Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Entertainment Games

Take Two Lands Exclusive MLB Deal 188

Posted by Zonk from the next-up-exclusive-rights-to-mighty-mites-hockey dept.
The deal reported last week on Slashdot has come to fruition: Take Two interactive and MLB have signed an exclusivity deal. Worthplaying has the news. "The innovative seven-year arrangement will dramatically limit the number of baseball video game manufacturers and ensure aggressive marketing and promotion of baseball video games, while promoting competition in the marketplace to drive innovation in baseball product development. Beginning in 2006, Take2 will have exclusive rights among third-party publishers to develop and market simulation, arcade and manager-style baseball video games..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Take Two Lands Exclusive MLB Deal More

Take Two Lands Exclusive MLB Deal

Comments Filter:

  • Maybe I am missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Willie_the_Wimp ( 128267 ) * <fred.garvin@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:38PM (#11458206)
    Can someone explain to me how "dramatically limiting the number of baseball video game manufacturers" will "promote competition in the marketplace to drive innovation in baseball product development"? Maybe I was asleep that day in ECON 101.

    Oh wait, (not that I usually bash MS) but limiting choices to drive innovation is the new economy. Sorry... I forgot.

    Todd
    • I was going to ask the same. But you FPd the same question. I have no idea how exclusivity encourages competition. That seems completely oxymoronic.

      • PR (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tony ( 765 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:52PM (#11458443) Journal
        Imagine you are in public relations. Now imagine you tell nothing but lies. But I repeat myself.

        In the wonderful world of "News" releases, up is down, SCO is a Linux company, our government is here to help us, and massive restrictions lead to innovation.

        If you repeat a lie often enough, people forget the truth; eventually, the lie becomes Common Knowledge. Right now, the market seems rife with "Common Knowledge"-- like, the market will adjust itself because it's a "fair market", helping the rich get richer helps the poor get richer, and restrictions lead to freedom.

        Ah, well. Such is life. As bad as it is, it still is pretty damned good. I mean, as long as you don't live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, Uzbekistan...
        • No, if you repeat press releases enough people tend to get bored and wander away. Maybe a few stupid ones keep staring into the light, but well, we can only hope natural selection will work its magic one those few.

          Most people hate press releases because they are always without exception upbeat to absurd levels and completely devoid of information. The only people that like a press release are lazy journalist who spew it back like it is news. Uncoincidently, those news reports tend to have the same effec

    • Re:Maybe I am missing something... (Score:5, Funny)

      by AceCaseOR ( 594637 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:40PM (#11458255) Homepage Journal
      I believe the press release could best be translated as, "In your face, EA!"
      • I think that's more like "Hey there, bigboy, you want a peice of this?" Not sure, my prostitute to english dictionary might be off.
    • the premise of "promote competition in the marketplace to drive innovation in baseball product development" comes from the fact that no one will be able just to slap together a baseball game having your favorite player in it with some cool graphics and sell it for $50.

      now if a new baseball game wants to enter the market place they have to provide some game play that is fun and replayable.
      • "Beginning in 2006, Take2 will have exclusive rights among third-party publishers to develop and market simulation, arcade and manager-style baseball video games..."

        IANAIPL (I am not an IP lawyer) but doesn't this statement mean that nobody can make ANY type of baseball game? Not just ones with licensed characters, etc, but anythign having to do with baseball?

        And on a different note, this is hardly innovative, and I find it amusing that they claim that when this was in direct response to EA grabbing the N

        • Re:Maybe I am missing something... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by cmallinson ( 538852 ) <chris@malli[ ]n.ca ['nso' in gap]> on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:04PM (#11458636) Homepage
          IANAIPL (I am not an IP lawyer) but doesn't this statement mean that nobody can make ANY type of baseball game? Not just ones with licensed characters, etc, but anythign having to do with baseball?

          I'm pretty sure it's just the players/teams/stadiums that are licensed here. I think EA should create a baseball game with all their licenced football players and teams. NFLB 2005 - The Off-Season.

