You're In The Movies Review

By Dan Whitehead Published 9 December, 2008

Sort of.

Version tested: Xbox 360

I've done some bizarre things in pursuit of my gaming fix over the years. I kept my ZX81 RAM pack stable with a large blob of blu-tac, and spent hours working out the optimum volume for each game to avoid the dreaded "R Tape loading error" on the Spectrum. I blew dust out of SNES cartridges, and turned my moribund PlayStation upside down to help the wheezing laser read the discs. Yet I've never had to completely rearrange the furniture in my house and even change my clothes in order to almost get a game to vaguely work as it was intended. Until now.

You're In The Movies is a camera game for the 360; rather shockingly, it's the first commercial release to require use of the Live Vision peripheral since it was released two years ago. As the over-confident title makes clear, the idea is that you fanny about in front of the camera and the game then inserts your hilarious horseplay into a silly movie clip. It's a great idea, and one with immediately obvious appeal to the party-game crowd. It's just a shame that the technology isn’t up to the job.

Up to four people can play, taking it in turns to take part in camera-based mini-games. Sometimes the game will require two people to play at the same time, but it's mostly a solo affair designed to be played in a group. The motions you use to play the games are recorded, and will later be dropped into the movie in a different context. So in the game you may be hitting buttons to launch rockets at boats, but in the final film it'll look like you're a mad scientist activating some ludicrous apparatus.

As well as the minigames, you’ll also be asked to do some basic acting. The in-game director calls each player to stand in front of the TV and line up with an on-screen silhouette. Then you'll have to act shocked, scared or surprised. You may have to move in for a close-up and make kissy faces. Or maybe walk or run on the spot. After four rounds, the footage is chopped into whatever movie trailer you elected to make at the start. They're all purposefully cheesy, incorporating horror, sci-fi, action, disaster movies and "classics" - a catch-all title for various drama and romance stories.

'You're In The Movies' Screenshot 1

If Ellie were reviewing this, she'd no doubt have provided a video of herself actually playing the game. I, on the other hand, have dignity.

It's a fairly long-winded process, though, and with four players it can take up to half an hour just to get to the incredibly brief pay-off at the end. There are loads of mini-games, but since they all revolve around a small handful of similar movements, repetition soon sets in. You can also expect to spend much of the game time sitting on the sidelines - which isn't always a bad thing, since it’s often more amusing to watch people doing this sort of thing than to actually do it yourself - but with no guarantee that all the footage will be used, the effort to reward ratio is unbalanced. It's also a bit stupid that you're forced to unlock the 30 movies as you go along, rather than simply having free rein to try everything from the start.

However, You're In The Movies is a social game, so these quibbles aren't too damaging in the short term. What is damaging is the simple fact that the game's key concept – that you’re in the movies – is fundamentally broken. The Live Vision camera was hardly state-of-the-art back in 2006, but here it's being asked to do things far beyond its meagre capabilities [or indeed any camera's, as noted by Sony's Eye Toy team - Ed.].

Your image is captured by having everyone step out of the frame in the "cutout studio". The game then analyses the background and when you step in front of the camera, it removes everything that isn't you and replaces it with an in-game backdrop. But it doesn’t work. The software is too easily confused, and the hardware too cheap, to ever produce a satisfactory effect.

Lighting is a particular problem, since the camera requires everyone to be well-lit but without any glaring light sources in the frame. As you’ll be moving about – sometimes even moving right up to the camera – the odds of your house lights consistently doing the job are slim. After moving the 360 from my office to my lounge, I still found myself dragging lamps from other rooms and carefully arranging them so I could get a decent image. I also had to create a pile of DVD cases in front of the TV to get the camera at a workable angle. My t-shirt was a vaguely similar colour to the wall, so I had to find a dark jumper to wear, just so I could actually register on-screen.

And even then the results were poor. The slightest change in the frame can send the software screwy, whether it's a minor change in the ambient lighting from outside, or someone standing in a slightly different place and changing a shadow somewhere. Rather than seeing a clear image of yourself on-screen, what you end up with is a crude wobbly shape with constantly shifting edges. Bright white blobs covered my head. Sometimes my torso would disappear. If you play with any less than four people the game fills the missing roles with actors, and the jarring difference between their crisp cutouts and your blobby smudge is all it takes to show just how wide the gap between intent and execution really is.

