BishopLamont
Banned
Nintendo fans have better taste?
EA Sports details what it would take for them to make Wii U games again
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
I own a Wii U and don't play sports games. This article is accurate when it comes to me.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
EA Sports' WiiU efforts were half-baked and half-hearted. In contrast, NFS:MW had a lot of effort put into it and it is reflected in the critical reception and somewhat in sales. I would have considered buying FIFA or Madden if it seemed like they cared, but they clearly didn't.
Herb Alpert
Banned
a strong offering at launch? WTF?
A userbase? Like the one of the Wii?
Incredible how bold they are.
A userbase? Like the one of the Wii?
Incredible how bold they are.
Waylon Drums
Member
"We gave them a bunch of games and they didn't sell! Herp!"
Lesser versions of their sports titles and old ports that weren't even done as well as the originals in some cases and missing any further DLC in all cases. Not that I'll miss EA Sports for even a second, but what a dumb fuck if he believes what he's saying.
Lesser versions of their sports titles and old ports that weren't even done as well as the originals in some cases and missing any further DLC in all cases. Not that I'll miss EA Sports for even a second, but what a dumb fuck if he believes what he's saying.
Stone Ocean
Member
Fifa 13 and Mass Effect, such a strong launch offering.
shinra-bansho
Member
You can't just have an installed base, you need to show there's an audience amidst that installed base.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Nope, but they ran and looked like shit. PS3 also got late ports of games like BioShock, irc those games did well enough.
Pheeew. For a moment I thought they would develop something for WiiU again.
Yep. I don't know why no journalist has had the stones to call them up on the sub par ports or the Mass Effect Trilogy fiasco. It's just a bullshit excuse for them to use and is frankly insulting that they think we'll believe they thought those games were worth buying.
If they had fully supported it at launch and it still didn't shift their games then fine, use that excuse. But they didn't so stop with the BS.
And I'm not sticking up for Nintendo here, or shifting the blame for the consoles poor sales, or getting into the whole 'Sales=3rd Party Support=Sales' debate. Just pointing out that EA did not at any point have a "strong offering" on WiiU.
Not so much in sales. They undershipped it. For example, Grainger Games in the UK got sent 12 copies across the entire chain
Why will the audience for sports games be there if there are no sports games coming?
ShellyDeKiller
Member
When that happens, THAT will be the excuse for not developing for it.
You just have to accept EA are done with the Wii U, no matter how it sells in the future.
The most you'll get (if the Wii U starts selling really really really well) is the usual quick ports to please investors.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
But was it missing obvious features like DLC? I think most of us are willing to forgive performance issues on new hardware (I would hope?) but when you are clearly not making the effort I think consumers will respond and not buy your crap.
This whole thing is a chicken and egg dance anyway. Third parties aren't on Wii U because sales are bad. But sales are bad because there aren't any third parties on Wii U (it's not like Microsoft or Sony are releasing more first party content on their platforms, so ceteris parabis the difference is...!).
There's no reason games like Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider etc shouldn't have been on Wii U. There was no reason to expect Wii U sales to have been poor when those decisions were made, so what was the excuse then? Would the Wii U have been doing 50K a month in the States if it had those big titles releasing? Nope.
What continues to perplex me about this issue is how nintendo fans seem to hold EA to a higher standard for creating games for Nintendo's platform then they do Nintendo.
Nintendo offered one of the poorest 1st party launches in their history and have been all but absent since then.
Yet it seems nintendo fans are more up in arms over EA not sinking money into a struggling platform then at Nintendo for not having a solid development plan for attracting gamers and leading the charge for building a userbase that third parties feel comfortable developing for.
Nintendo offered one of the poorest 1st party launches in their history and have been all but absent since then.
Yet it seems nintendo fans are more up in arms over EA not sinking money into a struggling platform then at Nintendo for not having a solid development plan for attracting gamers and leading the charge for building a userbase that third parties feel comfortable developing for.
