The Future of Rhythm Games
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Or maybe release the game without songs and make it CON friendly. That way you’ll avoid critics’ remarks on the game’s built in setlist. Base career mode on the downloaded library if any, and…maybe avoid some lawsuits by doing this?
I don’t mean to insult, but we’ve already been past this point. I really don’t plan on releasing actually songs with the game, at least not audio and album art. Maybe a couple charts at the most. So, there really wouldn’t be a setlist to critique. While I said that some consumers may not like the idea of a game not technically having any songs shipped with it, I think it’s the only way rhythm games will succeed. It’s what killed Guitar Hero, and Rock Band won’t be far behind if they don’t constantly keep innovating and giving people reasons to buy new games. This is why I REALLY want to pitch this to Harmonix. It is rumored that the new Xbox console will not have backwards compatibility. If this is true, Rock Band will literally die next generation because no one will want to re-purchase songs they’ve already paid for. Or, at the very least, Rock Band won’t be ported to the new Xbox, another potentially deadly move.
Regardless, there are really only a couple of legal issues associated with making this game:
1. Is sharing MIDs copyright infringement?
2. Are licenses needed to sell something that plays someone’s music back to them? The game doesn’t have any audio or album art directly in the code, and whatever users supply isn’t shared. The only issue would be if the audio would be “representing the game without permission from the copyright holder”.
3. Patents.
As Nemo and Nyxyxylyth pointed out, patents will most likely end up being the biggest hurdle, assuming a company won’t pick the game up.
Regardless, there are really only a couple of legal issues associated with making this game:1. Is sharing MIDs copyright infringement?
Strictly speaking? Yes.
2. Are licenses needed to sell something that plays someone’s music back to them? The game doesn’t have any audio or album art directly in the code, and whatever users supply isn’t shared. The only issue would be if the audio would be “representing the game without permission from the copyright holder”.Likely not — see Audiosurf or Harmonix’s own Phase.
Regardless, there are really only a couple of legal issues associated with making this game:1. Is sharing MIDs copyright infringement?
Strictly speaking? Yes.
Pro Keys and lyrics are particularly problematic.
All we need is a link between the game and an external server for score posting/tracking. If we had that, we could easily code a RPG using a tablet or computer as a companion. I almost went ahead and coded the structure before customs swallowed my free time.
I think it depends on what exactly is in the MID. Lyrics are indeed copyrighted. However, whether or not the other instrument parts inside the MID are copyrighted would depend on the definition of “representation”. How closely do the dumbed-down notes of a Rock Band song have to be in order for them to be in the same category as sheet music? Pro Keys and Pro Guitar are very close to actual representations of the music, while something like regular guitar is not. Where’s the cutoff?
That thread is mostly debating whether or not Rock Band 3 was successful and whether or not they should make RB4. The only interesting point I picked from it was that Harmonix gets a good deal of profit from DLC, something that would obviously decrease with a game such as this. Another reason I think Harmonix would turn down a pitch for this.
obviously you didn’t see that each word was a link?
anyways, I wish you good luck with it. i just fear it will never come to fruition. prove me wrong, and i’ll be a happy camper.
obviously you didn’t see that each word was a link?anyways, I wish you good luck with it. i just fear it will never come to fruition. prove me wrong, and i’ll be a happy camper.
We’ll see how things go. First hurdle will be seeing if I could assemble a willing team in college. If they all seem interested, the next step would be looking into license costs (and copyright laws if nobody’s had the class yet). Then finally making the game, which will involve a lot of ground-up programming.
If one of those hurdles proves impassable, I will pitch the idea to Harmonix. For the time being, we should continue debating features, so that the pitch would be a lot more attractive and perhaps influence a future game, even if custom song support isn’t in it.
So, I’m reading your pitch, and it essentially sounds like this:
Take Rock Band 3.
Add a dose of Guitar Hero (Bullet Points #1, #8, #9, arguably #2).
Integrate PS4 social features (Bullet Points #3, #4).
Add features that would overcome engine/hardware limitations from Gen 7 (Bullet Points #6, #7).
