×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Motley Crue Single Does Better On Rock Band

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the strike-while-the-iron-is-hot dept.

Media 127

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

127 comments

Crue rhymes with Poo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23603943)


Forget Motley Crue... Lemmy is GOD! [lemmymovie.com]

Re:Crue rhymes with Poo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604175)


4.88482e+09, Informative

Re:Crue rhymes with Poo (0, Troll)

morari (1080535) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605919)

Troll?! Geeze people, get some taste. Montley Crue, like all hair metal, always has and always will such. Lemmy is one of the few guys left making real metal--right up there with Danzig and Dio!

The doctor don't feel so good these days (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23603947)

Look, I loved Crue back in the 80's (who didn't?), but their albums and singles these days aren't exactly shattering sales records. I imagine that just about *ANY* new song added to Rock Band would sell better than any given new Crue single on iTunes, just because of the completists and those looking for ANY new content.

I mean, 47,000 downloads is great and all, but there was a time when a new Crue album would sell in the MILLIONS.

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (2, Funny)

aztektum (170569) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604149)

Look, I loved Crue back in the 80's (who didn't?)
Me for one. Although I was always more into music like Pixies and punk and less mainstream. But yeah I agree with what you're sayin'. S'funny now the Crue is more a niche act now. the music I dug in the 80's, in turn, seems to get more exposure.

Does that mean in 20 years hair bands will rule again? I'm sure the ozone is cringing.

In 20 years the hair bands will need wigs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604999)

Heck I remember the doobie brothers back in the 70s when they were young, thin, energetic, and had hair on their heads.

Re:In 20 years the hair bands will need wigs (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605185)

And were making appearances on What's Happening! : p

And I was coding in assembly language.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23605893)

Oh well, at least I still have hair on my head.

I checked out the What's Happening videos on youtube, very close to what I remember when I saw them in Saratoga, NY in 1977.

Re:In 20 years the hair bands will need wigs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23606871)

Gotta be specific...not thosehair bands. Doobie Brothers were never a "hair" band.

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605523)

WHen I was a teen late 70's, early 80s, we would talk about what music would be like i 20-30 years. We had a lot od thoughts but no one expected it to be the exact same music.
I laugh whenever I see a 30 year old punk rock shirt on some teen. I mean, really can't this generation create there own rebel music?

Ob. XKCD
http://xkcd.com/339/ [xkcd.com]

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23605727)

How rebel would this generation's rebel music be if you were aware of it? (Especially when one of the things most worth rebelling over is record label hegemony.)

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (4, Interesting)

jslarve (1193417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23606199)

That was my era too, and I used to feel the same way. But after I watched "End of the Century" (the Ramones thing that's been on cable lately), the late (GREAT) Joey Ramone was remarking about how their fan base spans several generations, etc. It got me to thinking how arrogant that kind of attitude is. Some of that early punk was just plain great (if not terrible at the same time). We can't claim it. We were just lucky to have had it when we were growing up. Really lucky. Would a hippie from the '60s laugh if I were wearing a Beatles t-shirt. Hell no. Same idea.

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#23606833)

Funny you should mention that. My oldest nephew recently raided my old closet at my moms house when she asked him to get rid of my "junk". Now all the girls are fawning over him and telling him how wicked cool he looks in all those "vintage retro" band shirts like Poison,Crue,DLR,etc. Not to mention he snatched my Judas priest satin jacket and all my old 80's shirts with zippers and wild prints like zebra stripes. Now when i go to pick him up and hear the girls fawning over his cool "retro" look i want to scream "That's NOT retro! he just stole all my clothes!!!" Never thought I'd see the day that the bands I jammed out to would be considered classic rock. Damned I'm getting to old for this sh*t. And get off my lawn!

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#23606993)

I'm 24, and maybe it's just me, but 2007 was a horrible year for music. So, because of that, and also due to me making some older friends since graduating from college, I've been getting into some of the older bands (Def Leppard, Aerosmith, Boston, Journey, Billy Idol, and of course, the Crue).

The 'boomers are kicking our asses, indeed.

