| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (46)

Posted: May 2nd 2008 2:49PM Peter Moore said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I still think Activision is full of assholes.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2008 4:18PM AnderFREAK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Amen.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 2:59PM copa said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You left out an important metric: quality.

Harmonix is very confident in the quality of their product. They believe that in a true free market, with open peripherals and open licensing, they will be extremely successful over the long term. They are not afraid of competition.

Activision is currently commissioning subsidiaries to create a rapid succession of knock-offs of someone else's product.

They are much, much less confident of their ability to compete in a free market, so they spend much of their creative energies looking for ways to introduce artificial constraints into the market.

These constraints include peripheral lock-outs, aggressive pursuit of exclusive content licensing, sometimes questionable assertions of their IP rights, and leveraging brand-name momentum.

Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 6:59PM Ghen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds about right to me. We haven't heard anything about GH4 yet, but I'm doubting any innovation.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 7:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
See, the funny thing is that I've used Harmonix's peripherals, and if there's one thing Harmonix should NOT be confident about with the shit they're peddling to go along with their excellent game, it's quality.
Reply

Posted: May 3rd 2008 2:28AM KaneRobot said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
YoshiLikesBoys - somewhat true...I don't think Harmonix's instruments are terrible, but they do seem to be a notch below Red Octane's offerings.

Again though, that goes back to the point made in the post you're responding to. Don't like Harmonix's peripherals? No problem, they have no issues with letting you use other people's stuff.

Not to mention as time goes on, Harmonix will step up their game and make their instruments better. It's a sequel happy company with a spotty track record until recently (Activision) combined with a peripheral manufacturer (Red Octane) vs. the publishing juggernaut (EA), music industry pillar (MTV) and stronger, forward-thinking creative force (Harmonix). This really shouldn't even be a contest if EA and MTV get serious about putting a hurt on them. The only thing keeping GH from being obsolete is the name...and if Activision keeps pumping out these half-baked ideas for sequels (Rocks the 80's, Aerosmith, etc), they may not even have that for much longer.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:05PM SheppyReturns said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I don't know. From mine and many other gamers perspectives, Harmonix has been quite sharing and even seems the surer bet.

-Activision pulled dick moves against PS3 users. And launched Wii's version without decent testing.

-Majority of Rock Bands issues have been cleared up.

-Activision has been pushing the Guitar Hero franchise everywhere that will have it including upping the announced sequels. Aerosmith, two other band exclusive titles, and Guitar Hero IV have all been announced.

-Rock Band 2 hasn't even been discussed, instead opting to push out a regular stream of DLC at a reasonable, and nonbundled price, allowing consumers to expand their experience ala carte, rather than ala sequel and the subsequent head smackingly annoying disc swapping.

-Activision has been rather lax on it's DLC front often giving up disappointing bundles and showing how out of touch to the music and even the guitar scene they are. Opting instead for sequelitis.

-Rock Band features a coherent group experience and the sheer polish and care which has gone into the project is a great thing to see. Rock Band may not be the hardest step charts to follow, but certainly they are the most fun to play. And even the ingame merchandising has relation to the music industry as companies are allowed to whore their products out in front of the consumer without seeming stupid or out of place.

-Between the terrible art style, scummy coat of paint, and the gyrating bimbos during the Pontiac music video shoot, Activision has sold the Guitar Hero franchise to everyone except the kinds of people who enjoy playing Guitar Hero.

From my perspective, it seems Rock Band keeping their current trends is a good path to walk. Certainly has a more loyal fanbase supporting the DLC. While I don't like Activision locking up bands as exclusives, I really don't see an alternative to this tactic since they clearly have no idea how to continue the franchise.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:24PM JY said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Business people just don't see it that way. I'd actually say that Activision has been making the safer bets, or the "dominant strategy" the article described.

By advertising it to the masses, Activision probably will gain more consumers, gamers or not. It is common economical assumption that consumers will choose the more advertised brand because advertisements are associated with "quality". If Harmonix fails to advertise in response, they may lose out on potential sales to Activision which has appealed to the consumers, and it brings up another prisoner's dilemma: to advertise or save the money not buying expensive ad-space. It does not matter if "gyrating bimbos" do not appeal to you, it usually appeals to a much bigger, a more "casual" fanbase.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:30PM SheppyReturns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well granted, but they COULD counter new Guitar Hero releases by advertising the music store. Try to play up the iTunes style aspect which is really appealing to many of the casuals. As I explained to Fernando when I mentioned I wanted to buy Singstar on PS3. I would much rather spent a little more money building my own custom mix than spending a little less and only liking about half the content.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:57PM TRTX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have to disagree on the RB2 front. I have a feeling that EA would do well to release an RB"2" disc by the end of 2008. My Harddrive can only take so much, and you have to remember that a 60 song disc is $60 while going that route through DLC would end up costing you well over $100 (at $2 a song)

They've discussed keeping all DLC compatible between releases. And a new disc every year would inject a fresh batch of 60 songs or so for EVERYBODY in the online community.

