OOTP 15 Update #3 coming at the end of the week....

[JohnHoward]

Good point about the new customers, but not sure how much impact it will have. Just look at the most heavily licensed simulation out there: FM. It has an arrangement with just about every league body and association imaginable, but when I stopped playing about three years ago you still couldn't get the real German national team names represented out of the box, or Premier League pictures and logos, and the odd random player who had to be fictionalized because of some contractual arrangement. But they still seem to find plenty of new customers.

[HolyCow98]

If IIRC, I had a version of Baseball Mogul that used something other than dollars. Some of the EA sports baseball titles didn't use dollars think they called it points. Did High Heat have a financial system?...been so long I don't remember.

[gbwitheyes]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I also suspect that an hour or so after the next patch (and subsequent patches) is released, someone's going to post the latest MLB quickstart with the nicknames fixed, so we can all just download that instead of having to do it ourselves.

This would be my vote. As if I have a vote.

Acknowledge what needs to be removed from the game to make the MLB happy. Then turn around and offer up to the modding community to fill the void.

I have never experienced developers and designers as talented, versatile, giving, and creative as is the OOTP mod community.

[Trebro]

Originally Posted by JohnHoward

Good point about the new customers, but not sure how much impact it will have. Just look at the most heavily licensed simulation out there: FM. It has an arrangement with just about every league body and association imaginable, but when I stopped playing about three years ago you still couldn't get the real German national team names represented out of the box, or Premier League pictures and logos, and the odd random player who had to be fictionalized because of some contractual arrangement. But they still seem to find plenty of new customers.

This.

While some folks will be driven by name recognition, this is, at heart, a niche product. You buy it because of what you can do, whether it's creating a tale of woe about a group of ballplayers working in Oregon, a world where the British adopt baseball thanks to Harry Wright, or where you do your best to re-create a particular season.

It's that ability that matters, and that's what will make or break the game. How many people here are customers from single-digit versions? It's not because of ball flight in play by play mode, I can tell you that much.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

Because giving an MLB player a low work ethic or intelligence and then having him get busted for a drug suspension could be seen as portraying that MLB player in a bad light. I'm not sure how old you are, but in the old days, the second major hockey game, NHLPA Hockey 93, would not allow blood to be shown on the ice, and would not allow players to fight as it depicted the sport in a "bad light" even though the players wanted nothing more than to be able to fight in games.

1993 isn't the "old days" lol. Not sure how "old" you are either. I'm also not talking about blood - I'm talking about a term used world wide, and not just in sports. "Suspensions".

If you read my post - you'd see that I clearly stated "if the game ships without MLB names/logos". If OOTP ships without real names/logos, MLB doesn't have a leg to stand on. Not MLB, not OOTP, not any entity in the world can stop a user from modifying his/her game once purchased. They could pursue the individual in court if they so desired, but they can't put it on OOTP if it ships without those things.

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

I think you underestimate what length professional sports leagues and teams will do to avoid potentially embarrassing situations for their respective memberships.

I'm not underestimating anything - I'll repeat it for clarification - MLB does NOT own the rights to the "Game" of Baseball. They can scream and clamour all they want about their copyright material, but they can't dictate how the "Game of Baseball" is played or what rules it must follow.

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

I highly recommend you to look at what type of restrictions MLB has placed on The Show, which is looked at as the most realistic MLB game on the market.

If MLB wanted to be a real pain, they absolutely could. I do agree with you that no one should be panicking, but acting like MLB cannot do more if they want to be pricks is to completely ignore their track record on similar issues.

And how many other baseball games on the market do they dictate to?

Again, this means absolutely nothing if OOTP ships without real names/logos or other copyright material. MLB can cry all they like, but they can't dictate if their "copyright" hasn't been infringed upon.

Also keep in mind the name of the games you referred to - MLB the Show uses the term MLB, so that clearly indicates it's a model of MLB. OOTP does not make that claim. NHLPA Hockey 93 - again, directly uses the "NHL" name. Again, OOTP does not do that. They simply want to use names and logos. If it was OOTP MLB Baseball, probably a much different story since then you're indicating that you have an "MLB" game. OOTP is a "Baseball" game, not an "MLB" game. Purchasing the rights to use logos and names is a far cry from saying you're an MLB game that represents/copies MLB.


Having said all that, if Markus negotiates rights to those things, I'm sure there will be certain restrictions on their use. But to suggest they own the rights to the term "Suspensions" is hilarious.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by BDMarvel

I see many logos and names. Not a single ® or even a ™.

That's because the ™ and/or ® is small. You need to look at a large size version of the logo. Head over to this site, and then view the team logos there for the big pro sports. The ™ and/or ® becomes much more apparent.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

This is at least the second time someone has specifically mentioned MLB putting restrictions on the game developers for The Show. Can someone please post a link that explains what those restrictions are/were?

I only know some of them but the ones I'm certain of are that SCEA can't ever use actual salaries or contract data. I have heard of many more, and I have been told that are even more I've never heard about. Go check on the Operation Sports forum for details

[The Wolf]

I forgot, there were also restrictions online leagues.

[The Wolf]

Also restrictions on prospects.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Purchasing the rights to use logos and names is a far cry from saying you're an MLB game that represents/copies MLB.

I'm not sure MLB would agree with that.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Having said all that, if Markus negotiates rights to those things, I'm sure there will be certain restrictions on their use. But to suggest they own the rights to the term "Suspensions" is hilarious.

