Brian May thinks Queen: Rock Band 'may happen'

I'm excited for the DLC, but I probably wouldn't buy an entire game dedicated to them. I like Queen a lot, but I can't really see this being successful. It's more than just music with The Beatles - it was the culture, the changing times, the styles, the fans, etc.

DLC - hell yes
Queen: Rock Band - I'll pass

That's my take on it, anyways.

Funny (as Tmac stated) that it's cool for Harmonix to do this but lord knows if Activision would do the same thing they suck. This is stupid it's like a Civil War of rock games.

On another note I'm glad Harmonix is not listening to fanboys and trying to make some money. If they want to release 10 rockbands back to back so be it. You all will still buy them and hate on Activision for doing the same thing.

i want me some queen im 16 and i love this band they should have done this in the first place or ac/dc.

If it's just a retail song pack, like AC/DC - yeah, why not :)

Queen and the Beatles > Van Halen and Aerosmith, fuck there is some suck there on the GH end of things.

After a big track pack, with a terrific selection of songs (on top of the two in the Lego version) I don't think there is any way this would happen. They have already put a big dent in their top list of popular songs, and even if the game is missing your favourite song, I don't think it is enough to warrant an entire game.

There are a lot of bands that I love, but the only one I can justify because of the size and quality of their catalog is Led Zeppelin. There are other great bands, but Zeppelin fits the gameplay that everyone wants and they haven't had any songs in a game yet. A couple examples:

Pink Floyd - great band, don't know if tons of it works really well in Rock Band (I still want Comfortably Numb, among others)
The Who - great band, lots of DLC already, don't need a dedicated game to get your fix

Then there are the bands that I love that just don't have enough music/history to have their own game. So the conclusion is, where is my Led Zeppelin installment?

If it's exportable, sure, if it's a "stand-alone product", no, they can blow it out their ass.

No offense to people who like Queen, or the beetles, or any of the other bands like that. But I'm kind of tired of these bands in the game, and other older, slower bands. Yes, queen did make some good songs, and they were great, but it's just not fun to play in these music rythm games. Not that the songs are bad, but the instrument playing is repetitive, and boring. The last one I bought was GHWT, and 95% of the songs were so slow, repetitive and boring to play, it just wasn't fun at all. They should take a better look at the songs, listen to them, and actually decide which are going to be FUN to play, and aren't so damn repetitive, rather than just picking ones that are iconic for the sake of recognition.

I want to see a GH, or RB metal version, ALL metal, and no songs that were repetitive! That's why GH3 was so good, because almost none of the songs were repetitive, they were much more thought out.

Queen already has a bunch of songs coming to rock band, the only thing Queen Rock band would bring to the table is Bohemian Rhapsody.

Pink Floyd Rock Band seems like the next obvious choice to me, either that or Led Zeppelin. But I would be much more interested in Pink Floyd, especially if they create dreamscapes for the albums. Only thing is they would have to include the entire Wall and Dark Side Of The Moon albums in the game, to pick and choose songs from those would totally ruin the experience. But sitting down for 40 minutes or so and playing through Dark Side of The Moon with crazy dreamscapes in the background would be one of the funnest Rock Band experiences I can think of. Plus there is a lot of great guitar in the other Pink Floyd albums, that would be a blast to play.

A lot of Americans don't know that they were probably most popular band worldwide in the '80s (everywhere else). It figures that only the most minimalistic album from a hyper camp/pomp group got to #1 in the U.S. (The Game, with AOBtDust). Although the U.S. seems to have finally caught on to their '80s/'90s hits now.

It should be an expansion though (meaning characters + costumes, MAYBE a couple venues, like Hyde Park + Wembley + Milton Keynes) like 20-25 songs ...not a full game.

I have to say, I'd buy this. There are a few bands that have the extensive back catalogue of good music and the iconic imagery to make something on par with The Beatles: Rock Band. Queen and Pink Floyd and maybe The Who I can think of off the top of my head. (My girl friend even asked at first looking at TB:RB when was Pink Floyd: Rock Band coming out.)

The important thing is imagery, U2 after initialy turning down RB ovatures are now all about it. Why? Because it's a money making machine. I don't think Harmonix are going to go for live active bands because it's not really the "Style" of the subset. It feels more like they are shooting for a kind of "Botique" game that's geared towards a combination of larger audience but specific subset. By going with older bands that have an established iconography (The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Queen, The Who, etc.) They are able to do a sort of "high end" product with a value added element of interpreation. I mean think about it, imagine playing the Queen game with imagery from Metropolis or Flash Gordon, or Pink Floyd with the marching Hammers. The benifit is these bands are no longer active meaning you are able to construct a "story" with a begining, a middle and an end. This is what makes the games unique.

Any how, we'll see how it all comes out in the wash.

These stand alone releases for RB are shit! Why not work on securing more variety of artists for another Rock Band game release. And no... Lego Rock Band doesn't count. I never understood a lego theme for Rock Band. You don't even build anything. Why don't we make a Halo themed Rock Band?!?!?!?!?!?! That would make just as much sense!!!!!!!