Added a minor aesthetic preference (Bullet Points #10).
Remove the revenue stream, increase risk, and introduce compatibility issues (Bullet Point #5).
Integrate project management software to support Bullet Point #5 (paragraphs that follow).
Self-publish or sell it to Harmonix as the next great thing in rhythm gaming.
It sounds like it’s iterating on an existing thing with logical upgrades (#3, #4, #6, #7), personal taste/preference upgrades (#1, #2, #8, #9; note that #1 and #2 are available via existing custom channels, and Harmonix has — by choice — opted to not include #1 and #9), a total fluff upgrade (#10 — rating values are numeric anyway, so you can class songs in whatever difficulty order you want — just split each tier down the middle and you’ve got a ten star rating system, with a low 0 being a 0 and a high 0 being a 1), and implementing the customs scene and excluding a revenue stream (#5) — and let me start by saying that I’m not at all optimistic about any attempt to automate custom generation or self-regulate via the user community, given how garbage most RB2/RB3 customs are.
I mean, not that I want to [expletive] on your parade, and I hate being “that guy”, but I just don’t see this flying as presented. It’s fine if you want to make a neat fan-style RB3 with improvements — I think, at that point, you’d be better expanding the offerings of an existing capable freeware project like Phase Shift and using it as a bullet point on your resume for future ventures than trying to set it up as a commercial release, especially since we’re losing some if not all (hardware) compatibility from the sounds of it with the next gen jump.
I think your best bet would be to implement the peripheral-driven gameplay style into another genre altogether if you can’t iterate on the existing band game formula in a dramatic way. I just don’t see it being a smashing success — I know I wouldn’t jump in to play it given my tastes and what I already have as an outlet here. I mean I waited for you to address some of the criticisms and concerns I fully expected would be raised in a tangible capacity and that hasn’t happened yet in this thread.
I mean I waited for you to address some of the criticisms and concerns I fully expected would be raised in a tangible capacity and that hasn’t happened yet in this thread.And those would be?
I mean I waited for you to address some of the criticisms and concerns I fully expected would be raised in a tangible capacity and that hasn’t happened yet in this thread.And those would be?
… really?
Licencing and patents, beyond the mere scope of “I’m taking a class on copyright law so I will have it figured out by the time I’m done”, much like someone taking a first year psychology class can make expert diagnoses of their friends’ neuroses. It’s being hand-waved away as a concern that will no doubt be addressed in the future, except given your design plan and presentation it’s a key element and one that I assume should/would have been looked into (and not a seeming surprise to you) before you even go into the design/proposal phase.
Hardware support issues. The generation gap is huge on that, and if you’re looking at adding additional inputs and designing new drum sets, you’re facing issues with needing to produce and sell a set of game-unique/specific hardware — unless, of course, you’re leaning on people purchasing not at all inexpensive e-drum kits and giving their configuration customization, which does great things for your demographic. I don’t see any tangible discussion of your plans for hardware and expectations with respect to consumers and retailers, but that should be part of a viability discussion (and not a feature set poll discussion), though I’d argue that should have been done already.
Not quite getting all of the points in the article MFX linked (which I personally feel incorrectly identifies some of the causes of instrument-driven rhythm games declining, but that’s another debate), beyond trying to add increased “customization” or play elements, which is just adding another layer of complexity to the song creation/play process (nevermind the fact that the article to which you’re proposing this as a solution talks about increasing complexity of existing systems not appealing to the demographic at this point in time). There’s a seeming obliviousness to genre realities going into the pitch of the next put-all-of-the-things-into-one version of the plastic instrument band rhythm game — maybe my expectations were/are too high.
There’s no mention of how a project like this would be financially viable or sustainable, with the intent to essentially make the engine while the community makes the content. Furthermore, there’s no guarantee that quality will be available, since you have no intention of producing content (because licencing) and you’re not going to have any sort of automated generation from what I’ve been reading here. This means your content creation is going to be all on the community, and given how RB3 customs have gone (and how RBN was early on, with the exception of a few authoring stables that put out good-to-great content), that’s not exactly super inspiring. I mean, we could look at FoF/FoFix/Phase Shift and use that as our expectation for quality and content volume. Perhaps most important to consider: What would compel me to abandon my existing song/content library for a marginal feature set improvement and a tangible investment in software and hardware (console and possibly peripherals)?
