Support NeoGAF

[Vorundor]

3rd parties constantly complain about competing with Nintendos titles and then Nintendo gives them an opportunity to get games out without having to compete with them and they can't capitalize on it, how is that Nintendos fault they aren't the ones removing content

Thank you!!! Third parties have said before that it is tough for them to release on launch for Nintendo when Nintendo also has games coming out at launch. Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess but in respect to this situation, it speaks more about how 3rd parties lack the needed quality to match Nintendo's offerings. Not necessarily speaking about the Wii U but in general.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

3rd parties constantly complain about competing with Nintendos titles and then Nintendo gives them an opportunity to get games out without having to compete with them and they can't capitalize on it, how is that Nintendos fault they aren't the ones removing content

Capitalize on what? The 30,000 Wii u's being sold every month? The system is selling at historically low levels. What is there to capitalize on?

 

[GitarooMan]

EA really should just stop talking about the WiiU at this point. There are tons of other companies that are just as neglectful of the WiiU, if not more so. The "unprecedented partnership" has bit their PR in the ass.

They're not volunteering these statements, they're giving answers to questions.

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

They're not volunteering these statements, they're giving answers to questions.

I know, they get asked these questions so often due to the bullshit they said during the unprecedented partnership phase.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

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).

Damn

 

[iMerc]

i think it's hypocritical of the big 3rd party publishers to expect Nintendo to develop a userbase on their platforms ON THEIR OWN first before they dive in and make money off it... yet when it comes to Sony and Microsoft's new systems they're more than willing to do the hard work & develop that userbase from scratch.

But meh. It's been this way for some time now. we all know where to go when it comes to the types of games we all like.

I own all the consoles so no big for me.

What i think Nintendo should do is work very hard with the compnaies who want to have a presence on their platforms. Promote their games as if they were Nintendo's own games.

They're making such huge strides in the indie scene. why not hire someone who's just as passionate about big publisher support for that department as the person who's in charge of their indie initiative?

 

[Jonm1010]

I am not doubting that the PS360 versions sold more copies of Fifa, Madden, etc. than the Wii - They were more powerful, for one, and they were able to do more graphically, and in terms of feature set (better online facilities, for example). I would also put it to you that many people who owned a Wii also owned one of those consoles, or both, in some cases. Still, fans of such games appreciate the graphical element very much - they like to see a realistic Ronaldo or Messi, and feel as if they are those players performing on the pitch, and that's a part of the experience that EA hope to achieve. But that isn't the point I was getting at. I was rather highlighting that sports fans do exist on Nintendo consoles, and the fact that they've had million-sellers there shows that there is room for growth. Also, it shows that there are people who would love to buy their games, and who would have loved to buy their games - At least, the state of affairs wasn't such that they had to abandon them completely, or put them in the boot. But when they do a copy-and-paste job as they did with Fifa 13 on the Wii, it's a kick in the teeth for those people - this is the other point I was getting at. If your games aren't selling on their platforms, then as a business, surely you would want to understand WHY, and not blame the fans, who are their customers? When those customers hear of people at EA trashing their consoles, what else are they supposed to think except "Well, they think the console is rubbish, so they won't care for anything they put on it... therefore, why should we have any confidence in their games on there?". Instead, a lot of the narrative dismisses valid concerns as 'raging fanpeople', and that is both low and deeply unfair. That said, I did explain in the post that I felt the whole mess was rectifiable.

This is an incoherent mess of a post, no offense.

Selling millions of copies of tiger woods on wii doesnt translate to selling millions of copies of Madden on wiiU. Could they have perhaps better marketed their games and more thoroughly developed those titles? Sure.

Do I knock EA for seeing the opportunity costs and like many other third parties deciding to ultimately take a wait and see approach with Nintendo"s console or at the very least not spend a huge amount of resources developing for the system? Not in a million years. They have a paltry history of third party success and support and the stable bet is on microsoft and sony having the better combined success and better consumer base for revenue potential.

If I were a developer coming out today I would avoid Nintendo like the plaque right now. The cost to develop compared to the possible return on investment is mind-numbinly poor right now. The only good reason to even chance it is if you can do your game on the ultra cheap and dont need much in sales to sustain it.

