68 replies to this topic

[alan123]

the issue is if the developers don't have the game engines that work on the WiiU then they cannot make or port games to the WiiU.

[MorbidGod]

the issue is if the developers don't have the game engines that work on the WiiU then they cannot make or port games to the WiiU.

But there is no reason that FB3 shouldn't work on Wii U. If CryEngine 3 and UE4 both work on the Wii U, the FB3 should unless it's a crap engine.

BUT FB3 WORKS ON THE PS3 AND XBOX 360. So, unless you and others believe the Wii U is less powerful then consoles that were released seven years ago, there should be no reason for that.

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

EA to Nintendo:

[Abcdude]

Who cares, EA sucks anyway.

[Jeremygts]

I would of bought the ME trilogy if it came to WiiU. I never got to play them before because i dont care to own 360 or PS3. The only game on PS3 worth playing in MY OPINION is MGS4...

 

I really hope EA goes down the crapper this gen. Also when they lose their NFL exclusive license and 2K sports comes back it will be game over for them anyway.. Madden is a crap fest of a game, always has been. NFL QB Club was the best football game ive played back on N64. lol QBclub 97!

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

One stupidly idiotic company will not be the downfall of a whole console, in fact I predict EA will be kicking themselves when it turnes out a success.

[Penguin101]

Nintendo wont die and never have died because of third party, every console they've had have had very small or very shaky third party support at least with home console. I imagine that EA will be forced to release their games on Wii U once they realise that by March 2014 they'll have a larger install base than PS4 and 720.

 

It's easy to think with games like Pikmin 3, Mario 3D, Mario Kart, Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Wii Fit U (I expect the ability to set up your own Miiverse fitness class where you can chat to friends and all see each other exercising, and instruct people as in "be your own fitness instructor!" kind of sales pitch), wind waker hd, combined with Deus Ex: Human Rev - DC and other unknown third party Megatons announced, tripled with the Summer Update which we have no idea what improvements are going to happen. Some are saying a partnership with Google to allow the Android store to run on the Wii U OS is going to be a big reveal.

 

This alongside games like Smash Bros, Retro's IP, Zelda U and whatever else is announced exclusively for 2014 is really going to be able to compete.

 

All Nintendo need to do is make a subscription Wii U base console for $99 and Premium for $149 and the're laughing.

 

EA wont destroy Nintendo 

Edited by Penguin101, 09 May 2013 - 11:35 PM.

[routerbad]

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.

The problem with your line of logic is that if they wanted at all to make money on the Wii U early adopters they would have either released the ME3 port for a lower price or gone the extra mile to release the trilogy.  

 

I want to clarify that once the engine is running on a platform, porting the rest of the games is actually a very simple matter.  At that point the heavy lifting from an engineering perspective is done, and putting already created assets into the engine doesn't take a whole lot of extra effort.  EA, regardless of where the install base was at the time, decided to intentionally cannibalize sales on the Wii U with a trilogy at the same price.  There isn't any logical excuse for it.

 

As far as BO2, many people didn't realize that BO2 was coming out for the WiiU, there was no marketing for it, Activision spent a lot of money marketing for the Vita rather than any other platform, and it turns out Nintendo screwed them with eliminating a BO2 bundle that was supposed to be available at launch.  Why Nintendo made that decision baffles me to no end, as that is the only 3rd party game that came out around the same time on all platforms.  In any case, Activision sold 100's of thousands of copies of BO2 for WiiU on an install base of early adopters, which really isn't as bad as many like to think.

 

With more marketing, and if Nintendo hadn't been idiotic and nix'd the BO2 bundle, it would have sold much better.  Nintendo marketed the hell out of ZombiU, and that sold well for what it was.

 

At any rate, I understand that you are playing devil's advocate, and I can appreciate that, but it's clear to me and many others that the intention behind releasing the trilogy at the same time at the same price on other platforms was to intentionally undermine ME3 on WiiU.  It wasn't a shrewd decision, it cost them more money than it should have, it cost them sales when it shouldn't have, it was a terrible decision on their part.  We know that the two companies aren't on talking terms, so it isn't hard to see why they would have made the decision.

[DéliopT]

The problem with your line of logic is that if they wanted at all to make money on the Wii U early adopters they would have either released the ME3 port for a lower price or gone the extra mile to release the trilogy.  

 

I want to clarify that once the engine is running on a platform, porting the rest of the games is actually a very simple matter.  At that point the heavy lifting from an engineering perspective is done, and putting already created assets into the engine doesn't take a whole lot of extra effort.  EA, regardless of where the install base was at the time, decided to intentionally cannibalize sales on the Wii U with a trilogy at the same price.  There isn't any logical excuse for it.

