Operation Sports' Visit to 2K Studios

That's ageism man especially since Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem and Bill Russel are older than him and where there basically since they introduced the classic teams and Chuck even had his own game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkley_Shut_Up_and_Jam! waaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day. He's not a fan of social media, never said anything about video games though and I have seen a lot of Chuck over the years.

When Legends first came to NBA Live in 2000, Kareem was noticeably absent, as were a couple of other players who eventually started appearing as Legends. Dr. J originally had to be taken out of NBA 2K14, but when an agreement was reached, he was added back via a roster update. Pippen originally opted out of appearing as part of the Dream Team in NBA 2K13, but relented and was added, resulting in an updated preview screenshot. There's precedent, and everyone has their own reasons. It also depends on whether or not they've opted in to the agreement for retired player likenesses, or wish to negotiate their own deals (as MJ does).

Like I said, I don't actually have a source for Barkley not being a fan of video games, but the way I heard it, he wasn't impressed with the way a couple of them turned out, and didn't have much interest in them (or participating in them, aside from the ones he appeared in while he was an active player). But if that's not true, and you insist that money wouldn't be an issue for him either, then what's the explanation? Those are the most plausible reasons, and the most common ones for why certain retired players don't appear in some (or any) video games as historical players.

That's ageism man especially since Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem and Bill Russel are older than him and where there basically since they introduced the classic teams and Chuck even had his own game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkley_Shut_Up_and_Jam! waaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day. He's not a fan of social media, never said anything about video games though and I have seen a lot of Chuck over the years.

When Legends first came to NBA Live in 2000, Kareem was noticeably absent, as were a couple of other players who eventually started appearing as Legends. Dr. J originally had to be taken out of NBA 2K14, but when an agreement was reached, he was added back via a roster update. Pippen originally opted out of appearing as part of the Dream Team in NBA 2K13, but relented and was added, resulting in an updated preview screenshot. There's precedent, and everyone has their own reasons. It also depends on whether or not they've opted in to the agreement for retired player likenesses, or wish to negotiate their own deals (as MJ does).

Like I said, I don't actually have a source for Barkley not being a fan of video games, but the way I heard it, he wasn't impressed with the way a couple of them turned out, and didn't have much interest in them (or participating in them, aside from the ones he appeared in while he was an active player). But if that's not true, and you insist that money wouldn't be an issue for him either, then what's the explanation? Those are the most plausible reasons, and the most common ones for why certain retired players don't appear in some (or any) video games as historical players.

I explained my reasoning.

1. He hates the NCAA and what they do to young black players and is therfore critical of the video gaming industry since they partook in it for ages.

2. He feels like older players who earned less in their playing days continue getting the shortstick here because even though some of the are legends or the best in the game (Jerry West, the Big O, Clyde Frazier, Hondo, Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor etc.) they get paid a pittance because they do not have the pull other players have. How many of us have asked: why is CWebb not in the game? Why isn't Barkley? Why isn't Reggie Miller? etc. Those weren't even like the best players around. Yet how many would ask for Mikan? Hondo? Russell? even Wilt to a certain degree? So if they would opt out it wouldn't get them a better offer, at least that is what he thinks, since they wouldn't be as missed and as valuable. Since they already made way less money in their day, had to fight like crazy to get retirement money from the NBA (the Big O did that), had way less earning potential due to the lack of sponsors and nowadays the lack of film he feels the deal they get is unfair and the NBA itself or other retired players with bigger names (like him) could force 2k to pay them fairly and at least on a comparative level to say a Dr. J, Moses, Isiaiah etc.

3. He is also very critical of a lot of NBA branded commercial products because he feels like the older NBA players should get a much bigger share than their retirement fund since they helped creare all the commericial opportunities and fought for higher pay and equal say in the league (again the Big O) which is a benefit the new generation now reaps while the old players still get send home with a pittance.

Fair enough, certainly feasible. I don't recall him being on the '85 Sixers in NBA 2K13, though. Just the Dream Team.

Fair enough, certainly feasible. I don't recall him being on the '85 Sixers in NBA 2K13, though. Just the Dream Team.

Yeah I think that was the special circumstance. Jay-Z wanted to include them badly because it was one of his favourite teams so he called in a favour on Charles which is why I imagine he did it again on the basis that he was willing to honour the 25 years aniversary of the Dream Team.

