EA Sports details what it would take for them to make Wii U games again

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.
Having sports games is a good way to get some sales going. The Wii did just fine because it had other offerings, which is not something the Wii U has right now.

Nintendo needs all the help they can get because they aren't going to be able to carry this console's sales on their backs this time, specially with most of their big titles being 2014 and beyond.
 
They offered shit for Wii U so far. NFS:MWU was their only good attempt. How about they try doing a concurrent release of a new non-sport title before they give up.
 
Having sports games is a good way to get some sales going. The Wii did just fine because it had other offerings, which is not something the Wii U has right now.

Nintendo needs all the help they can get because they aren't going to be able to carry this console's sales on their backs this time, specially with most of their big titles being 2014 and beyond.

im actually in the minority probably that thinks they could carry the console on their own if they keep up the same kind of 1st party/2nd party/3rd party collaborations going that they are starting to show in the fall-spring (consistently). But that is if they would be happy with gamecube level sales
 
Nintendo conditioning it's customer not to buy yearly entries into a series because that's not how they operate is a serious problem to over come. The difference that might cut through that is if the game is story base and offers something significant in terms of gameplay that wasn't in the previous game. That's what Nintendo does at least in it's own offerings that might seem to be released to close together. It's actually somewhat funny. The very things that could have cut through that for EA were the very things they removed (or couldn't be bothered to work on) from their Wii U launch sports games.

Now by all accounts Need for Speed Most Wanted U is a very good port, late but very good. EA under shipped it and sent it out to die. Not even a small attempt, online from what I could tell, to build some hype for it to at least get it's money back.
 
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.

To be fair, the PS3 also had a ton of titles promised to buyers by the time it released. It had a helluva dodgy launch, sure, but it improved its situation on the promise of lots of great looking titles coming down the line, third party as well as first.

I don't think you can blame third parties for Nintendo failing to make their new console an attractive platform to develop for in the months/years before it released.
 
They offered shit for Wii U so far. NFS:MWU was their only good attempt. How about they try doing a concurrent release of a new non-sport title before they give up.

is their any truth to this game being undershipped? Ive read this but not sure where it came from, also i here people saying it did under 10K on its launch month but with no proof, which also ignores that it was on sale for $30.00 online when it launched, which was where i, and i think a lot of other people bought it.

regardless, to think that game was going to put up big numbers for being such a late port is disengenious, it should have been used to build support for a future NFS game, which we now know isnt coming for some stupid reason

given, if that second game was on parity with the other versions, and launched at the same time, and then bombed, i could understand the reason of not releasing another one
 
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.

Let's stop pretending that Nintendo doesn't need third party support to make them successful.
 
What exactly do you do to create a "userbase for third parties to appeal to with their offering?" What does that even mean?

Offer some variety. Maybe have talented teams like retro or Next Level create original IP that might attract more of the audience that 3rd parties are currently appealing to. For all we know Retro has it in them to create the next Halo or the next great open world game, but instead they are making Donkey Kong, which will turn out great I'm sure, but won't instill much more confidence in third parties.
 
They offered shit for Wii U so far. NFS:MWU was their only good attempt. How about they try doing a concurrent release of a new non-sport title before they give up.

even NFS was pretty fucked up, no DLC and charging more than the other versions were easily available for and forgetting to actually ship any copies to bricks and mortar shops
 
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.


Yeah, I know this sounds defeatist but for all sorts of reasons I just think that market is completely lost to Nintendo, and if they went all out they actually could risk everything if it didn't work.

That goes back to a point I made in another Wii U thread a few days ago- what I think Nintendo is trying to do and needs to do is emphasize their strengths both internally and with their Japanese relationships- though right now there is little to no evidence that this strategy is actually happening.
 
To be fair, the PS3 also had a ton of titles promised to buyers by the time it released. It had a helluva dodgy launch, sure, but it improved its situation on the promise of lots of great looking titles coming down the line, third party as well as first.

I don't think you can blame third parties for Nintendo failing to make their new console an attractive platform to develop for in the months/years before it released.
I'm not blaming 3rd parties, I'm just pointing out the different ideologies. PS3 flops; stay the course, Wii U flops; loudly abandon ship.

