Regarding new legends.......
-
So someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume there is some sort of licensing that goes with every legend that they put in this game? It blows my mind that a game so in-depth lacks so much as far as classic stadiums, and more importantly more legends. I grew up in the 90's so while it was nice to see guys like Thome and Salmon come out, I feel like they are leaving so many out.
-
It is all about obtaining thier rights.
When a player is in the MLBPA there is a standard image clause that allows games to use thier likeness.
That's why we have the MLBPA logo along with the MLB logo etc.
Once they retire SDS has to negotiate with each individual player. That means agents at times or families for players that have passed away.
Some players/families guard thier rights to the point that it is almost impossible to get them. For example Joe Dimaggio was very careful what brands/companies he endorsed while alive and the holder of his rights (family or company) are just as careful.Usually it all comes down to money.
-
Prime example: Kirby Puckett. Nobody can figure out who actually owns the rights to his likeness.
https://www.twinkietown.com/2017/3/14/14924800/kirby-puckett-new-stuff-merchandise-memorabilia-licensing-jerseys-shirts-rights-contract-death-cards -
See O'Bannon vs. NCAA.
Back in the old days, you could put anyone in a video game whenever you wanted. Not anymore...
-
Stadiums are an entirely different issue in that it takes way too much time and effort to build entirely new stadiums for what’s likely little payoff. There are only 6 actual classic stadiums in the game (Forbes, Griffith, Polo Grounds, Crosley, Sportsman, and Shibe), while the rest are textures that are simply updated for each years game because they still exist in SDS’s files
And even the 6 classic stadiums I mentioned have been around since at least 2008, so even there it’s a case of updating textures. It would be really nice to see a few more classic stadiums
-
If you're one of those people that likes to hope, I'd look toward 2022. Obviously most of the focus in 2021 will be the move to cross-platform. The year after, you could repurpose those developers to build new stadium files.
-
@jonblaze2424 said in Regarding new legends.......:
So someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume there is some sort of licensing that goes with every legend that they put in this game? It blows my mind that a game so in-depth lacks so much as far as classic stadiums, and more importantly more legends. I grew up in the 90's so while it was nice to see guys like Thome and Salmon come out, I feel like they are leaving so many out.
The way I understand it, while a player is still active and paying union dues they can’t opt out of these games as the licensing is done through the players association. Once they retire they are no longer associated with the MLBPA even though they are receiving a pension. At this point I believe the game has to get permission directly from the person. Now there have been exceptions in the past such as Barry Bonds who bought his likeness rights from the union or exited the union all together (can someone please clarify this?) and then trademarked himself Im assuming to cash in on in the future before he became a pariah.
-
@ItsaCanesthing said in Regarding new legends.......:
Some players/families guard thier rights to the point that it is almost impossible to get them. For example Joe Dimaggio was very careful what brands/companies he endorsed while alive and the holder of his rights (family or company) are just as careful.
Usually it all comes down to money.
Dimaggio was in the game before though about 10 years ago
@Original_Quad said in Regarding new legends.......:
Stadiums are an entirely different issue in that it takes way too much time and effort to build entirely new stadiums for what’s likely little payoff. There are only 6 actual classic stadiums in the game (Forbes, Griffith, Polo Grounds, Crosley, Sportsman, and Shibe), while the rest are textures that are simply updated for each years game because they still exist in SDS’s files
And even the 6 classic stadiums I mentioned have been around since at least 2008, so even there it’s a case of updating textures. It would be really nice to see a few more classic stadiums
People have campaigning a lot time for Ebbets field to be in the game. I do think it would have a nice feel for the game but you would probably have to get the naming and likeness rights from Charles Ebbets estate or Marvin Kratter who purchased the stadium from the dodgers right before the moved west.
@SaveFarris said in Regarding new legends.......:
If you're one of those people that likes to hope, I'd look toward 2022. Obviously most of the focus in 2021 will be the move to cross-platform. The year after, you could repurpose those developers to build new stadium files.
Some where I had seen a video or read and article about it and the developers said that when the most recent game is out they are working on games 3 years from now when adding in new content or modes. If you look at alot of mode or earn different rewards it is a 2 or 3 year period where they are like that unless it is something that they get alot of negitive feedback on.
-
@SaveFarris said in Regarding new legends.......:
If you're one of those people that likes to hope, I'd look toward 2022. Obviously most of the focus in 2021 will be the move to cross-platform. The year after, you could repurpose those developers to build new stadium files.
You are right MLB 22 will be the next big shift on the game. 21 will not be too different from 20 I think since the true goal is to have cross-play be seamless which will require the majority of the workload I imagine.
-
I actually think The Show does a great job with legends. According to Bleacher Report’s top 100 players of all time, 65/100 are in the game. Throwing out super old-time guys that you all would grumble about if they were added (Sisler, Brouthers, Plank, Anson, etc.), there are only 28 guys missing. The only top 10 players missing were Aaron and Bonds. They have 15 of the top 20. Subjective list, sure, but I think it defends the great job that they have done. You also have to remember, this list of guys missing will likely only shrink. I can’t say for sure, but I’m guessing not many of the guys they have rights to have contracts that will expire. So as they add guys like Pedro, Randy, Aaron, Clemente, they shouldn’t be losing guys at the same time.
-
@WDK19 said in Regarding new legends.......:
So as they add guys like Pedro, Randy, Aaron, Clemente, they shouldn’t be losing guys at the same time.
They might. And despite our protestations, it might be good for business.
I'm sure the team can go behind the scenes and look at each legend's usage rate and determine whether or not the cost of keeping them in the game is worth it given how much that particular legend is used.
-
This may be some sort of blind spot, but outside of the top tier hof guys, I don’t get why guys wouldn’t be allowing their likeness for peanuts...maybe it’s just that even 90’s guys don’t understand these modes and sports games/culture...but you figure there are generations of kids that now know past players almost primarily due to these modes. If I’m a past player (especially of the very good but not hof variety) I would think that having your name and accomplishments live on in this way would be more valuable than any check. I mean, having your son or grandchildren playing as you in 2020 just seems priceless.
Maybe I’m romanticizing things too much? But if you’re a past player living anything close to a comfortable life, that idea of maintaining my legacy would have me being the one knocking on SDS’ door. -
@rymflaherty said in Regarding new legends.......:
I don’t get why guys wouldn’t be allowing their likeness for peanuts...maybe it’s just that even 90’s guys don’t understand these modes and sports games/culture..
You're talking about the guys that grew up in the era of free agency, media deals, shoe contracts, trading card contracts, appearance fees, autograph fees, paid endorsements, etc. EVERYTHING has been a financial transaction since their entry into the game.
No reason they shouldn't view this through the same lenses.
-
A admin locked this topic on