It's Crüe, not Crue (5, Funny)

voidstin (51561) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604177)

Anyone who really loved them would never have forgotten the umlaut.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (4, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604205)

Only the crazies use chars not in the first 127 of ASCII

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604755)

You ARE aware that you just pissed off everyone in France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Spain... and let me not start about the eastern half of Europe which has some really funny specks and dots above, below and inside letters as well.

Just because the English alphabet only offers you 26 letters to choose from doesn't mean that's how it should be. Though I have to admit, coding with a keyboard filled with those additional letters is rather hard (ever tried writing a C program and having to use ctrl-alt-whatever to get a [ or a {?).

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1, Funny)

y86 (111726) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604955)

You ARE aware that you just pissed off everyone in France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Spain... and let me not start about the eastern half of Europe which has some really funny specks and dots above, below and inside letters as well.
GWB pissed all of these countries off already by going into Iraq. What's a little more anger from the old AXIS of evil really going to do anyways? :-)

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (2, Interesting)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605115)

I write Java rather than C, but needing Alt-Gr on my Spanish keyboard to get [ and { does annoy me. Also when I first starting using it I puzzled for ages as to how to get backtick (`) for use in shell scripts.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1)

emj (15659) | more than 5 years ago | (#23606045)

I puzzled for ages as to how to get backtick (`) for use in shell scripts.
I still have no idea how to do that on my keyboard, I just use $() in bash. Glad I don't use it in other places, and it really has little use imho.

And I can't write them here and see them in the preview.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23605317)

Fuck the French.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605345)

Only the crazies use chars not in the first 127 of ASCII
That's pretty much all of ASCII, actually. There's only 128 ASCII codes, so the "first 127 of ASCII" is all of ASCII except DEL.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23606283)

ASCII is a seven-bit code, so it only defines 127 characters.

Anything 8 bit is not ASCII, so your insult is invalid.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23606463)

*WOOSH*

Ok then... (4, Funny)

hassanchop (1261914) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604281)

Anyone who really loved them would never have forgotten the umlaut.
Crue. Crue Crue Crue. Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue. Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue Crue. I trust I've made my feeling clear.

Re:Ok then... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604635)

That's umlaut of Crues.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (4, Insightful)

steeljaw (65872) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604299)

>> Anyone who really loved them would never have forgotten the umlaut.

Apparently anyone who really loved them also would not care to buy their new music... :)

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605421)

Apparently anyone who really loved them also would not care to buy their new music... :)

Indeed, the past tense of "loved" was appropriate.

I loved them to death. I remember when Motley Crüe and Def Leppard were my two absolutely favorite by far bands ever. I had every cassette tape of theirs I could get my little hands on. And I bought them all over again when I got a CD player.

And there they sit, in my CD rack. I took my favorite one out and actually encoded it into MP3 so I could actually listen to it again. After that, I didn't bother encoding the rest. My tastes, apparently, have changed...

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604347)

Actually, it's Mötley Crüe

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604509)

They can have the umlaut when they can show me a single band member from a country that uses umlauts.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604629)

They can have the umlaut when they can show me a single band member from a country that uses umlauts.

Dude, they drank German beer, lots of it. It's virtually the same as growing up in the hinterland as a young lass in Deutschland.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604831)

It's the infamous Heavy Metal Umlaut [wikipedia.org] . As you can see, they ain't the only ones to use that kind of style.

Also makes it really funny when you talk about such a band in a German speaking country. You get corrected almost immediately... to the wrong pronunciation. Or the right one, depends on how you look at it. At any rate, it makes those bandnames sound very silly when pronounced "correctly".

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604671)

Anyone who really liked the Crüe would realize that since they stopped shootin whisky all their music sucks.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1, Interesting)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604855)

Actually, Motley Crue is an interesting case study in the effects of drugs on music. Their two best albums, Girls, Girls, Girls and Dr. Feelgood, were made at the height of their drug abuse and after they went clean, respectively. Both albums are nearly-equally respected, with Dr. Feelgood getting perhaps slightly better reviews.

Re:It's Crüe, not Crue (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605535)

Yes, one could also say it's interesting how drugs use early in their carrier was detrimental to the rest of their careers.

