Support NeoGAF

[FreedomFighter]

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.

LTTP, but I had to say that this was a very good post here.

 

[Azih]

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

It is INCREDIBLY unreasonable to expect them to stick in tablet features as they're building the current year's game. And I don't use that all caps lightly.

So the options are:

Don't put in tablet features, just port latest existing versions. In which case, why bother with the unique WiiU? The vast majority of their audiences who HAVE PLAYED LAST YEARS games already have Xboxes and playstations and PCs and will buy the updates there.

Put in tablet features built on top of last year's games. Hopefully the unique play offerings will entice WiiU gamers who bought it on the strength of the tablet and either haven't played the last years version or want to make use of the game with the tablet features..

I would have gone with option 2 myself. And I would have had the same reaction to it flopping.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

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.

I have no doubt that more EA games would be released on the Wii U if it was selling at a decent rate. But would they be quality games? The Wii-Wii U juxtaposition is a very interesting one to look at. I have a hard time believing that a moderately successful Wii U would be getting much more support than a wildly successful Wii. Possibly less.

The question of risk is a fair one. Is EA that much more risk averse than Ubisoft/Activision? Or is it just that their C-teams are so much worse than those of Ubisoft/Activision? In addition to that, their management isn't actively making their Wii U titles an inferior purchase decision like EA has done. Or are Ubisoft/Activision Wii U charities while EA is not?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

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.

I don't understand how that undermines anything. One can argue that there are factors beyond Nintendo's own struggles that can explain lackluster software sales. However, I also think that it's disingenuous to ignore that there don't seem to be any real success stories on the platform right now, and certainly not with multiplatform stuff. You can argue that EA's struggles were a self-fulfilling prophecy, but be that as it may, the prophecy did indeed come true. And many other publishers seem to believe that as well.

The Wii U missed out on several big titles this year. And some of the ones that did release still didn't receive great support. For instance, Injustice. Finally, a Wii U multiplatform title that released day and date with the other versions! At least WB is a strong partner, right? Well, it hasn't received any of the post-release support the other versions have.

Now, you can believe that all of this is due to foolish publishers not believing in Nintendo because they have an ax to grind and would rather see them fail as opposed to making money selling software on their hardware. Or, perhaps you might consider for one moment that many of them simply believe -- perhaps for logical reasons -- that investment into the platform at this junction isn't paying off very well. Ultimately, it's your call I suppose.

 

[prag16]

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!

And even when the initial game is good, with good sales... they'll still follow up with shit.

RE4 Wii edition sold pretty well. What does Capcom do? A proper followup? Of course not. A couple half assed rail shooters.

I think EA made a comment at one point about the trilogy on Wii U... implying that if ME3 sold well on Wii U they'd consider porting the Trilogy. Probably some time around launch iirc. Now how asinine is THAT logic.

I don't understand how that undermines anything. One can argue that there are factors beyond Nintendo's own struggles that can explain lackluster software sales. However, I also think that it's disingenuous to ignore that there don't seem to be any real success stories on the platform right now, and certainly not with multiplatform stuff. You can argue that EA's struggles were a self-fulfilling prophecy, but be that as it may, the prophecy did indeed come true. And many other publishers seem to believe that as well.

The Wii U missed out on several big titles this year. And some of the ones that did release still didn't receive great support. For instance, Injustice. Finally, a Wii U multiplatform title that released day and date with the other versions! At least WB is a strong partner, right? Well, it hasn't received any of the post-release support the other versions have.

Now, you can believe that all of this is due to foolish publishers not believing in Nintendo because they have an ax to grind and would rather see them fail as opposed to making money selling software on their hardware. Or, perhaps you might consider for one moment that many of them simply believe -- perhaps for logical reasons -- that investment into the platform at this junction isn't paying off very well. Ultimately, it's your call I suppose.

You're saying they used "historic data" from their four early Wii U games in order to cut off further Wii U support. That was central to your point.

I responded that (a) The decision to cut off further (2013+ support other than NFS) seemed to happen BEFORE launch meaning that data hadn't come in yet, and (b) the "historical data" is tainted because the games from which said data is drawn were late/expensive/gimped/etc.

How does that not harm the validity of the "historical data" argument?

I certainly am not saying Nintendo has no blame in this. Far from it. It's just a little amusing how EA (the "worst company in America" and recipients of a fair amount of vitriol on gaf at various times for their bs) all of a sudden become extremely logical and reasonable when it comes to the Wii U.

