Major Nelson and the pricing of GHII content.

PyroGamer

PyroGamer

Banned
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/12/major-nelson-talks-guitar-hero-downloads-halo-3/

lol, I like this quote here:

One commenter pointed out that if all the old songs of the original PlayStation 2 version were released on Xbox Live, it would cost significantly more than simply buying both Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II on the PS2. People feel flustered by that. Why are we paying more for old content?

MN: Once again, it's not old content. The contracts have to be renegotiated on a new platform, and it's also involving digital distribution, so there's a lot of things involved.
Click to expand...
:lol:

So renegotiating contracts makes it new content... :roll:

Yeah, Major, anything you say, Major, we aren't being screwed with GH2's relatively sucky tracklist, Major. DLC is the bomb, Major, we all love it.


Seriously, though, I completely expected $1.50 to $2 per song on XBL, who didn't? I don't see it as a problem: if I want XYZ, I'll pay two bucks and have it. Sure, it would be amazing if they included all the stuff to begin with, and honestly when I'm paying $100 I like to think I'm getting my monies worth, but the pricing isn't really a problem with me. I just find Major's attempts to justify it hillarious.


So. What are your guy's thoughts on this. Does it change your opinion of DLC at all? Do you find Major hillarious as well?
 
Bah, I don't care if it's the RIAA/music industry fat cats, MTV-Harmonix, the artists themselves, or whoever--it's still a god damn rip-off.

All I know is I'm not spending $6 worth of points for 3 songs I can't even choose.
 
What I'm pissed off is that Guitar Hero II finally comes to the 360, the devs are all "oh it will be fantastic, you'll all be amazed, it's completely new, next gen", and then we get marginally improved graphics, the same shitty tracklist that's already miles below what was in the original GH, and get raped up the ass on downloadable content.

Oh yeah, and guitars that break and shock people.

fucking amazing, Red Octane.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']
Seriously, though, I completely expected $1.50 to $2 per song on XBL, who didn't?[/QUOTE]
You're paying $2.08 now...
 
I wonder if there would be this sort of outcry if the songs weren't in bundles, and were 150 points each.

Zewone makes a good point.
 
[quote name='zewone']3 songs, $6.25.[/quote]

Not PER SONG. That is like saying you can buy a car for $10,000. But you have to buy the entire lot for $30,000,000. We want PER SONG.
That can't be that hard to understand.

EDIT: I should say, I want that..not We.
 
I was a Majornelson fanboy before but really fuck majornelson! I cant believe he would spew such bullshit. While it downloads it should show a progress bar of a stick man slowly bending down while the MS paper clip from Office rapes it(you).
 
[quote name='Roufuss']I wonder if there would be this sort of outcry if the songs weren't in bundles, and were 150 points each.

Zewone makes a good point.[/QUOTE]

That would still be too expensive. (I'd probably dl Bark at the Moon)

The 360 version has 74 songs. I don't think they sell the game separate, but even if they charged $60 that's less than a dollar a song. Plus they have to print and ship the game. Why should these downloadable songs cost more than double?
 
Love the Major for his blog, as it makes keeping up with Live content really easy.

Can't hate the guy for not bashing his company - he's a Microsoft employee, and it'd be stupid for him to say "yo, we fucked up." Not gonna happen.

Pricing of the GHII content isn't Major's fault.
 
[quote name='gunm']Bah, I don't care if it's the RIAA/music industry fat cats, MTV-Harmonix, the artists themselves, or whoever--it's still a god damn rip-off.[/QUOTE]

It's funny, because that's blunt as hell, but it's also the best way to sum it up. It doesn't matter who is to blame, and based on past fiasco-like incidents (no clan support in Gears) it's clear that the blame would probably just get passed back and forth. The only thing that matters is that it's an absolutely ridiculous pricing/packaging scheme, and someone should have stepped up to rectify it.

At the end of the day, though, it's Microsoft's name on the service and the console, and they hold the cards. If I'm forced to choose one source of blame, it's them.
 
Major Nelson always seems to say that MS have very little control over pricing, yet if they're stopping people releasing content for free surely they must have considerable control over it.

I don't blame him for not putting his neck on the line though, I wouldn't risk my job just to vent my personal opinion.