Of course it could also be they just had two great albums in them.

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (1)

jgarra23 (1109651) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604713)

I mean, 47,000 downloads is great and all, but there was a time when a new Crue album would sell in the MILLIONS.

This is why on their new tour they play 90% songs from their heyday. They new stuff is ahem... suckly...

Re:The doctor don't feel so good these days (1)

Ramss Morales (13327) | more than 5 years ago | (#23606405)

Gladly you are right. Otherwise this would mean that a bleak future awaits musicians.

No good? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23603985)

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?

Re:No good? (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#23607027)

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?
In other news, more people started using Internet Explorer when it came with Windows.

I just love.. (1)

pthor1231 (885423) | more than 5 years ago | (#23603999)

Completely pointless comparisons. So what if it was only downloaded 10k times on itunes + amazon. There is still the meatspace market to consider, and the single hasn't released there yet. Some people still like material goods.

Re:I just love.. (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604079)

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.

Re:I just love.. (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604227)

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.

Re:I just love.. (4, Insightful)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604147)

I'm not sure that this is a completely pointless comparison.

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.

Re:I just love.. (3, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604423)

The new Motley Crue album isn't on a RIAA label.

http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp?searchtype=ASIN&keyword=B0018AK9QQ [riaaradar.com]

Re:I just love.. (3, Informative)

dwandy (907337) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604703)

just how indy can a label be today?

"Eleven Seven Music was developed in association with ADA, a Warner Music Group company." says wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ...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.

Re:I just love.. (1)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604455)

Its comments like these that make me enjoy slashdot. I frequently find myself saying 'yeah i agree with what you said even if I didn't think it myself'. I wish the RIAA/MPAA et al would read slashdot. If only we could get some good ideas into the right minds of those organisations...

Re:I just love.. (1)

dirk (87083) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604483)

What exactly are the record companies supposed to do for you to add "value" (and isn't the music the value in itself)? The can put a bonus DVD in there, which immediately gets ripped and is available for free. They can have some extra songs you can download with a code from the CD, which are immediately put up for free. They can let you stream some extra stuff from their site, which will either be ripped and offered for free or people will complain because they can only stream it from the website. They can offer a booklet, which will be scanned and offered for free.

So what exactly could they possibly offer that wouldn't just be made available for free?

Re:I just love.. (3, Insightful)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604727)

So what exactly could they possibly offer that wouldn't just be made available for free?
  • A t-shirt?
  • Big Hair wigs?
  • Their undying affection?
  • Oh, yeah. A Live Concert.

Or, just a solid boxset with good art. Maybe in brushed aluminum. Something nice.

Re:I just love.. (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 5 years ago | (#23607047)

Yeah but the record companies don't make any money off of that, which is what the GP was looking for.

Re:I just love.. (1)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604737)

So what exactly could they possibly offer that wouldn't just be made available for free?

That's where the "Work" part comes in. It's their job to figure out a way for their obsolete business to become relevant and start making money again.

By alienating their customer base with lawsuits and draconian DRM they have made their "work" that much more difficult.

Re:I just love.. (1)

Chirs (87576) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604649)

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.
What about little things like ethics, morals, and personal integrity? What about paying for it because they created the game and are trying to make a living selling it? I used to download software, but have since stopped because it bothered my conscience. Heck, I even bought a legal copy of WinXP.

It's all well and good to hate the music industry megacorps, but that doesn't give you the right to blithely violate their copyright.

Re:I just love.. (1)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605067)

What about little things like ethics, morals, and personal integrity? What about paying for it because they created the game and are trying to make a living selling it? I used to download software, but have since stopped because it bothered my conscience. Heck, I even bought a legal copy of WinXP.

It's all well and good to hate the music industry megacorps, but that doesn't give you the right to blithely violate their copyright.

Are you asking about MY ethics, morals, and personal integrity or the *IAA's? I already said that I DO in fact pay for games, and my OS is open source, I own several copies of various flavors of Widows given to me over the years at tech events, so they're legal too. What exactly is your point?

