#1 Posted by Kibblez (702 posts) -

I pontificated. On the train. Today!

Prior to typing this, I had a PROPER post detailing my thoughts, until I closed the window on accident thinking it was a page about crumpets. I'm not kidding. It was "mad bootsy". So, to save time (and hopefully prevent my anger-enducing antics from happening further), I'm going to type this slow and simple.*

ROCK BAND FACTS:
-Came out in NA last November; came with 50-60 songs; supported by some slightly defective/weak instruments
-Later released in Europe (6 months later of HURT), was over-priced and sold separately from software (a notion of DESPAIR)
-Credited for megaton DLC; minor complaints of covers being produced instead of masters, made EA loadsa green

ROCK BAND 2 FACTS:
Comes with all master tracks (80-something of them), more robust instruments
Competing with Guitar Hero: World Tour with similar and arguably more features than RB2

Now I understand EA makes more money by shoveling the instruments with the game for both iterations, but I don't feel alone when saying that, as a European consumer, having just purchased Rock Band a couple months ago, the fact that I would have to pocket out more money for improved instruments and a greater bunch of songs to play... well excuse my French, but I'm a tickled beaver. Don't get me wrong, of course paying for better quality goods is a grand thing, especially in the case of new songs, but really, I dunno, would it have made a substantial difference to EA's sales last year as opposed to what they will probably be this year? I know they are competing with Guitar Hero: World Tour this time round, and from a business standpoint, I'm sure EA were lapping up the idea last year of rushing the game out to people in time for Christmas and Thanksgiving last year.  I also doubt Guitar Hero III's presence would not have swayed any greater decline to Rock Band's sales performance if it were to have been delayed till Q4 '08, seeing as how everyone I know - from both sides of the pond - bought both games at some point anyways.

Just think what EA could have boasted with RB1's setlist and DLC combined with RB2's - over 200 songs to play, as well as more DLC down the road. Or, maybe the more ideal thing to do would have been to compile the first "Rock Band" game as a disc with the best songs from both games and its DLC, including the new refined instruments as well. That approach may or may not have made them more money, I know, but as a consumer, I feel the business stance doesn't always seem like the best logical step to adhere to, so I tend to ignore that logic sometimes. I don't feel as if I should just accept the way things are and passively waste away money on superficial plastic instruments.

This may just be the feeling of a UK consumer, but does anyone else agree?

*Damn, I went off on a tangent again...