CES 2009: No Rock Band 3 in 2009

But the game iterations give you more music for a better price than DLC does. Since they allow you to transfer your old songs into your new game I prefer to get the actual game even with little improvement.

I bought the AC/DC track pack and even though it was live it was a rip off for the price and the song/$ ratio. Even if I don't like allot of songs in the game I still have fun playing them and that's what it's about.

production cost for DLC?

as stated below, complete misinformation.

Um where is your proof regarding the low profit margins on DLC? I'm pretty sure that I've read in the past that their whole profit model is based on DLC, thats why hardware sales are less of an issue. Do you have a link to validate what you are saying or is it just conjecture?

And by the way, Rock Band has no real "edge" hardware or software-wise on activision. I personally enjoy Rock Band much better then GH because I think its a higher quality game, but my sentiments are definitely not shown in the NPDs. The only advantage that "Harmonix" is a recognizable name brand. I think thats why they were chosen over Neversoft and Red Octane.

I agree with that sentiment. My point (and others point) is that the actual full retail game release gives you more songs for the money than you can get purchasing them as DLC. I don't think the entire game or the visual style needs an over haul as it is MUCH better than that of Guitar Hero.

I don't want Madden syndrome where only minimal changes are made each year beyond a roster update but I prefer the full retail release value proposistion better than the DLC.

Speaking of Madden - They should allow someone to pay for a download that makes the rosters current. I shouldn't have to pay for it but I would especially if they still allowed online play. That would canabalize sales of the new Madden and actually make them innovate to make it impossible NOT to update. I think the MLBXX:The Show series does a fantastic job of actually upgrading the gameplay experience each year.

very little of the DLC adds any mocap to the game. It's just cue's within the DLC for animations that are already there. Most of the cost of DLC is licensing, as the label/artists get $1 of each $2 song.

oh and Harmonix makes a lot of money off DLCj. Half of each song goes to them. Do the math, 50mil + SOLD songs, roughly $2 per song... they're making plenty of money off DLC and that will only increase as DLC for the Wii takes off.

@oolz

I just don't see RB DLC (or any DLC) being viable on the Wii platform because of the storage limitations. That's why I don't understand the WW & VC thing. Nintendo's idea of a storage solution was allowing people to launch content from the SD card ... whoopty frickin doo ... I have 1 WW game and it's World Of Goo. If they ever get around to releasing a HDD then I will consider buying some of their products.

the fact that the Wii has sold as much as it has, and continues to, when it's entire reason for being is based on a gimmick, proves that there are millions of people who are willing to accept its limitations. 2gb memory cards will hardly be enough to keep them from buying loads of DLC. Plus RB is one of the greatest slow selling, word of mouth titles ever, which fits perfectly with the casual audience of the Wii.

It just seems unpractical to have to buy 4 or 5 SD cards to store your RB DLC on and constantly switch them in and out. I think that the track packs are a better alternative because you can play them stand alone.

Can't you get SD cards in sizes up to like 32GB? Or does Wii not support SDHC? Also, I doubt most casual gamers would purchase more than 2GB worth of rock band DLC.

Never mind I didn't realise the Wii didn't allow cards larger than 2GB.

Also fuck The Beatles



(the game)

How on earth do u successfully convert GH fans to RB fans?! All my friends are Hardcore GH fans and refuse to play Rock Band, saying it copied GH and GH World Tour (They're idiots). But they all seem like thick headed bastards who tell me that GH1 and GH2 are their favorites, yet don't believe that Harmonix made those and RB.....It's so annoying having to hang out with your friends and not be able to play rock band and be forced to play GH3 and GH WT (both of which i hate :( )

Why not just slap them around? My little brother got GH:WT so I slapped him a bit then let him play RB2 with me.

Well, for some people all I did was just explain why I thought RB was better all together, but for the more hard-shelled fans I printed out a list of all the DLC tracks in the game, and its always great to hear a "WHAT? THEY HAVE _____?!" for every few songs I showed them. That was only step 1 though - after that, I'd invite them over for a couple rounds and they seemed to enjoy the engine more than GH's.

Your argument would be valid if:

A. They were even given the chance to make another Guitar Hero game. They were kicked to the cub before they even got a chance to.

B. Frequency made them any decent amount of money from DLC like Rock Band does.

Rock Band is a platform and as such, I believe that we will see at least 2 or 3 more before people either don't care about it or they choose to rebrand things.

If they drop the brand now, alot of people would be upset if the Rock Band catalog they have spent money on wasn't transferable to the next game series they move to.

I think my argument is valid.

I understand as well as anyone else outside of HMX that RB is a platform for music, but as a GAME, how much further could it go? Sure, the dream is for those additional instruments like keyboards, but it's unlikely it would happen since they already have two years of music that wouldn't be backwards compatible.

What else could they add? Would it become some kind of micro-management sim/ rhythm game eventually? A third person adventure where you go around looking for band members and working at menial jobs during the day only to rock at night? No one wants realism in this kind of game. If anything, Rock Band is more about living the ultimate fantasy. It's sales are BASED on people's fantasies coming to plastic clicky fruition.

Don't tell me about spending money on DLC. I have nearly 200 songs I've bought from the RB Store. I enjoy buying things I don't have much interest in. I'm going to be picking up some Mission of Burma CD's soon.

Also, to my knowledge HMX had a contract with Activision after GH1 was a hit for two more games. HMX had bigger aspirations that Activision was, at the time, unwilling to back. That's why we got Rock the 80's instead of 3 from HMX. They put that out to get out of their contract so that they could work on RB. Now Activision is playing catch-up with World Tour(which is cheesy and terrible, BTW), which was built from the ground up for early teen boys with little substance and not much respect for the music it's putting out.

Finally, there's a reason why Apple Records chose HMX for the Beatles game. They're all musicians, innovators, and respect the music they put into the game. It's not a game that is so obviously built by a company who only ever cranked out really horrible skating games in a nine month cycle.

So I don't think there's much more room for Rock Band to grow, and I love it for what it is now. I don't think HMX wants to work on it anymore, and if RB2 is their legacy, I'm more than gracious for the opportunity to have played it.

From what I understand, EA has very little say in what happens with the Rock Band brand. They are smart enough to see that if they just let Harmonix do what it does, then they can make a pretty penny.

Or as.....Solid Snake?!?!??