 

[plagiarize]

While I understand the reaction to the end product, EA clearly put a good deal of effort into the Wii U version of FIFA. Granted, it was missing key modes that people wanted, but they added a bunch of stuff tailored for the Wii U that clearly took a good deal of work to get right.

if they'd just done a straight port instead would that have been better? Maybe... But they tried and they were clearly proud of what they made and still feel it deserved to sell better. They even made a demo for it.

so its completely understandable that they don't want to bother now. They'd have a bunch of work more to do in porting over all the stuff that was missing and zero guarantee of sales. They know a roster update to what they already made wouldn't sell, where as on other secondary platforms they know such things do sell.

 

[Can Crusher]

This guy gets it, he makes games for a demographic not platform. The platform can or not have that demographic, regardless of how many people actually have the system (even though bigger userbase will widen the demographic range).

Arguing against this is arguing for entitlement, and that doesn't really make any sort of business sense. EA doesn't have to create the demographic, because that demographic they would create there already exists elsewhere. Some will talk shit about their games on Wii U, but those are games that didn't have competition on it and to boot, they weren't even available on the Wii. That the WiiU userbase didn't validate the existence of a demographic that buys the games EA is selling, is Nintendo's problem.

After all, if I don't buy a Wii U version of NFS because I prefer to buy it on the other consoles then why should they care about the Wii U version? They don't lose a sale, since I'm buying it on another platform. So unless Nintendo shows that the Wii U is an investment that brings valuable return to EA, then it doesn't make sense for them to keep pumping out games for it.

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.

The MS situation with the Xbox is a great example. MS had to build incentives, and Nintendo has to do the same. 3rd Parties don't have to do anything unless there's proof of any kind of growth, or willingness to create that growth.

 

[Jonm1010]

3rd parties constantly complain about competing with Nintendos titles and then Nintendo gives them an opportunity to get games out without having to compete with them and they can't capitalize on it, how is that Nintendos fault they aren't the ones removing content

This is perhaps the most sad, laughable, and telling spin that nintendo fans have come up with. Like Nintendo sat down with all third parties and said, "were gonna be super nice and botch our launch lineup, create a historically low install base thanks to that poor output and poor marketing and not release any worthwhile software for almost a year!! Hey!... We're doing this for you guys!"

The real reason this scenario even exists is because Nintendo didnt come prepared for what it takes to develop a higher spec'd console and have done a poor job in almost every area of this system from design, marketing to game output. But instead of putting the blame where it should go certain Nintendo fans are so loyal and blinded they actually think blame should be on almost everyone else but Nintendo.

 

[flatearthpandas]

This guy gets it, he makes games for a demographic not platform. The platform can or not have that demographic, regardless of how many people actually have the system (even though bigger userbase will widen the demographic range).

Arguing against this is arguing for entitlement, and that doesn't really make any sort of business sense. EA doesn't have to create the demographic, because that demographic they would create there already exists elsewhere. Some will talk shit about their games on Wii U, but those are games that didn't have competition on it and to boot, they weren't even available on the Wii. That the WiiU userbase didn't validate the existence of a demographic that buys the games EA is selling, is Nintendo's problem.

After all, if I don't buy a Wii U version of NFS because I prefer to buy it on the other consoles then why should they care about the Wii U version? They don't lose a sale, since I'm buying it on another platform. So unless Nintendo shows that the Wii U is an investment that brings valuable return to EA, then it doesn't make sense for them to keep pumping out games for it.

How do you explain that demographic mysteriously not existing on Facebook, which is home to the vast, vast majority of PS360 owners?

 

[Jonm1010]

While I understand the reaction to the end product, EA clearly put a good deal of effort into the Wii U version of FIFA. Granted, it was missing key modes that people wanted, but they added a bunch of stuff tailored for the Wii U that clearly took a good deal of work to get right.

if they'd just done a straight port instead would that have been better? Maybe... But they tried and they were clearly proud of what they made and still feel it deserved to sell better. They even made a demo for it.

so its completely understandable that they don't want to bother now. They'd have a bunch of work more to do in porting over all the stuff that was missing and zero guarantee of sales. They know a roster update to what they already made wouldn't sell, where as on other secondary platforms they know such things do sell.

And Lets remember that the 360 got this treatment as well. In fact it arguably got worse treatment then the wiiU versions did.