This strikes me as an extremely important admission. I think this is the first time I've seen a major publisher admit that their games may not fit the demographic of many burgeoning platforms (Browser/Facebook/Android/Etc., let alone Wii/DS) outside the Playstation/Xbox.
Usually they simply say "No one is buying games," which is what he suggests in the latter half of that sentence. But he at least admits its possible that there are gamers there (Facebook, in this case), and that they are buying things, but perhaps they just aren't interested in the particular type of game he knows how to make.
Practically speaking, the result is the same -- in either case, he should not make games for Facebook. But the explanation for why he should not varies considerably and paints a different picture. With the former explanation, the developer is the problem; he doesn't know how to make the sort of games that Facebook gamers want to play. In the latter explanation, the platform is the problem; there are no gamers there that buy games. Wh
shinra-bansho
Member
They won't. They'll go where the types of games they like to play are. They'll go to platforms that create a cohesive message targeting them.Why will the audience for sports games be there if there are no sports games coming?
The onus isn't on EA to cultivate a conducive audience on the Wii U. It never has been, it never will be. They have viable alternatives.
Lmao. No. It sold less than 10K in the US.
35K a month. And I fail to see how Bioshock of Tomb Raider releasing to bomb on the platform would have cured the platform from its malaise. There are simply alternative competing better value propositions on the market.
I think everyone gets and understand the financial aspect of the situation. The problem is EA continuing to try and paint a picture that they even approached the Wii U honestly. They released Fifa '12 and Madden '12 as Fifa '13 and Madden '13 but with roster updates and charged full price for them. All new features that made the 2013 versions what they were were not included at all. This was known before launch. They released the third entry in a RPG series for full price with one bite of DLC and either said that was it or wouldn't give a definite answer right around if more would come but then announced the entire trilogy for the same damn price for every other platform (PS3, 360, and PC) and released it right before the Wii U launched and did not adjust the Wii U game's price.
There is no reason EA should have had any success at the Wii U's launch when they were trying to essentially con customers out of their money. Now I think a number of games should have done better at launch and deserved more attention from customers but they were either late ports or the first time series even appeared on a Nintendo console with little to no fan fare. I think most of those that put out games might have understood that which is why they haven't disappeared. However EA had no right to customer's money with what they tried and are largely part of the blame for their own failures. Early adopters are tend to be more knowledgeable about what they are buying. How did they think things were going to turn out for them? That they thought it was okay shows I feel what they think of the customer base.
Yeah good post. Wii U is a bad situation for 3rd parties right now, but EA made sure they put their absolute worst foot forward.
Robin64
Member
But Nintendo didn't release bad versions of NintendoLand and New Super Mario Bros. U for the Wii U while at the same time releasing a much improved version of NintendoLand on other consoles along with a New Super Mario Bros. Trilogy for less money.
Though yes, Nintendo's own offering has been extremely poor, but in a completely different reason to EA's.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
It goes back to the unconventional N64 and Gamecube controllers. Nobody wanted to play Madden on those.
It doesn't work because it's Nintendos job to sell the WiiU not EA, they have no obligations to ever make games for it.
You'd be right if EA had cut support after Wii U's launch, and not before as they so clearly did
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
*Wants userbase for games*
*Focuses resources on systems with a userbase of zero*
Honestly I don't blame them, but that launch lineup was NOT strong. 4 months late ports and simple roster updates to the previous year's version--not even using any new engine. People in the gaming industry need to start taking them to task on that ridiculous lie.
Let's also be honest here--the only EA Sports game that sold well on Wii was Tiger Woods. The rest didn't. They only put one NHL game on the entire system.
*Focuses resources on systems with a userbase of zero*
Honestly I don't blame them, but that launch lineup was NOT strong. 4 months late ports and simple roster updates to the previous year's version--not even using any new engine. People in the gaming industry need to start taking them to task on that ridiculous lie.