Best to trust the Major for info on Live goings on and expect him to toe the MS company line.
 
Major Nelson had some points, but that they don't support the ridiculous prices.
 
you could buy DRM free copies of each song for less than half of what the guitar hero II tracks cost - its not like you can take them and load them up to listen to on your zune, or listen to the songs in a custom playlist while you're in gears or anything - its just in the one game. if they atleast included versions of the song that weren't bound to the game so you could listen to them in the music player (and thus while you're in other games and such) it might be a LITTLE easier to swallow.

I hadn't picked up GHII yet - but i was planign to when the local indie shop had more in stock, but now I'm second guessing that, especially with GHIII allegedly on the horizon. I can wait.
 
and the fact he's covering up is that someone at MS (or Red Octane or whoever makes this game) said "hey, lets take out some of the songs from the PS2 version and sell them on XBL. Charging for stuff that should already be there is like getting free money."
 
[quote name='Apossum']and the fact he's covering up is that someone at MS (or Red Octane or whoever makes this game) said "hey, lets take out some of the songs from the PS2 version and sell them on XBL. Charging for stuff that should already be there is like getting free money."[/quote]



they didnt take songs from the game in the transition from the PS2 to the 360, unless you mean the original tracks should have been included on the disc, but that was never announced or mentioned so I dont see why you would have a problem with that. Youre killing them for not doing something they were never going to do.
 
1: MajorNelson should have said nothing or "it wasn't my decision"

2:If the are making money like this on micro-transactions then it's time to let Live Gold free to everyone, 1 free gold account per Xbox purchase. Current Gold members should be upgraded to Platinum and given a points allowance a month.

This brings to question what happens when possibly later on when PS3 comes out with all the same mulitplatform games and developers start creating and releasing new content for games. I wouldn't be surprised to see a HUGE backlash when 360 owners are paying for Unreal 3 maps while PS3 owners are getting the same maps for free and ect.
 
[quote name='Michaellvortega']1: MajorNelson should have said nothing or "it wasn't my decision"

2:If the are making money like this on micro-transactions then it's time to let Live Gold free to everyone, 1 free gold account per Xbox purchase. Current Gold members should be upgraded to Platinum and given a points allowance a month.

This brings to question what happens when possibly later on when PS3 comes out with all the same mulitplatform games and developers start creating and releasing new content for games. I wouldn't be surprised to see a HUGE backlash when 360 owners are paying for Unreal 3 maps while PS3 owners are getting the same maps for free and ect.[/QUOTE]

I highly doubt PS3 owners will ever get for free what 360/live users have to pay for, or if it happens it'll be a highly isolated incident. What it would take is the publisher having to decide to publish additional content for free (rare, and getting rarer) AND Microsoft being willing to take the PR hit to continue to charge even if Sony wasn't. Don't think that will happen all that often.
 
I don't think MS is going to budge on this one, because this is the main reason they created the Xbox IMO.
 
[quote name='getmyrunon']I highly doubt PS3 owners will ever get for free what 360/live users have to pay for, or if it happens it'll be a highly isolated incident. What it would take is the publisher having to decide to publish additional content for free (rare, and getting rarer) AND Microsoft being willing to take the PR hit to continue to charge even if Sony wasn't. Don't think that will happen all that often.[/QUOTE]


True, but we may very well see price differences cross-platform for d/l content. The closest we have now is MK3 on the 360 for $10 vs MK2 on the PS3 for $5. Not the same game, true, but I personally don't think there's $5 difference between them (and can you play online in MK3?).

Concerning the GH2 content, I told a friend this the other day: I don't care what excuses MS uses to justify the price. At the end of the day, it comes down to me deciding if the songs are worth $6. If I can buy an actually music cd for $10, with more songs and more flexibility on how I use those songs, then it's difficult to justify $6 for 3 songs with very restricted uses. MS piling excuses on those 3 songs doesn't increase their value in the least.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']

Yeah, Major, anything you say, Major, we aren't being screwed with GH2's relatively sucky tracklist, Major. DLC is the bomb, Major, we all love it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, his podcast used to be one of my faves until he had one of the EA bigwigs on about DLC pricing. In the end he basically sided with EA and didn't really grill the guy. It was at that point he ceased being a mouthpiece for the gamer and became a corporate shill. This GHII bit just solidifies it.

