| MontanaHatchet said: Well... I mean, you already have Guitar Hero III, and if you add the cost of Rock Band, you've spent more than the cost of the Wii to buy 2 games that are incredibly similar. I'm sure we all want something (heck, I'd like a solid gold mansion in Finland), but would you really buy it? |
If they had guitar compatibility, all I would need is the game and the drums. And what's wrong with buying incredibly similar games? You get a whole new song list and the ability to play the drums or rock out with 3 players (I don't care about the mic). But if I want that now, I have to buy not just the $170 game, but also an extra guitar controller. And let's not forget that I find the GH3 Les Paul to be vastly superior to the RB Fender.
The news about DLC on the Wii version of GH3 has been posted repeatedly, and 2 minutes of googling could have found you this: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12/10/wii_guitar_hero_3_getting_dlc_fixed_sound/1
Do you guys really think that Nintendo is working closely with Activision and giving EA the finger when it comes to DLC and online play? That doesn't make sense to me.
@Onyxmeth:
1) Activision and EA are both to blame for not being able to pull their heads out of their asses and come to an agreement that allows guitar compatibility. The guitars are compatible on the Xbox 360, but not on the PS3 and likely not on the Wii. There is no issue as far as the interface is concerned; the GH3 guitar acts like a classic controller plugged into the Wii Remote (check out GlovePIE sometime), so it's easy as pie to make the software support it.
2) Gamers are not interested in excuses. We are interested in awesome games. Make your game awesome and I will buy it, it's that simple. Quite honestly, these excuses are weak. The reason they chose not to implement DLC and online play is because they decided it wasn't worth spending the development resources on the game.
@ameratsu:
I understand the point you're making. I really do, and from a purely numbers-oriented, cost-of-development-vs-sales-revenue standpoint, you might be right. The problem is that this viewpoint is shortsighted. When you publish a game, you are generating more than just revenue for your company. You're releasing a product with name recognition. You're establishing a reputation for yourself. EA has proven time and time again that they don't give a rat's ass about the reputation of their products, they care only about numbers. Word of mouth is a powerful marketing tool. Publishers who ignore it can still turn a profit by counting their beans carefully, but they're missing out on future opportunities that won't be realized.