Poor games deserve poor recompense (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605313)

> What about paying for it because they created the game and are trying to make a living selling it?

And what about only paying for it if it's any good instead?

In the UK we have a thing called "fit for purpose": if you buy a physical product and it's not "fit for purpose", you can just take it back for a full refund. It's even enough that the item didn't "fit the purpose" that you expected of it (within reason), regardless of anything that it might say on the outer box.

I see no justification whatsoever for paying for a game that is crap, regardless of the fact that its creators are trying to make a living. If they fail to make an interesting, playable game, then they should fail to earn good money from it.

I'm perfectly happy with "proportional recompense" though. Eg. if the game was crap for you then you could pay only $5, say. That would recompense the developers a little for having delivered an experience at least, even if that experience was crap.

And before you say "But people won't pay after the event", let me refer you to a well-received gem of wisdom that appeared in a recent Slashdot article: "Make your product for your fans, not for the downloaders who are not fans". Fans will pay, because they want to support the product, even to the extent of buying silly merchanidise and multiple copies. That's what makes them fans.

Less Supply (4, Insightful)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604015)

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 who only were only tapped 10,000 times for the single.
Maybe it's just me, but this doesn't seem all that surprising. I mean, iTunes has millions(?) of songs. People aren't going to download Motley Crew unless they like them/know about them/whatever. Rock Band has maybe a hundred (don't know, I haven't been on the store), and people want more songs to keep the game fresh, so they are going to buy it.

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.

Re:Less Supply (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604349)

OC Remix [ormgas.com] called. They want the nineties (and late eighties) back, and/or are stuck in them ;)

I agree with your point: video games is not the future of music distribution. I'm convinced it's not the future source of popular songs, either. However, it will remain a source of high-quality music; take for instance warcraft 3, or the ripoff-ees of Press Play on Tape. Or, going open source, listen to some music from Wesnoth, Nexuiz, Vegastrike or Sauerbraten.

Why not? (-1, Flamebait)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604029)

Motley Crue are a fairly old-fashioned band. While not being something you'd listen to, it's very suitable for a game. Consider GTA: Vice City's soundtrack, filled with extremely gay 80s tracks. Very few people with any self respect will listen to that kind of crap, but within the context of the game, it fits perfectly. A Flock of Seagulls, a fast car, 4 stars of cops coming after you ... perfect. Actually listeing to it? Not so.

Re:Why not? (4, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604157)

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.

Re:Why not? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604461)

This site is the stomping ground of old fuck men like you.

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604837)

The 80's were like sex with poop, the fact that lots of people are into it doesn't make it less repulsive by the non-poop-lovers.

The 80's called... (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605909)

They wanted me to tell you that the NEW Motley Crue single is not 80's music. Something about how it's 2008 now, and the 80's doesn't want anything to do with that crap.

Re:Why not? (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 5 years ago | (#23606793)

Sorry, but it's just not acceptable. Hair bands were artificial pop music, and one of the underlying reasons that music has forever taken such a nosedive.

Re:Why not? (4, Funny)

aftk2 (556992) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604331)

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.

Re:Why not? (2, Funny)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604751)

Your post just reminded me of my all time favorite t-shirt slogan from the Onion:

"Your favorite band sucks."

-Rick

Re:Why not? (1)

Goatie (728045) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605199)

How can music have a sexual preference? Are you trying to suggest that perhaps the MAFIAA are being sexist or homophobic with their lawsuits!?!

Better than the singer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604063)

Lets face it, Danzig is not a great singer or anything, but how many people can do a decent Mother? Vince Neil on the other hand, you have a pretty good chance.

Re:Better than the singer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604589)

I've done many decent mothers in my day.

Wannabes (5, Funny)

ospirata (565063) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604075)

This means that no one wants to listen to a poser, but everybody would like to be one.

Re:Wannabes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604119)

Hit the nail on the head with that one.

As much money and time people put into this rock band game, they could have bought actual instruments(cheap ones obviously, but still) and actually formed a rock band...

Re:Wannabes (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604413)

Hey, you know that popular thing you like? It sucks.