That said, Nintendo also helps put themselves in this position by stepping outside comparable system spec tiers, and thus stepping outside the security of "where the industry is headed" which can add security for ports. Gamecube also flopped, but it generally took 3rd parties 2-3 years to drop the system, not 2-3 months.
 
This is why Ubisoft, Sega and Warner Bros will be ahead of everyone else if hopefully that does happen. Not only that but it creates goodwill with the customer base and conditions them to recognizing your brand regularly and not only Nintendo logos. So when new games do come out a customer will see the Ubisoft logo and not think twice about paying full price for a game from them as there is a level of trust built up between them and customers.

If Nintendo turns around the Wii U sooner rather then later EA will be significantly behind everyone else unless they are lying about having their engines running on the system. Them putting out a bad Wii U version of a game won't do them any favors either. No one is going to buy a Wii U version of an EA game if it reviews at a 5 or 6 out of 10 and the other versions, because they worked on those systems longer is getting a 8 or 9 out of 10. No one is going to be understanding and buy the game anyway. They'll pass on it.

This is an excellent post. I agree with you completely.
 
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.

EA had two generations of strong success with Sony. Furthermore EA had built their business plan around supporting Sony's system so abandoning them altogether and out the gate was out of the question I would assume.

Nintendo on the other hand has a rocky history with EA and many third parties have only seen mixed success with nintendo recently. Furthermore Nintendo has always walled off third parties in the development process of their hardware and has recently either been late to the party or purposefully continued to go further and further away from the direction the rest of the industry seems to be heading at a given time.

Odd that people seem to be shocked that most third parties arent diving head first into supporting Nintendo and are taking a more wait and see approach.
 
im actually in the minority probably that thinks they could carry the console on their own if they keep up the same kind of 1st party/2nd party/3rd party collaborations going that they are starting to show in the fall-spring (consistently). But that is if they would be happy with gamecube level sales
The problem is that Nintendo isn't showing they can. I mean, compare the first year of the Wii to the first year of the Wii U, we had pretty much every major Nintendo franchise and some new stuff to boot. They clearly weren't ready for this launch and I'm not sure if people will still be around when they do eventually get ready. There's a giant gaping hole between releases and Nintendo needs something to fill it while they get ready.
 
I'm not blaming 3rd parties, I'm just pointing out the different ideologies. PS3 flops; stay the course, Wii U flops; loudly abandon ship.
Well, it bears mentioning that when PS3 was flopping it was doing 82k per month in the US. Which is abysmal no doubt.

Wii U, on the other hand, is flopping at 30-40k a month.
 
The problem is that Nintendo isn't showing they can. I mean, compare the first year of the Wii to the first year of the Wii U, we had pretty much every major Nintendo franchise and some new stuff to boot. They clearly weren't ready for this launch and I'm not sure if people will still be around when they do eventually get ready. There's a giant gaping hole between releases and Nintendo needs something to fill it while they get ready.

i see what your saying, but what about the second holiday, i cant remember what the second holiday of the wii was like, but for wii u its looking phenominal
 
Well, it bears mentioning that when PS3 was flopping it was doing 82k per month in the US. Which is abysmal no doubt.

Wii U, on the other hand, is flopping at 30-40k a month.
Sure, the severity is worse now for Wii U, but I don't think it really changes much. If PS4 and/or Xbone start doing 30-40k monthly in 2014, you won't see the sort of response Wii U has had with 3rd parties.
 
I'm not blaming 3rd parties, I'm just pointing out the different ideologies. PS3 flops; stay the course, Wii U flops; loudly abandon ship.
They had nothing to lose if they kept developing for the PS3. They were going to make multiplat games anyway, just make a shitty port of the 360 game and call it a day.

The Wii U doesn't get that luxury because they have to actually put some effort in it.
 