 

[darkstar0155]

It is INCREDIBLY unreasonable to expect them to stick in tablet features as they're building the current year's game. And I don't use that all caps lightly.

So the options are:

Don't put in tablet features, just port latest existing versions. In which case, why bother with the unique WiiU? The vast majority of their audiences who HAVE PLAYED LAST YEARS games already have Xboxes and playstations and PCs and will buy their games there.

Put in tablet features built on top of last year's games. Hopefully the unique play offerings will entice WiiU gamers who bought it on the strength of the tablet and haven't played the last years version.


I would have gone with option 2 myself. And I would have had the same reaction to it flopping.

the biggest problem with this is that atleast madden released a while after the other versions, and most people who play madden buy it at launch. Not saying that i dont blame them for not putting effort into the port, but that they shouldnt have really expected it to sell. It probably would have been wiser to just not release it last year, and use that effort to make a parity-equal version this year, since there wasnt enough of an incentive to buy the wii u version of what they put out.

 

[Jonm1010]

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?

The early tiger woods games did better on wii and outsold EA's other marquee franchises. The later iterations actually sold worse then games like FIFA and Madden on wii.

Im not sure what your trying to prove at this point. It seems like you are just looking for reasons to blame EA for nintendo's failings.

 

[famousmortimer]

I'm honestly surprised that the exclusivity contracts with the NFL, FIFA and NCAA don't force them to put games out on all platforms. So not only do these exclusivity contracts kill competition, it may eliminate your chance to play that sport at all.


That's fucking gross.

 

[Herb Alpert]

The real issue with EA is that they think that people buying Nintendo consoles are total morons who don't know jack about videogames and must be happy to buy games already released 1 or 2 years before on other platforms.
All this stance of third parties regarding nintendo platforms is really a sel fulfilling prophecy.

The news that EA doesn't bring games on WiiU does not saddens me. What saddens me is that apparently a console cannot survive if EA decides it won't.

Again, I have never given them money for the last 25 years, so it will not bother me. I just hope WiiU will be able to cope with this situation.

 

[Seeds]

It is INCREDIBLY unreasonable to expect them to stick in tablet features as they're building the current year's game. And I don't use that all caps lightly.

So the options are:

Don't put in tablet features, just port latest existing versions. In which case, why bother with the unique WiiU? The vast majority of their audiences who HAVE PLAYED LAST YEARS games already have Xboxes and playstations and PCs and will buy the updates there.

Put in tablet features built on top of last year's games. Hopefully the unique play offerings will entice WiiU gamers who bought it on the strength of the tablet and either haven't played the last years version or want to make use of the game with the tablet features..

I would have gone with option 2 myself. And I would have had the same reaction to it flopping.

You're not actually arguing that they did have a strong offering, so far you're only giving reasons as to why they didn't.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

You're saying they used "historic data" in order to cut off further Wii U support. That was central to your point.

I responded that (a) The decision to cut off further (2013+ support other than NFS) seemed to happen BEFORE launch, and (b) the "historical data" is tainted because the games from which said data is drawn were late/expensive/gimped/etc.

How does that not harm the validity of the "historical data" argument?

I certainly am not saying Nintendo has no blame in this. Far from it. It's just a little amusing how EA (the "worst company in America" and recipients of a fair amount of vitriol on gaf at various times for their bs) all of a sudden become extremely logical and reasonable when it comes to the Wii U.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the decision was already made before launch to not support the Wii U with versions of Madden and FIFA this year?

 

[prag16]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the decision was already made before launch to not support the Wii U with versions of Madden and FIFA this year?

I suppose I was talking mostly about EA at large, not just EA sports (which this topic is mostly about) so fair enough.

The other point still stands.

 

[darkstar0155]

The early tiger woods games did better on wii and outsold EA's other marquee franchises. The later iterations actually sold worse then games like FIFA and Madden on wii.

Im not sure what your trying to prove at this point. It seems like you are just looking for reasons to blame EA for nintendo's failings.

