MLB The Show 17 Patch 1.04 Available Now, Patch Notes Included

[Skyboxer]

Quote: Originally Posted by parky_17

Love it when people don't read the whole conversation... Sent from my SM-G920F using Operation Sports mobile app

No need to be condescending. Simply replying about if path was same as ball. .... Just another reminder to stay away from these forums.

[parky_17]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skyboxer

No need to be condescending. Simply replying about if path was same as ball. .... Just another reminder to stay away from these forums.

Lol all you had to do was look to posts above where I said when you get good timing AND the pci on the ball, it shouldn't result in a swing and miss

Sent from my SM-G920F using Operation Sports mobile app

[Skyboxer]

Quote: Originally Posted by parky_17

Lol all you had to do was look to posts above where I said when you get good timing AND the pci on the ball, it shouldn't result in a swing and miss Sent from my SM-G920F using Operation Sports mobile app

I did see that after the fact. I didn't reply to that. I replied to what you said after that "If pci path was same as ball you should make contact"

That is what I was going off of. So again zero reason to get smart about it. A simple shout out to say what was said before would have been better don't you think?
Either way. Moving on. I agree if all are good there should be contact.

[parky_17]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skyboxer

I did see that after the fact. I didn't reply to that. I replied to what you said after that "If pci path was same as ball you should make contact" That is what I was going off of. So again zero reason to get smart about it. A simple shout out to say what was said before would have been better don't you think? Either way. Moving on. I agree if all are good there should be contact.

Well how about not jumping in to try and make a point that has literally just been made

Sent from my SM-G920F using Operation Sports mobile app

[nomo17k]

Quote: Originally Posted by bredfan

I wouldn't mind every other year releases. The problem I see is I just don't think this game sells well enough to support it. Whether they release a game or not they're still paying the licensing costs. Taking years off probably just isn't financially feasible.

Yeah, so that's why I think so long as sticking to yearly cycle of the professional counterpart remains the bottom line for computer sports gaming, it would probably be difficult to find sustainable way to support the development itself, and demanding people who hang around in a forum like this one would always get some level of disappointment in seeing a product that takes a long time to get out of mediocrity, because the maintenance cost inherent in yearly cycle is too high. I still think The Show's bottom line is superb compared to other games I have played (that's why I still play it pretty much every day) but I sure have been quite disappointed by the lack of major progress in the directions where I think an authentic sports simulation game should be heading.

And the issue of revenue stream is one reason why, even though I'm personally not invested in playing a mode like the current Diamond Dynasty, I would not blame the developers to make a microtransactional mode appealing to more people who would invest in them. So long as what the developers gain from it is somehow useful to subsidize the (other) efforts that pushes the frontier of sport simulation game (which is what I am interested in), I don't really care much where that subsidy comes from.

Not in the game industry, I do not know how things work there so my speculation wouldn't be particularly useful, but I wonder if some ways other than a yearly packaged product can be successfully done for a game that goes through continual improvements (nonetheless might not optimally done in a short cycle like several months).

There have been new, inventive ways of software development processes in the past couple decades or so, to the extent that what the gaming industry is following appears very outdated from that view point (at least to someone like myself, who often work in smaller software shops). But that's from someone who has not been on their side, so all this is just out of my curiosity as an outsider though.

[kiddlex]

Quote: Originally Posted by Armor and Sword

I don't know......I am so confused man. Sent from Palm Trees and Paradise using Operation Sports

Was becoming too existential not to share

I have to say I'm really enjoying the game default legend after the last patch. Real challenge, and feels like baseball, real video game baseball.

[The Chef]

Quote: Originally Posted by parky_17

Well how about not jumping in to try and make a point that has literally just been made Sent from my SM-G920F using Operation Sports mobile app

That's more then enough, he acknowledged he missed a post and he was only trying to help so just let it go. There's no need to keep going with the snide remarks, completely unnecessary.

[Christian9]

Quote: Originally Posted by nomo17k

Yeah, so that's why I think so long as sticking to yearly cycle of the professional counterpart remains the bottom line for computer sports gaming, it would probably be difficult to find sustainable way to support the development itself, and demanding people who hang around in a forum like this one would always get some level of disappointment in seeing a product that takes a long time to get out of mediocrity, because the maintenance cost inherent in yearly cycle is too high. I still think The Show's bottom line is superb compared to other games I have played (that's why I still play it pretty much every day) but I sure have been quite disappointed by the lack of major progress in the directions where I think an authentic sports simulation game should be heading. And the issue of revenue stream is one reason why, even though I'm personally not invested in playing a mode like the current Diamond Dynasty, I would not blame the developers to make a microtransactional mode appealing to more people who would invest in them. So long as what the developers gain from it is somehow useful to subsidize the (other) efforts that pushes the frontier of sport simulation game (which is what I am interested in), I don't really care much where that subsidy comes from. Not in the game industry, I do not know how things work there so my speculation wouldn't be particularly useful, but I wonder if some ways other than a yearly packaged product can be successfully done for a game that goes through continual improvements (nonetheless might not optimally done in a short cycle like several months). There have been new, inventive ways of software development processes in the past couple decades or so, to the extent that what the gaming industry is following appears very outdated from that view point (at least to someone like myself, who often work in smaller software shops). But that's from someone who has not been on their side, so all this is just out of my curiosity as an outsider though.

You make some fair and valid points. I think the trend from smaller companies to big corporatization, has also pushed the whole focus in the wrong direction. I'm guessing it's frustrating for the developers as well. Instead of focusing on what they "know" to be innovative and important, they are pushed in other directions by "suits" that truly don't have the best interest in mind. By interest, I of course mean innovation and optimization improving gameplay versus strictly/mostly profit-oriented goals.

All speculation of course, since I don't develop games (I actually configure and program hospital software), but an educated guess.

Usually trends run full circle at some point. Hopefully some smaller companies crop up. Or at least companies understand the real "values" behind design and implementation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk