Rumor: Jimi Hendrix edition of Guitar Hero in the works

by Justin McElroy { Sep 18th 2008 at 9:45AM }

Flush with victory after learning that Guitar Hero had made us better than Metallica, we've already begun the hunt for our next conquest. Ahh, we see a challenger approaching through the mist, is that ... oh, crap, is that Jimi Hendrix? If Slash is to be believed, Activision is busy crafting an all-Hendrix version of the franchise to (presumably) follow up Guitar Hero World Tour.

The mono-monikered musician told Rolling Stone, "Well, having the Aerosmith guys do it was very cool 'cause Aerosmith's one of the bands I was heavily influenced by. And Metallica's doing it, that's great. Those are two ones that I think gives it some credibility. And they're doing a Hendrix one, which is great."

Assuming that this is one of the few times in life where the phrase, "if Slash is to be believed," is followed by a fact, we'll take this opportunity to remind you that setting plastic guitars on fire is a terrible, terrible idea.

Tags: activision, guitar-hero, guitar-hero-hendrix, hendrix, neversoft

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Burritoclock @ Sep 18th 2008 9:50AM

Jesus Crow, just stop already.

OTAM @ Sep 18th 2008 4:30PM

Your avatar suits this story very well.

Fernando Rocker @ Sep 18th 2008 9:56AM

This is getting ridiculous.

I remember when I first bought Guitar Hero I (still my favorite) it was such a great game.

I was very excited by the release of Guitar Hero II but I didn't liked the song selection, and then 80's edition (second favorite).

But now, I really have no interest in Guitar Hero franchise... I will buy Rock Band finally, because that game is actually fun, just like the first Guitar Hero was.

tooPrime @ Sep 18th 2008 9:56AM

Alright, so I don't even think this is real, however people are going to bash this anyway, so I'm just going to come out and say it. These games are cool. There I said it! Aerosmith was not that bad of a game, I rented it and I liked it. The Guitar Hero franchise didn't collapse because it has more than one game per year, it wasn't a symbolic sell out, it was a worth while game. Metallica will be good so there can be a freakin' hard game again, because these full band games seem to be going in the opposite direction in terms of difficulty (save Rock Band 2 drumming). There are nothing wrong with these games. You all say you love dlc, well Aerosmith has 40 songs, I rented it for 8 bucks. Thats a good deal. DLC is freaking expensive, these games are cheap and have little new features that are cool and 1000 achievement points. DLC is great, but they don't make full games obsolete.

Duke @ Sep 18th 2008 10:10AM

Few points:

1) "Metallica will be good"
- Thanks for that thoughtful review of a game that you have yet to touch.

2) "I rented it for 8 bucks."..."these games are cheap and have little new features that are cool"
- Just because you rented it, that doesn't make the title especially cheap. You know you can rent other games too right? The issue is concerning buying games - people who only rent can hardly bitch about the cost of buying games. Your logic fails hard. Also, way to praise them for not giving new features.

3) "DLC is great, but they don't make full games obsolete."
- Nobody said that DL games made full games obsolete. The problem we have is with milking the francise and making us pay for full games when we should be able to pick and choose what songs we want to DL without needing to pay for them all as if they make up a new game...when they don't. It was the same game as GH3!

4) "The Guitar Hero franchise didn't collapse because it has more than one game per year, it wasn't a symbolic sell out, it was a worth while game."
-To you it wasn't a symbolic sell-out. To many of us it was an actual sell-out. Also, it didn't collapse because of all the folks like you that were content to be sold the same unchanged GH3 game with just new songs.

tmacairjordan87 @ Sep 18th 2008 10:14AM

Well if they stick mostly Metallica's older songs in GH Metallica, then it will be a great game. That's just common knowledge. It'll also be the toughest damn guitar hero game ever.

tooPrime @ Sep 18th 2008 10:40AM

Apparently I didn't reply to Duke probably. It's a couple posts down if you feel like reading it. It pretty much say, "Dude what? No..." but slightly more articulate. I'm not posting it again because freaking huge. But seriously though, why is a new product so offensive, it's not like Kiss making a disco album, it's a company making something hoping someone will buy it, if people buy it an enjoy it, what is wrong with it?

Duke @ Sep 18th 2008 10:45AM

I didn't say making a new product was so offensive. I am saying that making a Hendrix game does not seem wise with the market it wants to sell to. Also, I think its weak that they sell the same game over and over with just new songs - just like I think selling the same sports game each year with new rosters is weak.
You are way too defensive.

tooPrime @ Sep 18th 2008 10:56AM

I was defensive because I though you were being aggressive. Anyway, what I am saying is that is how this genre is played. Rock Band 2 is no more of an improvement than Madden, the only difference is Rock Band 1 has serious but easily fixable problems, hence it was easy to make improvements, wait for Rock Band 3 (it's coming). All these games are song updates, now unlike a roster update, the songs are essentially all the game is. There are very few gameplay innovations. Also, what's up with my first post getting one heart? Seriously, I didn't say anything offensive, I said I liked a game.

Vcize @ Sep 18th 2008 11:20AM

"Just because you rented it, that doesn't make the title especially cheap. You know you can rent other games too right? The issue is concerning buying games - people who only rent can hardly bitch about the cost of buying games. Your logic fails hard. Also, way to praise them for not giving new features."

I think his point was that you can't rent DLC. You either pay full price to buy it, or don't get to play it at all.

"Nobody said that DL games made full games obsolete. The problem we have is with milking the francise and making us pay for full games when we should be able to pick and choose what songs we want to DL without needing to pay for them all as if they make up a new game...when they don't. It was the same game as GH3!"

What the hell? This is the biggest load of hypocrisy out there. RB2 is nearly the same exact game as RB1, with new songs. Yet, bring that up and people yell "but it's 80+ songs for 60 bucks, if that were DLC it would cost well over $100. If you can't see the value in that you're a fool".

Don't get me wrong, I like Rock Band, but it breeds the biggest hypocrits in the world. People that go on and on about sequels being too similar will defend RB2 (the most similar game to its predecessor I've ever seen) to the death. People that complain about having to pay for a whole new game for new songs rather than getting it as DLC even if its cheaper will preach about how RB2, which does the EXACT same thing, is such a good bargain with the songs you get.

It's crazy to me...

brad77 @ Sep 18th 2008 11:21AM

For better or for worse, people use the "-" and "+" buttons for different reasons.

Vcize @ Sep 18th 2008 11:23AM

"Also, I think its weak that they sell the same game over and over with just new songs - just like I think selling the same sports game each year with new rosters is weak."

But did you buy RB2?

Thought so...

Duke @ Sep 18th 2008 11:27AM

"What the hell? This is the biggest load of hypocrisy out there."

OK, you made some poor assumptions here. I am amazed how sure of yourself you were in that last comment when you are blatantly wrong. I would have to say a good thing about RB2 for me to be a hypocrite here. I didn't - check my post history and then you can post an apology for making definitive statements about me without basis. I do not own RB2 and don't give a damn to own it. I think the whole music game genre is ripping people off.

You just got a bug in your ass for whatever reason and overreacted.

tooPrime @ Sep 18th 2008 11:35AM

Hey Duke if you don't like music games then why do you give a crap? I don't like football games but I don't tell Madden buyers they should stop buying Madden, if they like it then that's fine.

Duke @ Sep 18th 2008 11:55AM

I have GH 2 & 3 and RB. I am not saying I don't like them. I am saying they are ripping people off.

Slim Pickinz96 @ Sep 18th 2008 3:32PM

Well to each his own, but these special editions to me are no more than eye candy, if even that. When playing a game like this, the eyes are mainly focused on the scrolling music bar, much less the toons in the backround.

IMO they are better off releasing a general game, and adding DLC characters / music, rather than " Aerosmith, Jimmy Hendrix etc...

Vcize @ Sep 18th 2008 3:22PM

"You just got a bug in your ass for whatever reason and overreacted."

Well, actually it had more to do with 90% of joystiq users loving RB2 and having the same things to say about GH "milking it" with these types of games as you do, while turning a blind eye whenever Harmonix does the same thing because of some weird intangible notion that Harmonix really cares about them and will babysit their children for them while they're out.

Sorry for lumping you in with them, as there are many of them.

However, I do wonder where you were to jump on people's cases in one of the 15 RB2 threads, considering you jumped on the 1st guy to say that it's OK here.

P.S. sorry if this posts like a bazillion times, comment system FTL.

Duke @ Sep 18th 2008 4:42PM

I have commented many times on the new music games being a rip off because of the costs of the new equipment and the lack of substance in the updates. I find it disturbing. Hell the RB2 game is hardly different than the first one and they mock GH?!
I think most the folks here who know me would agree that I have said no more fake instruments will fit in my house.

