MLB 2K13 News Post

2K Sports Confirms They Are Done With Baseball

06:04 PM - January 6, 2014 by RaychelSnr

In a move that was neither unexpected nor surprising, 2K Sports today confirmed in a statement to Polygon it is not renewing the MLB license and thus, the MLB 2K series was (for the first time) confirmed as dead.

"We have decided not to renew our MLB 2K series for 2014," 2K Sports said in the statement.

If you recall, last year everyone presumed the franchise was dead but 2K stayed quiet about it's future until MLB 2K13 was surprisingly announced just before release. That will not be the case this year, as 2K Sports' statement leaves no wiggle room for a return of the franchise this year.

There is some hope that another company will take up the baseball banner on Microsoft consoles, but who that will end up being does remain a mystery. EA thus far, denies any interest in pursuing the baseball license even though they would seem to be the most suitable candidate to give baseball a try.

With no MLB 2K, both the XBox 360 and XBox One will be without an MLB simulation experience in 2014.

Game: Major League Baseball 2K13Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 14 - View All

Major League Baseball 2K13 Videos

Member Comments

# 41 DrJones @ 01/14/14 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money99


	That's how it started. But right now, the NFL loves it's exclusive deal with EA. They're dealing with one of the top developers in the world, who's brand is highly visible. I also believe the NFL is making more money with this exclusive deal than they would with opening it up to more companies. On top of that, the NFL is very controlling with what it wants in it's games. So only having to deal with 1 company as opposed to 2 or 3 makes for less hassles. I don't have all the answers and I'm not saying I'm 100% right about all of this, but I've read enough and been told by a few insiders (on both EA and 2K's side) that this exclusive deal is and was not EA's idea. It all came from the NFL. EA didn't approach the NFL to squeeze out the competition. But when the NFL offered this, EA jumped at the chance, which any company would. 2K would have done the same. As long as Madden keeps selling millions of copies this will never change. The NFL is making a boat-load of money off of this deal. So until this partnership becomes a financial burden on EA (like MLB was with 2K), don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

This is more or less correct.

Making AAA games is much more expensive than it used to be. I don't see NFL 2K or MVP Baseball coming back anytime soon.

# 42 strawberryshortcake @ 01/14/14 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money99


	That's how it started. But right now, the NFL loves it's exclusive deal with EA. They're dealing with one of the top developers in the world, who's brand is highly visible. I also believe the NFL is making more money with this exclusive deal than they would with opening it up to more companies. On top of that, the NFL is very controlling with what it wants in it's games. So only having to deal with 1 company as opposed to 2 or 3 makes for less hassles. I don't have all the answers and I'm not saying I'm 100% right about all of this, but I've read enough and been told by a few insiders (on both EA and 2K's side) that this exclusive deal is and was not EA's idea. It all came from the NFL. EA didn't approach the NFL to squeeze out the competition. But when the NFL offered this, EA jumped at the chance, which any company would. 2K would have done the same. As long as Madden keeps selling millions of copies this will never change. The NFL is making a boat-load of money off of this deal. So until this partnership becomes a financial burden on EA (like MLB was with 2K), don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

Here's a thought. the NFL license is a hot commodity. Charge the same licensing amount to a second or third party that wants to develop an NFL football game. The NFL likes money, this way the NFL gets double or triple the amount they would get. Even more money in the bank for them.

The NFL currently oversees more than 30 different teams throughout the year. I guess having a minimum of 2 or 3 video game developers would be simply too difficult, since controlling more than 30 teams is somehow easier. Or how about hiring someone for $150,000 to $200,000 annually to oversee the operation (which would be a mere fraction of the cost of the exclusive licenses). More money for the NFL.

# 43 DrJones @ 01/14/14 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Here's a thought. the NFL license is a hot commodity. Charge the same licensing amount to a second or third party that wants to develop an NFL football game. The NFL likes money, this way the NFL gets double or triple the amount they would get. Even more money in the bank for them.

What do you mean "charge the same licensing amount" to a second or third party? EA is paying the NFL $60M per year for exclusivity. The last I heard, Madden 25 was projected to sell about 5 million units. At $60 a unit, that means the NFL is getting approximately 20% of the gross, which is a much higher percentage than when the league was paid a percentage for each unit sold.

