[Via Joystiq]
[Via Joystiq]
Reader Comments (20)
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 11:18AM (Unverified) said
Well, Sir Paul did just lose a huge settlement to ol hop along (on one leg, I mean).
And Michael Jackson just worked out an expensive deal to keep Neverland for a while longer - He owns the Beatles catalog, FYI.
Seems like it makes sense.
But no one cares about poor poor Ringo.
Reply
And Michael Jackson just worked out an expensive deal to keep Neverland for a while longer - He owns the Beatles catalog, FYI.
Seems like it makes sense.
But no one cares about poor poor Ringo.
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 11:28AM (Unverified) said
Ha ha nice one Richard! Good effort shoehorning that many references into the article!
@1: 25million for a few years marriage! I'd fucking marry him for that!! ;o)
Reply
@1: 25million for a few years marriage! I'd fucking marry him for that!! ;o)
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 11:38AM (Unverified) said
Dick,
From what I've been reading -- mostly in older articles -- Michael will lose the rights this year. Maybe that's the reason for the timing? I honestly had never heard that he owned the catalog in the first place. What a strange world we live in.
Reply
From what I've been reading -- mostly in older articles -- Michael will lose the rights this year. Maybe that's the reason for the timing? I honestly had never heard that he owned the catalog in the first place. What a strange world we live in.
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 12:21PM Swamp Donkiey said
3 Points...
If Sony owns the Beatles recordings, they would probably want the game to be a big PS3 exclusive.
Whether the game goes to Guitar Hero or Rock Band, probably would depend on the ambition/vision of EA or Activision, as they would be putting up the big bucks. It looks at this point that Activision and the Guitar Hero franchise are more interested in the band exclusive games as they have gotten Aerosmith, and rumored U2, and now the Beatles rumor.
The other rumor is that Guitar Hero will be copping Rock Band's multi instrument setup anyway. They will surely at least be incorporating vocals into the mix. U2 and Beatles games would be lame with no singing.
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 1:08PM (Unverified) said
thadwhit,
For what it's worth, there are already Sony owned tracks on the 360 version of Rock Band. A quick google revealed The Clash, for example, which is under Epic Records, which is in turn owned by Sony.
Reply
For what it's worth, there are already Sony owned tracks on the 360 version of Rock Band. A quick google revealed The Clash, for example, which is under Epic Records, which is in turn owned by Sony.
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 1:27PM Swamp Donkiey said
Richard,
Makes sense. Sony is so much bigger than just PS3, so I guess we're in luck on 360. Hopefully same will go for a blu-ray add-on.
Reply
Makes sense. Sony is so much bigger than just PS3, so I guess we're in luck on 360. Hopefully same will go for a blu-ray add-on.
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 1:59PM Misinformed DNA said
Paul and Michael were good friends, until the auction for the publishing rights. Paul and Michael were the top bidders and Michael won. Their friendship was dissolved after that.
Anyway, I would probably not buy this game for GH. I am not a big fan of guitar, I am more of a drummer and a singer. But I love the Beatles!
Reply
Anyway, I would probably not buy this game for GH. I am not a big fan of guitar, I am more of a drummer and a singer. But I love the Beatles!
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:02PM (Unverified) said
Yes MJ will be losing the rights to Sony. very very sad...they should just go back to the living Beatles and their families. One of the worst debacles in music history...
Anyway, YES this makes much more sense for Rock Band. Who doesn't want to play RINGO!?
Reply
Anyway, YES this makes much more sense for Rock Band. Who doesn't want to play RINGO!?
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 2:35PM (Unverified) said
rock band ftmfw! the beatles is a perfect choice for rock band, dammit
Reply
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 4:30PM (Unverified) said
If Sony recognizes the potential value of those songs, they'd release them in a game for both/all consoles, not just for the PS3. The PS3 will no doubt make up some ground now that the format war has ended, but there's no reason to lock out any one section of the console market from something that would make as much money as a Beatles game. (The same people who'll buy all Beatles tracks as soon as iTunes gets them will buy GH: Beatles or Rock Band albums as well.)
Reply
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 4:56PM (Unverified) said
Is today April 1st? Of course if the Beatles were on Rock Band most the kids playing the drums would be better than Ringo!
Reply
Posted: Mar 18th 2008 6:12PM (Unverified) said
if they don't include helter skelter, they won't get my money. it's that simple. no Helter Skelter, NO MONEY!
Reply
Posted: Mar 19th 2008 8:46PM (Unverified) said
two things:
-1-micheal didnt get ALL of the Beatles catalougue, just those that Paul owned the rights to. John owned the rights to the rest and are now in Yoko's control, who is very anal about who and what gets to use them.
-2-The Beatles and Hannah Montana are NOT comparable in any fashion....PERIOD.
Reply
-1-micheal didnt get ALL of the Beatles catalougue, just those that Paul owned the rights to. John owned the rights to the rest and are now in Yoko's control, who is very anal about who and what gets to use them.
-2-The Beatles and Hannah Montana are NOT comparable in any fashion....PERIOD.
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 221 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 161 comments
- Blizzard taking Valve to court over 'DOTA' trademark 116 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