Let's also be honest here--the only EA Sports game that sold well on Wii was Tiger Woods. The rest didn't. They only put one NHL game on the entire system.
As they do at every console launch. The Vita got an old version of FIFA reskinned. The Gen 7 consoles got Tiger Woods with a tiny handful of courses at the same time as the Gen 6 consoles got the 'full' version. I seem to remember the 360 / PS3 FIFA and Madden games were gimped in the beginning but I can't remember how off the top of my head.
Does anyone have an example of what a good / great EA launch lineup looks like?
Ninja Scooter
Member
No but what Nintendo released says loud and clear to third parties "We only want Nintendo die hards to buy this system" because, lets be honest, that's about the only group that is dropping $350 to play NintendoLand or Super Mario Bros. They have done a piss poor job of creating a userbase for third parties to appeal to with their offerings. And even if sales do spike a bit this holiday, if the reason is Super Mario and Zelda and Pikmin, I'm not so sure how that changes. It's the same issue GameCube and to some extent N64 had, people buy the system for Nintendo games and little else.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
PS3 flopped upfront, as did pretty much all it's 3rd party games, and we never saw the sort of immediate ababdonment we are with Wii U. Like it or not the industry just tends to hold Nintebdo to a different standard with consoles these days.
Open Source
Banned
Sports games didn't sell very well on Gamecube or Wii. Looks like they're throwing in the towel only slightly late this time around.
Maybe if they made Mario vs. Sonic NFL Football Presented By Madden: Gaiden, they'd finally reach the Nintendo audience.
Maybe if they made Mario vs. Sonic NFL Football Presented By Madden: Gaiden, they'd finally reach the Nintendo audience.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
What exactly do you do to create a "userbase for third parties to appeal to with their offering?" What does that even mean?
fucking this.
EA is a lazy developer with buggy games. Why the drama?
WiiU is doing badly right now, but getting EA "on board" should be the LAST of their priorities.
So...what can Nintendo do about this? Seems to me they are basically screwed either way.
darkstar0155
Member
what about tiger selling the best on the wii for a couple years, but no Wii U version of tiger? remember the demo vid of the wii u where the pad was put on the ground and showed the golf ball in some grass or sand, and the person would point the wiimote at the ball and swing? If they would have made a tiger like that, and that didnt sell, then they would have something to stand on with that comment
Who gives a fuck though?
We all know how EA operates, they follow the lead of what is successful. Sports games make bank so EA tried to monopolize that market by buying league rights. Bro shooters hit it big thanks to Halo and Call of Duty so EA spent a generation chasing that crowd. Wii showed that party games with low development costs could land big returns so EA followed suit on that platform and catered most of their franchises to appeal to the casual crowd(with mixed success).
EA follows money and tends to chase behind successful business models, the only people nintendo fans need to blame for lack of EA support is Nintendo. They failed on the financial end to build a strong userbase and they failed to deliver business models that third parties like EA can feel comfortable sinking money into because Nintendo has so far failed to develop a strong and diverse customer base.
Open Source
Banned
That's what SEGA thought, too.
I believe it was Opiate who posted this, and I think it is right on- EA's sport franchise are just a poor fit for the Nintendo userbase because that userbase does not buy yearly refreshes.
They might be a good product once- see the Madden Wii launch sales, the first few Tiger Woods games, the first EA Active, etc. But they don't buy the same game the next year.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Let's stop pretending people buy Nintendo systems for EA games and that Nintendo needs EA to survive. The Wii did just fine with EA games selling terribly.
darkstar0155
Member
this, i dont remember any early ps3 games save for oblivion putting up even decent numbers, and oblivion was a new game only on the 360 and pc at the time, and not on a console userbase of 70mil, and it wasnt the third entry in the series, and didnt have a collectors edition of three games for the competitors systems announced two weeks before it launched, at a cheaper price
GhostTrick
Banned
Next time EA, don't kill your games.
