Which game will likely take your hard-earned money?

GH III, because the price tag being tossed around for Rock Band is fucking absurd for a video game.

Both, but only cuz GH III is out first.. I have a feeling several months of playing will be lost to Rock Band. I mean, replayability is through the charts.

Bored with Guitar? Try drumming. Drumming to bass, bass to vocals.

How many folks will try to rig things up so they can play guitar and sing at the same time.

Neither. These types of games do nothing for me.

are either for the XBox 360?

both are. I have both preordered (Guitar Hero III 10/28, Rock Band 11/20 I believe)

GH III, because the price tag being tossed around for Rock Band is fucking absurd for a video game.

Shrug. I think it's fucking absurd that otherwise mentally sound people were willing to pay $750k for 1800 square-foot homes out here, and they did all the same. But hey, why did they do it? Because they want to live here, and that was the market.

Same token, Activision has already established the market for the Guitar Hero bundles at $89.99+. Rock Band just happens to be including more in the way of peripherals in its own bundle.

Look at Rock Band in comparison to the GHIII bundle, rather than the standalone game (since that's a more direct comparison).

If you're picking up a GH game for the Xbox 360 for the first time, or for the PS3 at all, you're gonna be paying a hundred bucks. That's game, one guitar.

If you pick up the Rock Band bundle, you're going to be paying - ostensibly - two hundred bucks. That's game, two guitars, microphone, and drum set.

For an extra hundred bucks, you've expanded by three the number of potential local players you can have, and the variety of play options available to each person.

If your multiplayer is going to be strictly online, you'll be able to buy the game and your instrument of choice separately.

If you're buying the game for straight solo play, you can do the same thing, and pick up other instruments if multiplayer becomes something you later desire.

It's not like the game is $200 or bust.

Both, but only cuz GH III is out first.
Probably the same for me. I don't plan on buying a new guitar for GHIII but might get the drums for Rockband.

both are. I have both preordered (Guitar Hero III 10/28, Rock Band 11/20 I believe)

Yep, both are also available for the PS3. GH III is also supposed to have a Wii version.

I think the bundle only comes with one guitar.

both are. I have both preordered (Guitar Hero III 10/28, Rock Band 11/20 I believe)

isn't GH III supposed to be online too? or am i thinking of something else?:confused:

Guitar Hero is losing it's novelty for me. Probably neither.

isn't GH III supposed to be online too? or am i thinking of something else?:confused:

Yeah, there's online play in GHIII. I don't know if it's straight competitive play or if co-op is online playable as well, but GHIII has online play.

Co-op and competitive (tug of war or both plays the whole song)

For an extra hundred bucks, you've expanded by three the number of potential local players you can have, and the variety of play options available to each person.

Max number of local players ever here would be two.
Zero interest in multiplayer beyond local.
Paying what amounts to a penalty to add the peripherals separately later instead of bundled isn't appealing, so I really only consider the bundled price.

And without the option to play whichever of the instruments as the mood strikes (assuming I did skip the bundle) single player, then this really becomes nothing more than GH already is.

It's not like the game is $200 or bust.
Yeah, really, that's exactly what it is. Because without the (currently priced) $200 worth of parts, then this becomes nothing more than an overpriced GH with different songs.

I'll be honest, I think (from watching the live demo videos) this game has a lot of potential. But at the $200 price, I hope it goes down as the most dismal failure in the history of video gaming.

Wait, you can't pick which instrument to play in single player??

Dola,

And I believe if you just get the guitar and game... it's the same price as Guitar Hero 3. So you get different songs, and a better-looking, solid guitar (at least those are the impressions I get from the Rock Band guitar).

I'm not buying a 360 just to get Rock band right now, but if I did have a 360 already... no doubt I'd be getting Rock Band.

Max number of local players ever here would be two.
Zero interest in multiplayer beyond local.
Paying what amounts to a penalty to add the peripherals separately later instead of bundled isn't appealing, so I really only consider the bundled price.

And without the option to play whichever of the instruments as the mood strikes (assuming I did skip the bundle) single player, then this really becomes nothing more than GH already is.


Yeah, really, that's exactly what it is. Because without the (currently priced) $200 worth of parts, then this becomes nothing more than an overpriced GH with different songs.

I'll be honest, I think (from watching the live demo videos) this game has a lot of potential. But at the $200 price, I hope it goes down as the most dismal failure in the history of video gaming.