Because let's face it. You could buy all the DLC that comes out, but if even one person is a stickler and doesn't buy songs...or just has different tastes, you may never get a chance to actually play it online.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 4:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wong, you just my wang happy with that explanation. You neatly, rationally, and concisely put forth a damn good argument. Pssh, its not even an argument. Its all facts.

Long. Live. Harmonix.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 4:55PM SheppyReturns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
T, that would be a fair arguement (in regards to the expansion) but in all honesty, once again, I beg the question what the value of the 60 song expansion is?

I mean, Rock Band has the largest percentage of songs I enjoy in a mix and truthfully, it's only at about 60%. If this Rock Band expansion does drop and it's as good as the original, that means I'll be paying for 100% of the music and enjoying only 60%. Whereas if I spent the same amount of money in the music store, I would have 100% of the songs I enjoy. So instead of paying for songs I sort of enjoy playing (Celebrity Skin, It's been such a long time) or songs I utterly despise (Ballroom Blitz, Green Grass and High Tides), I get what I want.

They could sell expansions if they want, but they should TREAT them like expansions. Similar to Append mixes on Beatmania for Playstation. But I do believe the better bet is pushing the music store.

Also, hard drive space shouldn't really be a concern. Let's put it this way, the average song is 20-30mbs. Now, that means in 1GB of space, you could get ~40 songs. Xbox and PS3 both have 20GB hard drives. So in the same amount of space your average "hot demo" takes, you could store 40-60 songs. That really seems quite neglibible.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 7:28PM ummhello said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@T-

I agree. Plus the added benefit of carrying a disc over to my friend's house sans XBL rather than my whole console just to play DLC (friggin dumb DRM crap) on his console is easier....
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2008 8:17AM Demaar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yup, definitely agree EA/Harmonix should release an RB2 disc, even if it's only for PS2/Wii. Of course if they released the stuff via DLC (or it was made up of pre-existing DLC), I wouldn't buy it. Even if it ended up more expensive to get it via DLC (and I think it would be), it's just so damn convenient having the stuff right on the drive.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One of the guys needs to grab a gun and shoot directly at the room next to him.

Then blame it on Grand Theft Auto.

Win-Win-Win.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:10PM Lone Starr said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm sorry, but you really misapplied the prisoner's dilemma.

First, Rock Band is obviously making themselves compatible with other hardware (GH controllers), so that part doesn't make sense in your analysis.

Second, concerning the songs, you have your argument backwards. If songs are non-exclusive, it would be more likely that both games have similar amounts of songs. Only when there are exclusive contracts would there be the strongest incentive to buy both games (strictly for the most songs) -- this is the *opposite* of what you predict.

You get this wrong because you confuse individual incentives with the market -- you switch between the two within your model. While sharing may expand the market (this likely is an incorrect assumption, but I'll use it because that's your claim), it does not guarantee that both companies will benefit equally. And it may end up that even with a bigger market, one company would be worse off.

So in short, this would not happen (and is not happening) as you describe it.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:27PM Lone Starr said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I just wanted to add something a little more concrete:

What you essentially assume (and don't know) are the payoff schedules for the mutual cooperation and mutual defection boxes. Because you don't know what's in those boxes, you cannot hope to establish any dominant strategy. Also, comparing the choice of cooperation/defection is not the same as comparing production of GH/RB.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
i agree with lone star. this is a very thin and weak application of the prisoners dilemma.

for one thing, the prisoners dilemma requires both parties to be isolated ... with no information about the other parties actions. clearly not the case.

there are plenty of game theory descriptions that might be applicable here (Nash equilibrium maybe?) ... prisoners dilemma is pretty much the worst possible one.

spot on!
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:29PM vidguy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Haha, yeah. How can you determine a dominant strategy when you just make up the payoffs? Looks like they misused the prisoner's dilemma to give some 'scientific' basis to their opinion.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:31PM vidguy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Big claps to you caustic for bringing up Nash Equilibrium. I agree that it would be much more applicable to this situation - maybe that's asking too much on a gaming blog? ;)
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I agree that it's not the best example it does give a valid point in a way.

The reason they said that if they both didn't share it would decrease the likelihood that people would have both games was more to do with peripherals. With the most likely case that GH will be using instruments other than guitar the average person will unlikely buy both titles.