Im not necessarily trying to prove anything, the wii u's current failing is a combination of N's and third parties fualt imo. But EA's games failing i feel is 75-85% their own fault. As to your point, if i was the exec of EA, what that would tell me is that gamers on the platform will support EA sports games, just maybe not on a yearly basis. So what i would do is release one or two quality versions of tiger, since you know it will sell well if effort is put into it, but not release it every year. How is EA not releasing tiger nintendo's failings, when it has been shown it can sell best on their system, if utilized well? I completely think if they would have made a tiger similiar to the demo that was shown when the system was unveilded (putting the pad on the floor and it shows the golf ball in the sand/grass, and you use the wiimote to swing) would have sold very well.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

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.

Well how about the "therefore (for now) we wont publish any more of our games on your system part" then? Is that a reasonable response, or the response of someone who seems offended?

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Put NHL 14 on the Wii U and I'll buy it, despite the terrible choice for a cover athlete.

Spoiler

I wasn't going to buy the game on 360 or PS3 because I actually, you know, play hockey; in real life. I don't need to do it in a video game.

Wow. So pretentious of you.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I suppose I was talking mostly about EA at large, not just EA sports (which this topic is mostly about) so fair enough.

The other point still stands.

To the other point, we don't know what their sales expectations were. I mean, if we're assuming that they expected the Wii U versions of FIFA, Madden, and Mass Effect 3 to sell comparable amounts to other versions, then I would agree that they were taking crazy pills. However, I also allow for the possibility that they were just testing the waters with launch software that they knew would not be considered the definitive versions of these titles to simply test the waters with reasonable low expectations, and they still came in well below targets. Unfortunately, we don't know what their targets were, and in general we don't have good sales data for specific SKUs.

In general, it's been my understanding that none of the multiplatform releases of Wii U games have performed well. As stated earlier, I think Sonic was considered the exception in its first month. Otherwise, I've heard nothing but disappointment through the grapevine. Of course, you can probably point to some of the same rationales for why they should have sold poorly (ports were late or lacking in support). But when it's pretty much universally applicable, it becomes more difficult to establish that software is selling poorly only because of a userbase with discerning tastes, as opposed to conceding that the market itself is weak on the platform.

 

[prag16]

Im not necessarily trying to prove anything, the wii u's current failing is a combination of N's and third parties fualt imo. But EA's games failing i feel is 75-85% their own fault. As to your point, if i was the exec of EA, what that would tell me is that gamers on the platform will support EA sports games, just maybe not on a yearly basis. So what i would do is release one or two quality versions of tiger, since you know it will sell well if effort is put into it, but not release it every year. How is EA not releasing tiger nintendo's failings, when it has been shown it can sell best on their system, if utilized well? I completely think if they would have made a tiger similiar to the demo that was shown when the system was unveilded (putting the pad on the floor and it shows the golf ball in the sand/grass, and you use the wiimote to swing) would have sold very well.

Yeah, if I was an EA exec and the plan was brought in front of me: "We're going to sell ME3 on Wii U for $60, and sell the trilogy for the same price on other platforms at the same time," my response would have been to ask if they are batshit crazy, and then demand that if there's no time to get the Trilogy adapted for Wii U, cut the ME3 Special Edition price down to $40 (preferably $30). I mean come on. It's just common sense.

In general, it's been my understanding that none of the multiplatform releases of Wii U games have performed well. As stated earlier, I think Sonic was considered the exception in its first month. Otherwise, I've heard nothing but disappointment through the grapevine. Of course, you can probably point to some of the same rationales for why they should have sold poorly (ports were late or lacking in support). But when it's pretty much universally applicable, it becomes more difficult to establish that software is selling poorly only because of a userbase with discerning tastes, as opposed to conceding that the market itself is weak on the platform.

The problem is, EVERY port was late and/or gimped at least to some degree. Except for Sonic Racing.

The market on the platform is also weak at this point. So I'd say it's both. The market isn't strong as of now, AND almost all the ports late/overpriced/gimped. As I said before, there's plenty of blame to go around. It's not ALL on Nintendo. Like I said in my last post, it's interesting how many seem to see it EA as a pretty crap company UNTIL it comes to Nintendo; with regard to Nintendo they're paragons of rational thinking and business virtue all of a sudden.

 

[cyberheater]

Well how about the "therefore (for now) we wont publish any more of our games on your system part" then? Is that a reasonable response, or the response of someone who seems offended?

It's an entirely reasonable response based on a purely financial consideration. If they know that they are not going to get their money back developing a game. Then why should they develop for that system.

