68 replies to this topic

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

I didn't said Wii U will be a Dreamcast, but just that EA apparently want to do the same thing they did with the Dreamcast

I know, it's just that the Wii U had been compared with the Dreamcast in every negative way, without realising why Sega left the console market.

[Nollog]

You cant go from an "unprecedented partnership" to practically no support, and not have some salty feelings with one another.

You're assuming an "unprecedented partnership" means they're going to support them.
I think it's probably never been the case where someone came out on stage at e3, proclaiming mad support to a platform holder, then does a u-turn on launch.
 

That wasn't the question.  They are in fact trying to shape the hardware landscape based not on business decisions (they poured money into Crysis3 for WiiU then made sure they made zero profit, bad business)(they released ME3 for $60 on WiiU and released the trilogy on other platforms at the same price, intentionally cannibalizing ME3 sales, bad business) but on bad business relations.  What they are doing to Nintendo transcends smart money moves, as none of their decisions to date have been smart money moves.

You can look at it from the other side too though.
They canned crysis 3 because they didn't think there'd be a market for it.
They saw the potential for the trilogy to sell well at that time.
 
I mean, I don't believe those are the actual reasons, EA are just bewildering to me.
 
I mean, just look at the 3DS and kooonami, MGS3D releases, MGSHD collection releases pretty much the same week.
Which do you expect your consumers to buy? Really now.
Third parties constantly cannibalise their own sales on Nintendo platforms. It's like they expect Nintendo console-owners to live in a vacuum and only want to throw money at them.

Edited by Nollog, 08 May 2013 - 01:24 PM.

[routerbad]

You're assuming an "unprecedented partnership" means they're going to support them.
I think it's probably never been the case where someone came out on stage at e3, proclaiming mad support to a platform holder, then does a u-turn on launch.
 

You can look at it from the other side too though.
They canned crysis 3 because they didn't think there'd be a market for it.
They saw the potential for the trilogy to sell well at that time.
 
I mean, I don't believe those are the actual reasons, EA are just bewildering to me.
 
I mean, just look at the 3DS and kooonami, MGS3D releases, MGSHD collection releases pretty much the same week.
Which do you expect your consumers to buy? Really now.
Third parties constantly cannibalise their own sales on Nintendo platforms. It's like they expect Nintendo console-owners to live in a vacuum and only want to throw money at them.

I agree EA are bewildering.

 

What is odd is that even though the install base was small (how would it not be) they had already sunk all of the resources they would have into creating Crysis 3 for WiiU, the only thing left to do would have been cutting the discs and distributing them.  Partial recoup of costs is better than no recoup.

 

Then for the trilogy, if they saw potential for it, why not release the trilogy on WiiU instead of ME3?  Why release ME3, a year old game, at $60 when the trilogy cost exactly the same price?  None of these strike me as decent business decisions unless their one goal with this is to injure Nintendo in some way.  That is the only way any of it makes any sense.

[Nollog]

EA have to pay marketing for games though.

It'd cost a lot more to advertise for an extra platform, and if there's no buyers there's no profit.

[DéliopT]

I agree EA are bewildering.

 

What is odd is that even though the install base was small (how would it not be) they had already sunk all of the resources they would have into creating Crysis 3 for WiiU, the only thing left to do would have been cutting the discs and distributing them.  Partial recoup of costs is better than no recoup.

 

Then for the trilogy, if they saw potential for it, why not release the trilogy on WiiU instead of ME3?  Why release ME3, a year old game, at $60 when the trilogy cost exactly the same price?  None of these strike me as decent business decisions unless their one goal with this is to injure Nintendo in some way.  That is the only way any of it makes any sense.

 

Seeing as most Wii U owners seem to be PS3/Xbox 360 owners aswell, EA might be glad they didn`t waste more money on the series with Wii U.
i don`t really believe if the trilogy was ported to Wii U sales would be much hiher than they are now. It does make sense to release it on PS3 and Xbox 360 because of the size of the userbase (many being newcomers with no game played before) and in the case of PS3, many didn`t play the first.

 

Not that EA hasn`t made bad decisions. As you mentioned, Crysis 3 port was money wasted when they could try to profit. Looking at NFS MW and Crysis 3, i don`t see why they didn`t make the same decisionm, when C3 was bound to make more money.

They could have even put it just on eshop to earn as much as possible.

 

EA might just be the company with the most strange decisions and behaviour i have seen.

[Julio93]

What else is new.

[routerbad]

Seeing as most Wii U owners seem to be PS3/Xbox 360 owners aswell, EA might be glad they didn`t waste more money on the series with Wii U.
i don`t really believe if the trilogy was ported to Wii U sales would be much hiher than they are now. It does make sense to release it on PS3 and Xbox 360 because of the size of the userbase (many being newcomers with no game played before) and in the case of PS3, many didn`t play the first.