When Madden on 360 released for instance we got a barebones game with gameplay mechanics that wouldnt fly on four year old versions of madden on ps2. It had franchise mode and that was basically it. And even franchise mode was gimped to almost insulting levels. Flawed to the brim from front to back.

EA certainly deserves criticism for putting out such a shitty game(and they did this for a few years) but people still bought it. Thats how strong that brand is on Microsoft and Sony. They can literally put out trash with the NFL logo on it and consumers swallow it all and bend over and tell EA to put it where they want it.

Clearly the current Nintendo demographics arent as receptive to these titles given the sales, so why waste the resources right now if at best a good Madden might sell a fraction of the units they will on the other platforms?

 

[Can Crusher]

How do you explain that demographic mysteriously not existing on Facebook, which is home to the vast, vast majority of PS360 owners?

Ugh, because that demographic will rather play a sports game on their PS360 instead? And when they go on Facebook they don't really care about facebook games?

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Dat strong offering of old over priced ports at launch, rofl. Would you like ME3 Wii U for $60 or the whole trilogy for less on other systems?

EA never even tried, fair enough, but don't pretend you did and play offended, it makes you look bad.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Ugh, because that demographic will rather play a sports game on their PS360 instead? And when they go on Facebook they don't really care about facebook games?

Ugh, because they prefer the optimized versions of games to lazy, piece of shit, effortless ports like the Wii U versions? Who fucking knew?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Dat strong offering of old over priced ports at launch, rofl. Would you like ME3 Wii U for $60 or the whole trilogy for less on other systems?

EA never even tried, fair enough, but don't pretend you did and play offended, it makes you look bad.

Where does he sound offended?

 

[Little Green Yoda]

And Lets remember that the 360 got this treatment as well. In fact it arguably got worse treatment then the wiiU versions did.

When Madden on 360 released for instance we got a barebones game with gameplay mechanics that wouldnt fly on four year old versions of madden on ps2. It had franchise mode and that was basically it. And even franchise mode was gimped to almost insulting levels. Flawed to the brim from front to back.

EA certainly deserves criticism for putting out such a shitty game(and they did this for a few years) but people still bought it. Thats how strong that brand is on Microsoft and Sony. They can literally put out trash with the NFL logo on it and consumers swallow it all and bend over and tell EA to put it where they want it.

Clearly the current Nintendo demographics arent as receptive to these titles given the sales, so why waste the resources right now if at best a good Madden might sell a fraction of the units they will on the other platforms?

Right. And when the Wii owners bought "shitty games" aka shovelware, the publishers responded by putting more shovelware on the system because that's what the demographic "wanted". Extend that beyond shovelware and the same thing applies to light gun games on the Wii.

It's easy to throw stones at a console selling so terribly but we've seen this kind of dance with 3rd party pubs before. Let's not assume that a moderately successful Wii U would be getting anything more than nominal support from EA.

 

[SafeinSound]

I don't really understand how people are still upset over them not making games for a platform that isn't selling well.

 

[Vinci]

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.

Outlooks were quite different. 3rd parties were there, games were coming. If Wii U had that, perhaps its bomb status would be less dramatic. So it's hard to equate the two due to the vastly different behavior 3rd parties showcased from one to the other.

 

[EmiPrime]

So the NGage was a viable platform but the Wii U isn't.

Sure thing EA.

 

[flatearthpandas]

This guy gets it, he makes games for a demographic not platform. The platform can or not have that demographic, regardless of how many people actually have the system (even though bigger userbase will widen the demographic range).

Arguing against this is arguing for entitlement, and that doesn't really make any sort of business sense. EA doesn't have to create the demographic, because that demographic they would create there already exists elsewhere. Some will talk shit about their games on Wii U, but those are games that didn't have competition on it and to boot, they weren't even available on the Wii. That the WiiU userbase didn't validate the existence of a demographic that buys the games EA is selling, is Nintendo's problem.

After all, if I don't buy a Wii U version of NFS because I prefer to buy it on the other consoles then why should they care about the Wii U version? They don't lose a sale, since I'm buying it on another platform. So unless Nintendo shows that the Wii U is an investment that brings valuable return to EA, then it doesn't make sense for them to keep pumping out games for it.

