Is The Show Still An Every Year Purchase?

[Ghost Of The Year]

I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that the reason for the yearly release of MLBTS is due to the MLB not being happy with the product they produce. The MLB licensing agreement has always been for yearly releases, even back when MLB 2K was making a game in competition with MLBTS. And I'm not sure why MLB would be disappointed in a product that sells extremely well on a yearly basis, and the current developer of their "product" has won the DICE Sports game of the year for MLB '23 and MLB '24.

And in the same respect, there is no door being opened for Konami due to the MLB being disappointed in SDS product because the MLB license isn't exclusive to SDS and never has been. 2K, Konami, EA, Microsoft (they have the rights to the High Heat series) can all produce a MLB game if they so choose. Nothing is stopping them.

The yearly release of a product branding a professional sports leagues license has always been the case whether its MLB, NHL, NBA, or the NFL.

I don't draw that conclusion. If I did, I would hold the opinion MLB doesn't want a yearly release. They clearly do want a yearly release, and Sony clearly wants that as well.
No doubt MLBTS sells well, and is well made. But they also see what numbers 2K delivers for the NBA and Madden for the NFL. If MLB could get those numbers from Sony, they wouldn't say "No thanks. MLBTS sells enough as is".

This is why RBI was was given the resources from MLB to produce RBI. MLB isn't paying Sony to produce MLBTS, nor have they ever did such a thing. Sony pays MLB. That's the way its always been and I certainly don't think that will ever change. I just say a door has opened for Konami because of the mobile game they started recently making. No matter how I phrase it, I can't phrase it as MLB closing a door on Konami. I'll leave it to others to say that, if they choose.

[Madden08PCgmr]

Per the MLB licensing agreement, SDS is required to release the game yearly

Its time to re-invent the wheel if they want a truly great product.

The yearly cycle doesn't allow for innovation or creativity.

And I would guess they could find a way to hit their yearly contractual monetary obligation with a paid roster updates and through Diamond Dynasty revenue... not even a guess, I'm sure of it, personally.

[Ghost Of The Year]

The yearly release of a product branding a professional sports leagues license has always been the case whether its MLB, NHL, NBA, or the NFL.

This gave me a good chuckle, everytime a new GM has been hired by any of my employers, the last thing they all want to be told when they ask why a thing is done in a particular fashion,
the wrong answer is always invariably ''Because that's the way we've always done it."

[countryboy]

Its time to re-invent the wheel if they want a truly great product.

The yearly cycle doesn't allow for innovation or creativity.

And I would guess they could find a way to hit their yearly contractual monetary obligation with a paid roster updates and through Diamond Dynasty revenue... not even a guess, I'm sure of it, personally.

Why would they re-invent the wheel when the current model is working???

The game sells well year in and year out meaning the fan base is happy with the quality of product being produced thus leading to profits being made by everyone involved in releasing the product (MLB & SDS).

Maybe the quality of product doesn’t meet what you’re wanting out of the game, but to assert that the product isn’t good when all measurable indicators state otherwise (sales and awards within the industry) is hard to accept.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghost Of The Year]

It doesn't behoove Madden to reinvent the wheel. Of all vide games they would definitely be happy iwith the status quo, as long as they have exclusive rights, EA has zero worries. But MLBTS has no exclusive rights, if/when another smaller company tried to enter the baseball video gaming fray, they would be the one who needs to try a different approach. MLBTS has no reason to do anything different as long as they have nolegitimate push from another video game company. The Show does sell well every year and as long as they're content to remain in third place in video game sells, there they shall remain. And I'd say, for now, with RBI failing, MLB is content to just stay ahead of EA NHL. And there's nothing wrong with that. MLB should be allowed to run it's ship the whatever way. They want.

[countryboy]

This gave me a good chuckle, everytime a new GM has been hired by any of my employers, the last thing they all want to be told when they ask why a thing is done in a particular fashion,
the wrong answer is always invariably ''Because that's the way we've always done it."

What would be the benefit to changing how it’s done when the current system is working?

Just to do it?

How many more sales (profit dollars) will they gain in that 2nd or 3rd year the game is released versus what they lose over the same span?