Hoping Nintendo itself will cultivate the sort of consumer willing to buy yearly sequels is a losing battle. Iwata is keenly tuned to value issues, which explains:

-Ambassador program (he expressly dislikes making early adopters feel cheated)
-Hardware revisions not adding functionality (see above about early adopters)
-Takes years for price drops on games unless gigantic bomb (see above about early adopters)
-Nintendo's stance on paid DLC
-Lack of compilations (for example, Wind Waker HD and not WW, TP, & SS released as an HD collection, OoT3D versus OoT&MM 3D, each game retains its own individual value)
-NES games are still $5 (Nintendo's belief that just because something is old doesn't mean it has no value)
-Nintendo's general but persistent rule that a series only gets one entry per hardware (is there any other publisher on the planet that wouldn't have put out a Mario Kart Wii sequel?)

So if part of the problem is the perception that Nintendo's audience won't pony up for yearly sequels, I can't really see a "solution" to that "problem" coming from Nintendo, or why you (EA) would expect it to.
 
EA never had success with Nintendo. Even when the Wii was at its strongest, EA sports games were always selling better on 360/PS3.

Can't say I blame them for abandoning a console like the Wii U that isn't selling at all. They never took the console seriously anyway when looking at those months old ports sold at full price.
 
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.

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.

Chicken and egg though, isn't it? How can the console appeal to the audience without the games, how can it have the games if it doesn't have the audience. Someone has to take a leap. (and EA were planning on doing this initially).

I'm not saying the onus is on them, I'm saying they can't act like they tried. They didn't. I'm not debating the reasons why they didn't (although it boils down to poor communication from Nintendo, poor developer tools, poor marketing from Nintendo etc which leads to low confidence in the platforms viability imo)

Lmao. No. It sold less than 10K in the US.

Regardless of the quality, it was still a several month old game which everyone had already played if they wanted to. Sales reflect that (I was one of the ones who hadn't played it, and enjoyed it thoroughly on WiiU)

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.

Consumer confidence, mainly. The bad news killed the WiiUs launch period as much as anything else. Everything was either cancelled,not coming or no one would even talk about it. It's a vicious cycle of bad news leading to low consumer confidence leading to bad news.
 
i see what your saying, but what about the second holiday, i cant remember what the second holiday of the wii was like, but for wii u its looking phenominal

Other than a Wind Waker remake, Donkey Kong and Mario 3D what is making the holiday so phenomenal for Nintendo?
 
Why do so many people in this thread act like this is some kind of irrational, emotion-based decision on EA's part and not just a business decision based on projected return-on-investment?

Do you really think they actually believe they could make a lot of money by putting their games on the WiiU, but don't out of spite?
You're misrepresenting the criticism. It is clear there was never an unprecedented relationship. The Wii U sold very well at launch, but EA sabotaged their own launch titles before the system released. That's a fact. They announced METrilogy for PS360 weeks before releasing ME3 on Wii U. The sports games they released had no DLC and were publicly known to have inferior engines.

And they act surprised when people didn't buy these games?

You say there was no emotion and EA is just doing what is right for their business, but does any of the above sound like they're doing what is best for their business? How is it good business to purposefully sabotage all of your projects on one console and send them out to die? Explain that to me. To me, it looks like a surprisng display of bad business with one company to blame (hint, it's not Nintendo).

I mean, come on. There's a quote in the OP that the audience for sports games doesn't exist on Facebook. Facebooks, for fuck's sakes, where the vast majority of EA's customers all have accounts. It isn't that EA probably released a lazy piece of shit game on Facebook, it is that the audience isn't there either, according to them.

It isn't that the audience for sports titles isn't on Wii U. It is, apparently, that the audience for lazy LttP piece of shit ports isn't there. This is the part where someone comes in to brag that there is an audience for lazy, LttP piece of shit ports on Sony and MS platforms, as if that is something to be proud of. By the way, thanks for also cultivating the audience for Day 1 story DLC, DLC endings, $5 costume DLC, and online multiplayer paywalls.
 
They had nothing to lose if they kept developing for the PS3. They were going to make multiplat games anyway, just make a shitty port of the 360 game and call it a day.

The Wii U doesn't get that luxury because they have to actually put some effort in it.
Yes, I said this already. Maybe you should've read my entire post?
 
Other than a Wind Waker remake, Donkey Kong and Mario 3D what is making the holiday so phenomenal for Nintendo?