Worse still were the times when the camera begins expanding the capture area for no apparent reason. It's hard to believe that you're in the movies when you're represented by a flickery, jittery lo-res image with spooky floating chunks of your living room in tow. The game even acknowledges that this is a recurring problem, with frequent prompts to restart the cutout studio and advice during the loading screens telling you what to do when – not if – the image deteriorates. The Live Vision camera may be OK for video chat or sending surprise photos of your genitals to people who take you down in Burnout Paradise, but it’s clearly not up to the task of compositing a moving image in household lighting into an HD movie clip.

After an entire day on the game, I managed to create just one movie trailer that looked passable. The option to replay any of the mini-games may add some longevity, and the Director Mode allows you to arrange any of the 600 sequences in the game to create your own stories. You can even record new dialogue using a headset microphone. But even this feature is undermined by the good chance that the result of your hard work will look rubbish.

'You're In The Movies' Screenshot 2

Would you even want to be in this movie?

You're In The Movies should be a casual game, but there's nothing casual about it in practice. As I painstakingly returned all my additional lamps to their original rooms, and dragged my 360, cables and all, back to where it belonged, I wondered just how often I'd want to go to such ludicrous extremes just to take part in some limp camera-based mini-games. There's just no way you'll be able to fire up this game and get the expected results straight away, but nor does it justify the effort you need to make in order to get the image quality up to a bearable level.

People don't live in movie studios. They live in houses and flats that are lit for comfort, not to fulfil the technical requirements of an ageing webcam. If you really want to put yourself and your friends on the TV, leave this failed experiment on the shelf, and put the money towards a digital camcorder instead.

2 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (81) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Bezzy #1 3 years ago

    Urine the movies ^H^H^H^H TOO OBVIOUS

  • Thunderbolt #2 3 years ago

    I could tell this would be atrocious from the advert in which Burt couldn't even be bothered to read his lines properly

  • malmer #3 3 years ago

    Sounds like I won't be in the movies then, even though EG scored this, as usual, lower than everyone else.

  • Kazzahdrane #4 3 years ago

    Oh come on, given who worked on it you should have given it a score of....7/10.

    Still though, this is clearly one to avoid.

  • migasUK #5 3 years ago

    that's sad

  • menage #6 3 years ago

    2/10 hit, this will be a hit with the causal Wii crowd then.

    Runs.

  • Vanmunt #7 3 years ago

    You would be a bit gutted after reading this if you knew santa was bringing this for chrimbo...

  • Entity #8 3 years ago

    I considered this before it came out for my kids for Xmas, now I think I'll shit in a box and wrap it up with a bow on top. If they complain, I'll just say it was that or this game. (since my shits are also worth £35)

  • uglygamer #9 3 years ago

    no need to run menage. Running away from wii fannyboys made everything worse in the first place.

  • Weezer #10 3 years ago

    But it looks so brilliant in the ads!!



    Oh, sorry - my mistake. It looks dump.

  • captainrentboy #11 3 years ago

    I always thought this looked and sounded absolutely shite, turns out I was right.
    How they can have the cheek to release something that hardly ever succeeds in what it's supposed to do is a mystery.
    Microsoft seem to be having a stupidly hard time releasing products that would cater for the family or casual gamers, Scene It wasn't bad, but the sequel is repeating itself after 5 or so full games, bloody awful.

  • Steroyd #12 3 years ago

    Burt sold seperately.

  • DoctorZoidberg #13 3 years ago

    Game looks pap, however Burt Reynolds is an absolute legend. I think the Ad is worth more than the game, made me chuckle anyway!

  • NotSoSlim #14 3 years ago

    MS and casual gaming = faliure.

    They brought this on themselves and are never going to break the hardcore image they have.

  • spekkeh #15 3 years ago

    Seeing how the lighting and background need to be uniform and precisely right to make the game work, it's clear that Microsoft still hasn't learned the absolute essential of casual gaming that Nintendo has mastered so well. Namely that for a casual game to work, the casual people need to be in pristinely white designer lofts and look like swimsuit models in expensive high contrast clothing.