 

[Jonm1010]

The real issue with EA is that they think that people buying Nintendo consoles are total morons who don't know jack about videogames and must be happy to buy games already released 1 or 2 years before on other platforms.
All this stance of third parties regarding nintendo platforms is really a sel fulfilling prophecy.

The news that EA doesn't bring games on WiiU does not saddens me. What saddens me is that apparently a console cannot survive if EA decides it won't.

Again, I have never given them money for the last 25 years, so it will not bother me. I just hope WiiU will be able to cope with this situation.

Step back and think about this though. Especially for EA sports titles. Final development kits hit when? Early the year of release? Hardware that is now well known to have many issues with porting.

Nintendo didnt make the lives of these developers any easier with their odd architecture decisions and ever shifting development kits.

Now EA has to deliver a Madden title from basically the ground up, with added gamepad features, on new hardware that needs a good breaking in period due to its uniqueness, and they need to do this in a fraction of the time a usual Madden title has in development.

Its unrealistic to think you're gonna get everything. Or even a strong offering on that timetable.

EA has made some silly comments and continues to try and spin the end products of the wiiU's launch as something it wasnt but EA could only do so much.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Well how about the "therefore (for now) we wont publish any more of our games on your system part" then? Is that a reasonable response, or the response of someone who seems offended?

It sounds like the response of someone that doesn't think a Wii U port will provide a good return on investment. Not someone who is offended that Wii U owners don't like their games.

 

[darkstar0155]

To the other point, we don't know what their sales expectations were. I mean, if we're assuming that they expected the Wii U versions of FIFA, Madden, and Mass Effect 3 to sell comparable amounts to other versions, then I would agree that they were taking crazy pills. However, I also allow for the possibility that they were just testing the waters with launch software that they knew would not be considered the definitive versions of these titles to simply test the waters with reasonable low expectations, and they still came in well below targets. Unfortunately, we don't know what their targets were, and in general we don't have good sales data for specific SKUs.

In general, it's been my understanding that none of the multiplatform releases of Wii U games have performed well. As stated earlier, I think Sonic was considered the exception in its first month. Otherwise, I've heard nothing but disappointment through the grapevine. Of course, you can probably point to some of the same rationales for why they should have sold poorly (ports were late or lacking in support). But when it's pretty much universally applicable, it becomes more difficult to establish that software is selling poorly only because of a userbase with discerning tastes, as opposed to conceding that the market itself is weak on the platform.

i would think they would not be able to really draw any good conclusion given the situation those games released in, and thus shoulnt use any of the data for future support. However, if i remember correctly a couple eshop games have sold better on the wii u, then the HD twins, trine 2 being one example (i think runner sold the best on wii u too but im not 100 percent on that one)

 

[cyberheater]

We are seeing a couple of games soon to finish their development cycle that will come to market. Bayonetta, Wonderful 101.

I know that Sega are going to release 3 games for WiiU but does anyone know of any new third party games that have recently been announced in development for WiiU?

 

[Steve Youngblood]

i would think they would not be able to really draw any good conclusion given the situation those games released in, and thus shoulnt use any of the data for future support. However, if i remember correctly a couple eshop games have sold better on the wii u, then the HD twins, trine 2 being one example (i think runner sold the best on wii u too but im not 100 percent on that one)

Well, this would go a long way towards helping the case that Nintendo is wise to pursue indie devs and promote eShop releases, which they seem keen on doing. Kudos to them for doing that. However, it doesn't really go anywhere in terms of making the case that there's a strong market for AAA and sports titles, for instance.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I see at as this:

1. Nintendo fans aren't really known for buying EA Sports games. I would say the current owners of the WiiU are mostly Nintendo fans. If GAF were an indication, EA (Sports) would have little to no sales with them.

2. It's firmly established that EA Sports titles sell quite well on XBox and PS platforms. I think then it's also safe to say that their main userbase will be there as well. It's probably the safest bet, in the beginning anyway, to stick with where their userbase will be found first. Go after the risky/lower profit areas later.

 

[cyberheater]

However, if i remember correctly a couple eshop games have sold better on the wii u, then the HD twins, trine 2 being one example (i think runner sold the best on wii u too but im not 100 percent on that one)

Isn't that more down to the desperation of WiiU owners to find anything to play on their system?

 

[Aaron Strife]

That's what SEGA thought, too.

