Guitar Hero Better Serves Consumers Than Rock Band

[Evil Avatar]

Industrygamers has posted some quotes (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/activision-guitar-hero-better-serves-consumers-than-rock-band/) from Activision Publishing chief executive Mike Griffith, where he defends Activision's Guitar Hero release blitz compared to Rock Band's more lethargic release pace.

We specifically raised the point that Activision has been flooding the market with SKU after SKU in the Guitar Hero franchise, whereas MTV and Harmonix seem to be more focused on expanding Rock Band with downloadable content.

Griffith defended his company's approach to the music space, however, asserting that Activision's SKU strategy has actually been better for the shareholders and consumers. "First of all, the consumer has voted and we've outsold Rock Band four-to-one; we're outselling Rock Band 10-to-1 in Europe. If you listen to the analyst side of things and the Viacom earnings report, it does look like Rock Band is very successful financially. So, you'd have to conclude so far, our business model has served the consumer and shareholders better," he stated.

Lets come back and see how he feels after the release of Beatles Rock Band.

[bskeillor]

Okay guys which song do you want to play next?

I don't know, how about Hot Blooded?

Okay let me dig out the disc that has that song.....

[Evil Avatar]

Okay guys which song do you want to play next?

I don't know, how about Hot Blooded?

Okay let me dig out the disc that has that song.....

Don't remind me, since you will have to start doing that with Rock Band after Beatles is released.

[serioustommy]

So the fact that the game sells better than Rock Band means that it served the consumers better? Could just be that the consumers are forced to buy multiple skus for the songs they like instead of spending less money on cheaper DLCs.

This strategy serves the shareholders better I'll give you that, but to have DLC instead of multiple SKUs actually serve consumers better because they get the songs they like and for less.

[Evil Avatar]

This strategy serves the shareholders better I'll give you that, but to have DLC instead of multiple SKUs actually serve consumers better because they get the songs they like and for less.

In some ways I think he has a point. The consumer demand for new product to play is enormous. Who here doesn't buy 12+ games a year?

Activision tries to supply that demand (often at the expense of quality) by producing franchise titles one-per-year and doing that by mixing and matching more than one team on each franchise.

It has been working out damn well with Call of Duty, I think it only sorta works with Guitar Hero (Guitar Hero Metallica? Really? Couldn't they find a real metal band with more than one hit to work with? ;)) and I think the quality of the song programming and audio mixing has been on a steady decline with the GH franchise.

Long term, this is a lousy strategy. They will end up like Electronic Arts -- where no one will touch 90% of their products and are only buying the yearly release on one or two key properties.

But, in the short term... they are meeting the demand of consumers.

[Zander]

I don't care.

DLC and variety makes this genre for me. Who has (by far to the point that it's kind of ridiculous? Is Activision even releasing DLC anymore

[ElPresidente]

In some ways I think he has a point. The consumer demand for new product to play is enormous. Who here doesn't buy 12+ games a year?

Activision tries to supply that demand (often at the expense of quality) by producing franchise titles one-per-year and doing that by mixing and matching more than one team on each franchise.

It has been working out damn well with Call of Duty, I think it only sorta works with Guitar Hero (Guitar Hero Metallica? Really? Couldn't they find a real metal band with more than one hit to work with? ;)) and I think the quality of the song programming and audio mixing has been on a steady decline with the GH franchise.

Long term, this is a lousy strategy. They will end up like Electronic Arts -- where no one will touch 90% of their products and are only buying the yearly release on one or two key properties.

But, in the short term... they are meeting the demand of consumers.

I think the reality of the situation is that Guitar Hero is a much more recognisable brand. It was the first franchise on the block (excluding Konami's arcade efforts) and now when people think of music games with instrument like controlers Guitar Hero is the name that comes to mind.

Ignoring the fact that Activision is doing very well off their competitor's efforts (let's not forget who created Guitar Hero), the casual gamer market (which is easily the biggest segment for this style of game) is not as aware of Rockband.

No wonder they are selling. I think many uneducated consumers would see Rockband as a cheap knockoff of Guitar Hero.

I don't think Activision are serving their consumers particularly well at all with their constant release of new SKUs. The largest segment of their market are likely to be the ones who find it harder and harder to justify the purchase of multiple controllers for each new game.

[thehardac]

I think the reality of the situation is that Guitar Hero is a much more recognisable brand. It was the first franchise on the block (excluding Konami's arcade efforts) and now when people think of music games with instrument like controlers Guitar Hero is the name that comes to mind.

Ignoring the fact that Activision is doing very well off their competitor's efforts (let's not forget who created Guitar Hero), the casual gamer market (which is easily the biggest segment for this style of game) is not as aware of Rockband.

No wonder they are selling. I think many uneducated consumers would see Rockband as a cheap knockoff of Guitar Hero.

I don't think Activision are serving their consumers particularly well at all with their constant release of new SKUs. The largest segment of their market are likely to be the ones who find it harder and harder to justify the purchase of multiple controllers for each new game.

I would just like to say that the argument that Harmonix "created" Guitar Hero is a little tiresome. Harmonix was contracted by Red Octane to develop the game that Red Octane came up with. They had an idea, a guitar gimmick, and paid Harmonix to do their work. Harmonix may have been a player in musical games before GH, but to say they "created" GH is pretty foolish.