  • neil_likes_bums #16 3 years ago

    eurogamer bias

  • cyacomini #17 3 years ago

    They should have gotten Sheriff Buford T Justice to do the ads with Burt Reynolds.


    *checks Wiki


    oh, he's dead.

  • oreillymj #18 3 years ago

    Expects the planned sequel - Your in a skin flick - to do better.

  • Mr-Brett #19 3 years ago

    "Oh come on, given who worked on it you should have given it a score of....7/10."

    Yeah, can't wait to hear the next One Life Left.

  • kinky_mong #20 3 years ago

    Seeing how the lighting and background need to be uniform and precisely right to make the game work, it's clear that Microsoft still hasn't learned the absolute essential of casual gaming that Nintendo has mastered so well. Namely that for a casual game to work, the casual people need to be in pristinely white designer lofts and look like swimsuit models in expensive high contrast clothing.

    Post of the day!

    Dear Microsoft, I have already had my faith in a long loved company shattered once this console generation, please don't make it a second time by pandering to the Lowest Common Denominator for a quick buck like they did.

  • Ceatlan #21 3 years ago

    I just can't understand how this ever got past the initial ideas phase. I mean TV and film companies spend millions on chroma and hue keying equipment, blue/green rooms etc just to achieve an effect that you can still see, so why anybody ever thought that you'd be able to get anything remotely passable from a web cam and a £200 pound console is beyond me.

    The person who could come up with software that could do this idea well, for that much hardware expenditure, would be able to make an absolute fortune selling it to the media industry.

  • GamesProgrammer Verified Games Team Programmer, Eutechnyx Ltd. #22 3 years ago

    So theve fucked up copying Sing star, Buzz, and EyeToy, truly amazing.

  • Britesparc Verified Creative, ITV #23 3 years ago

    It does look pants but I'm surprised just how harsh that score was; review read like a 4 or 5. Mind you, I'd have added 1 or 2 to the scores of Scene It and Lips, so maybe I'm just more generous with these caz games.

  • YobRenoops #24 3 years ago

    If I remember as well didn't the You're in the Movies team say in reply to the EyeToy/PSEye chaps something along the lines of "Well that's what you think?!".

    Saying that to the guys that have been developing software and the technology for probably 4 years......

    Its OK Microsoft. Not everyone has to love you....

  • YobRenoops #25 3 years ago

    Oh, and obviously this will be fact because as we all know anecdotal info on the internet is ROCK SOLID, my girlfriend works at HMV and she says that loads of people are bringing back Lips because the microphones don't work right. But then apparently thats the same with the GH/RB peripherals.
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/08 @ 15:13

  • BartonFink #26 3 years ago

    LOL - release it on Wii it will sell truck loads.

  • red_shift #27 3 years ago

    Ouch. I was going to buy this so I actually used my waste of money £25 camera once or twice, I shouldn't really waste another £25 should I?

  • DDevil #28 3 years ago

    Eurogamer have a clear 360 bias...

    Oh wait.

  • dabe #29 3 years ago

    I think the review is a little harsh, whilst I don't disagree with the majority of the comments (i bought a £7 king size flat sheet to hang up in my living room) the movies are pretty funny (to those that know the 'actors/actresses' in them).

    check out our first movie. http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=8z378iln9uA

    not bad for £25 tbh.

    oh and those that are interested - here's the setup. http://ww w.flickr.com/photos/iamdabe/309...
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/08 @ 15:27

  • miiiguel #30 3 years ago

    "They brought this on themselves and are never going to break the hardcore image they have. "
    Fine by me, awesome!

  • Krelle #31 3 years ago

    @dabe:
    Your mom is hot!
    Edited by 1 at 09/12/08 @ 15:36

  • drumbaby #32 3 years ago

    The score matches the way the TV advert made me want to vomit. Good call.

  • neilka #33 3 years ago

    BURT REYNOLDS HAS DECEIVED ME FOR THE LAST TIME

  • dabe #34 3 years ago

    @Krelle thats my wife! she looks better naked.

  • SEVQA #35 3 years ago

    BURT REYNOLDS CANONBALL RUN 3 OR DIE!

  • Vin #36 3 years ago

    Blimey.

    After an hour with it, two seems generous.