I still listen, but it has fallen down on the playlist.
 
I'm curious to why you guys are blaming Microsoft for the GH2 content pricing.
Hasn't Microsoft always said its up to the game's publisher to determine the pricing?

I think Major Nelson discusses this on his most recent podcast and I'll be sure to pull any revelent audio for discussion on Wednesday's CAGcast.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I'm curious to why you guys are blaming Microsoft for the GH2 content pricing.
Hasn't Microsoft always said its up to the game's publisher to determine the pricing?

I think Major Nelson discusses this on his most recent podcast and I'll be sure to pull any revelent audio for discussion on Wednesday's CAGcast.[/quote]



I think we found out that that was either a lie, or they channged policy after the GOW map thing.
 
after just listening to his 2 hour podcast from yesterday(sunday) i can tell you he did infact say that its the developer that makes the price of the content.

however can this really be completely true, we all know that Epic has 4 maps ready for gears of war, but MS wont let them release them for free, they have to charge for them for a while first before MS will allow them to make the content free.

either way though its simple, if you dont want to pay the price for these songs, dont. Hopefully when/if this content does poorly they will drop the price, like they did with the graw chapter 2.

we cant expect them for free but i would think that all of GH1's songs shouldnt cost more than 30 bucks total... its an old game and even if 20% of GH2 owners bought all the GH1 content at 30 bucks it would have more than paid for the contracts, and distribution costs...
 
[quote name='nonrandomhero']after just listening to his 2 hour podcast from yesterday(sunday) i can tell you he did infact say that its the developer that makes the price of the content.

however can this really be completely true, we all know that Epic has 4 maps ready for gears of war, but MS wont let them release them for free, they have to charge for them for a while first before MS will allow them to make the content free.

either way though its simple, if you dont want to pay the price for these songs, dont. Hopefully when/if this content does poorly they will drop the price, like they did with the graw chapter 2.

we cant expect them for free but i would think that all of GH1's songs shouldnt cost more than 30 bucks total... its an old game and even if 20% of GH2 owners bought all the GH1 content at 30 bucks it would have more than paid for the contracts, and distribution costs...[/QUOTE]
whos name is on the outside of the GoW box though, Microsoft game studios, so that is why they get say how much something will cost because they own the game, otherwise epic could just say well if it can't be free on xbox we can have it free on ps3. That is the reason they can say thats it up to the developers because in GoWs case microsoft is the developer so they can control how much it is in Guitar heros case activision controls how much it is.

People please think.... the gears of war argument doesn't work at all.
 
[quote name='M1C13']People please think.... the gears of war argument doesn't work at all.[/QUOTE]

Indeed it does not. But as already said, it has been shown that Microsoft's "we don't set the prices" statement is, at best, a half-truth. Which games are and which games are not influenced by MS is something we will never know, barring a developer coming out and telling us like Bizzare with Geometry Wars and Epic with GoW stuff.
 
the Guitar Hero stuff is bad...you can slice anyway you want to.. it all comes down to the fact the music is licensed and MS and the artist wants some money for this...it's very sad that this is happening..

Gears of War.. I'm not surprised that they are going to charge...how long do you think it will take before Gears is a platinum hit...hopefully not longer than Halo...
 
[quote name='nonrandomhero']after just listening to his 2 hour podcast from yesterday(sunday) i can tell you he did infact say that its the developer that makes the price of the content.[/quote] No, he said the publisher sets the price.

[quote name='hhhdx4']I think we found out that that was either a lie, or they channged policy after the GOW map thing.[/quote] Microsoft is the publisher of GOW.

The only thing Microsoft could be guilty of here, is not offering better advice to Activision on the DLC pricing.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']No, he said the publisher sets the price.

Microsoft is the publisher of GOW.

The only thing Microsoft could be guilty of here, is not offering better advice to Activision on the DLC pricing.[/QUOTE]
I'm not blaming Microsoft or Major for anything. I'm simply saying it's hillarious that Major tries to defend the pricing.