 

As far as BO2, many people didn't realize that BO2 was coming out for the WiiU, there was no marketing for it, Activision spent a lot of money marketing for the Vita rather than any other platform, and it turns out Nintendo screwed them with eliminating a BO2 bundle that was supposed to be available at launch.  Why Nintendo made that decision baffles me to no end, as that is the only 3rd party game that came out around the same time on all platforms.  In any case, Activision sold 100's of thousands of copies of BO2 for WiiU on an install base of early adopters, which really isn't as bad as many like to think.

 

With more marketing, and if Nintendo hadn't been idiotic and nix'd the BO2 bundle, it would have sold much better.  Nintendo marketed the hell out of ZombiU, and that sold well for what it was.

 

At any rate, I understand that you are playing devil's advocate, and I can appreciate that, but it's clear to me and many others that the intention behind releasing the trilogy at the same time at the same price on other platforms was to intentionally undermine ME3 on WiiU.  It wasn't a shrewd decision, it cost them more money than it should have, it cost them sales when it shouldn't have, it was a terrible decision on their part.  We know that the two companies aren't on talking terms, so it isn't hard to see why they would have made the decision.

 

All i said is that i understand EA`s business decision to not release the trilogy on an unproven console. And EA didn`t canibalize because there would always be a part of the Wii U userbase who never had access to the franchise anyway. If they had released both on Wii U, then yes, it would be sending out ME 3 to die.

Even if the heavy part of porting was done with the engine, it still would be more expensive to port one game than three.

And if you really want to look at their decision as good or bad all you have to do is look at ME3 sales and see if it was a good decision or not: the game currently sits at 0.05 according to Vgchartz. Even if they are off a bit, do you still think that they should have risked more in porting the trilogy? Would they have sold more to pay off?

 

I understand that many didn`t consider Wii U because a lot of people didn`t even know what it was. But how are sales for SU and ZombiU higher than BO2. Ok, Scriblenauts are lower now but the game has only been released in the US; Zombi U is mature enough to attract 400.000 sales and that crowd doesn`t want BO2 aswell?

Problem is, gamers wanted the game but on their plattform of choice: PS3 or X360.

 

About that BO2 bundle, that`s just a rumor right? I always thought it was and to be honest it made sense to be a rumor. If there was always one console bundle it was the Xbox360 and never the PS3. And there still isn`t an official bundle for PS3. Probably MS has some sort of deal with Activision that doesn`t let Sony nor Nintendo make bundles aswell.

 

My position has always to see if what they did made sense or not. To me, it did. Wii U hadn`t a crowd pre-determined, so, the risks were high.

[routerbad]

All i said is that i understand EA`s business decision to not release the trilogy on an unproven console. And EA didn`t canibalize because there would always be a part of the Wii U userbase who never had access to the franchise anyway. If they had released both on Wii U, then yes, it would be sending out ME 3 to die.

Even if the heavy part of porting was done with the engine, it still would be more expensive to port one game than three.

And if you really want to look at their decision as good or bad all you have to do is look at ME3 sales and see if it was a good decision or not: the game currently sits at 0.05 according to Vgchartz. Even if they are off a bit, do you still think that they should have risked more in porting the trilogy? Would they have sold more to pay off?

 

I understand that many didn`t consider Wii U because a lot of people didn`t even know what it was. But how are sales for SU and ZombiU higher than BO2. Ok, Scriblenauts are lower now but the game has only been released in the US; Zombi U is mature enough to attract 400.000 sales and that crowd doesn`t want BO2 aswell?

Problem is, gamers wanted the game but on their plattform of choice: PS3 or X360.

 

About that BO2 bundle, that`s just a rumor right? I always thought it was and to be honest it made sense to be a rumor. If there was always one console bundle it was the Xbox360 and never the PS3. And there still isn`t an official bundle for PS3. Probably MS has some sort of deal with Activision that doesn`t let Sony nor Nintendo make bundles aswell.

 

My position has always to see if what they did made sense or not. To me, it did. Wii U hadn`t a crowd pre-determined, so, the risks were high.

Again, the game sold terribly because they released a trilogy on ALL other platforms for the SAME price.  Cannibalizing doesn't just happen on one console, it happens between platforms as well.  Considering that most people that game already owned a 360 and/or a PS3, it was an idiotic decision to release one game one one console, and three games for the same price on all others.  They cannibalized sales of ME3, had they released it at a lower price, it would have sold better.

[Goodtwin]

I doubt Mass Effect was going to move big numbers regardless if they had released the Trilogy instead of just ME3.  Would it have sold more?  Probably, but even if it has doubled its sales to 100k EA would have still viewed that as terrible sales. 

[Desert Punk]

I would of considered the mass effect trilogy on wii u but never considered paying anywhere near full price for for me3. I will probably pick it up when I see a copy sub £10 but thats it.

