MLB 2K12 Cover Athlete is Justin Verlander

[StLfan72]

Quote: Originally Posted by econoodle

exactly. all star baseball mentioned jeter on the cover of the game. to use the cover might not mean a lot, but it obviously means something or they'd just put a baseball on the cover. If the cover didn't help sell copies [maybe not to US hardcore, but to some] it wouldnt be such a big deal. Marketing is a big part of it, Mauer isnt that marketable right now. Kind of reminds me of the Madden cover this year. I am sure Madden would have sold a few more copies with Rodgers on the cover, If only to the young kid who go into a store with his mom and goes for the game with the guy on the cover he knows/likes. Verlander is a good call. He dominated the ptching world this year and 2k rolls the Million dollar perfect game angle. But back to the long tern cover contract. A three year deal is a silly move. if its a guy like jeter, tiger, or Shaq its one thing. But Mauer? I still think the cover should go to the big time player from the year before. Somebody who when somebody walks into a gaming store there is a pull there based on the guy looking back at them off the box. also, to the people who don't care about the cover and will just put it in a cabinet, you were going to buy the game anyways. The cover athlete idea is to help with promotion of the game and make it more marketable and noticable to the masses. If it doesnt matter, just put Francisco Cervelli on the cover every year. It does make a difference. ok i've kind of derailed long enough. But it's always grinded my gears hearing about that the cover doesn't matter. Myabe not to you, or you, or you, but it does matter.

I don't think that most people believe it doesn't REALLY matter, it's just that there are a number of legitimate, marketable players that could grace the cover. Verlander's certainly near the top of that list and absolutely deserves it, but there are several other guys that do too.

[rudyjuly2]

I think one of the problems sports games face today is the feeling that the games aren't changing fast enough. That MLB 2K12 will be MLB 2K11.5. Same goes for the Show. Putting the same guy on the cover adds fuel to that fire.

Baseball sales for both games really dropped off this past year. They both need to do whatever it takes to convince people that their new game is great AND much better/different than the prior version. In the past EA used a name change from Triple Play to MVP to convince people their new game was better and worth getting. Marketing is important.

[GlennN]

Quote: Originally Posted by econoodle

exactly. all star baseball mentioned jeter on the cover of the game. to use the cover might not mean a lot, but it obviously means something or they'd just put a baseball on the cover. If the cover didn't help sell copies [maybe not to US hardcore, but to some] it wouldnt be such a big deal. Marketing is a big part of it, Mauer isnt that marketable right now. Kind of reminds me of the Madden cover this year. I am sure Madden would have sold a few more copies with Rodgers on the cover, If only to the young kid who go into a store with his mom and goes for the game with the guy on the cover he knows/likes. Verlander is a good call. He dominated the ptching world this year and 2k rolls the Million dollar perfect game angle. But back to the long tern cover contract. A three year deal is a silly move. if its a guy like jeter, tiger, or Shaq its one thing. But Mauer? I still think the cover should go to the big time player from the year before. Somebody who when somebody walks into a gaming store there is a pull there based on the guy looking back at them off the box. also, to the people who don't care about the cover and will just put it in a cabinet, you were going to buy the game anyways. The cover athlete idea is to help with promotion of the game and make it more marketable and noticable to the masses. If it doesnt matter, just put Francisco Cervelli on the cover every year. It does make a difference. ok i've kind of derailed long enough. But it's always grinded my gears hearing about that the cover doesn't matter. Myabe not to you, or you, or you, but it does matter.

I think we are saying the same thing. I agree with you completely - the cover certainly matters for marketing to the impulse buyer who is not a remotely hardcore fan and picks up the game because they see it on the shelf with player X on the cover. All I am saying is that here, on these boards, we don't have those folks. Generally, I want to hear details about the game itself, refinements, new features, improvements, whatever. On these boards, I don't think the announcement of the cover athlete is that intriguing. Just my two cents!

[SoxFan01605]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

I think one of the problems sports games face today is the feeling that the games aren't changing fast enough. That MLB 2K12 will be MLB 2K11.5. Same goes for the Show. Putting the same guy on the cover adds fuel to that fire. Baseball sales for both games really dropped off this past year. They both need to do whatever it takes to convince people that their new game is great AND much better/different than the prior version. In the past EA used a name change from Triple Play to MVP to convince people their new game was better and worth getting. Marketing is important.

