Support NeoGAF

[TreasureHunterG]

That's only the reason for some Nintendo fans who can't cope with reality. Publishers are business. They have internal sales projections. Time has shown that EA's sales projections were more than just accurate. Investing into Wii U titles was not seen as lucrative even before launch; management expected putting resources into other platforms to be more worthwhile.

Ok, then. Bring me an EA's statement circa 2012, before WiiU came out, confirming they already knew WiiU was going to fail even before the launch. If they did, then this discussion is over.

2 of those 3 speculations involve money. The first could be one of those rare instances human emotion overcomes anything else.

But I think you further proved my point that money tends to be involved in most business decisions in some factor. So it's pretty naive to dismiss its role offhand when speculating since it tends to be involved in some form in the majority of business decisions. Which is what me and mael's argument was mostly about.

Is it ALWAYS involved? No, but it almost is.

It does involve, yes, but indirectly, not as the sole/major reason for the decision as you were trying to prove in your previous posts.

 

[Jonm1010]

Ok, then. Bring me an EA's statement circa 2012, before WiiU came out, confirming they already knew WiiU was going to fail even before the launch. If they did, then this discussion is over.



It does involve, yes, but indirectly, not as the sole/major reason for the decision as you were trying to prove in your previous posts.

I never said money was the sole reason, never. I said it was a primary or root cause most likely. As most business decisions are. And for those two examples money is certainly a primary factor, if not the primary factor underlying those scenarios. It seems like your just trying to tease out some small victory by nitpicking details which is getting tiring.

And not to speak for anyone else but why the heck would EA every publicly state another console will likely fail?

 

[flatearthpandas]

Well we are talking consumer products and not mortgages so making a one for one comparison to begin with was pretty silly. There are different laws and the market operates differently. I just wanted to play along so maybe you get a little bit different perspective of why I think companies like EA have been reluctant to just blindly throw their support behind Nintendo. Instead of trying to paint this victimization picture of Nintendo that absolves them from any role in this catastrophe we call the wiiU.

So we're clear, you're calling your own analogies silly once someone can throw them in your face with how a company actually looking to expand their brand to a new market would behave?

No one ever expected EA to blindly throw support to Nintendo. But they very clearly hamstrung their own products and sent them out to die and have done none of the things one would realistically expect from a company trying to expand their brand into a new market.

They've done nothing to earn consumer trust on Nintendo hardware. Plain and simple.

Maybe that's Nintendo's fault for not paying EA to try harder over the years. Maybe it's Nintendo's fault for not establishing the proper markets, despite innovating the FPS presence on consoles with Goldeneye, and following up next gen with FPS/adventure Metroid Prime and funding third person horror projects like Eternal Darkness.

Whoever you want to blame for EA not trying or whatever reasons you want to attribute, they aren't trying and haven't tried. In the OP, EA claims they tried. Many people are understandably indignant.

Are you honestly trying to say they tried with the Wii U? I disagree.
That the Wii U is not a good place for EA games? I agree, and EA made damn sure of it.
That EA games could never sell well on Nintendo hardware? Disagree. But someone does have to try. EA could have built a "hardcore" audience on the Wii if they wanted. They didn't. They could have tried to build an audience on the Wii U. They didn't.

If they made an honest attempt and/or if Nintendo paid them to make an honest attempt, maybe things would be different. Neither thing happened. It would have benefited both if either had tried. Blame is on both of them.

 

[Shiggy]

Ok, then. Bring me an EA's statement circa 2012, before WiiU came out, confirming they already knew WiiU was going to fail even before the launch. If they did, then this discussion is over.

EA is a business, why should they boycott a platform for which they expect high sales? As a stock-listed company they can't just make such decisions based on bad personal feelings for Nintendo.

But well, here's an answer from 2013, where they indicate that they have frankly low expectations:
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/06/ea_outlines_its_reasons_for_lack_of_wii_u_support

Of course, you may want to believe that there was some conspiracy behind the scenes. Just like Elvis is still alive and Michael Jackson a person born on Mars.

 

[royalan]

So we're clear, you're calling your own analogies silly once someone can throw them in your face with how a company actually looking to expand their brand to a new market would behave?

No one ever expected EA to blindly throw support to Nintendo. But they very clearly hamstrung their own products and sent them out to die and have done none of the things one would realistically expect from a company trying to expand their brand into a new market.

They've done nothing to earn consumer trust on Nintendo hardware. Plain and simple.