          • Too bad they can't make a deal with Take Two to have the football players play the baseball players in a game of football and then a game of baseball.

            Man....I'd hate to be pitching when one of those guys charges the mound....

          • Actually, if one Reads The Fine Article, it acctually states that the agreement was with the player's union, not MLB. So the deal is probably ONLY for player names, and stadiums and team names are still available to all.
        • IANAIPL (I am not an IP lawyer) but doesn't this statement mean that nobody can make ANY type of baseball game? Not just ones with licensed characters, etc, but anythign having to do with baseball?

          I'm not sure, but it could mean that nobody is allowed to use the major baseball franchises. Which means that you could probably get away with a baseball game featuring the "Slashcity Dotters", the "Beowulf Clusters" and the "Korea Old Men".

          --Rob

        • IANAIPL (I am not an IP lawyer) but doesn't this statement mean that nobody can make ANY type of baseball game? Not just ones with licensed characters, etc, but anythign having to do with baseball?

          Well, no... MLB may own the rights to the players likenesses, but they don't own the sport of baseball.

          So I think the original statement was somewhat innacurate... they can't possibly ban the creation of all of those games, as long as they don't include the actual players in the games.

      • the premise of "promote competition in the marketplace to drive innovation in baseball product development" comes from the fact that no one will be able just to slap together a baseball game having your favorite player in it with some cool graphics and sell it for $50.

        Right. No one except Take-Two Interactive will be able to do that.

        now if a new baseball game wants to enter the market place they have to provide some game play that is fun and replayable.

        Bullshit. A more accurate assertion would

        • This promotes innovation the same way that having to compete with Anheuser Busch's marketing machine in the beer industry promotes innovation- not at all.

          You clearly don't watch enough TV, or perhaps you have a TiVo and skip all the commercials. I think Anheuser Busch's marketing machine has driven lots of innovation, albeit mostly in the advertisements.

          Joking aside, I think someone having a near monopoly on something does promote innovation. In order to break into a marketplace that features a near m

    • Re:Maybe I am missing something... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sierpinski ( 266120 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:43PM (#11458295)
      I'd have to agree. Its competition that makes the company strive for excellence. Especially when there are other good comparable (similar) products out there. If EA is prohibited, for example, from developing any more MLB games, then what will set the 'bar' for a good game? (Not that EA does it, but they are a major player in the sports genre.) As Willie said, limiting choices doesn't seem the best way to promote competition.

      Maybe they're talking about just the few really big companies, but any time I hear the phrase 'Exclusive deal' I groan just a bit.

      Competition also ensures that if you dont like one developer's take on a game (game play, controls, etc) you have other options. If Take2's version of MLB basically doesn't meet expectation, who else will we have to turn to for our MLB games?

      • Its competition that makes the company strive for excellence.

        No, it's competition that makes the company strive for first-to-market. Excellence is expensive and time consuming. Making an "excellent" product is a last resort for marketers when price, promotion, and hollow features don't win the market share they were looking for. That is, excellence is for people who *know* they won't make it to the market first, no matter what, but still want to compete.

        Don't believe that excellence is lower on the li
        • What helps the labels is the offical MLB logo that tells Joe Consumer that he can play his favorite (current) player.

          I remember the days of Super Tecmo Bowl where there was no Bernie Kosar. The NFL didn't have rights to use his name, so instead, he was known as 'QB Browns'. Being able to play your favorite athlete is a powerful thing when it comes down to 'Which football game will I buy' when standing in the store looking at the shelves and shelves of games.
        • That is, excellence is for people who *know* they won't make it to the market first, no matter what, but still want to compete.

          And so who exactly fits this any longer? Take Two will pretty much be first and last to market. I do not remember the last Nintendo developed baseball game, MS's games division is defunct, and does EA count for Sony? I guess that leave Take Two as the first and last to market. Exclusivity sucks.