Why do people act like EA's lack of support for Dreamcast is what sunk the system? It was a combination of aggressive marketing from Sony pushing the Dreamcast out, and Sega's own financial troubles from a string of failed consoles, neither of which are factors in the Wii U's performance. Sega had their own sports line that was better than EA's offerings and sold great.

 

[Azih]

You're not actually arguing that they did have a strong offering, so far you're only giving reasons as to why they didn't.

It's as good as should be expected and shitting on EA for it is crazy. The problem in this case is NOT with EA it's with the non standard situation that is the WiiU (console design and audience)

 

[darkstar0155]

Well, this would go a long way towards helping the case that Nintendo is wise to pursue indie devs and promote eShop releases, which they seem keen on doing. Kudos to them for doing that. However, it doesn't really go anywhere in terms of making the case that there's a strong market for AAA and sports titles, for instance.

i agee with this, i dont think anyone can make a good case for their being a strong market for sports games (outside of tiger, and things like fitness games), and i think that they should have just focused on parity versions for this year for fifa and madden to see how they would do for some data points for future support.

As to AAA non-sports games, i dont see any data that could be used for or against the argument on the wii u, as all examples have some type of situation that makes it near impossible to draw good conclusions from

 

[darkstar0155]

Isn't that more down to the desperation of WiiU owners to find anything to play on their system?

not neccesarly, trine 2 is the best version out there (best visual quality, all of the DLC), and runner 2 you could chalk up to due the fact it is a niche market for that style of game, and that it could be played on the pad only as big selling points, since everything else is equal

 

[prag16]

Isn't that more down to the desperation of WiiU owners to find anything to play on their system?

Well, that's certainly the conclusion that best fits your narrative.

More reasonable explanation could have to do with Trine 2 being the "best" version, and Runner tapping the strong market for sidescrollers/2D Platformers on the system (goes for Trine as well actually).

 

[Little Green Yoda]

Isn't that more down to the desperation of WiiU owners to find anything to play on their system?

Why aren't these desperate Wii U owners buying EA games?

 

[flatearthpandas]

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.

What would you say is a "reasonable" expectation for the objectively worst console experience on the market?

Expecting 0< sales means expecting the consumer is too dumb to know they're getting ripped off. We can't say what EA's expected sales are, but a viable question is: how dumb does EA expect Wii U owners are? And how dumb should Wii U owners be if they want actual effort from EA in the future? Obviously, Wii Owners have some dumb elements OR Wii U-only constituents, but how many do there need to be?

 

[Jonm1010]

i would think they would not be able to really draw any good conclusion given the situation those games released in, and thus shoulnt use any of the data for future support. However, if i remember correctly a couple eshop games have sold better on the wii u, then the HD twins, trine 2 being one example (i think runner sold the best on wii u too but im not 100 percent on that one)

Exceptions to the rule it would seem though. Or lack of options due to a struggling console as another poster said.

I think people often forget that this hesitation toward supporting Nintendo isnt some sort of crazy thing that happened in a vacuum. Nintendo has built this house for themselves.

They lost most of the third party community back in the ps1 and ps2 era and never really did much to get it back. Often times embracing policies that had the opposite effect. People will say the gamecube but even that was plagued by an odd button layout, disc limitations and being far too late to the party.

Nintendo seems to design their hardware with nintendo in mind, with little outside influence or collaboration and tends to lack features that are commonplace at the time of launch and expected by most mainstream developers. Like their still behind the times online infrastructure or shunning the move toward easily portable architecture that allows third parties easier ports.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Isn't that more down to the desperation of WiiU owners to find anything to play on their system?

I assume that you're being facetious, but in the interest of not being one-sided in this thread and appearing to be too critical of Nintendo, this is an awful post. If Wii U owners were desperate for anything to play, then we wouldn't be having this topic, as owners would have purchased ports like Madden, FIFA, and Mass Effect at or around launch.

 

[whitehawk]

 

[Can Crusher]

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

Can you read?

You were talking about Facebook. You don't play FIFA 13 on Facebook.... And you can be aggressive all you want playboy, biz is biz. Learn it. No amount of "bu bu bu they were effortless ports" are gonna make your arguments work.

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.

etc etc etc

I'm not going to address the rest of your post because honestly it's worthless. And the reason why (aside from you being offensive and writing like a raging fanboy), it's because you just basically bombed your whole post with the underlined above. You are exactly right, Wii U owners have the other consoles and they also buy games on them... So why should EA give a fuck? 1 sale is 1 sale for EA, and if they don't lose a sale by not being on Wii U then that's the whole damn problem. And that user base isn't jumping in numbers to the Wii U, and the system sales are all the proof you need.