    MS should've banished this shit into the ether a long time ago.

  • TheGoose126 #37 3 years ago

    Cannot wait to get this.

  • consignia #38 3 years ago

    I think the review is a little harsh, whilst I don't disagree with the majority of the comments (i bought a £7 king size flat sheet to hang up in my living room) the movies are pretty funny (to those that know the 'actors/actresses' in them).

    I think you're missing the point of background removal, if you're removing the actually background yourself :).

  • Lebowski #39 3 years ago

    "Here's not looking at you, kid."

  • Xerx3s #40 3 years ago

    2/10. Instant smash hit with casuals then?

  • Xerx3s #41 3 years ago

    "They brought this on themselves and are never going to break the hardcore image they have. "

    Well one can only hope that they will never move away from the hardcore.

  • FreakyZoid #42 3 years ago

    dabe: So you bought a sheet to make it better, and even then your video still shows off the artifacts and errors that are pointed out in the review.

    Doesn't show much promise for people who couldn't be arsed to hang a sheet in their living room.

  • jonsaan #43 3 years ago

    Well if they are looking to ape some of the Wii software then they have done well. Good job MS!

  • captainrentboy #44 3 years ago

    Fair play to Dabe for posting the vid of him acting like a tool :)
    It's just a shame that the vid still points out all that is wrong with the package, even when you have a gigantic sheet hanging in your front room.
    If it had worked properly it looks like it could have been quite fun.

  • miiiguel #45 3 years ago

    @ dabe: I can't see your video... it says no longer available :/

  • morriss #46 3 years ago

    Sounds like a Wii game. Reviews like one too.

  • ShakaCarnage #47 3 years ago

    I've actually played this a little, and while my thoughts don't warrant a full blown review, I'd have to disagree with the final score. 2/10 is a little over the top.

    Rather than worry about passable movie trailers, why not let slip your own personal feelings about camera games, and just compare it to Eyetoy and the like. That way, the score would be justifiable. However, to spend the whole second page talking about how awkward the game is to get working, that's just a bit naff. Granted, not every house has a white room with awesome lights, but that doesn't stop Eyetoy from working, nor does it in this instance.

    That said, you didn't expect it to be a 9/10 readers, did you?

  • dabe #48 3 years ago

    @FreakyZoid Yea, as I said I agree with what the reviewer has said, its not perfect, far from it but for £25 it let me and my wife have a laugh on the 360, a nice break from the mindless shooting I usually do!

    as for the white sheet, it took maybe 5mins to hang the sheet and point the top light towards us. No longer than say setting up the rock band drums etc. and yea our arms dissapeared a bit but thats because it was about midnight when we played and the only light was from a 100w overhead light!

    @captainrentboy thanks for the compliment! ;) Maybe they should've included a sheet in the vision camera box.

    @miiguel, the video's still there... maybe its not available in your country or something?




  • Jdoki #49 3 years ago

    Looks like the Sony EyeToy dude was on the money when he said 'There's no fuckin way in hell that piece of shit game will work'.

    Turns out he was right, although he may not have used those exact words... but I knew what he meant!

  • patchbox360 #50 3 years ago

    you're in porn movies- would have been better

  • bad09 #51 3 years ago

    I want to hurt puppies every time I see footage of this trash!

    I really can't see how they thought this was a good idea, the Eyetoy was rubbish in the first place so why copy it!

  • Snarky #52 3 years ago

    FFS what a dirty mess.

  • AOFanboi #53 3 years ago

    They can't even get a clone of EyeToy Play right? SHAME.

    You're in the "no, please".

    Ah, well, their other clones like Lips (Singstar) seem to fare better.

  • beastmaster #54 3 years ago

    Should have called it You're In The Shit!

  • DanWhitehead #55 3 years ago

    Granted, not every house has a white room with awesome lights, but that doesn't stop Eyetoy from working, nor does it in this instance.

    That's not technically true, since the EyeToy games don't rely on background subtraction to work. As long as the camera can detect your movements, EyeToy games work in most circumstances. This game doesn't. The whole concept behind the game relies on the players being willing - and able - to rearrange their playing area just to get a result that, frankly, isn't very impressive. The fact that dabe went to the effort of buying a white sheet especially, just to clear out the background - and still couldn't get a consistent or clean cutout - pretty much says it all.

