150°

SIXAXIS Gaming: 2K Sports Have Dropped The Ball

This article is a word of warning to anyone considering buying the game for it’s online features. Nothing more. Nothing less. 2K Sports have cataclysmically screwed up one of the game’s most important modes, and here’s how they’ve done it.

Read Full Story >>
sixaxisgaming.com.au
Orbis4664d ago

I also just wanted to add that the offline components of the game are superb. If you live in Yemen or any other country without broadband internet access, you should definitely buy this game.

Brettles674664d ago

great article. couldn't agree more

funk994664d ago

terrible online gameplay
get it fixed 2k

PidgeottosCrew4664d ago

No doubt they're being hit hard by angry gamers. Perhaps a few patches in the near future?

Orbis4664d ago

One would hope so.

Playing the game online at the moment is a complete waste of time, and the frustrations are further accentuated by the fact that the offline aspects of the game are boner inducing.

Ashby_JC4664d ago

the problem I have is....WHEN has any 2k b-ball game been good online in the last few years?

For as many of the things 2k does right..they do just as many wrong. Glad I rented...to play it for a week or so and send it back!!

Orbis4664d ago

The online leagues in 2K11 were really solid in my opinion. We ran regular seasons on SIXAXIS Gaming and it was by far and away the most fun I've ever had playing a sports sim online. Sure, there was a little bit of lag, but once you got used to it, you forgot it was even there.

Ashby_JC4664d ago

U wonder why they even changed it to what it is now.

From wat im reading its BAD...really BAD!!

Just improve on as you said what worked. For the ppl like you who loved a feature...they took it away and added something that is underwhelming apparently

Show all comments (9)
190°

Tattoo artist successfully sues 2K for replicating their designs on a WWE 2K wrestler

From VGC: "A tattoo artist has successfully sued 2K Sports and its parent company Take-Two Interactive for including her designs in WWE 2K video games.

Catherine Alexander filed the lawsuit in 2018, claiming that her tattoo designs had been used without her permission in WWE 2K16, WWE 2K17 and WWE 2K18.

The tattoos in question are original tribal-style designs Alexander applied to WWE superstar Randy Orton’s upper back and arms in real life."

Read Full Story >>
videogameschronicle.com
Software_Lover651d ago

......... Some of these lawsuits I just don't get.

CobraKai651d ago

I don’t either. On can argue that she owes Orton for being the canvas to show her artwork. I personally feel that since money was exchanged between her and Orton, that the issue should be if Orton wants his tattoos showcased or not.

roadkillers651d ago

Very confusing… so Pepsi has no issues with Punk having a tattoo with Pepsi symbol with him being in all of these promotions.

Can you get sued for using WD-40 in a movie? At what point do you own something. Too confusing.

LostinthePANIC651d ago

I can understand the artist's point of view and the ruling was more than fair:

"The jury determined that Alexander was entitled to $3,750 in damages. It also determined that since none of the game’s profits came as a direct result of her tattoos being included, she wasn’t entitled to any further compensation."

Rainbowcookie651d ago (Edited 651d ago )

That is nothing to be honest. It does make it harder for authentic Orton to be included in wrestling games in the future. She will probably try to to push for more. I wonder how the amount was worked out.

Bobertt651d ago (Edited 651d ago )

She won't get more because they ruled even though they included the tattoo in the game they didn't profit off it because no one bought the game just because of her tattoo. The $3750 is for using it without having the rights to it.

P_Bomb651d ago

Ridiculous. Especially if she spent more on legal fees.

andy85651d ago

Any decent tattoo artist wouldn't replicate a design anyway so why does it matter? It's his body 😂 this is a poor ruling because now it opens the can of worms of every famous person in games having to be edited or some tattooist will sue.

MrBaskerville651d ago (Edited 651d ago )

But could also result in companies having to pay artists for using their work, which is a good thing. It's unusual, but why should a tattoo have less worth than a painting, song or a logo?

Adrian_v01651d ago

Getting a tattoo is usually expensive. I'd argue the person paying for the tattoo to be made on his body is owner of all rights for said tattoo.

RauLeCreuset651d ago

"It's unusual, but why should a tattoo have less worth than a painting, song or a logo?"

It's not about having more or less worth. Rights don't exist in isolation and are balanced against other rights in a society. This is why death threats can get you locked up despite being a form of speech.

The decision here gives undue consideration to the artist's copyright, with the implication being that it should trump Orton's right to his own likeness*. The very act of tattooing someone inherently relinquishes control over how that particular copy of the art is displayed. Rather than recognize this, the decision goes against precedent to suggest receiving a tattoo effectively transfers the rights to one's image to the tattoo artist or copyright owner of the tattoo.

*I'm assuming Orton gave permission for his likeness to be used in the games. The article didn't state otherwise.

monkey602651d ago

Oh no! This leads us down a very bad path