Then, of course, there is the core issue of how this is more or less just RB3++, for next gen consoles, which you’re going to work on rebuilding from the ground up and then attempt to sell to a company that essentially “created” the genre’s cult of personality in the West, owns or licenced most or all of the patents you’d need to deal with, had a much larger pool of resources to develop, market, and sell several iterations with legitimately licenced content, and felt that another iteration wasn’t a financially viable gameplan (at least in the current gen). I mean, that issue has been hinted at by a lot of the discourse, but I went ahead and spelled it out with my previous post in this thread.
Again, I hate being “that guy”, but there’s a lot of things that I think you need to consider for a project like this, and I feel they’re being glossed over in favour of more wishlisting — and as mentioned, there are plenty of awesome featureset wishlists rolling around already.
I’m not at the stage in the game to look into patents. My philosophy is to design the game, then fund it and add/cut depending on funding. Too many developers are pushing out mediocre games because they raise money, then think of an idea to spend it on. Perhaps that’s how most people go about things, I find it better to have a good theory, then market it. Considering patents are indeed expensive, this game will NEED good theories if it is ever going to spark any interest and any third party funding, or in the case I do take it to Harmonix, a reason to risk revenue of DLC for revenue from disc sales.
Speaking of interest, I am somewhat confused as to why you think adding custom songs is a bad marketing idea. The only flaw I see with it is the obvious decline in revenue from DLC sales. Technically, there will be DLC in the form of licensed stems, I just wouldn’t expect them to sell as well as conventional songs. Your point of argument is that people will post low quality songs, therefore we shouldn’t have any custom songs at all. I find this to be heavily biased in favor of those of us who have been charting for awhile.
The CCC only releases well-playtested, high quality songs. The quality standards of the songs you release are entirely up to you, seeing as they are a representation of your work. Other people, however, may have no problem representing themselves with lower quality songs. It’s like the hotel rating system. There are 5 star hotels, and there are 2 star hotels. While everybody undoubtably agrees that the 5 star (CCC) is better, but sometimes a 2 star will do. For example, there may not be a 5 star in a certain area that someone is staying, so they resort to a two star. If there was nothing but 5 star hotels, the person would be without shelter. In custom song terms, the CCC indeed releases the highest quality custom songs, but this is only one group. Just like Harmonix’s weekly releases, you can’t please everyone every week.
My goal is to make custom songs as community-accessible as possible. From what you’re saying, we shouldn’t do this because people will release some low quality songs. Everyone sucks when they start out, but they become better at charting over time, then they create higher quality songs and update the older ones. If the custom song process remains as daunting as it is now, these people would never even get into the scene. Your opinion of “nothing but the best” seems rather biased towards the professionals, and that you want a monopoly on custom songs, so to speak.
So please, explain to me why we should refuse beginners simply because they are beginners? The argument may be that people enter the scene but don’t persevere. That’s not because of the difficulty of starting, it’s because of all the extra steps that we have to do that make the process tedious. My goal has been to incorporate the custom song process directly into the game,eliminating many of the unnecessary steps we have to go through. It’s making the process SIMPLER, and we can all agree that things could indeed be easier. Can you seriously say that being able to test songs WHILE you’re charting them would not be convenient?
So please, explain to me why we should refuse beginners simply because they are beginners? The argument may be that people enter the scene but don’t persevere. That’s not because of the difficulty of starting, it’s because of all the extra steps that we have to do that make the process tedious. My goal has been to incorporate the custom song process directly into the game,eliminating many of the unnecessary steps we have to go through. It’s making the process SIMPLER, and we can all agree that things could indeed be easier. Can you seriously say that being able to test songs WHILE you’re charting them would not be convenient?
I don’t think he said that the issue was with beginners, I think the issue is of quality. If you have a marketplace where I can buy a song and then it turns out to be a lemon, the whole marketplace suffers.
One other issue I think you should address is: what’s your target? I mean, who are the people who will have to part with their money to buy the product? You’re designing a game that’s mainly targeted at hardcore gamers (because you need to get your own audio in the game and can’t just buy a song and play it, something 99.999% of the public won’t do) but those hardcore gamers are incidentally the same guys who, as a general rule, won’t pay for songs and prefer to author themselves or find them on forums and torrents.
There is no “paying” for charts, only stems, should we license them from artists. The charts are shared without cost. If we use programs similar to RB3Maker, it will line up the audio if you download a chart. That means all the person has to do is move the audio file onto the console (using a supplied program), then match it with whatever chart they downloaded.
I’m not at the stage in the game to look into patents. My philosophy is to design the game, then fund it and add/cut depending on funding. Too many developers are pushing out mediocre games because they raise money, then think of an idea to spend it on. Perhaps that’s how most people go about things, I find it better to have a good theory, then market it. Considering patents are indeed expensive, this game will NEED good theories if it is ever going to spark any interest and any third party funding, or in the case I do take it to Harmonix, a reason to risk revenue of DLC for revenue from disc sales.That’s fine if it’s your philosophy — I just think that, given the fact that this is functionally an iteration of an existing product implementing kind of obvious Gen 8 features, you need to be giving much stronger consideration to the business side of this project, even this early into the project. Again, I don’t want to be “that guy”, but I think if you’re serious about this (as you appear to be) you really need to give a lot of thought to the business end of things, particularly before you recruit a stable of programmers and do the work.
Actually, looking at it I think this whole thing isn’t console-viable anyway, since I fully expect the next gen of consoles to be even more closed-system than the existing ones, and I’d wager Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo aren’t going to allow for distribute of copyrighted, unlicenced content through their networks, so this should probably be a PC thing.
Speaking of interest, I am somewhat confused as to why you think adding custom songs is a bad marketing idea. The only flaw I see with it is the obvious decline in revenue from DLC sales.Yes, that’s pretty much it. It’s a major flaw in sustainability, unless you feel that RB3++ could generate enough on box sales to be grossly profitable. Personally speaking, I don’t see it as viable in the current climate (especially for a peripheral-driven game), though, perhaps given the existing rhythm game climate and the typical GH/RB consumer, people will prefer a system where they do not need to purchase songs (again).
Your point of argument is that people will post low quality songs, therefore we shouldn’t have any custom songs at all. I find this to be heavily biased in favor of those of us who have been charting for awhile.My argument is that you’re selling an engine designed to play community-created content and only community-created content. If I had purchased Super Smash Brothers, or Little Big Planet, and only had access to user-created levels, I would have been disappointed and probably rated them poorly, given that I would have had to wade through mountains of crap to find the good stuff.
Frankly, and with all due respect to the guys and gals who put out single-instrument, single-difficulty, non-tempo-mapped, GH3-hard charts, this is exactly what the RB3 customs community is like, and I’d wager much of your consumer base is going to be members of this community, so excuse me for my case of educated pessimism. Actually, it’s also what much of the GHTunes output was like as well. I actually assumed (perhaps incorrectly) these were your targeted demographic, since I’d wager that the average family of four is not going to have much (if any) interest in trying to decipher and chart six-input bass or double bass metal tracks from an overblown MP3.
The CCC only releases well-playtested, high quality songs. The quality standards of the songs you release are entirely up to you, seeing as they are a representation of your work. Other people, however, may have no problem representing themselves with lower quality songs. It’s like the hotel rating system. There are 5 star hotels, and there are 2 star hotels. While everybody undoubtably agrees that the 5 star (CCC) is better, but sometimes a 2 star will do. For example, there may not be a 5 star in a certain area that someone is staying, so they resort to a two star. If there was nothing but 5 star hotels, the person would be without shelter. In custom song terms, the CCC indeed releases the highest quality custom songs, but this is only one group. Just like Harmonix’s weekly releases, you can’t please everyone every week.See, while I can appreciate this analogy, it raises another concern. How are we sure we’re going to be getting a stay in a two-star hotel or a five-star hotel? I suppose you could set up a ratings portal based on hashes or something, but then you’re going to have to account for updates/revisions, or multiple versions of the same song, and even then you’re still dependent on outside hosting for distribution of the unlicenced content (you sure as hell can’t be offering links to charts — in whatever format you create them — and audio).
