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

[Magnet]

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

how dare they raise them to 59.99!

The prices of video games is actually what this thread was reminding me of. I looked up an article about it, and I thought the following passage was interesting:

For one thing, Methenitis talks about a phenomenon known as "conscious parallelism." In this hypothetical scenario, one publisher says, "Our new game Graylo 2 is so awesome that we are going to charge more money for it. Because it is worth it!"

All the other publishers go into their board meetings and moan:

"Hey! Our games are at least as good as Graylo 2. We should charge more too!"

And so it goes. One day games are $49.99; the next, $59.99. No one has broken the law and everyone is happy.

I don't think the people that are worried that this is the beginning of conscious parallelism are as paranoid as others are intimating. Whether or not it's happening is anyone's guess, but it's a legitimate concern. I don't know if there is much that people can really do to prevent it (apart from exercising one's choice to not buy certain songs for certain reasons), but it has certainly launched a fairly lively conversation here.

[SirDavidTLynch]

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

how dare they raise them to 59.99!

I don't, actually. For as song as I've been buying my own video games (since the N64 days) 50-60 dollars has been the norm, unless you're talking about Game Boy.

It actually took me a while to accept that $60 in the 2000s is a steal compared to $50 in the 1990s, but as I pointed out in another thread, inflation would make a lot more sense if normal Rock Band DLC has risen to $3 lately.

[vedis]

I don't, actually. For as song as I've been buying my own video games (since the N64 days) 50-60 dollars has been the norm, unless you're talking about Game Boy.

some of us old timers remember atari, sega(not genesis, just sega) nes and so on
the next gen pushed them to 40
around the time cd games came out, the prices went up to 50
and with dvd games, 60

[bermuddy]

and then with instruments 200

[elfreako]

Dude, he GETS PAID to represent his company on the company site.

I wouldn't bad mouth HMX if I was him.

His point is his (or more likely, the company's) opinion on the subject. My point is my opinion. I don't like the $3 price point, that's all I've been saying.

We paid $3 in Canada for something like a year. I think they took notes that it didn't stop us from buying.

That being said, at $3, I'd be a lot more selective. Still, I want Blondie at ANY price.

I would go as high as $10 for Atomic. Write that down Henry, and for the love of god bring it to the PS3!!!

[LuigiHann]

Video game prices really haven't gone up that much on a long-term standard. NES games were $60 bucks back in their heyday.

[prhs2057]

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.

Once again NO SONG is worth 3 dollars to me, but then again I knew this would happen from the start of RBN when they announced the artists would only get 30% of the profit, which makes me think someone forgot to take these costs into consideration when deciding how the profits would be split amongst the parties involved.

[jawillroy]

I knew this would happen from the start of RBN when they announced the artists would only get 30% of the profit

*raises hand* Actually, in the music business, getting thirty cents on the dollar is a very good deal. Most major label record deals do not offer that high a percentage.

Indie labels, with handshake deals and personal relationships between artists and management, often offer better - but at the expense of distribution. A better percentage, but less money overall because not as many units move. Also, a bit more risk of having your label go belly-up.

[SirDavidTLynch]

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.

I guess, but that's still no more work than other authors or labels do, especially for songs that, at the same price, is likely to sell more than independent and unsigned artists.

[trg007]

I've been hoping that someone else would open a thread asking plainly "would you be willing to pay $3 for the right song"? If that thread ever pops up then I think we can lock this thread and move on to more general and productive discussion.

And now we have it.