Seems to have been the case. But to the original point, there are obviously reasons why retired players don't want to appear, so it's not 2K forgetting about them or snubbing them, as some gamers still seem to believe. We can and should criticise the games for their problems, but in cases like that, it's important that we know why certain issues exist, so that baseless accusations don't get mixed in with constructive feedback. As Dee said, it's probably highly unlikely that we'll ever get complete historical teams, and a few better choices probably should be made. It's still puzzling why they went with the 2000 Blazers and 2004 Pistons when they couldn't get Sheed, because his absence is definitely noticeable.

I guess it is what it is, and it's still bonus content at the end of the day. There are other problems that should take precedence.

You know what's sorely missing from this games atmosphere, player chatter. I go back and play NBA 2k12, and the game is so alive, not only is the crowd more alive, but the players on the court are constantly talking and communicating.

You guys really need to bring NBA 2k back to life in 2k18.

Seems to have been the case. But to the original point, there are obviously reasons why retired players don't want to appear, so it's not 2K forgetting about them or snubbing them, as some gamers still seem to believe. We can and should criticise the games for their problems, but in cases like that, it's important that we know why certain issues exist, so that baseless accusations don't get mixed in with constructive feedback. As Dee said, it's probably highly unlikely that we'll ever get complete historical teams, and a few better choices probably should be made. It's still puzzling why they went with the 2000 Blazers and 2004 Pistons when they couldn't get Sheed, because his absence is definitely noticeable.

I guess it is what it is, and it's still bonus content at the end of the day. There are other problems that should take precedence.

Look if you make it a part of your game it's not bonus content. If you put something in the game it's in the game so it needs to be properly implemented and work right. We don't give any other genre or any other game series this easy excuse so why do we do that here? I don't ask for perfect historical rosters of every year and I never asked for every legend to be in the game. If I buy a game for 50 bucks and those legends are somewhere in there I want to be able to use them without grinding my brains out in an online game or pay for them. If you put historic rosters in there I can expect them to be accurate and to receive the same amount of work that the normal roster gets. The cyberfaces and bodies should be up to the standard of the rest of the game, the tendencies should be as accurate as you can make them and so should the ratings. You got enough advanced stats from even the 50s and enough pictures of players to make that happen.

If you do not own the rights to a player that is essential in a team? Guess what don't put the team in and instead dump the other players that you do have the rights to in a legends pool. End of story. And tbh it's not hard. They don't add thousands of new players every year and they haven't changed their rating system in a while now. Tendencies haven't changed how they work either a lot so if you have the basics right you got a solid base and all you need to do after that is adjust ratings or add new animations. Anything else you can pretty much stick with. The game has been out on new generation consoles for 3 years now so to still have players in there looking like it's 2000 is just absolutely lazy. If you can't be bothered updating them: guess what? Take them out of the game.

If it's in the game it is part of the game and not bonus anything. Otherwise we could make the argument that anything besides playing a basketball friendly so to speak is bonus content and doesn't need to be good because it's bonus. MyCareer is bonus, MyTeam is bonus, MyLeague is bonus, MyGM is bonus, ProAM is bonus, MyPark is bonus. Anything that isn't just two teams playing against each other on the court is bonus in that case. That's not how gaming works. If it's in the game it needs to be implemented well and be up to snuff.

If I said it once I said it a million times: Maybe it's time people stopped buying the game for 2 years to force them to finally stop releasing the game every year and actually working on a properly updated and patched iteration for 2-3-4 years. Besides money there is no reason that a game in this day and age and this sophisticated could not survive 3 years. Patch it and when the new season starts you release a Roster update for the new season with new commentary files for the new players etc. for 15 or 20 bucks. Then after 3 years you come out with a proper new version of the game. The only reason we will have this abominable business model is because people buy this garbage every year and because the publishers are greedy. Nobody would buy any other game from any other kind of genre that is basically the exact same game with a new roster and a new menu every year for 50 bucks. We are the only kind of gamers and community that still get conned into this rubbish whether it be FIFA, Madden, NBA 2k, MLB The Show or WWE 2k.

Perhaps it's not a perfect word for the situation, but I describe the historical and Euroleague teams as bonus or extra content to distinguish them from the content that makes up the core experience, namely current season rosters and active players. It's not that I don't think it can be criticised, it's just that for me, my complaints about that part of the content take a back seat to other issues. Because the rosters are very unlikely to be complete due to the difficulty in licensing absolutely everyone's likeness, I'm also understanding about that.

In regards to having those players outside of MyTEAM, utilising a Legends Pool, Decade All-Stars, and all that, I'm all for it. I already said that, and I think we're all in agreement on that front.

