RB pipeline, and hopefully we'll see labels reacting more quickly to community requests for artists.

[bermuddy]

oh man, at $3 per song, Muse is going to make a fortune

[Ultrace]

So it's not EMI saying that the Dandy Warhols are worth more than The Beatles, they're saying that their charts are worth more than the company that's been doing it since 2005.

EMI is saying no more than, "At this point and time, it will take $3 for us to part with this digital copy of this DLC in Rock Band," and it's up to the individual user to say, "At this point and time, I will/won't pay that much for this particular song."

The reasoning is entirely EMI's and unknown to us. What they are saying is only what it will cost you, and it is up to each to decide if it is worth it to them.

[Samuel346]

EMI is a label, it's their job to make money.

Thank you for supporting my position.

exactly. you can take a stand on principle all you want, but eventually you're going to find yourself bored and alone. luckily, you'll still have your principles.

Thank you for showing why my first post, stating that this thread was pointless because most people will still buy, was correct.

[brobot]

I wish I could pay $4 per some songs,