T @ Sep 19th 2008 8:39AM

@Vcrize:

Here's the difference between what GH is doing, and what RB has done (so far)

1) All DLC is shared between both RB titles. The 30 bucks I've spent on new songs thus far didn't go to waste the minute they annouced the new title. (Unlike GHIII, which is only "sharing" Death Magnetic so far.

2) Even with the release of a 12-song pack (Death Magnetic) Activision remains attached to the "All or nothing" mentality of new content. Either you buy the entire pack, or you don't get anything. Somewhat forgiveable for a three pack, but not for a 12-pack. And especially not when you're about to venture into the full-band market where your competition has been offering ala carte downloads since Day 1.

3) The similarities between RB1 and RB2 are quite striking, but no more so than those between GH1 and GH2. There's tweaks to the gameplay to improve talkies (similiar to GHII's tweaked HO/PO system), as well as the addition of a new element (HO/PO chords...again similar to the triple chord introduced in GHII). But there's another difference between RB (so far) and the GH franchise....

4) With the release of RB2, I can make use of RB1's new Export feature if I so choose. This takes all of my on-disc content and converts it into something similar to DLC, which is now playable in RB2 just like any other song. With that done, I can then sell my RB1 disc and continue on just fine with only RB2.

Can the same be said for World Tour? Could the same be said for GH:A or GH:III? Activision is intent on having customers "start over" each time they buy a new title.

These "single artist" games are a joke. Yes, for a fan of the band it's cool, but even as a HUGE fan of the genre I found playing through GH:A to be a chore. While I got to know a lot of Aerosmith songs, by the time I was done playing through it I couldn't STAND to hear them anymore.

Meanwhile, there's rumors that HMX is working on an AC/DC expansion. There's no info as to if this is a full on disc (which would likely be offered to Wii/PS2 owners) or DLC (for 360/PS3 owners).

I don't see nearly the number of hypocrites you'd think when RB/GH comes up. The two have taken drastically different paths in terms of what the goal of the game (party atmosphere vs. solo scoring), presentation (realism vs. cartoon), and overall business strategy (yearly title with cross compatible DLC vs. multiple titles a year with unique DLC?).

Duke @ Sep 18th 2008 10:02AM

This seems like a bad business move to me. Yes, a lot of people will say they like Hendrix, but he is not a popular enough figure with the younger users to compel large sales. Buying a CD of his is a lot cheaper than one of these games, and I doubt that many younger people own his cds in comparison with Metallica or Aerosmith. So will they take such a plunge?

I know people will cry and say I'm not giving the man enough credit for being a great guitarist and all that, but that isn't the issue. It’s about wide popularity and reaching a large enough market. I just don't see this working well.

Kneel B4 Zurg! @ Sep 18th 2008 3:33PM

Actually Duke i think your spot on.

Aside from Hendrix fans,logic is logic. Although i havent researched Hendrix' young fan base... (Otherwise,in reference to sales, i think you nailed it).

Purple Haze @ Sep 18th 2008 10:37PM

I'm 15, I love Hendrix, I don't like Aerosmith and I don't like Metallica. I can't think of anyone I know the likes Metallica or Aerosmith and I can think of heaps that like Hendrix. Not to say that that's true everywhere, just that I think you might be underestimating how diverse a fan base Jimi has.

uh-oh polio @ Sep 18th 2008 10:06AM

still waiting on that Guitar Hero: Metal edition.

sam @ Sep 18th 2008 10:12AM

It hardly seems necessary to release a version of these games for a single artist when it's so easy to add in downloadable content. I understand that these games make money, but it's getting a bit ridiculous.

http://www.samalamadingdong.com

bobartig @ Sep 18th 2008 4:45PM

If you look at what Neversoft/Actiblizz did with Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, 29/41 were Aerosmith (according to Wikipedia) with 12 other songs from bands related to aerosmith in some way. A Metallica edition would not necessarily be just Metallica, etc. Just think of it as a flavored theme pack.

What I dislike about Neversoft/Actiblizz's approach is that they are actively working to splinter their own product into a million different games. When I want some GH action, I have to decide which version I want to play. Usually it ends up being either II, or III because I want to play certain songs. GH I has a ton of awesome stuff, but the play mechanics are too different so I find it frustrating. '80s edition might have a song or two I'd like to return to, but not enough to win over II, or III. Adding Aerosmith, Metallica, Hendrix to the mix is just going to fracture it even more, eroding my enjoyment from the franchise further. If you purchased DLC for GH II, or GH III, this further sub-divides how your decision is made, and what songs you have available to you.