Also Nash Equilibrium doesn't really apply here because Activision is changing their approach, possibly in the future it will be a case of Nash equilibrium but no now.

The most compelling argument against prisoners dilemma is the availability of information, but I think the general idea works and could probably be applied to video game systems themselves.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Rock Band 2 will have 2 very big name bands under exclusive content, and I can't imagine anyone who would choose Aerosmith over them (unless you're an absolute die-hard fan).
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
there is no rock band 2 and there will not be for years to come.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Rock Band 2 will have 2 very big name bands under exclusive content, and I can't imagine anyone who would choose Aerosmith over them (unless you're an absolute die-hard fan).
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:35PM shoeshine said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Rock Band damn well better get a sequel. Preferably this year. Rock Band needs a sax so I can get some George Thorogood DLC.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 4:45PM Haggard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Saxophone would make me buy a sequel, you could do the classic button formula without actually straying too far from the truth, and with some kind of blowing sensor it'd be perfect.

Adding an original sax composition to songs that didn't have one would also be good too, and some innovative multiplayer features such as classic guitar duels, duets and drum-offs or something.

For example, the guitar duel in Crossroads, and (off the top of my head) the drum battle between James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich of Metallica on their Live Sh*t DVD.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't see exclusivity become a huge issue because:

1. most bands know there are competing products in this genre, so it would take a hefty sum to get them to ignore those other revenue sources.

2. few bands are worth throwing a hefty sum at for said exclusivity

Activision likely paid a lot to get Aerosmith exclusivity. I don't see Harmonix/MTV going that route unless Activision starts to seriously undermine their efforts.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:14PM kagai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Punt.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:28PM vidguy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Oh, game theory, how I've loathed thee this last four years...

I agree with Lone Starr, you've really only half-assed this analysis. The fact that you mention the problem of applying the prisoners dilemma to multiple iterations of the game or to situations in which the actors can cooperate, then do just that in your analysis is alarming.

Activision and Harmonix aren't going to be playing one round but many rounds for the next decade or two as they make more versions of their respective games. They can also negotiate terms of their contracts to share some but not all of their material. A great way for each to profit is to specialize their songs; for example, Rock Band could be 90s-today's hits, while Guitar Hero could be blazing guitar tracks from the 60s-90s. They would both attract consumers and could together reach the mythical position of win-win.

Many other details could be worked out through contractual cooperation. For example, they could work together to collect the licensing to a large pool of songs, then, through negotiations or mediation, they could haggle over the songs. This would prevent them from competing (paying high prices for) exclusive content, and together they could attract more musicians. Musicians win, developers win, consumers win.

There are many options for cooperation between these two companies and franchises. If done right, they will create games in the future which are completely separate from each other but attract the same consumers and can be played with the same instruments.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Screw Activision they can keep Aerosmith all they want. Honestly I have not interest in GH anymore Rock band does just fine with me.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:32PM Dr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As mentioned briefly above, the labels need to be taken into account here as well. If they refuse to sign their music to one franchise exclusively, then there is no issue. At this point in time, there's quite a lot of overlap in the game tracklists. Let's hope that means the labels see the benefit of having "both sides" have access to their catalogs, and make an effort to keep it that way.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:40PM The Commenter Formerly Known as said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow I learned something today......(back to more video games)
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 3:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree with some of the comments about the artists themselves. Why would they want to shut out a second source of revenue. An exclusive contract would have to pay the owner of the songs a considerable amount of money to make them not want to cash in on both games. At that point, Activision or Harmonix would run the risk of paying more for the exclusive contract than they would get back from the DLC.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 4:00PM TRTX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@jsn:

This is EA we're talking about. The same company that releases Madden on an annual basis. They will make Rock Band 2. And it will be out by the end of 2008. There's too much money to be had in a new disc on TOP of DLC to not do it.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 4:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't really work here. I don't understand why by 'sharing' songs, they both get more market share. Aren't a ton of games sold on their exclusive content?
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 4:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Interesting, except that your payoff matrix is wrong.

If Guitar Hero has no exclusive contect, and peripherals are common - there will be no incentive for anyone to buy Guitar Hero. The software is a commodity, the peripherals and song content are the only differentiated aspect of the products.
Because of Activision's inferior position in the peripherals (guitar only, vs a whole slew of instruments) they must maintain an advantage in songs. People will not buy both products as your Pareto optimal (cooperative square) suggests. Activision is currently pursueing the most rational option.
Reply

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 2:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I think it's quite refreshing to see an attempt to use real economic models in the gaming news world, this attempt was poorly executed. Lone Starr & vidGuy comments express part of it well, but let me clarify.

