Slashdot Mirror
Motley Crue Single Does Better On Rock Band
Erik J writes "Remember about six weeks ago when Motley Crue and Rock Band partnered to release a new single premiering first in the game before anywhere else? Come to find out their song 'Saints of Los Angeles' was downloaded over 47,000 times on the Xbox version alone, beating out digital services iTunes and Amazon, which were tapped only 10,000 times for the single."
I mean, 47,000 downloads is great and all, but there was a time when a new Crue album would sell in the MILLIONS.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So people downloaded the Rock Band version (since it came out first), realized it sucked and didn't bother to get the amazon or itunes version?
It seems pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, it seems like people (the author of the article, for example) are going to remark on how video game songs are the wave of the future...etc, etc.
This means that no one wants to listen to a poser, but everybody would like to be one.
Whether "some people still like material goods" is irrelevant when comparing two digital distribution methods.
What's interesting is how much more the songs sold on Rock Band compared to iTunes and Amazon. This will, of course, be due to many factors, not the least being that Motley Crue has many songs that are suitable for "air guitar". This doesn't imply that other songs will have the same sales pattern, but might be worth noting for artists who produce music that is suited for Rock Band and Guitar Hero.
The funny thing about online music downloads (and the MAFIAA) is that I'm more than willing to pay for all of my media just as I pay for all of my games, (which I can also usually download just as easily for free). The reason I pay for games is because the publishers add value like game servers, ranking and records, updates, and free stuff like wallpaper and screensavers.
I want to buy music, I want to buy video content, I WANT to support my favorite artists. But right now there is no added value for me if I pay, and currently I actually lose value by paying because the only time I am restricted in my paid media's usage is when I hit a DRM wall.
No one in the music and movie industries seems to want my money badly enough to actually work for it. And after the last several years of arrogance, lawsuits and being referred to as a "Revenue Stream" rather than as a "Customer", work is what it will take from the music and video industry for me to actually pay for music and video content.
I don't knock your music taste, and I would prefer it if you didn't knock mine.
Many people are fans of 80s music of various genres, and that should be fully acceptable.
Anyone who really loved them would never have forgotten the umlaut.
The big difference is that when you go on iTunes to buy a song, you have millions of songs to choose from. When you go on Rock Band, you don't get a million songs to choose from. Doing this kind of comparison would be like saying that SMB 3 on Virtual Console outsold used cartridges in game stores. It's a completely different product for a completely different market.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
MrHanky is a fairly old-fashioned troll. While not being something you'd read on its own, it's very suitable for a Slashdot post. Consider "Motley Crue Single Does Better on Rock Band," filled with extremely gay comments. Very few people with any self respect will read that kind of crap, but within the context of the thread, it fits perfectly. "Why not?", an RSS reader, and mod points...perfect. Actually reading it? Not so.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
The new Motley Crue album isn't on a RIAA label.
http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp?searchtype=ASIN&keyword=B0018AK9QQ
There is a war going on for your mind.
You can't play the song on the Rock Band game by buying it on iTunes... They aren't just buying a song to listen to, it is a different product.
This is good, it means another potential revenue source for musicians, since the era of selling truckloads of plastic discs with songs encoded on them for 15 bucks is coming to an end. The ability to "rock out" along side of a song is the sort of added value that musicians and even the record companies should be offering people to keep us buying their product.
But selling tracks online isn't the only way they could do this. Why not sell your CD in stores, and include with the disc a code that lets you download all the songs into Rock Band/GH? That would go a lot further towards convincing me to shell out 20 bucks for it.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
"Eleven Seven Music was developed in association with ADA, a Warner Music Group company." says wikipedia...Warner, of course being one of the Big-Four.
Worse, whenever I check and find that a label (seems) to have no riaa affiliation, and I actually wander down to my local (independent) CD store, I discover that it was still distributed by one of the Big Four.
I hate like hell to give them even a nickle, so that put some severe limits on what you can buy.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Or, just a solid boxset with good art. Maybe in brushed aluminum. Something nice.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Wait wait wait... this coming from someone named after the guy who did "I'm Too Sexy?" My irony sensors are overloading.
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my