    The gameplay experience displayed in the TV ads (http://uk.y outube.com/watch?v=3gSxrQvlZVs) is blatantly unachievable. It's very misleading and there's a very good chance that the majority of people buying the game will be unable to get anything even resembling what they've been promised, which doesn't leave me much room to be generous with the scoring.

    I love the idea behind the game, and the fake trailers are fun, but the technology badly fumbles the key selling point of putting you in those trailers. The overall package simply fails at what it claims to offer.

  • dewdz #56 3 years ago

    This is why I don't own an Xbox 360.
    The games are crap and the console itself is horse-s**t

    PS3 & Wii babay!!

  • BartonFink #57 3 years ago

    @morriss - yup definitely sounds like and reviewed like a Wii game. They should see about releasing it on that it's bound to sell.

  • ochinembiri #58 3 years ago

    1/10. this game is shhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttt. makes me embarrassed to own a 360.

  • Vin #59 3 years ago

    Still, it's better than Wii Music at any rate.

  • SpaceMidget75 Verified Senior Software Developer, Minerva Computer Services #60 3 years ago

    Not that i'd ever buy an eye toy game like this, but in terms of casual games, how the fuck did MS manage to fuck up copies of Singstar and Buzz!

    I mean, seriously, those games are so simple it's unreal.

  • Ergates_Antius #61 3 years ago

    Heres a suggestion:

    Everyone who reckons they're a "Hardcore" gamer, and/or looks down on "Casual" gamers should be tortured and killed.

    The world would become a better place overnight. Hurrah!

    Fuck off and die you obnoxious, irrelevant, cunts.

  • _LarZen_ #62 3 years ago

    If you have played these types of games before and want a "new" twist go buy it. It aint great it aint a 9/10 but it sure as heck aint a 2/10 either.

  • Decap #63 3 years ago

    Lets keep this sh*t on the Wii mmkay?

    *runs like hell!*

  • markesp #64 3 years ago

    I have the same problem with the background substitution effects on the Mac's Photo Booth - but then that's just a little toy that comes with an otherwise competent OS, not the basis of a full price console game.

    This game sounds like a modern day equivalent of Kriss Kross: Make My Video, frankly.

  • beastmaster #65 3 years ago

    It may sell. It may not. Won't stop them spending more dough on it until they (eventually) get it right. I certainly can't see them abandoning these potential money makers. No doubt when the sequels come out next year, they'll bring out a better cam and mic (for Lips). Money, money, money...

  • smelly #66 3 years ago

    Shame.. it SOUNDS like an ace idea for a fun game (if the tech wasnt "last gen" shit).

    (never thought i'd have to say that about the 360 *lol*)

  • muzzer77 #67 3 years ago

    Microsoft + Casual games = Sh@t

  • 3william56 #68 3 years ago

    casualol

  • Tlaloc #69 3 years ago

    I can see how this could be fun... but only if you were prepared to put in effort and prepared to be silly. In fact, it could be a lot of fun, the more effort and the more silly you were prepared to be.... but I *REALLY* cannot help thinking that this is a game that would be far better suited to Apple Macs and the advanced cameras and chromakey wares that they already have built in. That said @dabe seems to have had a peck of fun... and I am tempted. Not really tempted, but tempted. Maybe version two.

  • jlaakso #70 3 years ago

    It's completely dependent on your living room setup, for sure. However, I had very few issues with minor setup required (pull a sheet over the sofa, change of white T-shirt to something else). It still looks bad,mind, but it works and the overall feel is so crappy B-movies anyway, I didn't mind. Of course you shouldn't play this alone for a single minute - it just doesn't hold up without other people. I would certainly be interested in a more technologically solid follow-up to this, but I can't say that I'm actually disappointed.

  • SpeedyThing #71 3 years ago

    As the Lead Designer on Buzz I'm giving a speech in Belgium tomorrow in which I will try to explain how to make a social simple fun game.
    With any luck someone from Microsoft will be there and might just learn something, because at the moment they seem to have completely missed the point.
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/08 @ 09:52

  • Dan234 #72 3 years ago

    With any luck someone from Microsoft will be there and might just learn something, because at the moment they seem to have completely missed the point.