Re:Wannabes (1)

Trespass (225077) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604921)

Hey, you know that popular thing you like? It sucks.
Especially if it's an elaboration of 'Simon' with a daffy soundtrack.

Re:Wannabes (0, Redundant)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604325)

Mod Parent Funny.

WTF is up with these moderators? Anything that might be considered humor gets dropped to troll nearly instantly.

Geez.

In other words... (1)

Len (89493) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604151)

It's more fun to rock out with your friends than to listen to a Motley Crue song. Nothing surprising about that, is there?

Re:In other words... (1)

John Napkintosh (140126) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604185)

Couple that with the fact that some players are absolutely rabid about having every last downloadable song that's available.

You...are... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23604173)

FAAAAAAGS!

Different game, I know, but it still fits. :)

New Business Model? (0, Troll)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604223)

A new and promising business model? Someone better alert the RIAA, this must become illegal, stat.

Bitchin' Camaro! Bitchin' Camaro! (1)

confusedneutrino (732640) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604441)

Don't forget your Motley Crue t-shirt. All proceeds go to get their lead singer out of jail.

Re:Bitchin' Camaro! Bitchin' Camaro! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23606225)

My favorite cover band, Crystal Shit. They do a Doors show, and it goes something like this.

I remember hearing radio ads for Crystal Ship playing at Hammerjack's in Baltimore back in the 80s.

It's not just a song (4, Insightful)

skis (920891) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604613)

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.

Re:It's not just a song (1)

Monkey (16966) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605147)

Also, one product you can undoubtedly pirate as an MP3 from multiple sources for free, while the other I'm pretty sure requires a purchase through Xbox Live! Marketplace.

itunes? crew? (0, Flamebait)

ihatethetv (935399) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604623)

Most real Motley Crew fans aren't on iTunes. They're buying their CDs at walmart. The rockband purchasers are just being ironical. -G

This is awesome news. (4, Interesting)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604697)

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.

Re:This is awesome news. (1)

Osurak (1013927) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604815)

Yes, but why do that when they could charge $20 in the store AND $10 for the album download?

Re:This is awesome news. (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605041)

Because there's lots of people who won't spend $20 for the music, when all they really want is maybe one or two songs that they could just download.

I'm a perfect example of that (Woohoo, anecdotal evidence!). The Cars just had an entire album released for RockBand. I'd say I like The Cars, there's a few songs on that album that are immediately recognizable to me. The rest of them, not so much. But bought the whole album on RockBand because I really enjoy Rock Band and I like having more songs for it. I paid $15 for it, but the only reason they got a whole album sale from me was because of Rock Band. I still have no desire to buy the CD, if they're lucky I might get one song stuck in my head enough that I'd buy that track off of iTunes. But if they had offered me the CD and the album on RockBand for $20, I probably would've jumped on that. I think of it almost as a bulk discount.

You can look at that as them selling the CD to me for only $5 instead of $15, but that's $5 that they aren't going to get from me otherwise. They're not losing $10 on the deal, they're getting a little extra, at basically no cost to them.

What does it all mean? (1)

foxtrot (14140) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604965)

Apparently more people want to be MÃtley Crüe than want to listen to them.

Re:What does it all mean? (1)

foxtrot (14140) | more than 5 years ago | (#23604977)

What else does this mean? I need to pay more attention to the preview. Damn, I suck.

That's because.. (1, Flamebait)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#23605717)

Motley crue is terrible. I think I heard that song on Sirius, and it's just laughable crap. That kind of music wasn't even that good in the 80's, not it just sounds like someone's goofing on them by writing a "world's most crapulific song" parody of what a Motley crue song might sound like now.

So nobody wants to listen to the music. But people who play to a game like that don't care if the music is horribly terrible, so they downloaded it.

New rule: If your song gets downloaded more as part of a music game than by people wanting to listen to the song, your song sucks.

Did I mention the song is just horrible?

Re:That's because.. (5, Funny)

Kredal (566494) | more than 5 years ago | (#23606409)

Wait wait wait... this coming from someone named after the guy who did "I'm Too Sexy?" My irony sensors are overloading.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...