I literally started laughing when I heard "It's not old content. The liscensing has been renegotiated and there's online distribution, so there's a lot of things involved." Yeah, reliscensing old content magically turns it into brand new content. BULLSHIT.


And besides that, if this whole marketplace is "their store" like epic says and since "it's their store so they set the prices" like epic said, they should make sure their not putting up riddiculously priced stuff.

And what's more: it was Microsoft who gave us these microtransactions. They are to blame for not stopping shit like EA charging for cheat-codes you get free in other systems. It's Microsoft who brought us Microtransactions, they are responsible for making the experience good or bad.
 
Cheapy probably hit it on the head, as far as what Microsoft's official stance would be if they were really pressed. "We only advise." As in "You can charge for Geometry Wars, or we advise you to go fuck yourselves." So, ok, let's just assume MS doesn't actually set the prices.

That still doesn't excuse MS for allowing this stuff ot happen, or RO/Activision for the packaging/pricing structure in the first place.
 
[quote name='KaneRobot']That still doesn't excuse MS for allowing this stuff ot happen, or RO/Activision for the packaging/pricing structure in the first place.[/quote]


qft
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']I'm not blaming Microsoft or Major for anything. I'm simply saying it's hillarious that Major tries to defend the pricing.

I literally started laughing when I heard "It's not old content. The liscensing has been renegotiated and there's online distribution, so there's a lot of things involved." Yeah, reliscensing old content magically turns it into brand new content. BULLSHIT.


And besides that, if this whole marketplace is "their store" like epic says and since "it's their store so they set the prices" like epic said, they should make sure their not putting up riddiculously priced stuff.

And what's more: it was Microsoft who gave us these microtransactions. They are to blame for not stopping shit like EA charging for cheat-codes you get free in other systems. It's Microsoft who brought us Microtransactions, they are responsible for making the experience good or bad.[/QUOTE]

I agree, Microsoft is actually hurting their pricing scheme more by charging so highly for things. For example, the GoW map thing.. Gold subscribers already pay a premium to use the service per year. With the original Xbox Live service, content delivery was free (like downloading Crimson Skies planes, etc). Now, additional content costs money. The argument is for server space, but c'mon.. a $50 yearly premium per user should MORE than cover that, as well as the advertiser revenue from offering movie clips and banners on the blades.

For something like a full fledged expansion (like with Oblivion), I can understand that. I recently dished out 400 points for a new map and new aircraft (P-38) on Battlestations Midway.. if I'm not mistaken, they came with the PC version. This isn't the first case of this nature that's occurred with Live, but it's the first one that I can think of off the top of my head (another example being the LotR:BFME II thing that Wombat ranted about on a previous Cagcast).

With GHII.. I don't care if it's MS or the licensing agencies, somebody is off of their fucking rocker. I refuse to pay for a song that is merely a cover (NOT performed by the original artist) that likely required a minimal amount of development time and takes a small amount of storage space compared to other available free content.. when I could download the original from another source (like ITunes) for a fraction of the price. Plus, the fact that they're covers of the original could be used as a point to negotiate the promotional standpoint of the content (let's not forget people... most if not all of GH's songs were and still are in radio rotation.. which leads to album sales).

It isn't just MS though... Nintendo is just as guilty with the Wii points. Compare the price of the Sega games from the Genesis collection with the price on the Wii Shop Channel.. c'mon, give me a break.

I know that online content delivery is a totally fuzzy aspect of economics.. where supply is a constant (hell.. you can still download original Xbox content from the old games to this day I believe.. so things just don't go away out of the blue), but demand is influenced by price. Look at Lumines.. the demand was rabid for it. They dropped the ball with it though.. think about how much it would sell if they were to slice the price in half. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are in a position to set a price floor of whatever they want. As long as people pay for it, they'll do it. It's that simple. However... the fact that they charge a higher premium for the imitation of an original song, then argue that online content pricing is due to storage space, say the song prices are due to licensing renegotiations for music that could be heard for free from another source or downloaded at a cheaper price.. and then they have their tool further insult consumer intelligence.. c'mon, they're killing a potential edge they could have over their competitors.

