BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: MLB At Bat 2013 Released

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, February 22, 2013

MLB At Bat 2013 Released

Now reporting for Spring Training: MLB.com At Bat 13.

The top sports mobile app in each of the past four years was launched on Thursday by Major League Baseball Advanced Media with a suite of new features across iPhone, iPad, supported Android smartphones and tablets and Kindle Fire—right in time for those first Major League Baseball exhibition games this weekend.

I had to reinstall my old version then purchase it from there, it was a bit wonky. It says it’s supposed to work on both iPad and iPhone like it did last year.

Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM | 41 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mlbam

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4374213)

It's up to $20 a year? #### that ####. Even at $15, last year's was too expensive for me to justify.

2. andrewberg Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4374233)

As a Twins fan on the west coast, I love being able to turn the games on the radio through my phone for the commute. That's well worth $20 to me.

3. Andy H. Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:10 PM (#4374240)

Kindle Fire version doesn't appear to be available yet. It's worth the price to get the radio broadcasts, and occasional free video.

4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4374244)

It's up to $20 a year? #### that ####. Even at $15, last year's was too expensive for me to justify.

It's free with MLB TV premium. And that service is worth the money all day.

5. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4374253)

Free? MLB TV premium costs $20 more than regular. Does it give you anything else except MLB At-Bat?

6. Mike Emeigh

Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4374254)

As a Twins fan on the west coast, I love being able to turn the games on the radio through my phone for the commute.

This also let me replace XM radio, which was far more expensive.

-- MWE

7. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4374256)

It's free with MLB TV premium. And that service is worth the money all day.

It would be if the blackout restriction was lifted.

But I'm a pushover for baseball and I'll probably renew. GRRRR!

8. DL from MN Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4374259)

I'm debating dumping the dish and switching to MLB.tv and Netflix streaming. It would save $400 a year. I've used Netflix streaming in the past and not had issues with picture quality / lag time. Is MLB.tv streaming reliability similar to Netflix?

9. Into the Void Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4374262)

While they do keep raising the price, $20 still seems entirely fair. I'd probably pay twice that much.

10. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4374263)

Is MLB.tv streaming reliability similar to Netflix?

The quality is notably higher than Netflix. I had zero reliability problems last year. I had minor reliability problems in 2011, pretty similar to Netflix. In years before that, there were sometimes larger problems, but they seem to be ironing things out very well.

11. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4374271)

While they do keep raising the price, $20 still seems entirely fair. I'd probably pay twice that much.

Seconded. I have that open every day from April through October.

12. Mike Emeigh

Posted: February 22, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4374279)

The quality is notably higher than Netflix. I had zero reliability problems last year.

Same here - it was even very good on my iPhone, and I don't watch a lot of video on my iPhone.

-- MWE

13. puck Posted: February 22, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4374319)

MLB.tv is incredible. But the local market games are still blacked out, right? I haven't gotten it for a few years because of that. I just catch whatever national games are on and watch the local games.

14. Flynn Posted: February 22, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4374328)

Free? MLB TV premium costs $20 more than regular. Does it give you anything else except MLB At-Bat?

MLB At-Bat, home and away broadcasts, and access to connected devices (i.e. PS3, XBOX, etc. - I've watched MLB.TV on a PS3 and it's utterly awesome).

Worth the price difference, IMHO. MLB.TV is the best deal in sports.

15. andrewberg Posted: February 22, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4374333)

Worth the price difference, IMHO. MLB.TV is the best deal in sports.

I switched over from the satellite Extra Bases service last year and felt like it was a big step up. Navigating within the app is actually easier than channel surfing, plus you get HD quality picture even if you don't have an HD receiver for that TV (assuming you hook up with the HDMI cable). All of that, and it's cheaper than the full baseball package.

16. Jim Wisinski

Posted: February 22, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4374335)

I'm annoyed a bit at the price increase but I'll just grumble a bit and pay it anyway. It's still cheap for what it gives you. I work nights so being able to listen to the games through my phone is big for me; I'm on a lift in a warehouse all night so a portable radio/speaker setup or larger radio with its own speaker would be inconvenient and I wouldn't be surprised if reception quality was low. Plus I don't like the Rays radio crew so I usually prefer to listen to the other team's feed (except when they play the Yankees of course)

17. DA Baracus is gritty and hits with RISP Posted: February 22, 2013 at 07:52 PM (#4374352)

It's up to $20 a year? #### that ####. Even at $15, last year's was too expensive for me to justify.

Everything's amazing and nobody's happy.

18. Dock Ellis on Acid

Posted: February 22, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4374376)

The new first sign of spring for me is when MLB.TV automatically charges my credit card they have on file for the games.