[Valkyrist]

I chose RockBand for the same reason I buy music digitally: I refuse to overpay for a collection of songs, of which I care about one or two, when I can simply buy JUST the one or two songs.

In that vein, I've bought several "games"-worth of DLC songs for rockband already, and don't plan on stopping anytime soon.

I do find it hysterical that he says GH outsold RB 4-1. He's either an idiot or thinks we are. He's comparing ALL the GH spinoff games against the TWO RB titles. Of course GH will have higher numbers. And then in the same paragraph, he admits that RB is still doing finacially well compared to GH. You don't think that's because they make their money off DLC instead of seperately packaged games?! Retard.

[vallor]

DLC doesn't have that great an attach rate (15% is pretty average, I hear) but it is insanely profitable. No packaging, no controllers, online services tend to take a smaller cut to get the content on the platform for big games.

I'd say that while GH has sold 4-1 (all SKUs combined... and that is a lot of SKUs!) RB is no worse than 2-1 (GH favor) thanks to the lower overhead of DLC.

[Evil Avatar]

I don't care.

DLC and variety makes this genre for me. Who has (by far to the point that it's kind of ridiculous? Is Activision even releasing DLC anymore

I think they are, I gave up trying to keep up with it a while ago. Keeping track of the DLC for Guitar Hero and Rock Band is almost a full time gig.

What annoyed me about trying to make news posts about it was the double up. First you get a PR saying, "Coming next week!" then next week you get two PR's one for the new "Coming new week!" and a second for the "Out this week!". Double that up between Guitar Hero and Rock Band and after a while I gave up.

It doesn't help that so much of the DLC they release is stuff only a tiny percentage of people care about. Big name releases seem to be too few and far between.

[OmegaVader]

yeah, I'll take my a la carte pay-for-what-i-want model over activision's let's-throw-together-shitty-$60-packs-every-month model.

but it's all beneath the bottom line -- is the game fun? And Guitar hero hasn't been since Harmonix moved on. Rock Band is the true heir to the throne.

[bskeillor]

Actually you only need 1 disc to play all of the Rockband songs. It was a $5 charge or something to DL all the RB1 disc to your hard drive. I'm sure they'll do the same with Beattles and RB1 and 2.

[ElPresidente]

I would just like to say that the argument that Harmonix "created" Guitar Hero is a little tiresome. Harmonix was contracted by Red Octane to develop the game that Red Octane came up with. They had an idea, a guitar gimmick, and paid Harmonix to do their work. Harmonix may have been a player in musical games before GH, but to say they "created" GH is pretty foolish.

I think you are underestimating the input Harmonix had. Red Octane grabbed a talented rhythm game developer and pitched their plan. Harmonix are still the team behind the music selection, the note charts etc. Neversoft didn't have the same knack for that stuff which is why I feel GH2 onwards have been let downs.

Regardless of who you want to attribute the success of Guitar Hero to it has no impact on my branding statements.

[the soUL TRAder]

...If you listen to the analyst side of things and the Viacom earnings report, it does look like Rock Band is very successful financially.....


Did this clown just insinuate because Rockband makes more $$ on less units sold that the GH brand serves it's consumer better?

That might be PR genius.

[boneyardweller89]

DLC is cheaper and you don't have to pay $60 for a game with 10 songs you like and 70 you don't.

[gzsfrk]

So long as I have fog juice to fuel my Stage Kit and a Journey track to play, Rock Band is all I'll ever need.

Oh how I love you, Rock Band Stage Kit... let me have your foggy, strobey, LED-blinky babies.

[Cyrano]

Actually you only need 1 disc to play all of the Rockband songs. It was a $5 charge or something to DL all the RB1 disc to your hard drive. I'm sure they'll do the same with Beattles and RB1 and 2.

I'm sure they won't.

Link (http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6210905/the-beatles-rock-band-hands-on), link (http://www.rockband.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2574613&postcount=30).

[S F Booker]

With reference to GH outselling RB 10-1 in Europe it is not really surpising (in fact I'm surprised it not higher).

Harmonix have seemed to be concentrating more on the American market and haven't shown much interest in pushing the game over here.

For instance, we still haven't seen sight nor sound of the RB2 instruments (and it doesn't look like we ever will), the Wii version of RB2 still hasn't been released over here and they have only just started advertising it on TV over the last 4 weeks or so (and it's been out for the 360 since November last year!!!)

Heres hoping things change abit on the run up to the 9th September

[Evil Avatar]

I'm sure they won't.

Link (http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6210905/the-beatles-rock-band-hands-on), link (http://www.rockband.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2574613&postcount=30).

That is what they say now. Don't be too shocked if it changes in the future. Now, if it turns out it is a licensing issue I can see preventing you from copying the songs over to Rock Band 1 or 2, but otherwise you have to own both games anyway -- why not charge you a little extra to copy them over?

[lost]

They European marketing for Rock Band was abysmal. It was just dumped on shop shelves - not specialist stores didn't even know they had it.

[Roc Ingersol]

Our game is better than their game.
I have all the proof you need in these made up goals and cherry-picked data.