Neither SDS or MLB wants to wait 2-3 years to see a return on investment, especially SDS because the years of not releasing they will be operating at a loss due to cost of production (licensing agreements, cost of wages, etc) will still need to be paid over those years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghost Of The Year]

There's no benefit to the old guard changing their ways. The only somebody who would need to try a different approach is someone trying to enter the the market. That seems obvious to me, I don't even know why that wouldrequire pointing out.

[djflock]

Depends on what they are offering year to year

[countryboy]

I don't draw that conclusion. If I did, I would hold the opinion MLB doesn't want a yearly release. They clearly do want a yearly release, and Sony clearly wants that as well.
No doubt MLBTS sells well, and is well made. But they also see what numbers 2K delivers for the NBA and Madden for the NFL. If MLB could get those numbers from Sony, they wouldn't say "No thanks. MLBTS sells enough as is".

This is why RBI was was given the resources from MLB to produce RBI. MLB isn't paying Sony to produce MLBTS, nor have they ever did such a thing. Sony pays MLB. That's the way its always been and I certainly don't think that will ever change. I just say a door has opened for Konami because of the mobile game they started recently making. No matter how I phrase it, I can't phrase it as MLB closing a door on Konami. I'll leave it to others to say that, if they choose.

The NFL and NBA are more popular than MLB, and soccer trumps NFL and NBA.

Nobody is insinuating that either SDS or MLB would be opposed to more sales but releasing every few years isn’t going to achieve that goal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghost Of The Year]

Like I say, a biannual release is not something SDS needs to concern itself with. And if MLB has decided it doesn't need to attempt to pass the NBA in popularity, then that should be their right to be allowed to do so.

[Ghost Of The Year]

Nobody is insinuating that either SDS or MLB would be opposed to more sales but releasing every few years isn’t going to achieve that goal

If sales are the only driving factor, and the goal of a smaller video game company (lol, yes, even smaller than SDS)
if the goal of a smaller video game companyisn't to make money, we really can't know what is achievable until attempted. And by achievable, I don't mean simply units moved.
I'm talking about being sustainable and staying in business longer than 2K baseball and RBI.
***See further into this post for details as to why.*****

One last thing, then I will have exhausted everything I have to say on the subject. Firstly, Sony might not feel like it needs to evolve from how they do business with MLB (and MLB may feel the same, in regards to their relationship with Sony). And that's okay. But I don't for one minute believe MLB isn't going to quit trying to grow their brand. I'm not even saying I believe anyone has said otherwise.



*****But it's not just about the number of ''sales''.It's number one with a bullet ''good business sense''.*****

If MLB hypothetically did indeed decide they wanted to let another company make a second game to complement their sales with The Show, and this new company found they can make ten dollars by spending one dollar, while their competition is spending ten dollars to make twenty dollars, or whatever Sony spends to make MLBTS, maybe that is good business sense for both of them.

All I really know is I don't believe (after 2K and RBI's failure at making a baseball video game) I don't believe another company can compete with Sony by going about it the way Sony goes about it. Another company would have to think way outside of the box if they wanted to be in it for the long haul.

It may even be entirely possible MLB doesn't have it as a major priority to grow their video game presence, in fact I might be easily persuaded to believe that.. And again, nothing wrong with that. It should be their prerogative.

[Madden08PCgmr]

Why would they re-invent the wheel when the current model is working???

The game sells well year in and year out meaning the fan base is happy with the quality of product being produced thus leading to profits being made by everyone involved in releasing the product (MLB & SDS).

Maybe the quality of product doesn’t meet what you’re wanting out of the game, but to assert that the product isn’t good when all measurable indicators state otherwise (sales and awards within the industry) is hard to accept.

I have said, and will continue to say, this IS the best sports game currently. (Respect to CFB, I am done with EA.. I like My Eras, but as a Seattleite, I just don't have any passion for teh NBA)

The current model works.. beacuse it has to. Its not ideal, by any stretch of the imagination. We would get better features and content if they had more time between releases.

[Scott]

I've been let down too much by this game. I doubt I'll purchase it next year, unless it's available on PC

[countryboy]

I have said, and will continue to say, this IS the best sports game currently. (Respect to CFB, I am done with EA.. I like My Eras, but as a Seattleite, I just don't have any passion for teh NBA)

The current model works.. beacuse it has to. Its not ideal, by any stretch of the imagination. We would get better features and content if they had more time between releases.