Are they going to release more instruments too? I hate corporations. They take all the fun out of everything. Activision has some great developers under them. So does EA. It's the publishers that have to milk everything and make people sick to death of seeing the same shit several times a year!! I wish developers didn't need publishers. Let Activision and EA die already!!!!

i've said for a long time the only two other bands that could make it as stand alone rock band games were Queen and then Journey. Go for it.

The only band game I would want more than Queen: Rock Band would be Cheap Trick: Rock Band.

Since as you mentioned, a large chunk of their more popular songs are hitting this month in the RB store, no, I don't think they should have a stand-alone game. You can't compare what RB does to GH. The Beatles are a cultural phenomenon, Metallica, as good a band as they are, are not. Same goes for Aerosmith, Van Halen, U2, and whoever else Activision decides to force down our throats.

I like Queen and The Beatles, I just wish RB or GH would focus on younger bands, the demographic that is mostly buying GH or RB games. The closeset thing out there is Metallica, and even that's pushing it. Green Day Rock Band would be awesome!

Bohemian Rhapsody alone should be more than enough to place Queen as "sufficiently historically relevant".

flash gordon or nothing

can you catch teh aids in the game?

These games are becoming nothing more than another marketing tool. Release an album and video, go on tour, and throw in a Rock Band game to increase your media (over)exposure.

After The Beatles, there is no other band more likely to sell a Rock Band game across multiple generations, countries, and cultures. Their catalog is one of the very few that spans multiple genres, providing, literally, something for everyone. I think a track pack is more likely (and probably what May is talking about), but there are more compelling reason to do Queen: Rock Band than any other band.

May must have been mistaken and meant to say "track pack".

I would love to see bands like U2, Queen and others on Rock Band. Only in substantial track packs though. I would buy 10-15 U2 or Queen songs easily. They should just do an AC/DC then.

i think queen, the beatles, and judas priest are the only bands worthy of a game, even then, the judas priest game should probably have about 50% sabbath too

Figures. Once a highly successful band-based game comes out, musicians suddenly think they're important enough to warrant their own big-time game.

Don't get me wrong. I love Queen and U2 is...ok, but, you know, The Beatles were a fairly special case.

Welcome to the Dorkwagon, Queen.

Queen was very popular before i was born. But due to my family playing queen when i was younger i have become a Huge! fan. Personaly i think that a Queen Rock Band would be the best thing to hit the gaming industry since Mario. As i said im a Huge! fan.... I would love to rock out to any song they have... I do already.... Please do this

The idea that Queen lacks historical significance seems to be largely an American attitude. The rest of the world would probably disagree! They are a huge phenomenon pretty much everywhere outside the States... Did you see the size of the crowd that turned out to hear them in the Ukraine recently (350,000)?

It's very frustrating to be a Queen fan in America at times.

Granted, this is only UK charts, but...it's still interesting for those comparing Queen and The Beatles.

"30 years since their first UK No.1 album ‘A Night at The Opera’, Queen have overtaken the Beatles in this Top 10 for the first time.

Top 10 Most Successful Acts of All Time on the UK Albums Chart

1. Queen (1,322 weeks)
2. The Beatles (1,293 weeks)
3. Elvis Presley (1,280 weeks)
4. U2 (1,150 weeks)
5. Dire Straits (1,136 weeks)
6. Simon and Garfunkel (1,114 weeks)
7. Madonna (1,032 weeks)
8. David Bowie (1,005 weeks)
9. Elton John (989 weeks)
10. Michael Jackson (966 weeks)"

I wouldn't rock out to Invisible Man, but wouldn't mind a good rocking session of March of the Black Queen if you want to go into their more obscure songs!!

admittedly, i didnt read all of the posts about this here.. but on the rock band forums, someone was putting together a list of songs that could very easily be on a Queen: Rock Band title. I think there was roughly 70 songs at the time, and not one of them was i weary of wanting to play.

The Invisible Man.. ok it's not the best of songs by Queen, to me, but I can imagine i'd be thrilled to play it, and while I'm not sure *I* would want to sing i'm the invisible man and the rest of the song, i know damn well i'd laugh my ass off at my brother or his wife singing it. i'm sure a lot of other people probably would be in the same situation.

If I wanted to be like the drummer of Def Leppard, i'd gladly give one of my arms for this game. haha

I'd actually pre-order this even if it was 5 years away and an unlikely idea, if i had the chance.

Besides, do you remember how popular Queen became when wayne's world was released? I think it'd sell pretty well.

When The Beatles: Rock Band came out, I questioned via Facebook who I'd have to give sexual relations to for them to make a Queen edition. Now there's talk of it and I didn't even have to do anything! Yay!

"a dedicated title would probably dip into their weirder catalog"

They've had 50 (and 34 top 20) singles in the UK, and I wouldn't consider songs like We Will Rock You, We are the Champions, A Kind of Magic, or Bohemian Rhapsody (which aren't yet downloadable) as weirder stuff...

Personally, I think a lot of their best work can be found ion the albums, so I'd like them to go there, but they could release the game on the singles alone.