Sure, if the NFL allows the exclusivity deal to lapse, they can ask whatever they want from EA, 2K, or whoever, but no way in hell would anybody pay 60 million for a nonexclusive deal. The NFL might as well ask for a billion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	The NFL currently oversees more than 30 different teams throughout the year. I guess having a minimum of 2 or 3 video game developers would be simply too difficult, since controlling more than 30 teams is somehow easier. Or how about hiring someone for $150,000 to $200,000 annually to oversee the operation (which would be a mere fraction of the cost of the exclusive licenses). More money for the NFL.

I have no idea what any of this means.

# 44 mfdplus @ 01/14/14 07:18 AM

A decade ago Sega Sports/ Visual Concepts was making the best, most realistic sports games out there. It has been very sad to see that company decay under Rockstar's management. And I know that maybe their ownership saved their existence back in the days when Sega reorganized. But going from a quality yearly line-up that included all the major leagues and college sports to today's output of basically just one game, it's the video game world equivalent of a superstar's fall from fame.

# 45 Money99 @ 01/14/14 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfdplus


	A decade ago Sega Sports/ Visual Concepts was making the best, most realistic sports games out there. It has been very sad to see that company decay under Rockstar's management. And I know that maybe their ownership saved their existence back in the days when Sega reorganized. But going from a quality yearly line-up that included all the major leagues and college sports to today's output of basically just one game, it's the video game world equivalent of a superstar's fall from fame.

Yeah, it's a real shame.
NHL2K2 and 2K3 were fantastic games. But they were developed by Treyarch who was bought by Activision, forcing 2K to hand the reigns to Kush.
Kush also took over the MLB2K franchise.

Both MLB and NHL went downhill and by the time VC took over, it was too late - which is a shame because I thought VC did a great job reviving both series.

I really do believe that given the chance to start from scratch both the NHL and MLB games could have been something special under VC.

I'm looking forward to seeing what SCEA is doing for next-gen MLB.
But I love the analog-pitching and hitters eye so much, I'm not sure I can play another ball game that doesn't have either.

# 46 strawberryshortcake @ 01/14/14 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJones

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake

Here's a thought. the NFL license is a hot commodity. Charge the same licensing amount to a second or third party that wants to develop an NFL football game. The NFL likes money, this way the NFL gets double or triple the amount they would get. Even more money in the bank for them.

What do you mean "charge the same licensing amount" to a second or third party? EA is paying the NFL $60M per year for exclusivity. The last I heard, Madden 25 was projected to sell about 5 million units. At $60 a unit, that means the NFL is getting approximately 20% of the gross, which is a much higher percentage than when the league was paid a percentage for each unit sold.

Sure, if the NFL allows the exclusivity deal to lapse, they can ask whatever they want from EA, 2K, or whoever, but no way in hell would anybody pay 60 million for a nonexclusive deal. The NFL might as well ask for a billion.

Exactly what I'm saying with regards to pricing. Yes, I know the current price is for exclusivity. Call the "exclusive" price a "nonexclusive" price, and allow anyone wanting to create an NFL football game, pay to play so to speak. How would you know no one would be willing to pay that amount for non-exclusivity. If something is a hot commodity, there will be buyers. There are things that are overpriced out there in the world, and people still pony up the dollars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJones

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake

The NFL currently oversees more than 30 different teams throughout the year. I guess having a minimum of 2 or 3 video game developers would be simply too difficult, since controlling more than 30 teams is somehow easier. Or how about hiring someone for $150,000 to $200,000 annually to oversee the operation (which would be a mere fraction of the cost of the exclusive licenses). More money for the NFL.

I have no idea what any of this means.

Um, pretty straight forward.

One argument for only having one developer is because it's too difficult for the NFL to monitor more than one company making an NFL football video game. Having to deal with 2K and EA and Sony creating an NFL football game would be too difficult is what some might argue for why the NFL would rather deal with one single game developer. I'm saying how could it really be that difficult if the NFL is monitoring more than 30 different teams (49ers, Seahawks, Broncos, Patriots, Colts, Steelers, etc.) throughout the entire year. The NFL seriously can't manage to draft guidelines for 2 or 3 video game developers to follow when the NFL is already doing so for more than 30 teams in the league?