This article explains in the beginning how the Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) model only applies to situations where the 'prisoners' aren't allowed to communicate - either directly or indirectly via repeat PD games.

His explanation of PD is pretty good, but it's then used to describe a situation where nothing is preventing communication, and the 'prisoners' are certainly going to be repeating PD games, which violates 2 of the requirements for _his_ explanation of the Prisoner's Dilemma to be applicable.

In this case, it's seems a lot more likely that the exclusive content contracts are just one of many ways to try and differentiate one company's products with another. Right now Rock Band is doing that by letting you use more instruments (Drums, mic, etc) while Guitar Hero does it be having exclusive content.

I suspect that in next round of game releases they'll both copy each other in these regards, but they'll also both have their own new 'nitch' feature to help make their game distinct. And that's what all of us consumers want - more options, covering as many features as possible! A gamer like me who doesn't play too many rhythm games will just get the one that has the features I care about more, and those who love rhythm games will get both and have way more features in total that would be available if we just had a single option with less motivation to innovate.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 5:43PM CA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Snitches get stitches! They should both keep their mouths shut and lawyer up!
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 5:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
its still really hard to compare rock band and guitar hero though, since they aren't exactly the same, in that rock band has the drums and singing, so technically, this argument is true to an extent, but cannot apply accurately because of the differneces in the games.
What i see is, when i go buy the games, the question is, do i want to have a guitar only game where i become an elite guitar player? or have fun, share and play with 3 more people in big get togethers?
I go with the latter, since single player can only be so much fun, for me at least.

I heard rumours that activision was adding drums and singing to a future game, if this is true, THEN, it will be a big show down.
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 6:31PM Misframed said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Activision sucks! Somebody tell the bands we don't want exclusivity in our music games. It's a mini console war and eventually (just like the PS3/XB360) labels are going to realize they can make more $$$ by release on multiple games. Hopefully they realize this before they sign 100 year contracts or something...
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 6:42PM Mr Dark said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think one thing the article overlooks is that unlike the prisoner's dilemma, there are not two choices. It's not as simple as sharing or not sharing. For example: how many bands are actually worth signing exclusivity deals with? Very few, I'd wager, and even then you could never hope to tie down even a majority of music lovers even with a dozen major bands. Aerosmith? Great! Good luck! I -hate- them, and have no interest in them. Def Leppard? You couldn't pay me in achievement points to even -listen- to the new track, nevertheless pay and play. Just two examples. The only way such a strategy could be successful is in a 'format war' similar to what just happened with Blu Ray and HDDVD, where you hope that eventually enough 3rd party content providers will move to one side that the whole issue reaches critical mass. Even if you had a centralized way to pull vast amounts of music (say, exclusive deals with a label that publishes and holds rights to -all- it's music...which doesn't exist these days) you still would always have the chance of having a deal-breaker: my Metallica trumps your Def Jam Records. I agree with other commenters: the exclusivity deals by Activision display a certain element of desperation and a large amount of greed on the part of Aerosmight rather than fan service or real business savvy. (Exclusives are a lousy deal for the folks holding the music rights...why sell to one person when you can easily sell to two?)
Reply

Posted: May 2nd 2008 7:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ITT joystiq fails game theory

all i want is a rock band with instruments that don't break and a guitar that's not a piece of shit and i don't want to have a 360 just for that purpose
Reply

Posted: May 3rd 2008 1:35AM ForTheHuynh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Isn't this theory in KotOR? It seems silly that I thought KotOR was the originator of this theory. Instead, now I learned that it's an actual theory and that-

OH SNAP, DROIDS ARE ATTACKING ME! STUPID HOLOGRAPHIC MAINFRAME.
Reply

Posted: May 3rd 2008 5:02AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Slight problem in your analysis, the prisoners dilemma assumes simultaneous (or imperfect information) games. Here the actions are known to all, and u use backward induction to solve the problem, assuming ur payoff structure is correct, the subgame perfect nash equilibrium is share share.

u could change the payoff structure, easily assume that sharing reduces profit as cometition increases, and reach a dont share dont share outcome, but again thats completely different form a prissoners dilema.
Reply

Posted: May 3rd 2008 12:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bush and Hillary just signed a bill that violates the Nuremberg Code and Constitution that collects DNA from babies for a database. The bill was S. 1858 and just passed yesterday

Watch some boobs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnVAmCMD3fk
Reply

Posted: May 3rd 2008 10:33PM hvnlysoldr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Who's got the song with the lyrics "Money, Money oh Money Money"?
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW