Hopefully thiss is not posted, some details on RBwii.

http://wii.ign.com/articles/866/866425p1.html

i probably wont buy it, GH3 is good for me. It also sounds very thin compared to other versions..

it might be good for when i have parties as last get together i had we all hung around guitar hero on wii. I cant really see getting really into a band thing online i can see it be more fun with people around you.

yeah its true, and i dont have room for all the stuff

Ports are always thin when they are ported to the Wii. Developers are just retarded like that sometimes.

Sounds pretty decent and I am looking forward to it.

Definitely something to play with friends.

Decent? Are you kidding?
This sounds rediculously CASTRATED!

No DLC, no online play, just the crappy ps2 version. Whoremonix and Nintendo were F'n lazy bringing this game to the Wii. It is just a slap in the face to all Wii owners.

Well i don't believe DLC is completely out of the picture because i remember reading they weren't doing it right yet. And with the Pay To Play system coming i can see DLC happening.

Shame that this game is a lazy PS2 port. They should have put more effort into it considering that it's out later than other versions and carrys a high price tag.

GH3 sells like goldust on the Wii and Rock Band is almost better suited to the Wii being more of a party game so EA should have tried to give the Wii version more selling points. Wireless instruments would have been good, a cheaper price tag or even a PS2 port with online added would have been better than nothing. Well it's not quite nothing as it has 5 extra songs but that doesn't make up for losing downloadable content.

Still would be good for partys but if you have another console there's no point getting it on Wii. I think i'll try getting Guitar Hero instead and maybe pick up Rock Band if i ever find it selling cheap.

What does Pay To Play have to do with it? You want to pay to play online AND AGAIN to buy more songs?

At least one WiiWare game already has DLC.

Harmonix said the main problem is storage space and blasted Nintendo for not having a hard drive.

phuck it, i'll wait quietly for drum hero.

...because it's bound to happen

Pay to Play has a lot to do with it. Haven't you been following whats going on with Final Fantasy My Life As King. It has Pay to Play in it in which you buy ...wait for it.....DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT....There is nothing saying that later on updates can't be issued for this game ,or even others through the wii shop channel just the same way as you get new channels. No one must of read the article where DLC wasn't counted out yet they just didn't have a means of doing it with Wii yet.

Half the time i don't even worry about getting a game on my 360 for it's live purposes because hardly anyone isn't playing it they're too busy playing Halo 3 Call of Duty 4 Gears of War ,or Vegas 2

You've misunderstood what Pay-To-Play is. It is NOT downloadable content. And it's unrelated to WiiWare.

Pay-To-Play is for games where you have to pay to play multiplayer online. It has nothing to do with downloadable content being available. No games have been released under the Pay-To-Play service yet.

i misunderstood nothing because it was discussed on GoNintendo ,and maybe even IGN where they showed the orange pay to play logo with the screens of final fantasy my life as king's downloadable content.

This is proof of what i am talking about
http://gonintendo.com/?p=38661

This is another game that uses DLC
http://gonintendo.com/?p=38786

Skippy i think you need to do your research before you write people off so easily.

If Pay-And-Play has ended up being just the Nintendo name for LDC, then they've done a bad job explaining it which has resulted in some misinformation.

For example, from this article when it was announced at GDC there's no mention of DLC at all: http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/02/...do-to-beg.html
That would make the headline of the article itself incorrect: "Nintendo To Begin Charging Money For Some Online Gaming" because DLC is not the same as paying for online gaming.

And http://www.destructoid.com/gdc-08-ni...ce-71781.phtml
"The service will require users to subscribe per game in order to play online, though how much it will cost, whether it will be per game or a broad subscription fee, and which games will fall under its purview has yet to be revealed. "
Again, that's not the same thing as DLC.

There are many more articles like that.

And of course Nintendo isn't helping, there's no results at all if you search for it on their own website. So if they've expanded the concept of "Pay and Play" to include DLC, then that's a recent development that was not mentioned previously when discussing the Pay and Play concept. And personally I think it's a bad way to label games that have DLC available. It makes it sound like you are required to pay an additional amount when in fact DLC is an optional purchase. It'll get even more confusing if they start releasing things under the Pay and Play label that do in fact require an additional fee (like they original described it).

It was always my understanding it went like this:

Pay-to-Play: Paying an additional fee in addition to the cost of the game to be able to play it. Examples of this would be WoW, or most other MMORPG's. You literally can not play the game without having to pay, aka pay to play. xbox live could be considered this as you need it to play online with xbox games, altho the games function fine without online play.

DLC: This would be like what we have now with VC games. Its expanded to be able to purchase additional features, content, ect. for games. This would be like extra songs for rock band.

Although the above is what I thought was pretty standard, I guess you can consider DLC to be pay-to-play also as you need to pay in order to play with it, even if its a 1 time fee vs continuous. So everyone is really right, it just depends on how nintendo is going to do this.