Those 3 games, plus Wii Fit U and Wii U Party has the potential to be impressive, sales wise.

Still think Nintendo needs to get the premium down to at least $300 though..
 
Did support for PS3 ever dry up when it wasn't doing too hot at launch (I understand it was never Wii U levels bad)?

The gamers were there. Interest among gamers was there. If anything was keeping consumers at bay it was the super high price of the PS3.

The U is a big questionmark as Nintendo's been struggling just to get their fanbase off the fence. As much as I want EA games (and everyone else's) on U, I can't blame EA for not wanting to piss away money. Obviously most every other third party feels the same way, and it's up to Nintendo to change this. They had a strong showing at E3, but I'm not sure they're going to attract anyone outside of the Nintendo fanbase that only wants to buy Nintendo titles.
 
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.

To me, the obvious problem with this is that Nintendo is in a poor position to play battle-of-the-wallets with Sony and/or Microsoft. Nintendo isn't a small company, of course, but compare that to Microsoft (obviously) or Sony, who just lost ~5 Billion dollars on the PS3 with no obvious effect on their strategy, and I do think Nintendo is smart to move away from playing the game based on how much you can spend.

If you can agree with that, then Nintendo's best approach would be to try to foster independent developers who would grow up in Nintendo's ecosystem rather than Sony/MS's and who could eventually be big publishers in their own right. That wouldn't necessarily be successful, but it's certainly better than continuously chasing EA/Take 2/etc., who are basically a lost cause unless Nintendo does exactly what you just suggested (spend tons of money trying to compete with Sony/MS directly), which I think is a horrible idea.
 
To me, the obvious problem with this is that Nintendo is in a poor position to play battle-of-the-wallets with Sony and/or Microsoft. Nintendo isn't a small company, of course, but compare that to Microsoft (obviously) or Sony, who just lost ~5 Billion dollars on the PS3 with no obvious effect on their strategy, and I do think Nintendo is smart to move away from playing the game based on how much you can spend.

If you can agree with that, then Nintendo's best approach would be to try to foster independent developers who would grow up in Nintendo's ecosystem rather than Sony/MS's and who could eventually be big publishers in their own right. That wouldn't necessarily be successful, but it's certainly better than continuously chasing EA/Take 2/etc., who are basically a lost cause unless Nintendo does exactly what you just suggested (spend tons of money trying to compete with Sony/MS directly), which I think is a horrible idea.

Exactly. Nintendo should be trying to differentiate itself from the competition as best it can. More 1st party output, indie support, and Japanese development.

I know they have said they are doing #1, it looks like they are doing #2, but #3 doesn't look like it is happening.
 
I understand that it's perhaps disingenuous for EA to claim that they're completely, 100% justified in laying all of the blame on Nintendo's doorstep as though they gave it their all to support the platform with stellar software when that's clearly not what transpired. There's perhaps a point to be made that a discerning audience were eager to purchase their titles, but passed after learning of their deficiencies relative to other versions available. In that regard, I understand casting a suspicious eye at them when they seem to be operating under the assumption that they've been acting entirely in good faith in regards to their Wii U offerings.

However, the other side of it is that I think some are perhaps overly critical of EA at this point in time. Others have noted that it's hardly unprecedented for them to not give launch software the kind of attention that mature platforms get. And further, it's also entirely possible that they had realistic expectations of what this software would sell despite knowing that they weren't being released under ideal circumstances, and still came up way shy of what they expected.

Further, there's this notion out there that if publishers build it, consumers will come. Obviously, sales of specific SKUs are hard to come by in this day and age, but can anyone cite a specific retail, multi-platform release on the Wii U that has performed well? Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed was the only thing I heard performing better, and even then, the only thing I heard was that it performed less poorly on the Wii U. Aside from that, it's not entirely clear to me that EA ports that weren't halfassed would have done much better, though I do understand that this is a highly speculative statement.
 
Other than a Wind Waker remake, Donkey Kong and Mario 3D what is making the holiday so phenomenal for Nintendo?

WiiU is going to tank this holiday season. All the hype and press is going to be about the new HD twins.
 