 

[Azih]

to lazy, piece of shit, effortless ports like the Wii U versions?

Adding tablet features and support is in no way a lazy, POS, effortless thing to do. God Damn.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

What would you say is a "reasonable" expectation for the objectively worst console experience on the market?

Expecting 0< sales means expecting the consumer is too dumb to know they're getting ripped off. We can't say what EA's expected sales are, but a viable question is: how dumb does EA expect Wii U owners are? And how dumb should Wii U owners be if they want actual effort from EA in the future? Obviously, Wii Owners have some dumb elements OR Wii U-only constituents, but how many do there need to be?

I'm not entirely certain why you're framing the argument as though every consumer of these products is an enthusiast that researches these products extensively. The reviews weren't awful, and I'm sure that they probably just assumed that some people would buy these titles as gifts or something along with the shiny new console. "People will want a FIFA or a Madden to play along with their new system." It's not an unreasonable assumption.

Now, the reasons listed should help us to arrive at the proper conclusions in terms of why these releases didn't sell gangbusters. After all, if you care about these franchises, you probably would have purchased elsewhere, as the versions were either better and/or released far sooner. However -- in terms of assessing the releases as launch software meant to test the waters -- I think the notion that they were garbage that obviously should have sold zero copies is unfair, and most likely ignores past launch data.

 

[zruben]

awesome.

 

[darkstar0155]

Exceptions to the rule it would seem though. Or lack of options due to a struggling console as another poster said.

I think people often forget that this hesitation toward supporting Nintendo isnt some sort of crazy thing that happened in a vacuum. Nintendo has built this house for themselves.

They lost most of the third party community back in the ps1 and ps2 era and never really did much to get it back. Often times embracing policies that had the opposite effect. People will say the gamecube but even that was plagued by an odd button layout, disc limitations and being far too late to the party.

Nintendo seems to design their hardware with nintendo in mind, with little outside influence or collaboration and tends to lack features that are commonplace at the time of launch and expected by most mainstream developers. Like their still behind the times online infrastructure or shunning the move toward easily portable architecture that allows third parties easier ports.

not sure how exceptoin to the rule applies, i think most eshop/psn/xbl games that have been released on the wii u recently have sold well compared to the other consoles.

I do agree nintendo designs its hardware with itself in mind first, and they have said as much, for better or worse. And as others have said, if it was a lack of options, why arent the late ports selling better? The games that have sold well or best on wii were either the best versions and priced accordingly, or released at the same time as the other versions.

 

[cyberheater]

I assume that you're being facetious, but in the interest of not being one-sided in this thread and appearing to be too critical of Nintendo, this is an awful post. If Wii U owners were desperate for anything to play, then we wouldn't be having this topic, as owners would have purchased ports like Madden, FIFA, and Mass Effect at or around launch.

Not being facetious. I think (rightly or wrongly) that WiiU owners bought the system to play different games to what's on offer from the other systems.

Trine was something a bit different and the dev seemed to put the time in to improve it for the WiiU version. I know that's the reason why I bought it. If the library for WiiU had been stronger and healthier then I wouldn't have bought the game.

 

[darkstar0155]

Not being facetious. I think (rightly or wrongly) that WiiU owners bought the system to play different games to what's on offer from the other systems.

Trine was something a bit different and the dev seemed to put the time in to improve it for the WiiU version. I know that's the reason why I bought it. If the library for WiiU had been stronger and healthier then I wouldn't have bought the game.

off topic, but wasnt that a beautiful game! even with the gamma issues before the patch it looked amazing

 

[prag16]

Can you read?

You were talking about Facebook. You don't play FIFA 13 on Facebook.... And you can be aggressive all you want playboy, biz is biz. Learn it. No amount of "bu bu bu they were effortless ports" are gonna make your arguments work.

This part of your post just doesn't seem to make much sense (inb4 you say I'm not worth your time because I is dumb).

So why should EA give a fuck? 1 sale is 1 sale for EA, and if they don't lose a sale by not being on Wii U then that's the whole damn problem.

The other consoles are being phased out, for one. That's at least one reason. Shifting the userbase forward onto newer hardware is good for EA as PS360 won't be around as long. But no, according to gaf said userbase shifting is 100% on Nintendo, and 0% (or even -10%) the responsibility of EA.