What are you smoking you can pick between guitar, vocals (I think), bass, and drums single player. You can do a career in at least drums and guitar, and maybe vocals. So yeah.

What are you smoking you can pick between guitar, vocals (I think), bass, and drums single player. You can do a career in at least drums and guitar, and maybe vocals. So yeah.

I don't think you followed what I was saying/trying to say.

What I meant was:
No bundle = no multi-instrument options (or else buy two parts at roughly the cost of the whole bundle which seems rather stupid)

No multi-instrument options = wth is the difference in this & GH?

At no point did I mean to imply that there weren't multiple options.

I don't think you followed what I was saying/trying to say.

What I meant was:
No bundle = no multi-instrument options (or else buy two parts at roughly the cost of the whole bundle which seems rather stupid)

No multi-instrument options = wth is the difference in this & GH?

At no point did I mean to imply that there weren't multiple options.

Sorry, I read your post as saying that you can't play individual instruments in single player too. The instruments are all different though... it's like saying I should be able to buy Madden for $60, and be able to play NCAA too.

Your post also said that RB is an overpriced GH... I don't get what you meant there. I think a big part of this poll is if you compare RB (with guitar only) to GH, they're about the same... with RB having the developers of the first two GHs, plus a better looking/feeling guitar.

I don't think you followed what I was saying/trying to say.

What I meant was:
No bundle = no multi-instrument options (or else buy two parts at roughly the cost of the whole bundle which seems rather stupid)

No multi-instrument options = wth is the difference in this & GH?

At no point did I mean to imply that there weren't multiple options.

Jon, I'd still quibble with 'overpriced.'

If you're not bothering with online and you'd only play two players locally, you're absolutely not their target audience.

But, I mean, why wish dismal failure on it?

Should I wish dismal failure on Ferrari because I'd only ever drive the car to and from work? Because, really, that's what it looks like here. You've got the Ferrari of music/rhythm games getting set to come out, but all you really give a damn for is driving it to the store.

The instruments are all different though... it's like saying I should be able to buy Madden for $60, and be able to play NCAA too.


That's about 180 degrees from how I see RB -- I see only one game there -- but at least the analogy makes me understand where some people might be coming from on it.

I'm ... "astonished" would probably be a good word, that someone looks at each instrument/element as a totally different game ... but at least with the way you worded it I can begin to understand why there isn't more horror at the proposed pricing.

I don't understand it ... but at least I understand it better now, if y'know what I mean. ;)

But, I mean, why wish dismal failure on it?


Because it sets a horrible precedent for games in general AFAIC.

If this pricing succeeds (and I'm open to the possibility that it very well might), I believe it virtually assures at least a $10 increase in future game prices across the board. By raising the top end (and I believe this would have to be the single largest price ever for a single game + parts required to play it), it creates an immediate opportunity to raise the bottom end while maintaining something that resembles the existing gap.

Unless Rock Band comes out for Wii (which doesn't look like for quite a while, if ever), no dice on Rock Band, unfortunately, at least for quite a long time. I'm not getting a 360 or PS3 just to play Rock Band as $600 for one game does seem a tad step. Whereas if it came out for the Wii, that might be what pushes me into the "gotta get one now" column whereas it's currently in the "I'll hang out and wait for a while" mentality.

SI

GHIII has neither drums nor vocals, and as far as I know has no support for 4 players online.

I'm hoping they bring back Sousaphone Hero. :D

Because it sets a horrible precedent for games in general AFAIC.

If this pricing succeeds (and I'm open to the possibility that it very well might), I believe it virtually assures at least a $10 increase in future game prices across the board. By raising the top end (and I believe this would have to be the single largest price ever for a single game + parts required to play it), it creates an immediate opportunity to raise the bottom end while maintaining something that resembles the existing gap.

Two things, Jon, the second more important than the first:

1) The pricing may succeed here, but Rock Band isn't, say, Halo 3. We're talking about a unique niche within the market, in that it's a "party" game with specific peripherals.

2) The plethora of "collector's editions" is going to cause that inflation you fear far, far more easily than Rock Band.

Seriously, you release an Oblivion CE at $69.99, a Halo 3 CE at $69.99, Gears, Killzone 2, whatever. Those are going to be the games to worry about, because the collector extras are essentially worthless, but you're paying the extra $10+ for them.