# 47 kehlis @ 01/14/14 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Um, pretty straight forward. One argument for only having one developer is because it's too difficult for the NFL to monitor more than one company making an NFL football video game. Having to deal with 2K and EA and Sony creating an NFL football game would be too difficult is what some might argue for why the NFL would rather deal with one single game developer. I'm saying how could it really be that difficult if the NFL is monitoring more than 30 different teams (49ers, Seahawks, Broncos, Patriots, Colts, Steelers, etc.) throughout the entire year. The NFL seriously can't manage to draft guidelines for 2 or 3 video game developers to follow when the NFL is already doing so for more than 30 teams in the league?

Who or where has that argument ever be made?

# 48 strawberryshortcake @ 01/14/14 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kehlis


	Who or where has that argument ever be made?

Not from an official source, but it's one argument that may come up from time to time when the words "NFL" "License" "Exclusive" are used. Too much hassle or too difficult to deal with multiple companies making an NFL football, therefore the NFL chooses to go exclusive. Something to that extent. I'm simply saying the NFL is already controlling over 30 individual franchises, and comparing that to 2 or 3 video game makers. If the NFL can control over 30 teams, I pose the question of whether it really is that much of a hassle to monitor 2 or 3 developers. That is all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mendota


	No publisher is going to pay what EA does for Madden unless it is exclusive. More importantly, EA will not pay that much if it is not exclusive. Strawberryshortcake's idea is based on a completely flawed premise.

You word your statement as if it was fact. Your statement can also be applicable to ridiculously expensive products or services in the world, and for whatever reason there are buyers.

It's a hypothetical situation. Hypothetically, for whatever reason, let say the NFL sets a non-exclusive price that is on par to the existing exclusive price tag analogous to an MSRP. Say two or three companies jump at the chance and pony up the non-exclusive price, including EA Sports. Hypothetically, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Multiple companies competing just as it is in sports. There's probably a lot or a few of flawed premises in the past that came to fruition.

# 49 Money99 @ 01/14/14 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mendota


	2K's terrible licensing deal is the main cause of all of their issues. They could go back now and develop a game for a lower cost, but they have suffered six years of constant bashing from gamers and the sports media. I don't think they believe they can sell enough copies of a good game. 2K12 and 2K13 is proof of that, because they were good games.

Bingo.

2K really needs to work on their brand.
Love them or hate them, EA's brand is world renown. It's like McDonald's or Nike.

2K never really tried to get on that same level. Did they even have a catchy slogan like "It's in the Game"?

I'm no marketing expert, but maybe they could have tried to rebrand their series or attach a specific athlete to each sport?
Get Jeter or Jackie Robinson, or some mega baseball star as the spokesperson for their MLB game ala Madden.

Or how about community days?

EA's games aren't always the best, but man they know how to market. 2K has done a miserable job in that department.
It's hard to fathom that at one point they had the best baseball, basketball, football and hockey game on the market and yet they did nothing to capitalize on that.

# 50 kehlis @ 01/14/14 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Not from an official source, but it's one argument that may come up from time to time when the words "NFL" "License" "Exclusive" are used. Too much hassle or too difficult to deal with multiple companies making an NFL football, therefore the NFL chooses to go exclusive. Something to that extent. I'm simply saying the NFL is already controlling over 30 individual franchises, and comparing that to 2 or 3 video game makers. If the NFL can control over 30 teams, I pose the question of whether it really is that much of a hassle to monitor 2 or 3 developers. That is all.

So you are making up an argument that hasn't been made and then using it to support your argument?

That's laughable. It's not a hassle to monitor two or three game companies, it's really simple, that you and I agree with.

If that's your ammo your point is moot. Has nothing to do with any point you've brought up thus far.

# 51 nemesis04 @ 01/14/14 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kehlis


	So you are making up an argument that hasn't been made and then using it to support your argument? That's laughable. It's not a hassle to monitor two or three game companies, it's really simple, that you and I agree with. If that's your ammo your point is moot. Has nothing to do with any point you've brought up thus far.

Baseball did it, they had 5 or 6 going at the same time at one point.

# 52 kehlis @ 01/14/14 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemesis04


	Baseball did it, they had 5 or 6 going at the same time at one point.

I agreed with it being simple...

I don't see having multiple games as an issue at all.

I'm saying this is the first time I've EVER heard that argument used. I've never seen it given as an actual reason for exclusivity other than strawberry's speculation.

# 53 DrJones @ 01/14/14 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	Exactly what I'm saying with regards to pricing. Yes, I know the current price is for exclusivity. Call the "exclusive" price a "nonexclusive" price, and allow anyone wanting to create an NFL football game, pay to play so to speak. How would you know no one would be willing to pay that amount for non-exclusivity. If something is a hot commodity, there will be buyers. There are things that are overpriced out there in the world, and people still pony up the dollars.

