Talk:List of songs in Rock Band/Archive 2

Ordered Listing?
I don't know if rock band does the track listings (in order of difficulty) that Guitar Hero does, but if it does have some sort of order, maybe the tracks should be rearranged for the play lists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.147.70 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does have that, however it varies by what instrument you are playing(example drums has a different order than main guitar). So setting it up like that would be kind of pointless. Tabor (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless we want to do a sortable table with the difficulty group for each instrument. Though that might venture into WP:GUIDE territory. Oren0 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

there is a caertain order when all 4 instruments are playing we could sort it that way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.192.164 (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we did want to put it in an order like that, doing it in that order (all 4 instruments) would be the best way to go IMO. Tabor (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would be nice to add the tier of difficulty that songs appear at−e.g. Warmup, Blistering, Impossible (though in table format, the number of the tier [1-9] would be used instead). Specifically, I think it would be nice to add this for the downloadable content section, since difficulty isn't shown until after you download it. This would be a useful reference for say, a person that wanted to download a song with a tough drum part. Tier difficulties for individual instruments, or their overall ranking when playing as a band, are easily found by checking songs in the quickplay song list. Sortable tables could also be thrown in to organize songs by difficulty. What does everyone else think about this idea? Personally, I think this is important information and isn't too gameguidey, but there may be those that disagree.--SeizureDog (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, should we thow in what songs' playtimes are?--SeizureDog (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * SeizureDog, I have moved your comments here as this section already has a discussion on that. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed that.--SeizureDog (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The only problem is, how would you organize it? A song that's an impossible drum song may be a warmup song for guitar or vocals, and it could also be in a different tier for the full band? Nvm, just noticed someone else said the same thing above. ENSSB (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They have a fixed order where they sort the songs by decade (as you can see in the site). Can't we use that?201.9.136.166 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are sample tables elsewhere in discussion that show how a song can have four different Tier columns (one for each instrument). I haven't looked too closely at the Bass tier to know if it differs from the Guitar tier.  I agree with SeizureDog that it would be incredibly helpful in the DLC section, since this is information not readily available elsewhere.  Harmonix doesn't include it in annoucements and there's no one stop tier list on the web I could dig up.  The only way I've found out is by asking on other sites or catching it when somebody puts a video up online.  The only drawback is that not everybody downloads every song...so it may not always be totally up to date (I for example only have 12 DLC songs).  This could cause problems with verifying the tiering.  The column isn't really needed for the On-Disc tracks, since that's information anybody who owns the game has access to. TRTX (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Three Exclusive Rock Band Tracks in Official Xbox Magazine
There are three exclusive Rock Band songs in the February 2008 issue of OXM, more details here. This seems like the article to add them to but I'm not sure if this would qualify as downloadable content tracks or if it should get it's own separate section. So I'll leave it up to someone else to add them here, just pointing it out. SeanMooney (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming these songs are copied from the CD to the 360's HD, is that correct? Chaz Beckett 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i've got a few questions about the new songs that have been added to the list
 * 1) is it correct to call this downloadable content? I guess you are 'downloading' the songs from the mag's dvd but should we seperate this from the other 'downloadable' songs?
 * 2) is it really 'free'? Should it be changed to 'Free with purchase of OXM'? harlock_jds (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. While it's not downloadable content, it still belongs on the page, probably in its own section.
 * 2. No, it's not free. I'd support 'Free with purchase of OXM'. Oren0 (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the OXM disc copies the songs to your hard drive - and they are then are found with the rest of the DLC. --Magus05 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling these "other" songs doesn't exactly fit, since they're considered DLC by the game. (they go in the same setlist as the other DLC and have the same marker to indicate that they are DLC) They should be included in the DLC section.  It's not a genre pack, or an artist pack, so a new pack "Category" would be required (I'd suggest simply "Other Packs").  The name is "Harmonix Track Pack 01" and the three songs are displayed as they are in other pack listings.  The price would instead be "Free with February issue of OXM" or something of that nature.  This category of packs could be reserved for future DLC of this nature.  And the set would be noted as "Not available as indivdual tracks."  I'll put together a sample table and include that here later as a sample. TRTX (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Metallica album
The article has been saying that there will be an "unnamed" Metallica album, but none of the references back this up. The current reference simply states that "a 'substantial' number of songs from Metallica's catalog are slated to appear in the game." The news references are saying two seperate things: 1) That there will be album downloads, and 2) That there were be Metallica songs. Nowhere do they say that there will be Metallica album downloads. I'm removing this information again until someone can provide a real reference.--SeizureDog (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I made a note about removing "One" above and it was ignored. Oren0 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing about "One" though, is that we have a source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taborlechner (talk • contribs) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. The source is old and weak.  The way that sentence is written, it could easily be mistakenly making a reference to one of the other Metallica songs in RB, even those from the same album.  If "One" was accurate and was supposed to be public knowledge, don't you think we would've heard something else since that really old RS article?  We can put it pack when/if there's a newer source. Oren0 (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So then we should remove all sources in every article on Wikipedia going by your reasoning? And have you even read the source? Let me go ahead and put it here for you: "Contrary to reports they were returning to their lawsuit-happy, Napster-killing ways, Metallica are not suing the video games “Guitar Hero 3” and “Rock Band” for featuring their …And Justice For All song “One.” A spokesperson for the band tells us that the band has licensed the song to the game makers and look forward to it appearing in both titles."  If you can read that, and honestly thing they are talking about others songs, please tell me where you are getting that context from. Tabor (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a matter of likelihood. Remember that there was already a Metallica pack, and One wasn't in it.  The source is quite old as well, and plans change.  I could show you sources from around that time that say "Welcome to the Jungle" will be in RB, but as we know that got axed.  I don't think this source is enough to include One on this page. Oren0 (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the difference between One and Welcome to the Jungle is that I believe there are references to Jungle having been in early the game and being removed (or that it was just a early test song and never actually licensed for inclusion in the game) but nothing has come out about One no longer coming out or being removed from the game. Since we have a cite that says the song will come out for rock band and nothing has come out saying it will not be in the game we should keep it in the list (just like the album downloads)harlock_jds (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Rock Band official forum has a Stick with Metallica's One listed but the Metallica album has become "new single." http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3655  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.72.41 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That forum is enough to convince me to re-add One. I'll do it right now. Oren0 (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't belive that is solid enough. The list itself was not created by a Harmonix Developer, but by a regualr forum user, useing what information they ahd available at the time. Just because it was stickied dosen't mean it's any more or less official than another post, just that the information in it is usefukl enouhg to be kept in a place where it won't get pushed back by new posts/threads. If a post is put up by someone with Harmonix Developer under thier name then i say we can use it as a valid source, but i don't think this quite counts. DyloniusFunk (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A web forum is not a reliable source. Tabor (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that. But we already have a reliable source (Rolling Stone) that says One will be in the game.  I originally wanted the source removed because it seemed unlikely to be true since the source was old, several other Metallica songs have already been made available, and nobody outside of that passing mention in Rolling Stone had ever mentioned it.  The fact that it's in that Sticky post gives me personally more confidence that Rolling Stone was right, enough so to re-add One.  Oren0 (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But that source is "old and weak", remember? :) Tabor (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If their is proof that says Metallica's song will be in the game, just leave it. It's like when Count Zero's "Shake" was on the list, then taken off and then 1 1/2 weeks later the song was made as an exclusive with Freezepop and Bang Camaro. I understand this subject is becoming controversial, but if there is proof that the song will be made, leave it. Does it have an exact date of when it's coming out? Not that i've seen. Same goes for the albums of Nirvana and The Who. That's been up since before the game came out, and where is it now? In the same state that Metallica's new album is in. Has anyone done their homework on those 2 albums? I dont think so, by looking at those release dates. "One" has been up there at the same time the Nirvana and Who albums have, and nobody's had any news on those 2. But there's reason and proof that they will be coming out. My point is that their is some source on if or not the song or songs will come out. If there's proof on something coming out AND a spokesperson said that the song will be in the game and LOOKING FORWARD to it. Just leave it their. For all we know, it can come out when the new song from their new album comes avaliable unexpectely. Neon6419 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Harmonix Senior Designer Dan Teasdale was interviewed and responded to how Metallica will be debuting a new single through Rock Band on the same day it would be released to Radio stations/iTunes, etc. Clearly no word on what song it will be due to Metallica having to delay their album again. But this is good news. A lot of bands are going to jump ship to this idea I think. This isn't exactly new news, but I have not seen it up here at all. I thought it would be interesting to put up on the main page, as it is coming from Dan TeasdaleTubbusMaximus (talk) 15:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. The fact that an original song will be debuting on the radio and Rock Band on the same day is noteworthy in the RB main page or song page for whatever the track ends up being. TRTX (talk) 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses
I found this video on YouTube showing the "first footage" of a beta version of Rock Band, featuring "Welcome to the Jungle" as a playable track. Should we mention this somewhere? ViperSnake151 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * not here as it is not a song in rock band... i'm pretty sure it's mentioned at the main Rock Band article. harlock_jds (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Viper, I know what your talking about. I saw it to in august. It's not mentioned in the main article. It was originally supposed to be in the game but then decided not to do it. I'm not sure if it was because they didnt want to many songs that were in guitar hero 3, or they were just testing it. Dont quote me on this. I knew the reason before, but I forgot. Someone should look this up. They should release it for DLC. Neon6419 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The song will likely be released as DLC at some point in the future, but this video isn't considered proof, so it needs not be mentioned until there is some evidence that it is coming. --Magus05 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The song IS NOT in Rock Band and probably never will, since Activision now owns the rights to Slash anything. That video was a demo. Notice that the HUD is much different and the interface still looks like the Guitar Hero interface (there's even a "YOU WIN!" thing at the end similar to "YOU ROCK!". Doshindude (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * yeah i think we know that. He's asking if it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon6419 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed DLC Entries for January 2008
The following page at the official Xbox.com website, under the Marketplace "Game Downloads" umbrella, lists new and upcoming DLC for the month of January 2008. Page editing guidelines suggested this sort of thing be discussed here first and a consensus obtained before any changes are made.

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/marketplace/r/rockband/january2008tracks.htm

Week of January 22, 2008
 * Oasis Pack includes songs by Oasis including "Don't Look Back in Anger," "Live Forever," and "Wonderwall"

Week of January 29, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KampfVerein (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Progressive Pack includes "Siva" by Smashing Pumpkins, "Working Man" as made famous by Rush *, and "Ten Speed (Of God's Blood and Burial)" as made famous by Coheed and Cambria *''


 * This absolutely is good enough. I'll add it to the page. Oren0 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems that in the last few minutes that info has been removed from that page. Since it's no longer verifiable, we can't add it (even though it's almost certainly accurate). Oren0 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kotaku has a story on it with a screen cap... is this good enough for verification? Tzepish (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * http://kotaku.com/345790/rock-band-gets-oasis-new-rush-smashing-pumpkins-this-month


 * not sure... Kotaku is basicly a blog while i saw the page before it got reverted and i know the screen shot is correct i could understand why someone else would want it removed from the article. UNless another site picks up the story i say no (even if i know it was announced at one point :D)harlock_jds (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i spoke too soon. other sites are picking up the story so i think it's safe to add http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/845/845959p1.html harlock_jds (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sortable list
I think the list would be much more useful if it was sortable - especially since it is getting difficult to find a song in the XBox Live menu system - which just lists all the songs/pack in a running list by date. This will also make this list more unique and not a duplicate of information available elsewhere on the web. I propose that it look something like

Sample format
This would be a proposed format -- Trödel 17:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Second proposed table
I propose the following format. I ran into problems in trying to make it sortable though; perhaps someone else can fix that issue with it.--SeizureDog (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * a: On Xbox 360, $0.99 = 80 Microsoft Points, $1.99 = 160 Microsoft Points, etc. Songs are effectively 16⅔¢ cheaper when bought in a pack.
 * b: Difficulty Level - Key−G = Guitar (lead and bass); D = Drums; V = Vocals; O = Overall (multiplayer)

I have found that sortable lists can only have one header row for them to be properly sortable. So I removed the Difficulty row and then put the note on each one -- Trödel 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Just a note on date sorting: to keep user-displayed date prefs, you need to do something like: 2007-12-01 2007-12-01 . See List of Xbox Live Arcade Games which I had to tweak to get that to work.  The hidden span trick also works to sort other colums (eg if you want "The"-less title sorting...) --M ASEM  17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the trick - I just tried to implement it above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trödel (talk • contribs)
 * My bad, I told you the wrong CSS code. It's style="display:none", not class="hidden".  I fixed it above. --M ASEM  17:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I thought it was just my view since I have some custom CSS codes - I should have remembered though because I remember the debates condemning the us of hidden text without styles because of the problems for people with disabilities not being able to interpret the text correctly. -- Trödel 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I 100% approve. Do we want to include tiers as discussed above (it'd be four more columns) or is that too much info?  Also, I would say that the master/cover column is unnecessary since we already have bold/non-bold.  I also thing we should separate released and unreleased songs into two sections/tables.  This would be useful, especially since it's possible that some unreleased songs will never be released. Oren0 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I say we drop the "Pack price" field (since it's currently the same for all packs) to make room for the difficulty tiers (guitar/bass, drums, vocals, group).--SeizureDog (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently there will be different prices for songs, though until that happens, I can see dropping it. I can see simplifying the column to shorten it, however.  --M ASEM  23:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been different prices for songs, though the packs have all been the same price. If we're going to include length and difficulty, do we plan on tabulating the on-disc songs in this way as well? Oren0 (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree we could drop the pack price - and include it as a footnote if it differs from the standard pack price. I also support putting the difficulty level for each instrument and as a full band. I would prefer we not create separate lists. By having one list one can easily see all the songs by a certain artist, or at a certain difficulty level; thus the list would be very useful! -- Trödel 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I added the hidden field trick for band names so that "The Clash" sorts on "Clash", and so forth.
 * For pricing, I suggest that (assuming no inflation or changes in price) we create a cost code table for both singles and packs. So an "A" here would be the $1.99/550, and so forth.  --M ASEM  17:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about the number of columns we want. Now we have title, artist, release date, "price code" (which I think is confusing anyway), pack, guitar difficulty, bass difficulty, drums difficulty, vocals difficulty, and overall difficulty.  That's 10 columns.  I'm tempted to say leave pack price out entirely and just have the song price, at least until/unless a pack comes out with a cost other that $5.49.  It'd be helpful if someone could add all the columns to the table above so we can see what it'll look like. Oren0 (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i think this entire idea is overkill... just include song name, band and release date (and release format,i.e included in game, downloadable content magazine promotion). harlock_jds (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added the columns for the difficulty tier and removed pack pricing. I have a wide monitor (1440x900) but it looks acceptable on half the screen - about the view of a 800x600 resolution. -- Trödel 21:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the table is a great idea and looks great, but is there a way to have collapsable fields? Since the content of the table is under debate, could we effectively include everything, but make it so you can choose what you want to see? --Magus05 (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, with the pack title field, is there a way to make it so that when you sort it that the "n/a" tracks don't appear in between the others? I would think that the songs not in a pack should either be at the beginning or end of a list. --Magus05 (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, yes that could be done. Also, I believe bass has a different difficulty than guitar, so we'd need an extra column for that. Oren0 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, guitar and bass are lumped together in the same tiers.--SeizureDog (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are. The list is sorted depending on which instrument presses A and brings the game to the song list. If you do it with drums, you get the drums list. If you do it with a guitar controller, you get it's list. You don't choose between guitar or bass until after choosing a song from the list. --Magus05 (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. Go to Community->Leaderboards.  If you look at guitar and bass here the tiers are different.  "The Kill", for example, is in tier 1 on bass and tier 2 on guitar. Oren0 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the second proposed format - but I would remove the edited column and combine it with Master somehow. Like labeling it Source and then color coding Green-Master, Red-Cover, Blue-Edited Master(if there are any), Yellow-Edited Cover and put the words master, cover and edited in the box. Using a forced return after Master or Cover to included edited. Any other thoughts - or do we have enough consensus to start implementing :) -- Trödel 16:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

PS does anyone have a good source for difficulty level, or should I make my kids sort the list and write them down -- Trödel 16:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the song difficulty is very important. I came here to suggest the same, and found you guys already talking about implementing it. It is useful because then people could decide if a song is too difficult before purchasing it. -- SilentDeth 23 January 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be careful with the "edited" column. Similar to arguments over in the GH articles, while all the other data is readily validated, determining if a song is edited or not is slightly WP:OR-ish. While some can likely be referenced, not all can. If anything, take out that column, and add a footnote to say that the song is edited, along with a ref when it's apparent that it's the case. --M ASEM 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem - edited sounds like it could be problematic - and we could deal with edited songs that are verifiable through footnotes. -- Trödel 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the first proposed more so than I do the second. Tabor (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that these huge tables is just overkill. Sunshine748 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to revert the "Original" Setlist back to how it looked before. The new table is completely out of place comparred to the rest of the article, and considering that the rest of the article uses bold titles to indicate masters the new column is unneccesary/redundant. I'd rather the BOLD be used to indicate masters, and the tables saved for the inclusion of Tier/Genre/Decade. TRTX (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Years on songs?
Since there's been a reversion on this I'm curious what the opinions are on this. It's useful information and I don't see why it's unencyclopedic. Years are listed at List of songs in Guitar Hero III but those years are listed in the game. I'd be pro-inclusion. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm for it, though only as a extra field. I don't like seeing it directly next to the song title.--SeizureDog (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * it seems redundant to me... information about the song itself can be easily found on the article about the song. How does the year a song was recorded relate to Rock band? BTW it doesn't matter if it is in the GH3 page... it's also wrong there harlock_jds (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm for in terms. I think the best we could do is to categorize the songs by decade instead, like the official site does. Omdfg (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The game categorizes by decade as well. But it also categorizes by genre, and at some point we're getting excessive. Oren0 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that's why i think just listing the songs with links back to the individual articles on the songs is enough next thing you know people will want to know the timing of the songs and the BPM harlock_jds (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of this article then, the content that would be "needed" for a table style format would be...? I'm looking at Title, Artist/Group, Genre, Tier (G/B/V/D/Band)... does that sound right to everybody else? TRTX (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

March DLC
I'd like to edit the list myself, but can't since it's protected. The dates of tMarch's DLC need to say "tentative." Source- http://www.rockband.com/forums/showpost.php?p=293637&postcount=246 --- HMXJohnlok's post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtpepper252 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Harmonix has not officially confirmed this information. I don't have the link at the moment (it's on the official RB forums), but the jist is that a this point (a month ahead of schedule) it's still tentative. If I find the link, it's something that may be useful as a second reference. TRTX (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The early arrival of the NIN pack shows that it should be noted that the realease dates are only tentative.SgtPepper252(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Seven" edited?
Someone tagged "Seven" with an asterisk to denote that it was censored in some manner, but I just listened to the entire song as featured on their website and didn't catch a single curse word. Considering how other songs from their album are titled things such as "Cocktease" and "Fuck the Kells", I pretty certain that the song hosted is their normal version and not an edited one. Unless someone can source the difference, I've removed the note on it being censored.--SeizureDog (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The original censorship section said that the chorus was changed from "I'll fuck up your next girlfriend" to "I'll rough up your next girlfriend." The version on their website might be edited too: take a look at the lyrics of the original. Oren0 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those user-submitted lyrics were submitted well after the Rock Band launch. As far as I can tell, that could just be people mishearing/misremembering the song. At this point, only an actual audio sample is going to convince me otherwise.--SeizureDog (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Combined table
I don't know about you, but I would find it much more useful and visually appealing if all the downloadable content was combined in a single table, sorted by date of release. Here is what I propose. 70.83.101.179 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless otherwise indicated, each song in each pack is also available as a standalone download for $1.99 (160 MSP).


 * That seems really jumbled together. Tabor (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason that if we do a combined table we should keep the packs together. Why not have it sortable, all tracks together with a pack column that's either the pack or N/A?  Forget tiers and everything else.  Basically, we'd have Artist, Title, Release Date, Pack, and Price (all pack prices are the same for now, if that changes we can add a Pack Price column as well) with all columns being sortable. Oren0 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Urgh that's horrable... harlock_jds (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Price field irrelevant
All of the single song DLC in Rock Band are now at the base price of $1.99. A shame. Since the price is now consistent, I've removed the price field from tables to cut back on redundancy. Any future songs/packs that are outside of the norm can be mentioned in footnotes or in prose. Putting it in the table is really just a waste of space at this point.--SeizureDog (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually keep the pricing information on record and include a note that the 5 songs released X-Mas day have gone up in price. Since the original reports regarding DLC said tracks would vary from 0.99 to 2.99, it's important to track that Rock Band DLC prices can in fact change (and since this is the first time I can think of in which a price has gone UP, it's worth noting for that fact). It's also imporant to keep the price information visible since it makes it clear that the 3-track packs they release are cheaper than the three songs individually. TRTX (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be a footnote on the Christmas songs stating that they were released at $0.99 and the price has increased. Oren0 (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnote added to references. Used link provided by SeizureDog.  Felt the release date would be the best place, since that date was that of the original price.  Footnote could probably be rewritten with more info than just the link. TRTX (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Censored songs
Why does it say censored songs will have an asterisk following their name, yet no songs have such an asterisk? Can it be removed? Discgolfrules (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my fault. I didn't carry over the asterisks when I put it into tabled form. But seeing how there was previous debate on how OR it is to label censored songs, perhaps it should be removed anyways.--SeizureDog (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In-Game Artist/Title vs. "Official" Artist/Title
This discussion came up in the GH pages (notably "The Kaiser Chiefs" vs. "Kaiser Chiefs") and the game itself jokes: "First they were 'The Sweet', then they were 'Sweet'". So I noticed that the page on The New Pornographers lists the track as "The Electrice Version", while RB calls it "Electric Version". I probably should've checked first, but my thoughts are that since this page is for Rock Band and not The New Pornographers, it should use the information directly from the game as a primary source. What are other people's thoughts on this? TRTX (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stick with the GH approach: list as exactly in the game and if significantly different in name to be unrecognizable, a footnote can be added to address the point. But loss of "The" or the like isn't a huge difference. --M ASEM  15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)