I didn't say they owned the rights to the word, and I don't think anyone else did. I said that it's near 100% certain they would not allow drugs suspensions in a licensed game because it shows the league in a bad light.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

I said that it's near 100% certain they would not allow drugs suspensions in a licensed game because it shows the league in a bad light.

I agree. Or low intelligence, high greed, etc.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

As I said though, the problem is that it's very possible for MLB to force OOTP to take a lot of stuff out of the game in return for a license. Drug suspensions would go with 100% certainty, and I think other suspensions would too. Negative storylines would very likely be affected too. There's also a smaller chance that historical and fictional leagues would have to go too. I would rather the game take a smaller hit by being 100% generic by default than to lose a lot of other realism in order to get a license.

Wow, if this is true, then I withdraw my comments directly above your post. I haven't read any further yet to see if what you said is debunked, but I will now.

I thought this was only about team names and logos and player names. Can the MLB actually force something like, for example, a reference to the CBA out of this game as well?!?

'Cuz, if so, THE HELL WITH MLB!


EDIT: Sorry, rpriske. Great minds think alike!

Originally Posted by rpriske

If so, the hell with MLB.

[Airdrop01]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Purchasing the rights to use logos and names is a far cry from saying you're an MLB game that represents/copies MLB.

There is no way that MLB Properties is going to allow the use of their trademarks without protecting the brand itself. So, as a matter of "it's our gun, and it's to your head," they absolutely can dictate the terms of what will and will not be permitted in a game if in fact you want to use their property in said game.

They could demand, for example, that as a condition of any agreement that Chris Getz be listed as a Hall of Famer. They could demand that all references to Pete Rose be omitted. They could demand that there is no editing functionality whatsoever.

Of course, they're not idiots and so long as their brand is protected, and they're compensated as how they wish, they would likely agree that in fact Chris Getz can be listed as the player he is; or that editing be permitted; or that Pete Rose can be created.

Similarly, I think that it is surprising that if there is no MLBPA license, likenesses of players, through this game, have escaped notice until now. MLBPA incidentally is a wholly separate entity from MLB Properties and MLB.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I think we need to pump the brakes on all the speculation going on and wait til we hear more from Markus regarding the MLB licensing "issue." If you go by his post that starts this thread, it doesn't sound like he's considering it a big deal (although he probably wouldn't let on if he was concerned).

The only thing worse than MLB handcuffing Markus and chasing away interest in the game and business for OOTP would be this forum community wrongly hitting the panic button and chasing away potential long-term customers before we even know what's going to happen.

Excellent post. I've gone from this: to this: as a result.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Similarly, I think that it is surprising that if there is no MLBPA license, likenesses of players, through this game, have escaped notice until now. MLBPA incidentally is a wholly separate entity from MLB Properties and MLB.

Names != likeness. MLBPA actually lost a court case over that fact, so I can't see them trying again.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

I didn't say they owned the rights to the word, and I don't think anyone else did. I said that it's near 100% certain they would not allow drugs suspensions in a licensed game because it shows the league in a bad light.

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

There is no way that MLB Properties is going to allow the use of their trademarks without protecting the brand itself. So, as a matter of "it's our gun, and it's to your head," they absolutely can dictate the terms of what will and will not be permitted in a game if in fact you want to use their property in said game.

They could demand, for example, that as a condition of any agreement that Chris Getz be listed as a Hall of Famer. They could demand that all references to Pete Rose be omitted. They could demand that there is no editing functionality whatsoever.

So how does Diamond Mind's licensed data handle ARod or Cruz or Peralta? In a real roster replay are they just MiA. I suspect they are listed as suspended for realism and for roster integrity. Someone can correct me if this assumption is wrong.

I also find it hard to believe that Pete Rose or Joe Jackson is excluded from past seasons that they played in.

[stangedaze23]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Also restrictions on prospects.

This is a MLBPA restriction. There is a profit share agreement with the players' union so if a player has played one day in MLB they are eligible to the profit share from the license with the union. If they have not made the majors they are technically not part of the union at that point. The game publisher would have to get individual agreements with every single prospect or player not part of MLBPA to use their likeness which would be prohibitively expensive and a time consuming process. That is why Barry Bonds, who was not part of the union, was never in any games.

Not sure about the online stuff though.

[BusterKing]

If OOTP will lose some options because the the MLB restrictions then I'm not interested in it.

I can change the names of the teams myself. Done it years ago, no big deal.

[stangedaze23]

[Q UOTE=Cryomaniac;3699654]Names != likeness. MLBPA actually lost a court case over that fact, so I can't see them trying again.[/QUOTE]


You are referring to the Fantasy baseball case CBC v. MLBPA, I assume. But that is arguably distinguishable. That ruling was based narrowly on the idea that there was a broad use of real statistics that is not the same as an endorsement of a product or use of a players "star power" to sell a product. As the stats are the real driving force of fantasy baseball the names of the players are not truly the commodity being sold, according to the Court. The use of a player's name in a video game could be very different. I would not hold out hope that CBC would translate to video game usage.

The more telling case is currently pending in Federal Court with the former college players suing EA sports.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by RchW

So how does Diamond Mind's licensed data handle ARod or Cruz or Peralta? In a real roster replay are they just MiA. I suspect they are listed as suspended for realism and for roster integrity. Someone can correct me if this assumption is wrong.

Dunno about Diamond Mind, but I think in other games, in the past, players like ARod were simply not included in the roster.

Originally Posted by stangedaze23

You are referring to the Fantasy baseball case CBC v. MLBPA, I assume. But that is arguably distinguishable.

It's arguable, yes, but unless and until MLBPA actually decide to try again it isn't a problem.