You're talking about the Wii U as if Wii U owners wouldn't own any of the multiple other consoles that cheaper, better versions of EA's LttP feature-stripped Wii U ports were released on as far as demographic. You say those games didn't have competition on Wii U, as if competition doesn't exist from other consoles with objectively better versions of the games.

Then you contradict yourself, saying that

...because I prefer to buy it on the other consoles then why should they care about the Wii U version? They don't lose a sale, since I'm buying it on another platform.

So you're admitting that the audience exists, but acknowledging that people would prefer to buy full-featured new-engine games than stripped-featured old-engine games. So, by your logic, EA could release the best version of Madden '14 on PS360 and give the PS4 and the XB180 the Wii U version. Then, as long as people bought the game on the PS360, who gives a shit about the more powerful next-gen consoles, right? Fuck 'em! The PS360 version still sells so fuck everyone else!

Your logic is horribly flawed.
You're saying unless Nintendo owners are okay with buying lazy, feature-stripped, shitty games when there are better alternatives on weaker platforms, EA has no incentive to make games for them? That logic can be true of any platform, it solely, 100% depends on which consoles EA decides to actually try to put a worthwhile purchase on.

Your argument is of two natures. One, a shill. Two, a Nintendo hater. Outside of these perspectives, there is no defense for this. EA literally sabotaged their own Wii U releases and then complains about the audience not being there. The same company that can somehow claim that the audience on Facebook, with a much larger population than Sony and Microsoft (who get EA games with actual effort!) combined. That population also includes the vast, vast majority of the population of both Sony and Microsoft console owners.

It isn't about not having the audience. It's about not putting out games that are worth anyone's time to buy. End of story. Contradict me, please.

 

[pvpness]

Lol, EA. I was ready to buy your games at launch, until I learned you were actually offering me inferior products across the board at higher prices. Brilliant planning there boss. Maybe there are gamers who don't mind paying for plain as day garbage, but it seems like the Wii U didn't attract that demo on day 1.

The Facebook comment also provides endless entertainment. Derp, there's only an outside chance it was your game. Ok.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Makes perfect sense and there's nothing to be upset about here in my opinion.

The Wii U is selling terribly, and the games EA did release did poorly. They probably didn't get any of the launch window sales boost effect. That's to be expected, though, since what Nintendo did was effectively launch an Xbox 360/PS3-level system when that generation was on it's way out. Most people who wanted those games already had an Xbox 360/PS3.

 

[Thoraxes]

I just can't figure out why they'd make xbone and ps4 games then.

 

[GamerJM]

Just out of curiosity, how well did EA Gamecube games sell early on in the Gamecube's lifespan?

 

[flatearthpandas]

Lol, EA. I was ready to buy your games at launch, until I learned you were actually offering me inferior products across the board at higher prices. Brilliant planning there boss. Maybe there are gamers who don't mind paying for plain as day garbage, but it seems like the Wii U didn't attract that demo on day 1.

The Facebook comment also provides endless entertainment. Derp, there's only an outside chance it was your game. Ok.

This guy gets it across the board.

I would have bought Mass Effect Trilogy Day 1 with my Wii U (I didn't buy any games Day 1, just fucked around with NintendoLand).

But... guess what? I own a PS3 and Mass Effect Trilogy was announced to come out very soon after for the same price. So I could have made the mentally unsound choice to support EA's fucking terrible Wii U efforts.... or I could have bought a better version (with DLC!) a couple weeks later for another console.

 

[plank]

has EA made any games for the 3DS?

 

[Jonm1010]

Right. And when the Wii owners bought "shitty games" aka shovelware, the publishers responded by putting more shovelware on the system because that's what the demographic "wanted". Extend that beyond shovelware and the same thing applies to light gun games on the Wii.

It's easy to thrown stones at a console selling so terribly but we've seen this kind of dance with 3rd party pubs before. Let's not assume that a moderately successful Wii U would be getting anything more than nominal support from EA.

I said this earlier in the thread. EA is a follow-the-leader type of company. they take few risks and tend to follow already established, successful business models.

Sports games are huge so they bought the license to the NFL to monopolize the market. Bro shooters became big thanks to Halo and Call of Duty so EA has been chasing that crowd for a generation. Bioware's approach to games netted a loyal following and great sales, so they bought them. When tiger woods and EA playground hit big on the back of copying wii Sports while other franchises stalled, EA followed that business route.