    • Re:Maybe I am missing something... (Score:5, Informative)

      by fireduck ( 197000 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:45PM (#11458335)
      Those 2 sentences really seem at odds, don't they? The only way I can spin is is that it's not quite a monopoly, as the deal is only applies to 3rd party developers. Apparently if Sony, MS or Nintendo wanted to make their own MLB games, they are entitled to. So, rather than get hundreds of lousy MLB games for each console system, you'll have at most 2 Take2's and S/MS/N's version. (are MLB games even that popular that there are more than 2 for any given system?)

      But even then, I think it's a stretch to claim that Take2 competing against Nintendo for the best MLB game on the gamecube is going to result in innovation...
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Maybe I'm missing something too... that people have actually been giving a flying fuck about that sport since the strike 10 years ago?

      Plus, from the wording of the Slashdot blurb, it sounds like they're claiming all games related to baseball. Which is preposterous, since they only have control of the use of the teams of the Major League. I hardly think they could sue a game, like, say, Base Wars.
    • to drive innovation in baseball product development.

      I think they're trying to say that the games will be so cool that people will stop watching (live) baseball games, and that the MLB will have to innovate (live) baseball to make it more attractive to fans to get them to attend (live) games.

      I wonder if you're allowed to broadcast a video game? Might be more exciting than a live game.

    • Consumers suffer from hard decissions about which product to pick everyday. Many americans suffer from buyers remorse caused by these stressful decissions. Thank god the corporations have taken the forefront and stepped in to help remove these decissions for us. We should be thankful, no longer forced to search the net for reviews to which sports game to buy which leaves us with more time to enjoy with our family.

  • With EA being the new Microsoft, is this the new "patent" market place crippling? Seems it's heading that way.

  • and in other news (Score:5, Funny)

    by computerme ( 655703 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:40PM (#11458237)
    Take 3 Interactive retained an exclusive 6 year agreement from the US park service to build video games of watching grass grow...

    • Does anyone else find it sad that playing baseball in a videogame is more interesting then watching people play baseball?
      • No, because in the video game you're playing somthign yourself. When you watch a MLB game you're doing just that watching. In my experience, playing somthign is generally more fun that watching someone else play.

        The differnce being the social aspect. If you're playing MLB on your xbox, you're generally not hanging out with friends and drinking at the same time.

      • Does anyone else find it sad that some people can't comprehend the fact that some other people might have different taste in entertainment? I love watching baseball and I love video games, but I don't like baseball video games at all.
      • No. Which would you find more fun, watching a NASCAR race, or participating in a simulation of one? Even though NASCAR is "teh pewp" of the auto-racing world, it'd still be fun to drive (even if it's simulated) in a race.

        -Jesse

  • Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tekunokurato ( 531385 ) <jackphelps@gmail.com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:40PM (#11458247) Homepage
    Bullshit. Anyone can make a baseball videogame. It's rights to the use of MLB trademarks, logos, and other intellectual properties that have been auctioned here.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by zoomba ( 227393 ) <mfc131.gmail@com> on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:40PM (#11458251) Homepage
    How is a seven year licensing deal "innovative"? What's so innovative about a contract?

    Lawyer 1: Ok, I've got this great idea... we'll buy the rigths to Major League Baseball for a period of seven years!

    Lawyer 2: Seven years?!!? I've heard of five year deals, even ten year deals... but SEVEN?! That's so far outside the box we'll have to label it as 'innovative' in our press release!

    Lawyer 1: What can I say? I'm a visionary. No longer will we be tied to 5 year intervals on licenses... it will liberate the industry from the chains of oppression!
    • How is a seven year licensing deal "innovative"?

      Especially when the NFL and EA already have an exclusive licensing agreement. Maybe the USPTO wrote the article.

  • EA annouces and agreement, in priciple, to purchase Take Two Interactive...

  • because (Score:5, Funny)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:41PM (#11458267) Journal
    baseball games are easy to make. You hit a damn ball. How many new golf games are released?

    What next? SSSSSSX Tricky Baseball pro underground 2?

    Mod up your bat, and do break dance moves while hitting home runs into crowd of oiled up lesbians.

    Get extra points for inventive sliding moves...

    lets face it, baseball sucks.

    Does baseball even have cheerleaders? (sorry I know nothing about american sports, so feel free to mod me down!)