Other than a Wind Waker remake, Donkey Kong and Mario 3D what is making the holiday so phenomenal for Nintendo?

add to that pikmin, W101, watchdogs, rayman, AC, splinter cell, COD, deus ex DR, wii fit U (not for me but eh) and i know im missing some eshop games and other retail releases, I guess i shouldnt have said holiday, but fall-winter period
 
Other than a Wind Waker remake, Donkey Kong and Mario 3D what is making the holiday so phenomenal for Nintendo?
SONICU! :3

And Ubiports I guess. I expect pretty horrible numbers for those though, and for Sonic's success to be largely written off as being essentially 1st party. It really won't matter if Nintendo turns the platform around, traditional 3rd parties will say the audience isn't hospitable regardless of size.
 
Are third parties loudly trumpeting their abandonment of the Vita, or quietly not releasing games for it?

If a third party isn't making a Vita game nobody is going to bat a eye, It's expected that a Sony handheld is going to have piss poor support frm third parties.

A Nintendo CONSOLE is an entirely different thing, and more of a big deal. This is a company that once controlled third parties with an iron fist, and had a strong presence in the console sector. Now they're reduced to stale scraps.
 
The issues with DLC were on Nintendo. Their online stuff including DLC and eShop are still leagues behind the big 2. Our pinball title took a beating in reviews because the promised DLC functionality (in-game DLC purchases, demo/license bundling) never materialized and we had to use clunky workarounds.

Really, Nintendo has had YEARS to get their shit together, and they still refuse. It's too bad, because working with the NA/EU branches has been great. It's just the home base that isn't doing what needs to be done, and the success of the Wii (for them, not for most 3rd parties that do anything besides mascot games, minigames, and peripheral games) misled them into believing their own legend (see also: Brad McQuaid, Peter Molyneux, PS3 launch).
 
Those 3 games, plus Wii Fit U and Wii U Party has the potential to be impressive, sales wise.

Still think Nintendo needs to get the premium down to at least $300 though..
Not trying to kick them while they are down cause I like Nintendo even if their business decisions baffle me at times.

Honestly its pretty sad that after a year of release all Nintendo has to appeal to customers on he wiiU is a very small handful worthwhile titles. Mostly all refreshes or remakes of Nintendo franchises that have been around for decades.


add to that pikmin, W101, watchdogs, rayman, AC, splinter cell, COD, deus ex DR, wii fit U (not for me but eh) and i know im missing some eshop games and other retail releases, I guess i shouldnt have said holiday, but fall-winter period


6 of those 9 are going to be on other platforms with more definitive or graphically capable versions. Not sure how people think this holiday is going to be the turning point for nintendo when Sony and Microsoft are seemingly going to have more titles at launch day then Nintendo is going to have from August to December combined along with all the hype and media coverage behind them.
 
I understand that it's perhaps disingenuous for EA to claim that they're completely, 100% justified in laying all of the blame on Nintendo's doorstep as though they gave it their all to support the platform with stellar software when that's clearly not what transpired. There's perhaps a point to be made that a discerning audience were eager to purchase their titles, but passed after learning of their deficiencies relative to other versions available. In that regard, I understand casting a suspicious eye at them when they seem to be operating under the assumption that they've been acting entirely in good faith in regards to their Wii U offerings.

However, the other side of it is that I think some are perhaps overly critical of EA at this point in time. Others have noted that it's hardly unprecedented for them to not give launch software the kind of attention that mature platforms get. And further, it's also entirely possible that they had realistic expectations of what this software would sell despite knowing that they weren't being released under ideal circumstances, and still came up way shy of what they expected.

Further, there's this notion out there that if publishers build it, consumers will come. Obviously, sales of specific SKUs are hard to come by in this day and age, but can anyone cite a specific retail, multi-platform release on the Wii U that has performed well? Sonic All-Stars Racing Transformed was the only thing I heard performing better, and even then, the only thing I heard was that it performed less poorly on the Wii U. Aside from that, it's not entirely clear to me that EA ports that weren't halfassed would have done much better, though I do understand that this is a highly speculative statement.


Well said. I think a lot of people are trying to say this, but it gets washed up in the tides of bias from either side.
 
