Editor's note: Based on the disappointing sales of Activision's DJ Hero, the downturn in popularity for even the most established music franchises, and the overall anemic economy, I wonder if perhaps Aaron's question should be this: "Are gamers OK with only having band-specific rhythm games?" Because I think that's where we may be headed. The average consumer may not be willing to take a chance on music they don't know or recognize anymore, and publishers may only be willing to risk working with "proven commodities." -Fitch
If you asked my family and friends to describe me, they'd probably use words like "music," "video games," "Rock Band," and "innovative design," just to name a few. In case that didn't make it clear, I've invested a lot money and personal time into music games over the past few years! I started with Guitar Hero II, and I've continued through The Beatles: Rock Band. These games have allowed me to experience music in new, exciting ways -- which eventually even led me to buy an electric guitar and amp and take up the real thing. But while I'm a big music-game fan, I have to wonder if band-specific rhythm games are good for gamers.
After all, this concept kind of goes against the original vision and intent of developer Harmonix, which created Rock Band as a "delivery vehicle" for music. Players could invest in Rock Band, and after the initial release, they could purchase individual songs, song packs, and full-length albums without having to dish out more money for a new hard copy of the game. The user had a choice of what bands they wanted to hear and what songs they wanted to purchase -- and that helped them ultimately make Rock Band their own in some way.
I understand why Harmonix made The Beatles: Rock Band a standalone title, though. Sure, it's partly because Apple Corps wanted it that way, but it's also because three-part harmonies -- a big selling point of the game -- wouldn't work in Rock Band or Rock Band 2. And since the Beatles have a following from all generations of consumers, EA figured they could get away with charging $250 for a bundle, $450 for the bundle with both guitars, or even $60 for just the game. So with the Beatles providing the blueprint, can we expect other bands to follow the same model? Is simply having DLC on Rock Band just not good enough anymore?
So do you think this genre is headed in this new, inevitable direction? And if so, which of your favorite bands would you like to see receive their own Rock Band or Guitar Hero title?
Comments (5)
Aerosmith, Van Halen and The Beatles (yes, even The Beatles) can suck it--I want Rock Band: The Mars Volta Edition. Just thinking about playing 15 minute, highly difficult epics makes my mouth water.
Activision is the biggest culprit to be blamed in this mess. Why they think that offering up expansions and band specific titles which cost full price, yet offer less actual songs to play totally mystifies me. They have also flooded the market with so many titles that it is hard for anyone who is not the most hardcore music game fan to keep up.
While the Rock Band series has been more successful, the way they put out the Beatles as a means of forcing you to buy some of the best songs as DLC really was one of the final nails in the coffin of the music genre to me.
I will never buy another one not used or at a huge discount.
The whole genre is an excuse to rape the wallets of gamers by giving less material at more premium prices... which is such a shame since it is also a great vehicle for introducing people to new bands.