    • Re:because (Score:5, Funny)

      by wo1verin3 ( 473094 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:46PM (#11458340) Homepage
      Mod up your bat, and do break dance moves while hitting home runs into crowd of oiled up lesbians.

      You have a torrent for this game?
      • No, baseball has people dressed up as various meats and running around the bases. And that's why baseball is fricken awesome.
    • Baseball has no cheerleaders like American Football (rugby type game) does.

      However, I would not call baseball an american sport since I can think of other countries that play it. Such as Canada, China, Cuba and Japan.
    • Don't give the South Park guys any ideas man. Just keep their attention on South Park.
    • (sorry I know nothing about american sports, so feel free to mod me down!)

      Yes, you've quite proven that already.

  • I'm going to go burn down Take Two! Evil capitalistic pig-dogs and their exclusive deals -- you think that they were trying to do business and then they backstab all of us! Power to the people!

  • Features Needed (Score:5, Funny)

    by trekstar25 ( 727712 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:42PM (#11458286) Homepage
    As long as whatever baseball games they produce still have the "Hit batter with pitch" and "Charge the mound" buttons, I'm fine with this.

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mauvaisours ( 660152 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:44PM (#11458321)
    exclusive rights among third-party publishers to develop and market simulation, arcade and manager-style baseball video games
    Can you explain me how MLB can forgive to make baseball games ? I understand that they can prevent using MLB brands, team, players,... but that doesn't prevent from doing baseball games. It's the same for football (or soccer as you call it on the other side), and Pro Evolution Soccer proves you can make successful games without the official license.
    • Here in 'Merica, though, we like everything licensed. So buying the rights to MLB is pretty much like prohibiting everyone else from making a baseball game. At least one that will sell.

  • College Teams (Score:5, Interesting)

    by awhelan ( 781773 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:46PM (#11458350) Homepage
    MLB and the NFL may be hurting their popularity by doing this. All the companies left out of their exclusive deals aren't going to just let their game engines go to waste. Within the next few years we are probably going to see more NCAA games. Many people prefer watching the unpaid college athletes over the professionals anyway and these excluseive deals will make college sports more popular... it's free publicity for the NCAA.
    • No, we will just see people sending their game cards to certain persons that keep up with all the stats and player names. As long as you keep your engine open to name/statistic updating who cares, people will just find a way to update all the names at once. Go Google it.

  • Doesn't say anything about FPS! (Score:3, Funny)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:46PM (#11458355)
    I can see it now: Earl Weaver III:Knee Deep in Gore. The Yankees thought they were just going to play a little exhibition on the moon, and then all Hell broke loose (literally)! Now the only question is: Doom 3 or Source?

  • BaseBall games (Score:4, Funny)

    by clinko ( 232501 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:47PM (#11458367) Journal
    I've always hated baseball games anyway, it's just 1 button you need, not even a joystick.

    1. Aim pitch with line that goes up down. (HIT BUTTON)
    2. Pick speed with line that goes up down. (HIT BUTTON)
    3. Swing (HIT BUTTON)
    4. Run towards ball on ground (HIT BUTTON -REPEAT)
    5. Throw to base (HIT BUTTON)
    6. See Stats (HIT BUTTON)
    7. Next inning starts.
    • which makes it significantly more complicated then any FPS which are just:

      1. Aim
      2. Shoot (HIT BUTTON)
    • it's just 1 button you need, not even a joystick.


      Any game you play with buttons sucks. That's why I never got a console, I don't want no fucking "joypads". Just try to play "Grand Prix Legends" without a force feedback wheel and you'll see what I mean.

    • Re:BaseBall games (Score:4, Funny)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:12PM (#11458742)
      I've always hated baseball games anyway, it's just 1 button you need, not even a joystick.

      Unfortunately, the concept of one-click gameplay has already been patented. That's why console system controllers have so many buttons these days, and why many PC games still use the keyboard.

