Take Two in Talks with Major League Baseball

After EA's ESPN announcement yesterday, it hardly comes as a surprise that GamesIndustry.biz is reporting a possible deal between Take Two Interactive and Major League Baseball. The deal, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, appears to be for exclusivity rights similar to EA's arrangements. While the move wouldn't hurt EA's baseball franchise, it would squeeze out other competitors who have used the MLB license in the past.

Comments

Whaaa! Mommy! He cheated!

[numbski]

This is starting to sound like what I put up with anytime I go online to play football.

No one likes losing, so a large group of people start cheating in order to win.

So the people who don't like the cheaters wind up having to learn to cheat themselves in order to keep the cheaters honest.

Outcome? No one wins. No one can get an honest game.

This is degenerating into a rights-grab, and only one company per sport will have rights.

I can hear the whiny-children in my head:

EA: Wha! He beat me. I don't like losing. I know! I'll cheat!

VC: Hey! I won fair and square!

EA: *raspberry* I'm taking my ball and going home!

VC: That's not your ball!

EA: It is now!

Don't get upset, just usual /. double-standard

[stratjakt]

While the move wouldn't hurt EA's baseball franchise ...

A lot of you are wondering why it wouldn't hurt EA any more than anyone else. Of course, it would, but remember - we're supposed to hate EA.

If we admitted that this could "hurt" EA, in the same way EA's deals could hurt Take Two (et al), we're admitting that competition in the video game market is alive and well, and that exclusive rights are par for the course in the industry.

Activision has exclusive rights to make Spiderman games, but you don't see any articles about that, do you?

So basically, just think of EA as Microsoft, and Take Two as Apple.

DRM in Media Player is an affront to our rights online, and threatens our very freedom. DRM in iTunes is a brilliant business strategy from a company that "gets it". Or, MSFT pursuing action againt mikerowesoft.com (even though they HAVE to defend trademarks) was evil, but Apple suing a kid for passing on a rumor about the mini mac, well that's different because, umm, iPods have neato little scroll wheel things.

I hope this clears things up. Slashdot is best read and understood when peering through your navel, with your head shoved far up your ass.

It's probably just me, but...

[jd]

I think that sports and player stats should be Public Domain. Given that premise, I don't believe it should be possible for anyone to have "exclusive rights" to any simulator based said sports and player stats.

I don't think anyone would consider it reasonable for Boeing to give Microsoft "exclusive rights" to simulate their aircraft. That would be stupid. Motor racing teams and racing tracks haven't set up "exclusive deals" on who can do what.

I might not be able to call a simulator "official", but if I wanted to write a game based on the Silverstone track and the typical behaviour of the various Formula 1 cars, I don't think anyone would seriously complain. And that's for a sport with a turnover ten times that of major league baseball.

Lock-ins are no good for the sport, as people are LESS likely to buy over-priced, over-hyped products in the long run, which means there's going to be a decay in interest over time.

If games manufacurers are so lacking in confidence that they can compete, they need to spend more money on development and less on "special deals" with organizers.