If Nintendo had released a title or a couple of titles that showed third parties that the demographics on wiiU were receptive to a style of game EA could capitalize on I guarantee EA would have followed. They always have. Problem is NINTENDO has FAILED to provide a coherent and strong userbase that third parties feel comfortable sinking the type of money it costs to produce a top tier game for that system. Especially given the current opportunity costs in play.

 

[Soler]

Not unreasonable at all
People here not to stop criticizing EA for putting their profit first

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I just can't figure out why they'd make xbone and ps4 games then.

Well, they are banking on the fact that they will sell titles on those platforms. Maybe their gamble will prove correct, maybe it won't. Time will tell. However, as it pertains to the Wii U, they know their titles didn't sell well, and as such they have historic data to suggest that the market isn't warm to what they are offering.

You are, of course, free to disagree. However, there's no logical inconsistency in terms of why they might be optimistic about unreleased platforms. The argument of "Oh, I see, so they'd rather make games on platforms with a zero-install base" is a bad one.

 

[lunchwithyuzo]

has EA made any games for the 3DS?

This year it's just another FIFA12 roster update. I'm still surprised there's no PopCap stuff for 3DS given how they banked on DS and DSiWare.

 

[Mlatador]

I said this earlier in the thread. EA is a follow-the-leader type of company. they take few risks and tend to follow already established, successful business models.

Sports games are huge so they bought the license to the NFL to monopolize the market. Bro shooters became big thanks to Halo and Call of Duty so EA has been chasing that crowd for a generation. When tiger woods and EA playground hit big on the back of copying wii Sports while other franchises stalled, EA followed that business route.

If Nintendo had released a title or a couple of titles that showed third parties that the demographics on wiiU were receptive to a style of game EA could capitalize on I guarantee EA would have followed. They always have. Problem is NINTENDO has FAILED to provide a coherent and strong userbase that third parties feel comfortable sinking the type of money it costs to produce a top tier game for that system.

Can you please stop using those definite terms, because it's really annoying. You're talking like it's the end of 2018 and Nintendo still wasn't able to "provide a hoherent and strong userbase" - whatever that even means.

 

[jwhit28]

How can they say they had a strong offering when the Wii U version was the worst console version between Wii U/360/PS3?

Wii U Madden lacked the real-time physics and only half of the available hot routes could be called by touch screen.

Wii U Fifa was missing the most popular part of the game, Ultimate Team. There is also no Football Club online mode, no match day feature where stuff that happened in the real world was mentioned or affected players in the game, and none of the skill games were included.

I hope PS4 doesn't get the same type of "strong offering" this year.

 

[Jonm1010]

Just out of curiosity, how well did EA Gamecube games sell early on in the Gamecube's lifespan?

Not sure but I know a number of multi-platform games suffered from Nintendos odd button layout and disc limitations.

But it wouldn't be Nintendo if they didn't make some sort of unnecessarily difficult hurdle for developers for the sake of trying to be "different."

 

[darkstar0155]

I said this earlier in the thread. EA is a follow-the-leader type of company. they take few risks and tend to follow already established, successful business models.

Sports games are huge so they bought the license to the NFL to monopolize the market. Bro shooters became big thanks to Halo and Call of Duty so EA has been chasing that crowd for a generation. Bioware's approach to games netted a loyal following and great sales, so they bought them. When tiger woods and EA playground hit big on the back of copying wii Sports while other franchises stalled, EA followed that business route.

If Nintendo had released a title or a couple of titles that showed third parties that the demographics on wiiU were receptive to a style of game EA could capitalize on I guarantee EA would have followed. They always have. Problem is NINTENDO has FAILED to provide a coherent and strong userbase that third parties feel comfortable sinking the type of money it costs to produce a top tier game for that system. Especially given the current opportunity costs in play.

I can understand them not putting effort into madden, or nba or something anymore (although i still think when you release a gimped port you shouldnt expect huge sales), but why no tiger when for a couple years that sold best on wii?

 

[Jonm1010]

Can you please stop using those definite terms, because it's really annoying. You're talking like it's the end of 2018 and Nintendo still wasn't able to "provide a hoherent and strong userbase" - whatever that even means.