  • baseball gaming = overrated (for me, anyway) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Second_Infinity ( 810308 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:49PM (#11458386) Homepage
    In many years of playing baseball games I've grown weary of them altogether. Seems that major improvements have been made in gameplay and graphics, but the games still have a boring aspect to them - nothing really new. At least the football/basketball games incorporate different play options, Helmet-cams and enabled rough-housing.

    Maybe if the stadium is in Liberty City and we have to run from the cops while running the bases it'll be a bit more entertaining... Who knows though.

    Of course, maybe they'll surprise me and resurrect baseball gaming once again.

  • Damned Internet Explorer (Score:4, Funny)

    by ZoneGray ( 168419 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:49PM (#11458387) Homepage
    Damned Internet Explorer cache must be screwed up, it keeps displaying old Slashdot stories that I read a few days ago.

  • Why Sega/T2 = EA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by superultra ( 670002 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:50PM (#11458410) Homepage
    People were bitching at EA for picking up the NFL exclusivity contract and talking about its unfairness to Sega. Yet, here is Take Two (who distributes Sega sports) doing the same thing. Moreover, Take Two tried to do the same NFL exclusive contract as EA got, they just bid less than EA. So are people starting letter writing campaigns into Sega?

    As an interesting sidenote, the EA-NFL contract was completely exclusive. But here, it seems that first-party studios are not barred from making MLB games. I wonder if Microsoft put too much into buying the High Heat franchise to let that go?
    • So are there enough loopholes to allow MS or Sony to publish EA's MLB game?
    • I'm picturing a Microsoft Goon(tm) standing in the meeting room:

      "Well, we can't stop you from making an exclusive deal. Not legally."


      "Boy, it sure would be a shame if something happened to this X-Box license over here..."

      "Oh, and it looks like X-Box Live is acting funky. Your games aren't working for some reason."

  • business case? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uujjj ( 752925 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:53PM (#11458457)
    I can understand why the exclusive deal makes sense from Take 2's perspective. Can someone explain to me how MLB would make more money licensing ONE company to do games than it would licensing MANY companies to do games?

    I don't think Take 2 alone could give MLB more money than, say, MS, EA, Vivendi, etc combined all doing their own licensed games.
    • Sure this one is easy. The MLB has the power to grant monopoly status on modern, baseball video games (at least.. with real team names).

      If only one person has that license they can set the monopoly, profit maximizing price. If they sell two licenses, the total profit will be duopoly profit, which is strictly less than monopoly profit. (this is assuming identical products, of course.)

      Since there is more money to be had by limiting the number of licenses, the licensee is willing to pay much more to avoid co
    • Can someone explain to me how MLB would make more money licensing ONE company to do games than it would licensing MANY companies to do games?

      If you rent out a piece of property for seven years to ONE tenant instead of MANY different tenants. That one tenant will be much more likely to pay more money for that land and he'll be much more likely to build things on that land (especially if he knows he won't have to share those improvements with others).

      That's the argument anyway. I don't how it will actuall

  • In other news (Score:4, Funny)

    by DarkFencer ( 260473 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:55PM (#11458485)
    In other news, EA is considering buying out Take Two Interactive to gain the MLB license back and "drive competition"

  • Diaster (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ThresholdRPG ( 310239 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @02:57PM (#11458532) Homepage Journal
    This is an impending disaster for the gaming marketplace.

    First it was EA with the NFL license. We know why they did it: the ESPN line of games was eating into their profits bigtime, and had exposed the fact that $20 for a barely updated annual game is more than enough to charge.

    2003
    Madden sales 5,000,000
    ESPN sales 450,000

    2004 (through Nov)
    Madden sales 3,000,000
    ESPN sales 2,000,000

    Now Take 2 tries to counter EA by inking this deal.

    This is a horrible trend and I don't see it being reversed unless consumers vote with their wallets.
    • This is a horrible trend and I don't see it being reversed unless consumers vote with their wallets.

      How do you "vote with your wallet" when their is no competition to vote for? If you simply buy nothing, they will not hear your "vote", since most other people never buy their product either, so your "vote" will be lost in the noise.

      How long until we start hearing the "massive piracy... soft console market... etc" justifications from EA and Take 2, I wonder?