How do I know? Maybe because I worked at EA for 7 years and spent another 3 making games for 2K and know how the deals work?

If the NFL asked for a flat fee of $60M from EA with no promise of exclusivity, EA would say LOL. 2K would say, where the hell are we going to get that money? We lost $30M per year on the MLB deal and almost went bankrupt!

If the NFL is such a hot commodity, why doesn't EA charge $100 or $150 or $200 for Madden every year? Everybody would still buy the game, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by strawberryshortcake


	One argument for only having one developer is because it's too difficult for the NFL to monitor more than one company making an NFL football video game. Having to deal with 2K and EA and Sony creating an NFL football game would be too difficult is what some might argue for why the NFL would rather deal with one single game developer. I'm saying how could it really be that difficult if the NFL is monitoring more than 30 different teams (49ers, Seahawks, Broncos, Patriots, Colts, Steelers, etc.) throughout the entire year. The NFL seriously can't manage to draft guidelines for 2 or 3 video game developers to follow when the NFL is already doing so for more than 30 teams in the league?

Good Lord. Every sports title ever made involves people from the leagues and unions "monitoring" the companies. Which basically means "get the logos and uniforms right, don't mention steroids or anything that would make us look bad, where's the money?" The NFL didn't cut an exclusivity deal with EA because it would be "easier to monitor", they did it because they make a lot more money this way.

You think the NFL is leaving a lot of money on the table via exclusivity? By all means, you should get in contact with them and tell them your idea.

# 54 nemesis04 @ 01/14/14 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kehlis


	I agreed with it being simple... I don't see having multiple games as an issue at all. I'm saying this is the first time I've EVER heard that argument used. I've never seen it given as an actual reason for exclusivity other than strawberry's speculation.

I was just supporting your argument by showing that another sport did it.

# 55 DrJones @ 01/14/14 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mendota


	2K tried tit for tat by locking EA out of baseball, but with a more friendly deal that allowed for Sony to keep making their game.

I'd use "suicidal" instead of "friendly". The deal 2K signed with MLB was insane, and a huge money loser. You guys don't know how close that deal came to resulting in the end of all 2K Sports titles (yes, including NBA).

# 56 kehlis @ 01/14/14 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nemesis04


	I was just supporting your argument by showing that another sport did it.

Ha, my bad. Went into all out defense mode there....

# 57 kehlis @ 01/14/14 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mendota


	I have heard people speculate that the NFL wanted an exclusive deal because it would be easier for them to control the product. But I never got the impression it was because dealing with multiple publishers was hard. Rather, it the increased leverage they had over EA, since they could always threaten to take their exclusive deal elsewhere. But there is not a shred of real world logic in shortcake's posts.

That would absolutely make sense to me.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

# 58 DrJones @ 01/14/14 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mendota


	But you are right, it was suicidal. They just had no margin for error, and 2K8 was released in a nearly unplayable state. While it improved, it was too late. And then 2K overreacted, fired Kush and brought VC in to fix the game, but essentially created a situation in which they had less time to get 2K9 out, which shipped with a ton of bugs and problems. Those two releases rendered the much improved later games irrelevant. And it was all because they were operating in panic mode.

Close. What really happened was half of Kush quit to form their own company during 2K8's Alpha. Blue Castle (where I was working at the time) was brought in to help the remnants of Kush get 2K8 out the door. 2K's deal with MLB included extremely harsh penalties for not shipping on time. If 2K8 didn't ship, the entirety of 2K Sports would've been scrapped, and it's fairly likely that Take Two itself would've been acquired by EA. Fun times!

The more you know, huh?

EDIT: Why'd that guy just get banned?

# 59 kehlis @ 01/14/14 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJones


	EDIT: Why'd that guy just get banned?

Unfortunately (I was enjoying the conversation as well) it wasn't the first or even the second time he's been banned.

Can't get into it more than that but you can PM me if you want to.

# 60 DrJones @ 01/14/14 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kehlis


	Unfortunately (I was enjoying the conversation as well) it wasn't the first or even the second time he's been banned. Can't get into it more than that but you can PM me if you want to.

Weird. The internet is a strange place.

« Previous 1 234 5 Next »

More Links

2K Sports Confirms They Are Done With Baseball