I don't think anybody denies the importance of marketing. Of course, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say "it doesn't matter" I'm talking in terms of actual user experience and as a counter to the ridiculous emotional response this stuff generates here. IMO, for a place full of people that covet being thought of as discerning gamers, people should start using more discernment.

Now, as for the marketing angle itself, I have no issue. If the sole point being made (as you are doing now) is based on that then I have no disagreement. Specifically related to 2K, if the argument is that their marketing has generally been terrible for this franchise, I also have no disagreement...I've been saying the same for years.

That said though, I also don't believe that most people who hop on here ranting about cover athletes are ultimately concerned with a company's marketing success (unless everyone here owns stock in one of these companies...which I doubt).

I just don't see the disappointed reactions stemming from a thought of "oh no, I sure hope Company X picked a guy that will help their sales." It seems to stem more from "my guy didn't make it" or a baseless belief that the cover somehow affects product quality.

So, while it does indeed affect marketing, my question to someone who gets overly emotional about this crap would be "why do you care?" Marketing is a fine argument for why Sony or 2K or EA should care, but it's a cop-out for why someone feels justified in railing about a game because their favorite didn't make the cover or by making dramatic "...or else" type statements as though a company should feel threatened by choosing "wrong."

[daflyboys]

Quote: Originally Posted by econoodle

He earned the cover. He was Justin-credible this year.

With that upper 90's fastball, he was Verl-an-der right choice.

(Did you see what I did there?)

[Doormat]

The guy deserved it, not a bad choice by 2K and MLB for giving him the award

[rudyjuly2]

Quote: Originally Posted by SoxFan01605

That said though, I also don't believe that most people who hop on here ranting about cover athletes are ultimately concerned with a company's marketing success (unless everyone here owns stock in one of these companies...which I doubt). I just don't see the disappointed reactions stemming from a thought of "oh no, I sure hope Company X picked a guy that will help their sales." It seems to stem more from "my guy didn't make it" or a baseless belief that the cover somehow affects product quality. So, while it does indeed affect marketing, my question to someone who gets overly emotional about this crap would be "why do you care?" Marketing is a fine argument for why Sony or 2K or EA should care, but it's a cop-out for why someone feels justified in railing about a game because their favorite didn't make the cover or by making dramatic "...or else" type statements as though a company should feel threatened by choosing "wrong."

It's true that some guys will use any point to take shots at a game or promote a game. Who is on the cover has never been a big deal to me. It has nothing to do with how good a game will be. Of course I've never cared about sock length options on player edits. Some guys go nuts for that stuff. I truly don't understand some arguments people have but sometimes I think it is simply because we are all wired a little different. I personally think that way too many people at OS think people are trolling when expressing a strange or different point of view. Some people are simply different. There would be far fewer arguments to moderate if people just let people express their opinions without feeling the need to attack an opposing point of view. Every argument doesn't have to have a winner and a loser.

[SoxFan01605]

Quote: Originally Posted by rudyjuly2

It's true that some guys will use any point to take shots at a game or promote a game. Who is on the cover has never been a big deal to me. It has nothing to do with how good a game will be. Of course I've never cared about sock length options on player edits. Some guys go nuts for that stuff. I truly don't understand some arguments people have but sometimes I think it is simply because we are all wired a little different. I personally think that way too many people at OS think people are trolling when expressing a strange or different point of view. Some people are simply different. There would be far fewer arguments to moderate if people just let people express their opinions without feeling the need to attack an opposing point of view. Every argument doesn't have to have a winner and a loser.

Hmm...I see your point, but I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted (or the topic in general, as nobody's done that on either side, from what I've read...most of that seems to fall into the off-topic discussion of the other game). I don't disagree with the sentiment at all though.

My only point was (in response to the comments directed towards people who say "it doesn't matter"), to clarify that when I say it doesn't matter to me, it is never a debate about what constitutes good marketing. I feel that is a separate issue from where most of the disagreement comes from (which is a disagreement over the highly subjective notion of who "deserves" the cover, etc).