      • If you simply buy nothing, they will not hear your "vote"

        Well, let's base this on those sales numbers. If you look, it's about 5-6 million copies (or so) for the two football games. Now, if next year, Madden+Take 2's football game (if there is one) only sells 2-3 million, perhaps a message will be sent? I'm not planning on buying Madden next year (I did buy ESPN 2k5, mostly because of the pricing).

      • You vote with your wallet by taking the consumer whore level down a notch. If football and/or baseball gets you hard, you can still play football and baseball games not from EA or Take 2. Unfortunately for brand name whores, it means that you might have to play a game that doesn't include your favorite logo and steroid chugging players name. You might actually have to enjoy the game for its own sake instead of deluding yourself into thinking that somehow fanatic consumer loyalty to brand named sports is
  • Have they patented it yet?

    sjees

  • "innovative" my ass (Score:4, Insightful)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:01PM (#11458580) Homepage Journal
    Since when is limiting competition innovative? Its a shame there isnt a law against spewing such bullshit.

  • NHL exclusive deal (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:05PM (#11458642)
    In other news, I've personally signed an exclusive deal with the NHL to develop and market simulation, arcade and manager-style hockey video games that let you re-live the excitement of the 2004-2005 NHL season.
    • "In other news, I've personally signed an exclusive deal with the NHL to develop and market simulation, arcade and manager-style hockey video games that let you re-live the excitement of the 2004-2005 NHL season"

      Oh. I wondered who was buying, re-labelling, and re-selling those old "Tiger Woods 2002" game CD's. What better way to show what the players and owners did during the 2004-2005 season!

    • Oh? How much did they pay you?
  • ... so there's a sports license that EA hasn't bought the exclusive rights to in perpetuity?
  • It won't be long before someone just spites them with a Virtual League Baseball or something.

    Besides, if I liked sports (which I don't) I think I'd almost prefer a sports game based on fictitious self made teams, personally trained and built up through hours of gaming just so I could take my memory card over to my friend's house and watch our teams duke it out.

    The more these games try to mimick the stats of the real teams, from likeness to abilities, the less personal each game player's team becomes.

    It's

  • Base Wars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kyru ( 836008 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:29PM (#11459028) Homepage
    I just hope this brings about the return of the greatest baseball game ever Base Wars [mobygames.com]
    • I agree, Base Wars is a truly outstanding game. Really innovative, and a lot of fun without having to resort to authentic licensed players.

      The "build your team" aspect of it is really the reason for this, since you can customize your players names, as well as the equipment you buy for them.

      That era also resulted in another great baseball game: Baseball Simulator 1.000 for the NES. (And Super Baseball Simulator 1.000 for the SNES) Similar to Base Wars, well except for the players aren't robots. And Ultra P

  • eh. Only two things to say. (Score:3, Funny)

    by His name cannot be s ( 16831 ) on Monday January 24, 2005 @03:43PM (#11459252) Journal
    1. The last good baseball game I played was on the colecovision.

    2. Thank god for modchips. :p
  • What about MVP Cricket 2003? MVP Cricket 2004: The Golden Wicket? MVP Cricket 2005: Indian Subcontinent Blowout?

    --Rob

  • Baseball games needn't license players and team names from MLB to be a good game. Anyone remember Baseball Stars? It had no licenses but was probably one of the best baseball games ever. And I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of Mario Baseball which was recently announced.

    The only thing that will be lost is the true sense of realism in non-licensed games, but to be honest, I don't always want realism in the games I play. Sometimes irreverence is more fun :) I'll watch baseball on TV if I want realism.

  • This may help some egos over at Take Two, but seriously, this is just EA leaving some scraps on the table to give the illusion of a competitive marketplace. Is there any real reason to believe EA couldn't dominate video game baseball too? Once you dominate most of a sector, like video game sports, leave a few areas (less profitable ones) available for competitors so that no one can say you have a true monopoly. So this doesn't hurt EA and Take Two at least has a little good news for their shareholders. The
  • ...nobody cares.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close