 

I don't agree that porting all 3 would be easy though. EA literally just stripped out the physics engine from Madden for wii u because they clearly weren't prepared to put the effort in to get it working on the weak cpu of the wii u. I'm sure porting the whole Trilogy would throw up a load more problems than that.

 

I think most of us realise EA are not Nintendo friendly, wii support was uninspired and they were really forced to support wii due to its enormous success. EA faced with an underperforming Nintendo console are in a 'kick them when their down' sort of mode.

[routerbad]

I would of considered the mass effect trilogy on wii u but never considered paying anywhere near full price for for me3. I will probably pick it up when I see a copy sub £10 but thats it.

 

I don't agree that porting all 3 would be easy though. EA literally just stripped out the physics engine from Madden for wii u because they clearly weren't prepared to put the effort in to get it working on the weak cpu of the wii u. I'm sure porting the whole Trilogy would throw up a load more problems than that.

 

I think most of us realise EA are not Nintendo friendly, wii support was uninspired and they were really forced to support wii due to its enormous success. EA faced with an underperforming Nintendo console are in a 'kick them when their down' sort of mode.

The physics engine wasn't pulled because of "the weak Wii U CPU".  The Wii U CPU is stronger than both the PS3 and 360 CPU's, but with shorter pipelines, OOE, and a lower clock.  EA's garbage support is the farthest thing from an indictment of the Wii U hardware.

[DéliopT]

Again, the game sold terribly because they released a trilogy on ALL other platforms for the SAME price.  Cannibalizing doesn't just happen on one console, it happens between platforms as well.  Considering that most people that game already owned a 360 and/or a PS3, it was an idiotic decision to release one game one one console, and three games for the same price on all others.  They cannibalized sales of ME3, had they released it at a lower price, it would have sold better.

That cannibalization happens for those who own all systems. In that case, yes, it doesn`t pay off buying the Wii U game. But what about those who never owned a PS3/X360, but only owned a Wii? In this case, the ME3 was a safe bet that either paid off or didn`t cause a lot of losses.

My guess is that EA thought this was the biggest element in the userbase: the non PS3/X360-only Wii owner. If you look at the original/exclusive games on Wii U at launch, they catered more at Wii owners than PS3/X360 owners.

 

Even with the trilogy for Wii U things would still be bad because X360 can probably buy all 3 games cheaper and PS3 owners already get the story of the first game on the second game. It would be very hard to attract those customers to buy the trilogy on Wii U when they can get cheaper on other systems.

 

Of course that by releasing at a smaller price things could have been better. honestly, that`s what i imagined it would happen for the majority of ports: either to entice people to replay the game, new to the series or to those who never cared about the game on PS3/X360 and with the extra elements+new console would see it as a good purchase.

[routerbad]

That cannibalization happens for those who own all systems. In that case, yes, it doesn`t pay off buying the Wii U game. But what about those who never owned a PS3/X360, but only owned a Wii? In this case, the ME3 was a safe bet that either paid off or didn`t cause a lot of losses.

My guess is that EA thought this was the biggest element in the userbase: the non PS3/X360-only Wii owner. If you look at the original/exclusive games on Wii U at launch, they catered more at Wii owners than PS3/X360 owners.

 

Even with the trilogy for Wii U things would still be bad because X360 can probably buy all 3 games cheaper and PS3 owners already get the story of the first game on the second game. It would be very hard to attract those customers to buy the trilogy on Wii U when they can get cheaper on other systems.

 

Of course that by releasing at a smaller price things could have been better. honestly, that`s what i imagined it would happen for the majority of ports: either to entice people to replay the game, new to the series or to those who never cared about the game on PS3/X360 and with the extra elements+new console would see it as a good purchase.

I agree for the most part, though I still think it was a terrible business decision, and done intentionally to hurt Wii U game sales.  If they had released ME3 on Wii U for $30, things would have looked much better.  Better I think than actually releasing the trilogy on Wii U.

[TheDoritoKing]

Goodtwin, on 08 May 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:You cant go from an "unprecedented partnership" to practically no support, and not have some salty feelings with one another.  EA is revel in the beautiful sunshineed at Nintendo for not taking Origin, and with lackluster sales of their launch Wii U games, they now have thier excuse to eliminate support.  Not releasing games on the Wii U that you are releasing on the 360 and PS3 means that the power of the Wii U is not a factor.  They can make all the back handed comments they want, but if their game can run the 360 and PS3, it can run on the Wii U. 
EA probably does think that they can sink the Wii U, and would most likely take a lot of satisfaction in the Wii U fading away now that they arent support the console.  Will it happen?  I doubt it, the lack of support from EA would be devastating for the Xbox or Playstation, because their titles are very popular on those platforms.  EA titles just dont make up a huge chunk of software sales on Nintendo platforms like they do on the competitions platform.  Nintendo and EA both have big ego's, and they both feel they are more important than the other.  The fact is they would both be better off doing business together, but the relationship has been soured, and I doubt its going to be mended any time soon.