With RockBand, I'm building a music ecosystem. I have 95% of RB1, all my DLC, and all of RB2, which I'm still working on unlocking (for real, the unlock code can suck it). I don't pick and choose. I put RB2 into the 360 and I get EVERYTHING (except Enter Sandman, Run to the Hills, and Paranoid). Much superior approach.

natetk @ Sep 18th 2008 10:19AM

I'm still waiting for the Disney edition where you will rock out on some hard core Disney songs.

FOXHOUND @ Sep 18th 2008 10:23AM

A thrash version of "Hakuna Matata" would be epic.

brad77 @ Sep 18th 2008 11:22AM

If by epic you mean fail, then yes. Yes, it would.

FOXHOUND @ Sep 18th 2008 10:22AM

"we'll take this opportunity to remind you that setting plastic guitars on fire is a terrible, terrible idea."

...Thank you, Justin/Joystiq for posting that. Sure it was probably just in humor; but you'd be surprised how many calls at the station we get for people doing stupid shiz like that.

Some of the worst ideas of all time started out with a line similar to "Wouldn't it be cool if..." x_x;

dark_inchworm @ Sep 18th 2008 10:28AM

It's probably bullshit. A big misunderstanding on Slash's part, methinks. Remember when Aerosmith said that Guitar Hero IV would be dedicated to them? Or when Def Leppard said GHIV would feature several of their songs, all of which would up as GHIII DLC?

tooPrime @ Sep 18th 2008 10:36AM

Few points:

Fine you want to do annoying point by point pointless internet arguing, so be it.

"1) 'Metallica will be good'
- Thanks for that thoughtful review of a game that you have yet to touch."

Thanks for your sarcastic comment, I don't see those on the internet everyday. I'll say Neversoft give a crap about expansion games unlike Harmonix and Rock the '80s. I personally and a sucker for hard has hell songs, so for me I am optimistic. Dumber more presumptive things are said all the time.

2) "'I rented it for 8 bucks.'..."these games are cheap and have little new features that are cool"
- Just because you rented it, that doesn't make the title especially cheap. You know you can rent other games too right? The issue is concerning buying games - people who only rent can hardly bitch about the cost of buying games. Your logic fails hard. Also, way to praise them for not giving new features."

Your logic fails hard, in part just for using that phrase. What the hell are you talking about? I rent the majority of my games because only idiots with huge disposable incomes buy the majority of their games. When did I bitch about the cost of the game? I was just saying the game is a worth while rental, the real point is I can't rent DLC, I have to buy it. I can't try it out. Thats why I like band games. Even at 60 buck 60/40 is still technically a better deal than what you pay for Rock Band. The new game doesn't have that many new features but it has more than DLC which has none. DLC doesn't even have a respectable mode to play it in outside of quick play.

3) "DLC is great, but they don't make full games obsolete."
- Nobody said that DL games made full games obsolete. The problem we have is with milking the francise and MAKING US PAY for full games when we should be able to pick and choose what songs we want to DL without needing to pay for them all as if they make up a new game...when they don't. It was the same game as GH3!

No one is making you buy the game. It doesn't hurt you for content to be offered and you not buy it. As for Aerosmith being Guitar Hero 3, duh. Rock Band 2 is the same games I Rock Band 1, I am playing it and enjoying it, you probably are too, hence what is wrong with it? Nothing, I like Aerosmith, other people did too, nothing is wrong with it execpt people on the internet who've never played the game that have a personal problem about "milking".

4) "The Guitar Hero franchise didn't collapse because it has more than one game per year, it wasn't a symbolic sell out, it was a worth while game."
-To you it wasn't a symbolic sell-out. To many of us it was an actual sell-out. Also, it didn't collapse because of all the folks like you that were content to be sold the same unchanged GH3 game with just new songs.

To many of who? Joystiq comment posters? Anyone I knew who played the game thought it was fine, the biggest complaint was not that many people like Aerosmith. It wasn't a sell out, THEY ARE ALL SELL OUTS. Its a game made my a company that wants your money. Rock Band is a sell out, you think Harmonix is the virtuous group of people that love music but they want your money like everyone else. All there is, is people making stuff and people buying stuff. When it works out people get a product they like and the developers get money, everyone is happy. If you don't like the product you don't have to buy the product, but it's existence isn't offensive. /end stupid discussion

Duke @ Sep 18th 2008 10:43AM

Defensive backpedaling full of assumptions right there. You sure got me good.

tooPrime @ Sep 18th 2008 10:57AM

Sarcastic response with no real content. You sure showed me.

