Originally posted by: ScottyB
They should just use Berry Bonds or something instead.
I vote they just have player named "greedy prick" playing the outfield.
Originally posted by: ScottyB
They should just use Berry Bonds or something instead.
So which Dodgers outfielder do you want to see playing Bond's position in the video game?Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Here's the deal, I can guarantee everyone of you bishing would be bishing about not being paid more too.
Sure the fans make him who he is, but if the fans weren't putting money in his pocket would it matter? He is not a charity....just a damn good player.
He has no problems being stat'd in a game, he has a problem when his name is the one selling the game and only the company is making $$$ on the deal.
I do not think he is being unreasonable. If EA *needs* to have his name on the box, then EA *needs* to give him some coin. I am sure even if he was getting a modest sum more than any of the other non-featured players this would not be an issue.
Å
This has nothing to do with having one's name on the box - to do so the game needs separate license, directly from the player. I can't think of any game so far that had Bonds as their cover boy. I've seen Giambi, Jeter, Randy Johnson. Name one game that had Bonds on the cover.
No, Bonds argument is that he's the "best" player in baseball and he should be paid more, because people are "more likely" to buy the game just because of him. Well, I got news for him - in terms of fan popularity he's not the best player. Jeter, Arod, Garciapara are more likely to sell the game than him. If I were a video game maker I'd create the worst player possible and put him in Bonds' place in the batting order.
Originally posted by: Argo
This has nothing to do with having one's name on the box - to do so the game needs separate license, directly from the player. I can't think of any game so far that had Bonds as their cover boy. I've seen Giambi, Jeter, Randy Johnson. Name one game that had Bonds on the cover.
Originally posted by: Staley8
Originally posted by: Argo
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Here's the deal, I can guarantee everyone of you bishing would be bishing about not being paid more too.
Sure the fans make him who he is, but if the fans weren't putting money in his pocket would it matter? He is not a charity....just a damn good player.
He has no problems being stat'd in a game, he has a problem when his name is the one selling the game and only the company is making $$$ on the deal.
I do not think he is being unreasonable. If EA *needs* to have his name on the box, then EA *needs* to give him some coin. I am sure even if he was getting a modest sum more than any of the other non-featured players this would not be an issue.
Å
This has nothing to do with having one's name on the box - to do so the game needs separate license, directly from the player. I can't think of any game so far that had Bonds as their cover boy. I've seen Giambi, Jeter, Randy Johnson. Name one game that had Bonds on the cover.
No, Bonds argument is that he's the "best" player in baseball and he should be paid more, because people are "more likely" to buy the game just because of him. Well, I got news for him - in terms of fan popularity he's not the best player. Jeter, Arod, Garciapara are more likely to sell the game than him. If I were a video game maker I'd create the worst player possible and put him in Bonds' place in the batting order.
You are right on the money with that one. He thinks he should get more than other players b/c he thinks he is better. LOL...and I love your idea. Make a real skinny whimp for the Giants team and give him Barry's number and have him batting 9th, behind the pitcher.
Originally posted by: Sid59
he doesn't think his name is worth what they wanna pay. so, he is marketing himself. what's wrong with that?
jordan took his name off some basketball games.
people hate him cause he shun's the media. thus, the media shines the negative light on him. sheeeeeeeep.