Rock Band? Not a chance in the world that a successful Rock Band at $200 is going to cause regular games to go up in price $10. What a successful Rock Band *will* do is encourage companies to start looking at other ways they can enter the casual "party game" market, and worry less about a peripheral holding the game back. That might cause additional expensive games to hit the market, but it isn't going to cause inflation among more traditional releases.

That might cause additional expensive games to hit the market, but it isn't going to cause inflation among more traditional releases.

Obviously we disagree.

Success opens a door for a price increase not related to extras, add-ons, bonus packaging, collectors tins, etc., but rather for the base price of a fully functional game, regardless of what niche that game falls into.

And that's a door I have no interest in seeing opened.

Obviously we disagree.

Success opens a door for a price increase not related to extras, add-ons, bonus packaging, collectors tins, etc., but rather for the base price of a fully functional game, regardless of what niche that game falls into.

And that's a door I have no interest in seeing opened.

I think you're jumping at shadows, frankly. There are market forces that might conspire to cause price increases, but I cannot remotely see the success of Rock Band as one of them, particularly as 'success' is going to be measured in very different terms for that game than it would be for, say, GTA IV.

If Rock Band sells a million, that's probably a commercial success right there, especially because there's going to be a fair amount of purchase pooling going on. What EA is looking at in the long run for the success of Rock Band isn't likely going to be software sales (although they'd love to hit a home run there). They're going to be looking at downloadable content sales.

If Rock Band has the legs I think it will, even if they only sell a million copies between launch and Christmas, DLC is going to rake in the cash. It's just a completely different business model, on a grander scale, than any console game has previously attempted.

Look at World of Warcraft. That game succeeds for Blizzard not because of a $29.99 or $49.99 price point at retail. I mean, yes, $50MM in software revenue is nothing to scoff at, but let's be honest - that's a one-time sale. Where WoW earns its keep is the millions of people paying $15 every month for access to the game.

Or maybe iTunes would be a better comparison, given the subject matter.

That's the sort of market EA is going after. They want the game to be successful at retail because the more copies they sell there, the greater their exposure opportunity for DLC sales, but they're going to be defining retail success by a different yardstick than most of their other major releases, just because of the post-launch revenue opportunities.

The reason Rock Band is poised to be so expensive at retail is probably not because "hey, they'll pay it," but more because the majority of people who buy it will not be buying it for single-player mode. They will be getting it for the multiplayer, and as such, will probably be more likely to pool resources for it than they would for Guitar Hero III or Halo 3.

Obviously we disagree.

Success opens a door for a price increase not related to extras, add-ons, bonus packaging, collectors tins, etc., but rather for the base price of a fully functional game, regardless of what niche that game falls into.

And that's a door I have no interest in seeing opened.

So you're saying that offering something for $200, with $200 worth of value packaged (drums + guitar + mic + game) is worse than offering something for $89, with $89 worth of value packaged (guitar + game)?

I'm with SackAttack, in that I'm more scared of all the stupid special editions raising the prices of games.

Didn't Halo 3 have some helmet version that cost like $100, and it sold well for pre-orders? You can't even wear the helmet! Whatever happened to giving stuff away with pre-orders. Last game I pre-ordered was the latest Castlevania for the DS. I got a music soundtrack CD, an art book, a stylus, a timeline of events for the franchise, and a game carrying case for FREE!

with $200 worth of value packaged

Des, I'm saying there's no such thing as a video game worth $200 unless it's coin operated (and revenue generating) & the size of an average human.

things are worth what the market says it's willing to pay for them. i wouldn't pay $200 for a game, only cuz for that money i'd rather buy a better tv for my office/gaming den. for $200 i can buy 3 A++ game titles. so investing $200 on Rock Band isn't in the cards for me, also factoring in i have no desire to play a singing game or drum game or bass game. i'd buy GH3 cuz i actually play guitar.

to me, all a successful $200 game does is make it more likely for other games to come out at that price point that may be "outside the box". if such games flop, all game execs will say is "i guess we should just stick to updating Madden rosters every year and maybe come out with some formulaic FPS's".

to me, all a successful $200 game does is make it more likely for other games to come out at that price point that may be "outside the box". if such games flop, all game execs will say is "i guess we should just stick to updating Madden rosters every year and maybe come out with some formulaic FPS's".

Bingo.

Well put, HA.