I love Xbox Live, and see the potential that Microsoft is trying to realize with it. However, they are only hindering progress by setting high price floors for content that isn't exclusive or does not impact the original product substantially (like horse armor??). Although I'm not an Ipod/ITunes user.. get the original "Iron Man", play it through your stereo, and strum your plastic guitar to that instead of paying to play it on a game. That or.. I don't know, switch the input on your A/V receiver and play the original version. That brings up another issue.. at least the original controller didn't have a buggy whammy bar.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']No, he said the publisher sets the price.

.[/QUOTE]

He's also said that MS "works" with the publisher on price. I'm sure if the publisher set each song at 50 points or 500 points, MS would have some input.

It's a cop-out to say otherwise.

The reality is that no one, no one takes any responsibiity for the pricing. Nelson couldn't pass the buck fast enough and Red Octane is silent.
 
While the Gears argument might not hold much water, it is a good indicator like others have said. How come no other publishers have released maps for free when it would clearly be smart to do so in the wake of Gears being such as dominant seller? Yea time goes back into making new maps, but the business model that epic uses is not something new to the industry and you would think others would try and follow suit.

Until a developer releases something for free that is labelled as being for free from the start I won't buy into anything MS says (Lumines doesn't count as that was to make up for the whole base/ advanced fiasco) with regards to pricing of DLC.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']While the Gears argument might not hold much water, it is a good indicator like others have said. How come no other publishers have released maps for free when it would clearly be smart to do so in the wake of Gears being such as dominant seller? Yea time goes back into making new maps, but the business model that epic uses is not something new to the industry and you would think others would try and follow suit.

Until a developer releases something for free that is labelled as being for free from the start I won't buy into anything MS says (Lumines doesn't count as that was to make up for the whole base/ advanced fiasco) with regards to pricing of DLC.[/QUOTE]

Look at all the shit Epic released for free in Unreal Tournament 2k4... I remember them putting a lot of extra effort into the game to provide free stuff after it already shipped.

I have been a big fan of Epic just because they always went above and beyond.
 
[quote name='Roufuss']Look at all the shit Epic released for free in Unreal Tournament 2k4... I remember them putting a lot of extra effort into the game to provide free stuff after it already shipped.

[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I would think it benefits them more for people to hold onto their games in anticipation of free content than to sell/trade up. Selling/trading in only fuels the sale of used games, which the publisher doesn't see a dime of.
 
At the end of the day I could care less who sets the price of online content, if DLC is too expensive then I won't buy it, that's really the only thing I can do.

MS can try and get us into a mindset where we're used to paying for extra content if they want, but I still won't buy it and if the game doesn't have enough content to justify it's price then I won't buy that either.

So good luck to anyone trying to sell a game with a promise of "great downloadable content", because that will probably probably count against it from now on.
 
[quote name='Corvin']Exactly. I would think it benefits them more for people to hold onto their games in anticipation of free content than to sell/trade up. Selling/trading in only fuels the sale of used games, which the publisher doesn't see a dime of.[/quote]

How does a publisher benefit from the consumer keeping a game if they don't charge for downloadable content? Publishers either want you to trade up and buy a new game each year (less desireable) or to charge you for DLC.
 
[quote name='RudyPants']How does a publisher benefit from the consumer keeping a game if they don't charge for downloadable content? Publishers either want you to trade up and buy a new game each year (less desireable) or to charge you for DLC.[/quote]

Well they benefit because if one customer holds onto the game then thats one less copy that's available pre-owned, and they don't make any money on the sale of a pre-owned game.
 
Don't forget people.. they're charging you nearly $200 for a mere 100gb hard drive soon, whereas a 120gb SATA drive could be had for around $50 at retail. You'd think with all of their online distribution strategy (with movies on demand and whatnot), they'd charge a smaller amount for the HD to make all of the movie downloads generate the revenue (basically.. let the movies subsidize the cost of the storage unit).

Epic did push out a ton of free stuff for download with UT04.. but many other developers do so as well. I'm sorry.. MS views marketplace and Live as a major revenue generator, and are actually diminishing demand for online content by charging for everything under the sun. Epic promised all along to support GoW with new content for free (and the entire community applauded them for it).. and now they're charging for it. It's bad P.R.