Your best bet is to hope for a user-developed portal that you do not associate with, for risk mitigation reasons, which offers to host/rate/distribute the content. You then need to hope it doesn’t get inundated with chaff so that the signal to noise ratio doesn’t blow, as has frankly been the case with current content (see: previous section) so that there is enough high quality content to get users interested in the customs scene.
Some people are fine with a greasy hamburger, sure, but if you want people to pay for your engine and peripherals, you’d best be hoping there’s a hell of a lot of free steak to go around.
My goal is to make custom songs as community-accessible as possible. From what you’re saying, we shouldn’t do this because people will release some low quality songs. Everyone sucks when they start out, but they become better at charting over time, then they create higher quality songs and update the older ones. If the custom song process remains as daunting as it is now, these people would never even get into the scene.Everything you’ve proposed indicates that the process would remain “as daunting as it is now”, because you’ve yet to elaborate on how authoring would be done (understandable, since we’re not that far into the development/design). To me, it sounds a lot like RB3 charting, except with more band/venue considerations (assuming you want customization) owing to additional band members, a new drum charting schema (including expert+), additional requirements for plastic guitar/bass, and the addition of a third instrument chart. So, yes, it certainly sounds — to me, and based on what you’ve presented — even more daunting than the existing process.
And in this ostensibly less complicated system, people do not want to read a reference document, and want us to hold their hands through the entire process. Even pre-C3, I don’t know how many ScoreHero threads started out with “I want to learn how to chart a custom” and quickly turned into “Please take my song and walk me through making a custom of it with videos because reading is hard and once you make it I will know what to do next time”.
Pessimism alert: if customs authors for the current game do not want to take the time to learn the simplest charting basics, nevermind necessary components (tempo mapping, reductions) or more involved ones (custom venues/vocals/pro keys), I’m not optimistic that they’ll be able to put out quality charts adding additional components and additional instruments.
When the only content is user-created, you’re running a big risk trying to go commerical.
Your opinion of “nothing but the best” seems rather biased towards the professionals, and that you want a monopoly on custom songs, so to speak.Are you secretly atalkingfish?
So please, explain to me why we should refuse beginners simply because they are beginners? The argument may be that people enter the scene but don’t persevere. That’s not because of the difficulty of starting, it’s because of all the extra steps that we have to do that make the process tedious. My goal has been to incorporate the custom song process directly into the game,eliminating many of the unnecessary steps we have to go through. It’s making the process SIMPLER, and we can all agree that things could indeed be easier. Can you seriously say that being able to test songs WHILE you’re charting them would not be convenient?I’m sorry, were we talking about getting people into authoring (for any title), or the commercial/critical viability of your new hotness next evolution of the band-based plastic instrument rhythm game?
Obviously I’m fine with having “beginners” and trying to educate them, or I wouldn’t be involved in a project like this (and the other authors feel the same way, or they wouldn’t be authoring tutorials). I get that you want to implement the process itself into the game, which is a fantastic idea, but I’m not 100% sold that this makes it any “simpler”. That’s also not what I’m taking issue with.
You’re looking to sell a product, either to consumers or an existing developer, that has no extended revenue stream and whose box sale momentum is going to depend ENTIRELY on user-created content, and if that’s the case, the content has to be there. That’s the issue, especially if you’re trying to pitch a retail console title. If you’re going PC-only, which you may have to, you can go cheap and drive for bulk-sales, and you can use existing peripherals since yay open system. Of course, then you’re “competing” with FoF/PS, both for likely consumers and likely authors.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.