From what I heard, EA wants royalties on every single game sold off the U's eShop (they may've helped set it up). Sega makes a game? EA gets paid. Indie developer makes a game? EA gets paid. I can safety say that Nintendo wouldn't want to deal with them after that

[alan123]

at the end of the day the WiiU needs more support from third party developers, it needs a bigger range of games to encourage more people to invest in a WiiU this will give it a bigger footprint thus attracting more games to be developed for the system.

[MorbidGod]

All i said is that i understand EA`s business decision to not release the trilogy on an unproven console. And EA didn`t canibalize because there would always be a part of the Wii U userbase who never had access to the franchise anyway. If they had released both on Wii U, then yes, it would be sending out ME 3 to die.
Even if the heavy part of porting was done with the engine, it still would be more expensive to port one game than three.
And if you really want to look at their decision as good or bad all you have to do is look at ME3 sales and see if it was a good decision or not: the game currently sits at 0.05 according to Vgchartz. Even if they are off a bit, do you still think that they should have risked more in porting the trilogy? Would they have sold more to pay off?

I understand that many didn`t consider Wii U because a lot of people didn`t even know what it was. But how are sales for SU and ZombiU higher than BO2. Ok, Scriblenauts are lower now but the game has only been released in the US; Zombi U is mature enough to attract 400.000 sales and that crowd doesn`t want BO2 aswell?
Problem is, gamers wanted the game but on their plattform of choice: PS3 or X360.

About that BO2 bundle, that`s just a rumor right? I always thought it was and to be honest it made sense to be a rumor. If there was always one console bundle it was the Xbox360 and never the PS3. And there still isn`t an official bundle for PS3. Probably MS has some sort of deal with Activision that doesn`t let Sony nor Nintendo make bundles aswell.

My position has always to see if what they did made sense or not. To me, it did. Wii U hadn`t a crowd pre-determined, so, the risks were high.

About ME3, as someone who always wanted to play these games myself, I haven't bought ME3 because I haven't played the others yet. I don't have any other console. And I became upset when I heard about the trilogy being released for the PS3 and not the Wii U. Your telling me I'm the only Nintendo fan with this problem?

About BO2. I bought it myself, and liked it. However, if a bundle was planned, and scrapped, it makes sense why Activision didn't advertise it. The marketing dollars weren't budgeted and you can't just change the budget all of the suddon. This also explains why Activision seems to be mad at Nintendo.

[DéliopT]

I agree for the most part, though I still think it was a terrible business decision, and done intentionally to hurt Wii U game sales.  If they had released ME3 on Wii U for $30, things would have looked much better.  Better I think than actually releasing the trilogy on Wii U.

 

Would you kill the chance to make a profit? EA might make bad decisions, but i din`t think anyone does that on purpose.

About ME3, as someone who always wanted to play these games myself, I haven't bought ME3 because I haven't played the others yet. I don't have any other console. And I became upset when I heard about the trilogy being released for the PS3 and not the Wii U. Your telling me I'm the only Nintendo fan with this problem?

About BO2. I bought it myself, and liked it. However, if a bundle was planned, and scrapped, it makes sense why Activision didn't advertise it. The marketing dollars weren't budgeted and you can't just change the budget all of the suddon. This also explains why Activision seems to be mad at Nintendo.

You are not the only one, but as i explained above, it was a business decision and seeing that Wii U had just started, it made sense. Even if we don`t agree or like it.

If i really wanted to play a game and they did the same thing, i too would feel bad about it, but business is business.

 

If there was a bundle i`m guessing Nintendo would be the one making all the expenses, since they would be the ones benefiting from it.

[routerbad]

Would you kill the chance to make a profit? EA might make bad decisions, but i din`t think anyone does that on purpose.

You are not the only one, but as i explained above, it was a business decision and seeing that Wii U had just started, it made sense. Even if we don`t agree or like it.

If i really wanted to play a game and they did the same thing, i too would feel bad about it, but business is business.

 

If there was a bundle i`m guessing Nintendo would be the one making all the expenses, since they would be the ones benefiting from it.

EA did kill profit on purpose by spending money developing Crysis3 as well as other games for WiiU then cancelling just before release.

 

Don't get me wrong, most companies wouldn't do this, but this is not your run of the mill situation, EA board of directors is upset at Nintendo and want to hurt them, plain and simple.  They apparently would say no to profits just to spite another company.

 

You are giving EA too much credit and completely glossing over the fact that there is a reason they have a damaged relationship at the moment.