[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Why would anyone wanna buy old GH1 songs in the first place, as long as you still own Guitar Hero for the PS2?[/QUOTE]

Firstly, the PS2 doesn't offer in-game Dolby Digital (only Pro Logic). Secondly, not everyone may have their PS2 hooked up anymore. Thirdly, it's an older version of the game. Fourthly, a few people likely traded in GH1 in anticipation of being able to play the songs on the 360 after it got out into the gaming press that the songs would be playable in one form or another.
 
[quote name='Skylander7']Firstly, the PS2 doesn't offer in-game Dolby Digital (only Pro Logic). Secondly, not everyone may have their PS2 hooked up anymore. Thirdly, it's an older version of the game. Fourthly, a few people likely traded in GH1 in anticipation of being able to play the songs on the 360 after it got out into the gaming press that the songs would be playable in one form or another.[/quote]

The new versions of the GH1 songs are also available in modes that are exclusive to GH2 such as co-op, pro face-off and practice.
 
[quote name='Skylander7']Epic promised all along to support GoW with new content for free (and the entire community applauded them for it).. and now they're charging for it. It's bad P.R.
[/QUOTE]


Thats a fantastic claim for Epic to make. Perhaps they should continue make it about their own games and not Microsoft's.
 
About Gears of War: You guys are all forgetting that the maps are on Microsoft's servers, and that you are using Microsoft's bandwidth to download the games. I am almost certain that Microsoft receives royalties for XBOXLive sales. If the content is free, Microsoft is likely going to be forced to pay the bill. I don't know exactly what's going on, but I'm imagining that the subtleties of Microsoft's demands that Epic puts real prices on their content probably aren't unreasonable.

I am also almost certain that the XBox 360 hard drive is solid state memory, which is much more expensive than a conventional hard drive, and that you are paying a premium for an add-on to your current system that is guaranteed to be fully-functional and supremely reliable as well as secure. And, you know, the 120 GB hard drive for the 360 is a pretty unnecessary upgrade with a very tiny market, and the customer should be expected to pay a premium for what is, for the most part, a novelty item.

CONCERING THE TOPIC AT HAND

It's not Major Nelson's fault that Guitar Hero II tracks a little more expensive than you'd like. In his podcast, he's responding to personal attacks and hate mail -- as the public face of Microsoft, people are blaming him for the bad decisions of some random publisher. I think he made it pretty clear that the tracks were a little more expensive than whatever price point he would have set personally, but that he understands that there are a lot of legitimate reasons why they are so expensive.

In my humble opinion, I don't think the Guitar Hero II tracks are overpriced at all! $6.25 is an extremely small amount of money for what will probably amount to several hours of gameplay. $6.25 is actually a pretty inisignificant amount of money regardless of how you look at it -- no matter how much of a cheapass gamer you really are.

I'm of the opinion that the GHII downloadable track price controversy doesn't really amount to much more than a lot of people wanting a reason to get pissed off at the publisher. It's totally in line with the prices of other downloadable content packs that offer about the same amount of entertainment, and, in my opinion, is a pretty reasonable price anyway,
 
[quote name='terribledeli']Thats a fantastic claim for Epic to make. Perhaps they should continue make it about their own games and not Microsoft's.[/QUOTE]

Epic is the developer.. Microsoft merely published the game for them. Epic is not a first party developer (owned by MS), and is a very successful PC developer. With that said (and granted some of this is speculative as I don't know exactly what is written in the publishing agreement) it is likely Epic's choice whether they develop extra content or not. MS may own the publishing rights, but I'm willing to bet that Epic makes the call on making the content. However.. since Microsoft owns the distribution channel, MS makes the call on whether it's free or not. It isn't about ownership of publishing rights to the game, it's a question of who controls the distribution channel. All content must go through MS first; they weren't about to pass up a chance to sell content to a multi-million installed user base.

This has to do with the distribution channel seeing a possibility to generate revenue using the medium.. I seriously doubt that the money will kick back to Epic that is generated from downloads. Epic likely made the comment on free distribution on good faith that they would be able to distribute the content as they wished.. and didn't foresee MS's determination to use Live as a revenue generating distribution channel. Epic isn't some no name publisher... I'm willing to bet they made the claim based on the treatment Microsoft had given them in "courting" the developer to bring an original IP to the console.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top