Joran @ Sep 18th 2008 11:00AM

Fascinating. I never thought about it being good for resale/renting. However, I think you would agree that for the people who actually own the games, DLC is a far better choice.

You get to pick and choose the songs you want, you don't have to switch between games to get to the song you want to play, and it provides more variety in the music and artists.

I'd argue that your experience is the minority among those who play Rock Band/Guitar Hero, but I don't have numbers handy to prove it.

Joran @ Sep 18th 2008 11:03AM

Interesting, I never considered rental or resale values, considering I buy all of my games and keep them. However, I think you would agree that DLC is the far better choice for those who own the games.

Customers can pick and choose which songs they want, don't need to replace the disc and restart the game to get the song they want, and there are a larger variety of artists and music to play.

I would also argue that your experience is in the distinct minority of people who play rhythm games, but do not have the numbers to back it up.

tooPrime @ Sep 18th 2008 11:06AM

DLC is great and has it's place, I just got sick of it when I realized I no longer enjoyed playing Rock Band unless the songs were new, and it was becoming expensive to buy cool new stuff. I'm renting Rock Band 2 for instance. I'll probably buy it when the disk is sub 30 dollars. Like if Rock Band comes out with this ACDC expansion thing, I'd probably rent it even if it is DLC just because I don't want to buy it full price yet I still want to play it.

brad77 @ Sep 18th 2008 11:34AM

I'll go out on a limb here. I would think that the vast majority of the people who play Rock Band or Guitar Hero own the title, as they have to invest in the instruments. For them, downloading songs would probably be preferred to buying a new game.

I could see this especially helpful with friends/parties. It's no fun changing the disc every time you want to play a certain song. It breaks up the flow.

That's what makes Rock Band so awesome. It's a one stop shop of Rock.

Bigfoot @ Sep 18th 2008 10:46AM

Stop making these separate games. Just make them song packs.

mietha CAG @ Sep 18th 2008 11:45AM

Hi, yeah, it's called Rock Band. Thanks for playing.

defpoet1790 @ Sep 18th 2008 10:58AM

I'd rather buy a Jimi Hendrix guitar hero game over an Aerosmith one hah.

deaftly @ Sep 18th 2008 11:39AM

Excuse me while I kiss this guy

Kneel B4 Zurg! @ Sep 18th 2008 3:44PM

@ deaftly

R O F L!

PS...Never mind all the quarreling The Jimi version will have new hardware.

-Cowbell

(GH exclusive, not compatible with Wii either)
:(

MrSpaceCowboy @ Sep 18th 2008 11:39AM

At this rate, we'll see Guitar Hero: Avril Lavigne by 2011... bleh.

mietha CAG @ Sep 18th 2008 11:44AM

Well, it won't be any more "all-hendrix" than aerosmith was all-aerosmith, but yeah, I can almost assure you this is true. It is starting to look like anyone they are signing to an exclusive deal, is getting their own game. GH: Tool anyone?

Antagonist @ Sep 18th 2008 11:59AM

I'm really soured by this whole Guitar Hero: Exclusive License Quick Cash-In thing already. Why should they monopolize one artist, and then make their songs exclusive to an over-glorified expansion pack? Just release all the Hendrix/Aerosmith/Metallica/etc. tunes as DLC or on disc content already. I just can't justify paying $60 for a new SKU to play some Hendrix or Metallica songs when those could easily be added to the Guitar Hero library via DLC. They could even string the release of those songs out over months, and they'd quite possibly make more money off of it that way.

To put things into perspective, all you need are two game discs (one of which you could rent) and a boatload of (insert console) points to download all the DLC, and you'll be sitting on hundreds of Rock Band songs that you can play without ever having to switch out discs.

Now to get the entire GH library you will need 3 (or is it 6?) game discs (and counting), all of which must be purchased retail, a tidy share of (console) points to purchase GH3 DLC (most of which will not work with other GH titles), and a possible annual subscription with a monthly download limit in order to acquire future DLC. Oh yeah, you also need the patience of an oak because you're going to be doing a lot of disc swapping if you decide you want to change artists.

I'd love to play Hendrix's tunes, but I just can't bring myself to buy Guitar Hero: Exclusive License Quick Cash-In just to do that. I drop a nice bit of my income on DLC, and I would absolutely throw my wallet at any and all DLC Hendrix songs for GHWT, but I'd rather fellate a tiger shark with steak strapped to my genitals than to hop on board with such a ridiculous format of music release.