I use Apple TV to watch MLB.TV and it was pretty much literally flawless all last year.

19. akrasian Posted: February 22, 2013 at 11:39 PM (#4374449)

Oooh - Roku supports mlb.tv premium. I might have to try it out. Just to catch one of Vin Scully's last seasons, if nothing else. And I can listen to the occasional game with him too.

20. DL from MN Posted: February 23, 2013 at 12:01 AM (#4374454)

MLB At-Bat, home and away broadcasts, and access to connected devices

Seeing how I don't have an Xbox, tablet computer or a smartphone it kind of lessens the value proposition. I don't really care that much if I get the home or away broadcast of an out-of-market game. I'd probably watch mainly archived Twins games. Twins games are literally the only reason I have a satellite dish.

How much longer before I can just subscribe directly to Twins games? It has to be the future, right?

21. akrasian Posted: February 23, 2013 at 12:29 AM (#4374462)

#20 - I don't watch much tv, and I consider Roku a good deal on its own - and it streams mlb.tv premium.

I'm looking forward to April 1 more than usual.

22. boteman Posted: February 23, 2013 at 02:08 AM (#4374483)

Pleased to see Bryce Harper alongside Justin Verlander in the header of the MLB.tv page. How the mighty have risen.

Then my eyes scrolled down to the description of the regular MLB.tv offering and I chuckled when I read the description:

Watch games LIVE or on demand in HD online. Pause, rewind LIVE game action with DVR controls. Also your choice of PiP, Spit Screen and Mosaic View. See full details below.

I guess they anticipate a greater than average number of Mets fans subscribing to that service, huh?

I'm not so big on watching video on my tiny portable screens, but it does cost about half of what DirecTV charges for MLB Extra Innings so if I can hook an old laptop to my TV display that starts to become quite appealing.

Do any Net-ready televisions/displays connect to MLB.tv service or do you need a proxy like a Roku or PC in any case?

23. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 23, 2013 at 02:51 AM (#4374490)

Do any Net-ready televisions/displays connect to MLB.tv service or do you need a proxy like a Roku or PC in any case?

Yes Samsung does.

24. Dan Posted: February 23, 2013 at 03:22 AM (#4374493)

Rokus can be had incredibly cheaply anyhow. You can get an HD model for around 50 bucks.

25. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: February 23, 2013 at 07:19 AM (#4374505)

as someone who used to have multiple radios set up in the barn to follow different games at once this invention is great

and gee, i am a cheap b8stad myself but i bow before the masters.

26. rufus was here Posted: February 23, 2013 at 09:01 AM (#4374517)

If I could get the MLB Network on Roku or other streaming device (can I?), I'd probably bag cable.

27. DL from MN Posted: February 23, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4374525)

If I could get MLB Network on Dish I probably wouldn't be considering dumping it.

28. boteman Posted: February 23, 2013 at 10:14 AM (#4374541)

If I could get the MLB Network on Roku or other streaming device (can I?), I'd probably bag cable.

This x 1000. They own the channel and the rights to all the programming, why is MLB Network not included in the streaming package? It seems a natural. I would dump DirecTV pretty quickly if it were included.

29. AJM Posted: February 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4374561)

I have a Roku, it's great if you have Netflix, Amazon Prime, and MLBtv.

30. Jim Furtado

Posted: February 23, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4374682)

I'd love to see MLB Radio and the MLB Network on the Premium package as well.

I'd also love to get rid of cable. The three stumbling blocks for me are NESN (Red Sox cable network), NFL, and the Food Network (for my wife).

31. puck Posted: February 23, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4374698)

This x 1000. They own the channel and the rights to all the programming, why is MLB Network not included in the streaming package? It seems a natural. I would dump DirecTV pretty quickly if it were included.

Probably because streaming is at odds with providers (cable/satellite), and MLB gets money from having the network on cable/satellite.

32. puck Posted: February 23, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4374706)

How much longer before I can just subscribe directly to Twins games? It has to be the future, right?

It is, but I wonder when. The way tv contracts are being inflated by the cable/satellite paying big subscription rates, the incentive right now is certainly to curtail streaming. I suppose as pirated streams get better, that will bring some pressure.

There are also a lot of complaints about how much each subscriber pays just for the big sports channels. But if things go a la carte, I wonder what the pricing would be like, and how many people would actually save money.

33. cardsfanboy

Posted: February 23, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4374738)

There are also a lot of complaints about how much each subscriber pays just for the big sports channels. But if things go a la carte, I wonder what the pricing would be like, and how many people would actually save money.