 

Not that EA hasn`t made bad decisions. As you mentioned, Crysis 3 port was money wasted when they could try to profit. Looking at NFS MW and Crysis 3, i don`t see why they didn`t make the same decisionm, when C3 was bound to make more money.

They could have even put it just on eshop to earn as much as possible.

 

EA might just be the company with the most strange decisions and behaviour i have seen.

Okay, but why put money into developing a ME3 port in the first place then?  Why not just port the trilogy instead?  As much as I'm sure you'd like to explain it all away, there is no logic there, and regardless of the excuse, it is a bad business decision when your main goal is to maximize profits to your company.

 

It isn't so much strange as it is sad.  The writing is on the wall for EA, we know exactly why they are offering zero support for the platform, it shouldnt be news to anyone at this point.

[Socalmuscle]

This isn't just business. The goal of business is to mske mAke money.

They'd be making money with wii u and they'd also be making the console more attractive, therefore, making... You guessed it... Even more... Money.

Instead, they focus on a console that has zero install base.

Yeah. That's great business.

The thing about most Nintendo gamers is that they buy good games. Lots of them. If your game is crap, it's a no go. But if it's good, you'll bank.

Ie: crysis 3 undersold. But it wouldn't have on wii u.. If, you know, EA actually released that game they had sitting there so complete it had a now on it...

Basically, this is an adversarial thing. Not just a business decision.

It happens a lot. Mostly with Japanese companies. So surprising to see ea taking this route. Unless Microsoft is enticing them with the financial rewards of second or even *gasp* first party game development.

Not business. Cut-throat stuff.

[BanjoKazooie]

EA have to pay marketing for games though.
It'd cost a lot more to advertise for an extra platform, and if there's no buyers there's no profit.

yeah, I hear adding a Wii U symbol at the end of a commercial costs millions.

[Nollog]

yeah, I hear adding a Wii U symbol at the end of a commercial costs millions.

It does.

Also spreading word to the consumers who own that console costs millions upon millions in market research and targeting.

[routerbad]

It does.

Also spreading word to the consumers who own that console costs millions upon millions in market research and targeting.

It really doesn't cost any money over and above what's already spent on the advertisement to simply put the Wii U logo next to the other platform logos.  Creating Wii U specific advertisements yes, adding Wii U to already paid for marketing, no.

 

And the reason most of the 3rd party games haven't sold all too well for Wii U is their lack of marketing.  Activision touted BLOPS2 on Wii U as the best version of the game, but instead marketed the Vita version, very heavily, on a platform that has been struggling as well, after much more time on the market.

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

I mean, just look at the 3DS and kooonami, MGS3D releases, MGSHD collection releases pretty much the same week.
Which do you expect your consumers to buy? Really now.
Third parties constantly cannibalise their own sales on Nintendo platforms. It's like they expect Nintendo console-owners to live in a vacuum and only want to throw money at them.

I personally bought the 3DS version first because: it's portable, it uses the gameplay style of MGS4 (crouch-walking, moving while aiming, etc.), the touch-screen shortcuts are really beneficial, and I didn't care about Peace Walker or MGS2 at the time. But I do agree: companies either do an inferior version (Madden, Injustice) or don't support them later down the line (Black Ops 2, Injustice) and then they ise that as a reason not to develop for it.

[MorbidGod]

Have you noticed that everything related with EA and Nintendo is someway like a way to Finish the Wii U? And i've noticed that western developers are doing the same. Can EA accomplish it's goal? I mean, maybe it's a strong line to say this, but with rumours and/or news like this :http://wiiudaily.com...elopment-rumor/ i just can think that they are just want to screw Nintendo badly.

Even if that is their goal, it won't work. Nintendo relies on their own games, not the other way around.

[DéliopT]

Okay, but why put money into developing a ME3 port in the first place then?  Why not just port the trilogy instead?  As much as I'm sure you'd like to explain it all away, there is no logic there, and regardless of the excuse, it is a bad business decision when your main goal is to maximize profits to your company.

 

It isn't so much strange as it is sad.  The writing is on the wall for EA, we know exactly why they are offering zero support for the platform, it shouldnt be news to anyone at this point.

My guess is that EA tried to bring the ME franchise to a new audience. Bringing the trilogy would mean double or triple the development time/costs in porting the games. And on the successor of the casual Wii, you couldn`t really tell who the main customer would be.

 

The only part of this all that is actually new, is that this normal EA behaviour comes after the announcement in public of the exact opposite.

That aside, nothing has really changed.

[Goodtwin]

I think a lot of people overestimate EA's importance on Nintendo consoles.  If you look at the top 20 game sales for the Wii and even the Gamecube, your not going to find EA games in that list.  Heck, in Wii's top 100 best selling games, EA accounts for about 8 of them, and about 17 on the Gamecube, none of which are anywhere near the top ten best selling titles on the console.  This isnt true on other consoles.  And this goes back even further, EA thought it could snub the N64, and then Acclaim started sellings millions of its sports titles on the N64 and millions of Turok games as well.  NFL Quarterback Club crushed Madden every year on the N64, in both quality and sales.  

 

Im not saying that the Wii U is better off without EA, that is of course not the case, but if they think they can doom Nintendo they are sadly mistaken.  They would be better off doing business together, but it seems the relationship is completely soured at this point, and will probably take years to recover.   

[LaserSWE]

My theory is that EA will be one of the publishers that will go with DRM / Always Online on their next-generation games and that they wont support Nintendo until they let them. There are a lot of EA franchises that i enjoy, but i wont buy them if they come with DRM / Always Online, on any platform. 

[routerbad]

My guess is that EA tried to bring the ME franchise to a new audience. Bringing the trilogy would mean double or triple the development time/costs in porting the games. And on the successor of the casual Wii, you couldn`t really tell who the main customer would be.

The only part of this all that is actually new, is that this normal EA behaviour comes after the announcement in public of the exact opposite.
That aside, nothing has really changed.

See, you're starting to sound like an apologist.

The reason is all too obvious why they chose to cannibalize sales of ME3. They are business people, they knew exactly what releasing the trilogy at the same time would have done.

You say porting the trilogy would have been "triple" the cost, but we know it wouldn't be. Once R&D is done getting the game engine running on the platform (all three games ran on the same engine) porting the others is relatively easy. Not only that, they were porting the game to PS3 as well, so ditching an ME3 only release and going to the trilogy for WiiU would have made more sense.

Also, you should know at this point that EA and everyone else in the industry knew exactly who the early adopters would be. They knew ME3 was not going to sell well. Also a trilogy makes more sense on the platform that never had any of the games, not on the ones that already had them.

No, pretty much everything has changed, EA is going full bore adversarial against Nintendo.

[DéliopT]

See, you're starting to sound like an apologist.

The reason is all too obvious why they chose to cannibalize sales of ME3. They are business people, they knew exactly what releasing the trilogy at the same time would have done.

You say porting the trilogy would have been "triple" the cost, but we know it wouldn't be. Once R&D is done getting the game engine running on the platform (all three games ran on the same engine) porting the others is relatively easy. Not only that, they were porting the game to PS3 as well, so ditching an ME3 only release and going to the trilogy for WiiU would have made more sense.

Also, you should know at this point that EA and everyone else in the industry knew exactly who the early adopters would be. They knew ME3 was not going to sell well. Also a trilogy makes more sense on the platform that never had any of the games, not on the ones that already had them.

No, pretty much everything has changed, EA is going full bore adversarial against Nintendo.

 

I think you are mixing what is good from a gamer perspective and what is good from a business perspective.

 

Porting games isn`t just having an engine up and running. Look at how many Wii U ports don`t live up to the Xbox 360/PS3 games. Devs didn`t lose enough time optimizing them to run on Wii U.

 

PS3 needed just one port. The other two were there. And given the already installed base and user base of the console, it paid off the effort.

Wii U needed three ports. That`s why i mentioned double or triple the resources needed to bring the trilogy to Wii U.

And on what userbase? I thought it would be a mix between Wii only users, casuals and PS3/Xbox 360 owners, with the majority of sales going to Wii only owners.

Problem is, that`s not what happened. If you look at game sales, the ones with higher sales are mostly Wii U exclusives like Scribblenauts and ZombiU. Both even outselling the mighty BO2.

So, in my point of view, the majority of Wii U only buyers already have another console.

Also, Nintendo fans aren`t known for investing heavily on 3rd party games.

 

So looking at sales now, wouldn`t EA have lost more money if they had released the trilogy on Wii U?

 

From a gamer perspective only the trilogy makes sense, but from a business decision i don`t blame EA for going with that business decision. We don`t even know if they made their money back.

 

EA`s Nintendo treatment has always been scarce regarding Nintendo consoles. The reason Wii saw some exclusives was because of it`s non-gamer/casual nature.

[Azure-Edge]

My theory is that EA will be one of the publishers that will go with DRM / Always Online on their next-generation games and that they wont support Nintendo until they let them. There are a lot of EA franchises that i enjoy, but i wont buy them if they come with DRM / Always Online, on any platform. 

 

Very possible. My theory is that EA runs themselves in to the ground this gen with all of their stupid decisions and anti-consumer practices. 

[NintendoReport]

Gary Busey told me EA stands for Epic A-Holes