I've prefaced most my opinions with IMO or something similar. However to argue against the notion that Nintendo has so far failed to garner a coherent and strong userbase is undeniable.

Sorry, but it is.

I can understand them not putting effort into madden, or nba or something anymore (although i still think when you release a gimped port you shouldnt expect huge sales), but why no tiger when for a couple years that sold best on wii?

Not really sure but companies only have so many resources to go around so I would assume it came down to some sort of cost/benefit analogy. Right or wrong.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

I said this earlier in the thread. EA is a follow-the-leader type of company. they take few risks and tend to follow already established, successful business models.

Sports games are huge so they bought the license to the NFL to monopolize the market. Bro shooters became big thanks to Halo and Call of Duty so EA has been chasing that crowd for a generation. Bioware's approach to games netted a loyal following and great sales, so they bought them. When tiger woods and EA playground hit big on the back of copying wii Sports while other franchises stalled, EA followed that business route.

If Nintendo had released a title or a couple of titles that showed third parties that the demographics on wiiU were receptive to a style of game EA could capitalize on I guarantee EA would have followed. They always have. Problem is NINTENDO has FAILED to provide a coherent and strong userbase that third parties feel comfortable sinking the type of money it costs to produce a top tier game for that system. Especially given the current opportunity costs in play.

That's great and all if that's EA's philosophy. Why bother with releasing games at launch when Nintendo doesn't have IPs that have an analogue for each EA IP that is on the system then?

Spoiler

hint: to build a userbase on the platform

My point was that supporting an inferior version of a game does not in any way guarantee that the company will put more effort into subsequent versions. Will they release a sequel? Sure! Will the sequel be as shitty as the version that sold well? Possibly!

Supporting a platform is an investment. How many times do we hear that such and such game cost so much because they had to develop an engine to work on a console and that sequels reusing the engine/assets will help recoup the original investment? If you're not going to invest in a platform because of w/e internal metrics/projections, then say so. Don't bullshit us with half-assed support and blame the everybody but yourselves when the games don't sell. There's a reason why EA gets criticized more than Ubisoft/Activision about this even though none of them have had success on the system. And no, it's not solely because of the "unprecedented partnership" - though that does throw more fuel to the fire.

 

[Azih]

I'm really sick and tired of this lie and it never being called out when EA says it.

It's not a lie. You can't expect EA sports to put the latest game from the other platforms AND have them develop for the WiiU tablet special features as well. They used the prior year's game so they could spend the dev resources on getting tablet features in. That's the give and take when you have a unique hardware offering to develop for.

 

[jwhit28]

It's not a lie. You can't expect EA sports to put the latest game from the other platforms AND have them develop for the WiiU tablet special features as well. They used the prior year's game so they could spend the dev resources on getting tablet features in.

In what world would a sports sim fan prefer this?

 

[Azih]

In what world would a sports sim fan prefer this?

How many sports sim fans own only Wii Us? EA knows they'll sell to that audience on the other formats. They spent time and money and developer effort on making use of the unique WiiU tablet for WiiU early adopters (since the tablet is THE selling feature of the console) and they didn't get a return that justified doing it anymore.

 

[jwhit28]

How many sports sim fans own only Wii Us? EA knows they'll sell to that audience on the other formats.

If EA took the Need for Speed Most Wanted route I wouldn't have a problem saying it was a "great offering". The sports games released last year were a slight step ahead of releasing nothing or releasing a HD version of the Wii port. If that is the attitude they are going to take than they are more than right to ignore the platform altogether because the few sports sim fans that do own a Wii U aren't going to take managing your line up on a touch screen over real world performance matching and true collision physics.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Where does he sound offended?

In this part:

Our games hasn’t had the take-up we’d have liked.

What were they expecting with the games they lined up?

To me, he sounds offended that Wii U owners didn't buy their old ports at the rate they had hoped for. At least their reaction is an indicator of this: Since you didn't buy or old ports, we won't publish any thing new on your console (before you have a large instalment of sports games buyers or something - how will they figure out when that is?)

 

[Seeds]

It's not a lie. You can't expect EA sports to put the latest game from the other platforms AND have them develop for the WiiU tablet special features as well. They used the prior year's game so they could spend the dev resources on getting tablet features in. That's the give and take when you have a unique hardware offering to develop for.

If they used prior years game it's not a strong offering.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

In this part:

What were they expecting with the games they lined up?

To me, he sounds offended that Wii U owners didn't buy their old ports at the rate they had hoped for. At least their reaction is an indicator of this: Since you didn't buy or old ports, we won't publish any thing new on your console (before you have a large instalment of sports games buyers or something - how will they figure out when that is?)

He's simply arguing that sales didn't meet expectations. It doesn't sound like there's any offense there. "We hoped to sell X copies, and we sold less than that." It sounds pretty dispassionate to me.

 

[Jonm1010]

That's great and all if that's EA's philosophy. Why bother with releasing games at launch then when Nintendo doesn't have IPs that have an analogue for each EA IP that is on the system then?

Spoiler

hint: to build a userbase on the platform

My point was that supporting an inferior version of a game does not in any way guarantee that the company will put more effort into subsequent versions. Will they release a sequel? Sure! Will the sequel be as shitty as the version that sold well? Possibly!

Supporting a platform is an investment. How many times do we hear that such and such game cost so much because they had to develop an engine to work on a console and that sequels reusing the engine/assets will help recoup the original investment? If you're not going to invest in a platform for w/e internal metrics/projections, then say so. Don't bullshit us with half-assed support and blame the everybody but yourselves when the games don't sell. There's a reason why EA gets criticized more than Ubisoft/Activision about this even though none of them have had success on the system. And no, it's not solely because of the "unprecedented partnership" - though that does throw more fuel to the fire.

Just because EA seems to be a follow-the-leader type of company doesnt mean they wont take some calculated risks in order to see what the landscape might be like if they choose to throw strong support behind a new console.

Could their offerings of been better? Sure. But I guarantee if the wiiU adoption rate had been higher they would be releasing more games on it. EA has said pretty matter-of-factly as such.

The sticking point IMO seems to be that some Nintendo fans think third parties like EA are risk takers, or should be risk takers and play an active role in building Nintendo's userbase for them. EA seems to think they are a company that mostly goes where the demographics already are and where their titles can garner the greatest return.

Nintendo fans seem to be mad that EA is putting profits above all else as another poster put it.

 

[EmiPrime]

Just about everyone who wanted Madden/FIFA 2013 already bought it 2-3 months before the Wii U even came out. Why would anyone want to buy either of those again but with even less features?

 

[darkstar0155]

Not really sure but companies only have so many resources to go around so I would assume it came down to some sort of cost/benefit analogy. Right or wrong.

what? so they should abondon the system the game was selling the most on, and will probably be the cheapest to develop for in the future once ps4/xbone hit full stride?

(Edit: talking about tiger only)

 

[Jonm1010]

If EA took the Need for Speed Most Wanted route I wouldn't have a problem saying it was a "great offering". The sports games released last year were a slight step ahead of releasing nothing or releasing a HD version of the Wii port. If that is the attitude they are going to take than they are more than right to ignore the platform altogether because the few sports sim fans that do own a Wii U aren't going to take managing your line up on a touch screen over real world performance matching and true collision physics.

And isnt that the overarching issue? Return on investment is really low right now given the userbase and demographics on the system?

 

[prag16]

Well, they are banking on the fact that they will sell titles on those platforms. Maybe their gamble will prove correct, maybe it won't. Time will tell. However, as it pertains to the Wii U, they know their titles didn't sell well, and as such they have historic data to suggest that the market isn't warm to what they are offering.

You are, of course, free to disagree. However, there's no logical inconsistency in terms of why they might be optimistic about unreleased platforms. The argument of "Oh, I see, so they'd rather make games on platforms with a zero-install base" is a bad one.

This logic would be bulletproof if:

(a) Every EA game on wii you wasn't late/gimped/overpriced/some combination thereof.
(b) It wasn't clear they pretty much cut Wii U out of future plans BEFORE launch, not after.

 

[jwhit28]

And isnt that the overarching issue? Return on investment is really low right now given the userbase and demographics on the system?

Yes it is. They are right about the situation EXCEPT for the part where they pretend like they released a really strong line up. That's what needs to stop.