Snowden's Secret
Banned
Wouldn't that still justify the first game? And wouldn't you still be madly profitable (a la Nintendo) making just a single game that sold for full price for the entire generation?
There's some missing puzzle piece here. There's no logical reason Fuse exists but not Tiger Woods U.
If they did that, then they would need to get angry at Nintendo, which almost never happens.
wait what
I think Nintendo got enough flack ever since the launch plans, the launch itself and the following six months of just, uh, Lego City Undercover. There were a lot of threads about it (almost every day on GAF) discussing the so called launch window and oh man, I've heard a lot good of pro/cons during this period. I've heard them so many times the past few months, I got bored of 'em. The thing is, starting this month (for us Euro folk anyway) we're getting the good stuff from Nintendo and while the guys in Kyoto took their sweet time, the quality of the software will be good.
Back to EA; I understand the fact they won't release new games if they underperform in retail, but please, please cut out the BS that they gave it their all during the launch. They didn't. In particular sports titles (regardless of console) during launch are average to mediocre games which should be ignored. They're quick ports and in the case of FIFA 13 on Wii U, it was a bad and halfassed port. I'm part of the problem then, but I refuse to buy software with kinks. They might think consumers won't notice or a friendly PR talk will persuade them, but no.
It's a personal policy of mine. Don't buy EA software on launch hardware.
Yeah, unfortunately the answer doesn't seems especially obvious.
I mean, assuming the Wii U never gets strong third party support, at the end of this generation they will have been in this situation with home consoles for 20+ years now.
It's a long, uphill battle to change publisher perception when you have that kind of history.
The most obvious attempt to fix this would be to launch an on par system with the Wii 3, but the GameCube was the closest to that situation (though it had a disc size limitation), yet still didn't get a huge outpouring of support.
Basically they would need a combination of meeting third parties' hardware requests and then also giving huge financial/support incentives just to make sure they receive multiplatform releases for almost every title that releases. It would be a lot like what Microsoft was doing during the OG Xbox era and the early Xbox 360 era.
Of course, at this point they risk poisoning the well for what they actually do sell if they have a $400-$500 console and are heavily marketing the mainstream Western gamer perspective.
darkstar0155
Member
pretty much, i bought the wii version of tiger and liked it much more than the joysticks, but i wouldnt buy it yearly, i would buy one, maybe two per gen if the second had a significant of enough upgrade, but i dont buy yearly sports games
Your argument is flawed. Nintendo's job was to release 1st party titles for the early adopters/Nintendo enthusiasts, and they did. Much like its the job of Sony to release a new Killzone or 3rd person action game for the fps/sony enthusiast during launch.
It's the responsibility of one of the biggest sports-title developers to provide the system with great sports titles, but EA failed horribly at that. Their ports were fucking aweful - that's a fact. They sold poorly, because early adopters - just like any other consumers, but maybe even more so - are not stupid and much more aware of the details surrounding those ports.
I really believe a Mass Effect Trilogy (Ultimate Editon with everyhthing included) for 50 could have been a huge success, if they put efford in it, but no, they had to fuck it up.
The wii did fine because it trapped lightning in a bottle and became the "hot" toy for families for a few years.
They failed to recapture that with this system so now they have to build from the ground up. To do that you need to appeal to the very diverse and fickle gamer consumer. Just having a library of refreshed Nintendo franchises sparsely released is only going to get you so far. They absolutely need strong third party support this time. Especially as they struggle adjusting to the more time consuming and costlier development cycle associated with higher spec'd hardware.
Even the N64 had at least one or two marquee titles released every month or so and they at least attempted a diversified approach by offering an array of different experiences and titles that didnt just cater to the typical mario and zelda fan. I just dont see that from Nintendo right now. They seem to be developing almost exclusively for their core follower and I dont see how that is going to be successful for them longterm this gen. People may not buy Nintendo games for EA but outside of hardcore Nintendo fans people do tend to like to invest in consoles they think will have a range of support and lots of options of games and genres to choose from.