You would get essentially the same features and content in 2-3 years regardless if the game releases yearly or every couple.

The time it takes to build these features and content doesn’t change simply because the timeframe of release changes.

In the meantime SDS would be operating at a loss building the game while still incurring the cost of production. To get their same level of return they would have to sell the game at a higher price.

There’s no benefit to SDS releasing the game every 2-3 years versus yearly, especially given how successful the game has been. All it does for them is increase the risk of lowering the probability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Madden08PCgmr]

Franchise is lifeless boxchecking. Do you honestly believe they wouldn't improve that mode with a longer release cycle?

Why have we gone all this time without full A-ball/125-man team rosters?? At the very least, 1 full A-ball team..

XBox release. Would that have been full next gen from the start if they had a little extra time to port the game over?

Carry over saves. Would that innovation had lived on if they had the time to patch it for Switch and X?

Operate at a loss? I read all the time kids drop $1000 on Diamond Dynasty content. Just like the MUT nuts. I don't believe for one second SDS wouldn't remain profitable. To say nothing of paid annual roster updates.

Respectfully, I could not disagree with you more.

Look at CFB. How much time was invested in that release? And for all intents and purposes, they nailed it, from what I've read.

[countryboy]

Franchise is lifeless boxchecking. Do you honestly believe they wouldn't improve that mode with a longer release cycle?

Why have we gone all this time without full A-ball/125-man team rosters?? At the very least, 1 full A-ball team..

XBox release. Would that have been full next gen from the start if they had a little extra time to port the game over?

Carry over saves. Would that innovation had lived on if they had the time to patch it for Switch and X?

Operate at a loss? I read all the time kids drop $1000 on Diamond Dynasty content. Just like the MUT nuts. I don't believe for one second SDS wouldn't remain profitable. To say nothing of paid annual roster updates.

Respectfully, I could not disagree with you more.

Look at CFB. How much time was invested in that release? And for all intents and purposes, they nailed it, from what I've read.

Franchise mode improves yearly. Do you honestly believe that franchise mode in '25 is the same as '22 or '23? It's significantly better.

We've gone all this time without full A-ball/125-man rosters because there are foundational structures that first need to be put into place for the game to be able to support it.

Carry over saves wouldn't exist no matter how long they had to develop. It was used scarcely by the community and was difficult to add new features, rebuilding features that would co-exist with previous franchise saves. There was a reason franchise mode stayed largely the same over the duration of year to year saves.

So you expect DD content for 1-2 years and paid roster updates to offset the loss of game sales and continue to provide the same profit margin as they are currently getting? To expect people to offset the loss of game sales by buying a $25 roster update just to have to start over in franchise and essentially play the same game over again is setting expectations dangerously high.

Check out the CFB message boards for '25 and see if they still nailed it. And I don't understand how thats valid to this discussion because now they are releasing every year and didn't decide to not release a game for 10 years due to a business decision. If they could've continued releasing yearly after '14 they would have. I guarantee it.

You have this false idea that releasing every 2-3 years is somehow going to lead to a bigger and better feature filled game that wouldn't exist if the game was still released yearly. You're also confident in the fact that people will continue to spend the same amount of dollars over a 1-3 year span for DD content and also pay for roster updates just to essentially play the same game. You're also banking on the fact that all the buyers of '25 would return for '27 or '28. You have a lot of "for sures" in regards to things supporting the business during a 1-3 year loss of game sales, that aren't even "for sures" year over year.

[SFNiners816]

It's no longer a day 1 purchase for me. Purchase is now 100% contingent on what classic rosters are available. I'm currently still playing MLB 23 because I absolutely love the 1990 93 man roster that's available. I had moved on to MLB24 early this spring and was enjoying the 1994 90 man roster but I had my franchise file corrupt on it. While I had multiple saves , it seems like that save corruptions may have been a issue with MLB 24 and I really was kinda looking for a reason to get back to the 1990 roster on MLB 23.

[Madden08PCgmr]

You have this false idea that releasing every 2-3 years is somehow going to lead to a bigger and better feature filled game that wouldn't exist if the game was still released yearly.

That is my opinion, with complete and total conviction