Having sports games is a good way to get some sales going. The Wii did just fine because it had other offerings, which is not something the Wii U has right now.

Nintendo needs all the help they can get because they aren't going to be able to carry this console's sales on their backs this time, specially with most of their big titles being 2014 and beyond.


Having titles on the Wii U just for the sake of it isn't going to do anythIng. I don't think Nintendo needs all the games they can get, especially if they're going to bomb anyway. They need games that are going to sell well on the Wii U and they need games that will make people want to buy a Wii U. These games are not sports titles, sure if the install base were larger these games would see higher sales but the main audience for these games are not Wii U owners.
 
add to that pikmin, W101, watchdogs, rayman, AC, splinter cell, COD, deus ex DR, wii fit U (not for me but eh) and i know im missing some eshop games and other retail releases, I guess i shouldnt have said holiday, but fall-winter period

We saw last year that ports aren't going to move Wii Us, even if they have token gamepad exclusive features. Games that were moving millions on PS360 were selling 10s of thousands (or sometimes less) on Wii U. No one (at least in a statistically significant sense) is going to be buying a Wii U to play Watchdogs, or AC 4,or Splinter Cell.

Perhaps another Mario game will have some traction, but I honestly think that poor hardware sales will persist until Mario Kart arrives.
 
The one thing that is stopping me from getting a Wii U is the lack of EA Sports NHL games on it. So I'm not helping this cycle.
 
Why do so many people in this thread act like this is some kind of irrational, emotion-based decision on EA's part and not just a business decision based on projected return-on-investment?

Do you really think they actually believe they could make a lot of money by putting their games on the WiiU, but don't out of spite?

the problem is the PR that's going on around it.

first, the "unprecedent partnership" statement...
then, all the drama that they are making about the reasons they are not publishing games on WiiU.

there are MANY developers who are not making games for the WiiU... but they are not making a parade about it. The annoying part of this problem is that it seems that they WANT the drama.

I agree with you, it's merely business... but EA is making it look like it's personal or something.
 
They offered shit for Wii U so far. NFS:MWU was their only good attempt. How about they try doing a concurrent release of a new non-sport title before they give up.

Yeah, four full priced late ports (other platforms selling cheaper at time of release), three of which were also gimped to varying degrees.

And the ME3/Trilogy deal just defies all logic. The trilogy pack that other platforms got absolutely could have at least had a shot at some decent traction on Wii U. It even would've gotten me to double dip. And I never double dip.
 
I wonder how the gaming landscape would look today if EA bailed on the PS3 as fast as they bailed on the Wii U.

I wonder what the gaming landscape would look today if the PS3 ever sold as badly as the Wii U...because it hasn't. The more apt comparison is the Vita, which isn't exactly swimming in 3rd party support.
 
We saw last year that ports aren't going to move Wii Us, even if they have token gamepad exclusive features. Games that were moving millions on PS360 were selling 10s of thousands (or sometimes less) on Wii U. No one (at least in a statistically significant sense) is going to be buying a Wii U to play Watchdogs, or AC 4,or Splinter Cell.

Perhaps another Mario game will have some traction, but I honestly think that poor hardware sales will persist until Mario Kart arrives.

but last year they were late half assed ports. Excluding DEHR and WWHD, these are all games coming out day and date with the ps3/360 versions. And i actually think if Watchdogs, and to a much much lesser degree SC has good gamepad integration, a decent amount of people will pick it up. I know i have seen a decent amount of gaffers talk about wanting that version if the gamepad fetures are good.
 
the problem is the PR that's going on around it.

first, the "unprecedent partnership" statement...
then, all the drama that they are making about the reasons they are not publishing games on WiiU.

there are MANY developers who are not making games for the WiiU... but they are not making a parade about it. The annoying part of this problem is that it seems that they WANT the drama.

I agree with you, it's merely business... but EA is making it look like it's personal or something.

Are they really being that dramatic? It's not like they're calling press conferences to make a statement about how terrible they think the Wii U is. Most of these threads come as a result of interviews. The interviewer asks about Wii U support, and the interviewee gives a response.
 
Top Bottom