    Obviously Microsoft haven't put enough waggle in the game. They'll get round to copying that by next Christmas.

  • RenoTheBerk #73 3 years ago

    As the Lead Designer on Buzz I'm giving a speech in Belgium tomorrow in which I will try to explain how to make a social simple fun game.
    Will your talk cover repackaging the same quiz game for years then? At least these guys have attempted a new take on social camera based gaming. I have this game, and while it can be tricky to set up, it's not rocket science. Once it's set up it's quite good fun with mates.

    A 2 score is very unfair for this game in my opinion.

  • Bearintraining #74 3 years ago

    Speedy, where in belgium? :D I'd love to attend! (Brussels here)

  • SpeedyThing #75 3 years ago

    @ Reno - Although I understand your anger you have to look at the commercial reality of the situation. We've sold many millions of units and they continue to sell well. Having said that we do put a lot of effort into improving each version of the game, and if you were to play Quiz TV followed by Music you will see that the game has come on in leaps and bounds. We have considered making more extreme changes to the games but is that what our market want?

    @ Bear - It is in Brussels and it's called the "Games and Learning Symposium" and it's at the Campus Vesalius of Group T-International University College Leuven. However, I do believe it is invite only. Sorry.

  • RenoTheBerk #76 3 years ago

    @SpeedyThing

    I have to admit I feel it's a bit unprofessional - which reflects badly on your studio also - that you feel the need to enter a slagging match regarding a rival's product on a website in such a way.

    I also feel it was a bit arrogant of you to suggest that you're the authority on all things 'casual'. Buzz has been very successful of course; but it's hardly the most innovative of titles. We've had quiz machines in pubs across the country for years.

  • SEVQA #77 3 years ago

    I gave this a go at a mate’s house last night and it’s shocking – and poor as a social fun game at that. I’ve recently picked up an old eye toy camera and eye toy play 1, 2 eye spy, eye sports and eye groove all for loose change for my PS3 – and had fun playing with them and my girlfriend seemed to like them which always a plus in order to justify my 400 quid Steak Grill sitting under the TV. The point being that last gen camera tech and Eye Toy games seemed to function and read the user’s interaction in much more responsive way than this offering from Microsoft. We should be moving forward and not backwards – just because it’s ‘casual’ doesn’t mean you should get away with shovelling shit on your console.

    Burn one too many people with this crap and the casual market will be the hostile and wont by into your brand ‘market’.

  • roz123 #78 3 years ago

    Lol this is what happens when Microsoft try and think up an original idea. They should stick to what they know, buying up already successful things or just ripping them off completely.
    Edited by 1 at 10/12/08 @ 15:59

  • metalangel #79 3 years ago

    You're in Porn ftw. I guarantee I will buy the Mai Haruna and Julia Bond editions. For now, I will stick with Totemball and Burnout Paradise for camera japes. Except not Totemball.

  • m0thr4 #80 3 years ago

    ... but I *REALLY* cannot help thinking that this is a game that would be far better suited to Apple Macs and the advanced cameras and chromakey wares that they already have built in.

    Funny you should say that... in fact iChat already has this built-in and, although the picture quality from the iMac's built-in camera is absolutely first rate, the effect where it subtracts the background and puts you on a rollercoaster (or whatever) works about as well as it does in "You're in the movies"... in other words, not terribly well at all.

  • d_w83 #81 3 years ago

    A bit dissapointed by the review...........and I don't mean the game. Surely a review is meant to pick up positives and negatives of the game. I know loads of people who play this game without any problems and the proof is on youtube. It's not perfect but at least Microsoft have now launched a stand alone game for the camera. It's a party game so can die hard action fans stop ripping it out of the game just because it isn't as polished as GOW, mental note......this game prob isn't for you (as you have proved with your gracious comments). YITM's is a neat idea that can be enjoyed by groups of friends and families so I would give it way more than a 2. This is the lowest rating I have seen for this game and when you compare reviewers it's not hard to see why. Not many other companies seem to care that they have to carry their light 360 downstairs. And unlockable content surely isn't a negative..............surely that's in game progression? Did you freak out and complain when you couldn't play all the tracks on GH?