As far as removing teams, they've already removed some, while others remain and new ones have been added minus a key player. You're never going to please everyone in that situation. Some will be in favour of axing teams or not including them in the first place if you can't at least license all the starters, while others would prefer not to lose teams or miss out on new ones being added, and be happy to make do. I'm not a big fan of removing teams once they're in there unless it's absolutely necessary - if nothing else, their presence might leave us with some good modding assets and starting points - but if any new teams are being put in there moving forward, it would be wise to be more judicious and ensure that they can at least get the full starting five. If not, they're not an ideal candidate for inclusion. Of course, there will be other people who would prefer to have some kind of new content, and be satisfied with four starters and 3-5 key reserves, one of whom replaces the missing starter.

I'd also be in favour of some kind of mode to bring the historical teams more into focus. I'm not expecting something like the Jordan Challenge and I don't think we should have to unlock them all again a la NBA's Greatest, but some kind of challenge mode that puts them to use. If they're given more relevance, they'll hopefully get more attention.

Again Andrew: I do not ask for complete historical rosters nor have I ever said: Oh because the Rosters are incomplete it's broken. What I said is: If you have the players in the game: they should look like themselves and have adequate tendencies and ratings and I do not think that is too much to ask because they are able to do it for their MT Cards yet do not bother with the legends in the base version of the game.

No disagreement here. There are other things that I'd personally prioritise, but it's a valid complaint and I'm all for seeing improvement in that area.

phpBB [video]

Part 4 was pretty awesome.

Looks like we missed Part 3 as well.

phpBB [video]

Part 4 embedded.

phpBB [video]

why am I the thumbnail,

That's what you get for taking the middle chair.

I think Part 4 is a good lesson for the community, me included.

I talk about getting ignored sometimes, but I have to realize that the comments are being looked at, and everything is taken into consideration (most everything, I believe). Also, the professional manner in which comments are made... attacking isn't necessary.

So part 4 is my favorite, and I want to say thank you to the panel for how they worded that entire segment. It's motivational and honest.

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who came away thinking that after watching Part 4. I'm actually going to talk about it a little more in an upcoming Monday Tip-Off, but it made me think about the way I give feedback, and whether I go into enough detail, or really go as far as I could when sharing ideas. I've always advocated constructive feedback, but I have to ask myself, how well do I practice what I preach? Anyway, I thought that it was a strong note to end on, and it's definitely made me think.

why am I the thumbnail,

you look so enthusiastic in it

btw, what are you doing/looking at? about 0:42

why am I the thumbnail,

you look so enthusiastic in it

btw, what are you doing/looking at? about 0:42

Screen Mike was disappearing/reappearing(left monitor) and Jon's the one who noticed it

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who came away thinking that after watching Part 4. I'm actually going to talk about it a little more in an upcoming Monday Tip-Off, but it made me think about the way I give feedback, and whether I go into enough detail, or really go as far as I could when sharing ideas. I've always advocated constructive feedback, but I have to ask myself, how well do I practice what I preach? Anyway, I thought that it was a strong note to end on, and it's definitely made me think.

I didn't watch any of that stuff so I'm just saying this based on the way you phrased your comment.

Are they trying to blame the users and their feedback for their inability to put out a good product? I mean, so many issues have been going on for years and so many people have complained about those issues, and they want us to believe they couldn't understand the issue because of the quality of feedback? There are only so many ways to say something and with all the complaints they get, I'm sure anyone could get the picture.

No, they're not blaming the users.

No, they're not blaming the users.

Ok, nevermind then.

It was more of a "Don't think we are ignoring you, we see your posts" and "Here are the best practices for presenting feedback".

And a little bit of "If you're complaining too much and you can't give legit feedback, we're ignoring you". That's ok for me

It was more of a "Don't think we are ignoring you, we see your posts" and "Here are the best practices for presenting feedback".

Actually, considering they are not fixing many of the issues that have been going on for years, they either are ignoring us or they just don't know how to fix them. Wonder which one.

As far as feedback presentation, I'm not sure what they are talking about. When people give them specific issues and explain why they are an issue, and provide a video if possible, that seems like good feedback.

However, they still haven't fixed many issues and I don't believe they know how because if they did they would have fixed them by now. 3 years is ample time to fix the long term problems. If anything, they make them worse.

As far as feedback presentation, I'm not sure what they are talking about. When people give them specific issues and explain why they are an issue, and provide a video if possible, that seems like good feedback.

They're basically saying hit us up with more of that stuff.