 

[cyberheater]

off topic, but wasnt that a beautiful game! even with the gamma issues before the patch it looked amazing

Yes. I double dipped on that game. I already had it on the PC. Simply gorgeous.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Its reasonable to say that it is no use to release games until there are more users. But once the WiiU has a decent userbase there will be a lot of nintendo first party titles that will compete with EA games.

EA had a good opportunity for example with titles like Tigerwoods that would have been pretty cheap to make (ie a port of the PS3 version) and would have sold decently judging from past sales data.

EA neglecting a certain platform since it has no userbase led them with a very bad marketshare on 3DS for example. i dont see them improving that bad marketshare either. For a third party publisher thats a major platform they are flat out missing. If one of the platforms they bank on heavily (say the Xbone) or the games they put on those platforms do not meet their internal projections it will be harder to make money for them.

investing a few ports on platforms they dont focus on seems to be a decent risk mitigation strategy to me.

 

[Seeds]

It's as good as should be expected and shitting on EA for it is crazy. The problem in this case is NOT with EA it's with the non standard situation that is the WiiU (console design and audience)

You're basically saying that people should lower their standards to consider what EA released a strong offering...

You're once again giving reasons as to why they didn't have a strong offering.

 

[Steverulez]

This was fairly obvious.

EA love money, like every company, its also all they care about. WiiU isn't generating money for them and they don't currently think it will.

Seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Can Crusher]

This part of your post just doesn't seem to make much sense (inb4 you say I'm not worth your time because I is dumb).

The guy asked about why EA Sports Facebook games aren't a success, if after all most gamers have facebook.... And I told him that maybe because people who care about Fifa don't care about Facebook games even though they have Facebook...

The other consoles are being phased out, for one. That's at least one reason. Shifting the userbase forward onto newer hardware is good for EA as PS360 won't be around as long. But no, according to gaf said userbase shifting is 100% on Nintendo, and 0% (or even -10%) the responsibility of EA.

A) Nintendo didn't collaborate with 3rd parties (hardware)
B) The Hardware isn't inline with what EA is planning for next gen
C) The games EA put on Wii U all bombed
D) History of success of 3rd Parties on Nintendo home consoles is flimsy
E) Wii U hardware sales range from bad to terrible

So basically what reasons does EA have to be excited about the Wii U as a platform for software revenue growth?

Microsoft had to grease palms, please the devs and what not to gain their support on the OG Xbox and on the Xbox 360. So why is it that somehow, some of you like to believe that Nintendo is different and that 3rd parties simply have to pump money on their platforms even though they don't drive sales good enough?

Edit: I didn't say he was dumb. But really he was being offensive and aggressive, raising terrible points that failed on the very first premise he presented.

 

[jaz013]

This was fairly obvious.

EA love money, like every company, its also all they care about. WiiU isn't generating money for them and they don't currently think it will.

Seems like a no-brainer.

Good games = get money, half-assed, late and overpriced ports = no money.

Seems like a no-brainer too.

 

[SporeCrawler]

The guy asked about why EA Sports Facebook games aren't a success, if after all most gamers have facebook.... And I told him that maybe because people who care about Fifa don't care about Facebook games even though they have Facebook...




A) Nintendo didn't collaborate with 3rd parties (hardware)
B) The Hardware isn't inline with what EA is planning for next gen
C) The games EA put on Wii U all bombed
D) History of success of 3rd Parties on Nintendo home consoles is flimsy
E) Wii U hardware sales range from bad to terrible

So basically what reasons does EA have to be excited about the Wii U as a platform for software revenue growth?

Microsoft had to grease palms, please the devs and what not to gain their support on the OG Xbox and on the Xbox 360. So why is it that somehow, some of you like to believe that Nintendo is different and that 3rd parties simply have to pump money on their platforms even though they don't drive sales good enough?

Edit: I didn't say he was dumb. But really he was being offensive and aggressive, raising terrible points that failed on the very first premise he presented.

Well but EA is still putting out a lot of PS360 games. They could port those over with relatively low cost. Also WiiU hardware sales will most likely improve once Nintendo has put out their first party titles at Q3 and Q4 of this year.

There is little reason for EA to be excited but they can still have some of their titles on the platform for risk mitigation purposes (ie if the market shifts unexpectedly).