Considering I don't have any cable/satellite right now, if I could get channels a la carte, I would, provided I can keep it under $20 a month. I just don't see any reason to pay more than that for tv entertainment at this point in time. I watch all my tv online,(not sure about the legality of all of the shows I watch, but if it's presented on the broadcasters website or an official website(note: Syfy.com sucks ass so that is an exception), I will watch it there, but if it's not available there, it's real easy to find it someplace else.) and don't see a reason to spend for cable that gives me 30-70 channels that I don't want, when all I want is about ten channels (Fsmw, MLB, comedy central, syfy, the broadcast channels, PBS(for my girlfriend), USA, TNT and TBS) Yes last year sucked because I only got to watch about two dozen Cardinal games, but it's just not worth the $50 a month that would have made it happen.

34. Ben Broussard Ramjet Posted: February 23, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4374916)

35. DL from MN Posted: February 23, 2013 at 07:20 PM (#4374959)

NFL? That's over the air for local games.

36. Justin T is expanding the aperture of awareness Posted: February 23, 2013 at 07:31 PM (#4374965)

So I read somewhere that one feature now available - and one I've always wanted - is to be able to stream the video of a game with the audio track being from the radio broadcast. This used to be my favorite way of watching cricket, actually. Has anyone successfully used this for MLB.TV?

It's a new feature (I think - maybe it was around last year) and a few spring training games today are the first broadcasts of the year so there isn't much of a sample. But last year they had the option to listen with just park sound which was great, with a couple quirks.

1) If your internet hiccuped at all it would drop and the announcers would come back. Sometimes it worked like a charm, other days it would get annoying to have it happen every ten minutes.

2) You only had the option if watching the home team's broadcast. Which doesn't really matter except it can cause confusion if you're looking for it and happen to be on the away feed and it's absent. Until you figure it out. And now I just told you. So you're set.

I wouldn't be surprised if these things bleed over to the radio option. Otherwise, I have enough faith in the product to think it will be synced properly. But maybe not.

37. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: February 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM (#4375005)

Considering I don't have any cable/satellite right now, if I could get channels a la carte, I would, provided I can keep it under $20 a month

I would too but I suspect that would not be feasible. My guess is that an a la carte approach would make the channels we wanted to watch have to ratchet up their price per subscriber to a point where the cost would be equal if not more. Right now I pay for NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB networks. Two often I watch frequently the other two I do not. A good friend doesn't care about hockey or baseball but loves football and basketball. I subsidize his NFL and NBA nets, he subsidizes my MLB and NHL. Go to a la carte and I have to make up for the loss of him as a payer on MLB and NHL but he has to make up for the loss of my payment on NFL and NBA.

End result we both pay the same we are paying today, just in a different format.

38. Dan Posted: February 23, 2013 at 11:09 PM (#4375007)

So I read somewhere that one feature now available - and one I've always wanted - is to be able to stream the video of a game with the audio track being from the radio broadcast. This used to be my favorite way of watching cricket, actually. Has anyone successfully used this for MLB.TV?

This is the third year that this feature has been available. I've never had any issues using it, other than the fact that using it on your computer requires enabling and using NexDef, which is usually awful. You could do this on PS3 as well the last couple of years, but I heard that they're taking away the radio simulcasts from the PS3, leaving just the TV audio or Park Only audio streams. I believe the Roku will be able to do the radio audio overlay though (not sure if its a new feature for Roku, never used one for MLB.tv).

39. TVerik Posted: February 23, 2013 at 11:19 PM (#4375011)

A la carte cable would not be good for sports fans and their wallets. The single most expensive programming on TV is sports; particularly since studies have conclusively shown that they're the only DVR-proof option out there. You get your ESPN, MLB Network, and NESN (or other local team's RSN), and your cable bill would be bigger than it is now without all of the people who would never watch sports subsidizing you.

40. Jim Wisinski

Posted: February 24, 2013 at 01:07 AM (#4375034)

I would love to be able to select the TV audio feed for listening on the Gameday Audio/At-Bat but that's not likely to be a feature any time soon.

41. Tom (and his broom) Posted: February 24, 2013 at 02:22 AM (#4375046)

I recall reading in an article recently about one team (I think it was the Rays) where it broke down income, and MLBAM income was nearly as much as national TV money. (both in the 20-30M a year per team range).

I doubt any sport has monetized the internet nearly as well as MLB, and this is largely because they have done it so well.

And as far as local blackouts...proxy services are cheap and work well...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, February 22, 2013

MLB At Bat 2013 Released

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Bookmarks

Hot Topics