 |
Gaming News: "Exclusivity Pipe"
Posted: Tuesday January 25th, 2005
by
More news in the continuing tussle for professional sports licensing came through the news wire today as Take-Two interactive secured a 7 year deal with the Major League Baseball Players Association. - Gamespot [ more info ]
Now, on the surface the deal looked to be a boon for Take-Two especially since EA had failed to land the property themselves previously. But, as more news filtered in, the flaws began to present themselve. - Game Over by Chris Morris at CNN [ more info ]
Unlike the EA/NFL deal, Take-Two's agreement with the MLBPA is not wholely exclusive. It only provides for 3rd party exclusivity, which means the 1st party publishers are still free to release new games. Those first party publishers, the console developers, are Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. This is a huge problem because both Microsoft and Sony already have popular MLB titles. A more serious concern is that "the deal" only allows Take-Two to make use of the likenesses of the MLBPA members; it doesn't currently include rights to team names, stadiums, etc. And, not every professional baseball player is a member of the MLBPA.
So, The Comic is meant to poke at Take-Two for being so proud of this situation. Like Chris Morris asks in his article (linked above) did they really get their money's worth?
[ discuss ]
Now, on the surface the deal looked to be a boon for Take-Two especially since EA had failed to land the property themselves previously. But, as more news filtered in, the flaws began to present themselve. - Game Over by Chris Morris at CNN [ more info ]
Unlike the EA/NFL deal, Take-Two's agreement with the MLBPA is not wholely exclusive. It only provides for 3rd party exclusivity, which means the 1st party publishers are still free to release new games. Those first party publishers, the console developers, are Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. This is a huge problem because both Microsoft and Sony already have popular MLB titles. A more serious concern is that "the deal" only allows Take-Two to make use of the likenesses of the MLBPA members; it doesn't currently include rights to team names, stadiums, etc. And, not every professional baseball player is a member of the MLBPA.
So, The Comic is meant to poke at Take-Two for being so proud of this situation. Like Chris Morris asks in his article (linked above) did they really get their money's worth?
[ discuss ]
[ top ]
- advertise on gu -