Maybe that's Nintendo's fault for not paying EA to try harder over the years. Maybe it's Nintendo's fault for not establishing the proper markets, despite innovating the FPS presence on consoles with Goldeneye, and following up next gen with FPS/adventure Metroid Prime and funding third person horror projects like Eternal Darkness.

Whoever you want to blame for EA not trying or whatever reasons you want to attribute, they aren't trying and haven't tried. In the OP, EA claims they tried. Many people are understandably indignant.

Are you honestly trying to say they tried with the Wii U? I disagree.
That the Wii U is not a good place for EA games? I agree, and EA made damn sure of it.
That EA games could never sell well on Nintendo hardware? Disagree. But someone does have to try. EA could have built a "hardcore" audience on the Wii if they wanted. They didn't. They could have tried to build an audience on the Wii U. They didn't.

If they made an honest attempt and/or if Nintendo paid them to make an honest attempt, maybe things would be different. Neither thing happened. It would have benefited both if either had tried. Blame is on both of them.

...you do realize that your entire reasoning fails in face of the fact that no 3rd party has achieved success on the Wii U, right?

This thread is of course about a statement made by an EA source, but you CAN'T make the systematic problems facing Nintendo all about EA. Most 3rd parties who have tried with the Wii U have failed, and MOST 3rd parties are not finding it worth the effort.

Unless you're one of those people who believes there's some sorta of industry-wide conspiracy to shun the Wii U, you need to accept the fact that the blame (and onus for change) resides with Nintendo. And not just partially, not just kinda, and not even most of. ALL of the blame resides with Nintendo.

 

[marc^o^]

EA gave me a near perfect FIFA with 100% perfect Off TV/online.

For that I will always cherish they Wii U output (clocked +400 on it already).

 

[Jonm1010]

So we're clear, you're calling your own analogies silly once someone can throw them in your face with how a company actually looking to expand their brand to a new market would behave?

No one ever expected EA to blindly throw support to Nintendo. But they very clearly hamstrung their own products and sent them out to die and have done none of the things one would realistically expect from a company trying to expand their brand into a new market.

They've done nothing to earn consumer trust on Nintendo hardware. Plain and simple.

Maybe that's Nintendo's fault for not paying EA to try harder over the years. Maybe it's Nintendo's fault for not establishing the proper markets, despite innovating the FPS presence on consoles with Goldeneye, and following up next gen with FPS/adventure Metroid Prime and funding third person horror projects like Eternal Darkness.

Whoever you want to blame for EA not trying or whatever reasons you want to attribute, they aren't trying and haven't tried. In the OP, EA claims they tried. Many people are understandably indignant.

Are you honestly trying to say they tried with the Wii U? I disagree.
That the Wii U is not a good place for EA games? I agree, and EA made damn sure of it.
That EA games could never sell well on Nintendo hardware? Disagree. But someone does have to try. EA could have built a "hardcore" audience on the Wii if they wanted. They didn't. They could have tried to build an audience on the Wii U. They didn't.

If they made an honest attempt and/or if Nintendo paid them to make an honest attempt, maybe things would be different. Neither thing happened. It would have benefited both if either had tried. Blame is on both of them.

He created the analogy in the first place. I played along for fun and to maybe get him to understand that there are reasons why companies have been tepid to throw support behind nintendo.

As for the rest of the post, I'm not gonna re-explain my position for the umpteenth time. You can re-read what I have already wrote or read royalan's post or shimmy's link for a start. Both pretty clearly explain where EA is coming from with their lack of support. Agree with it or not.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

EA is a business, why should they boycott a platform for which they expect high sales? As a stock-listed company they can't just make such decisions based on bad personal feelings for Nintendo.

But well, here's an answer from 2013, where they indicate that they have frankly low expectations:
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/06/ea_outlines_its_reasons_for_lack_of_wii_u_support

Of course, you may want to believe that there was some conspiracy behind the scenes. Just like Elvis is still alive and Michael Jackson a person born on Mars.

Because you said in your previous quote that EA already knew WiiU was going to fail, I'll quote this part especifically:

Investing into Wii U titles was not seen as lucrative even before launch; management expected putting resources into other platforms to be more worthwhile.

That's why I asked you to bring a statement from 2012 prior to WiiU launch to confirm they already knew that's gonna happen. Your provided link is from June 2013, they announced the decision to pull WiiU in May 2013: http://kotaku.com/ea-has-no-games-in-development-for-nintendos-wii-u-507588994. Given EA's grudgey reactions toward Nintendo after the months post-announcement and several unrealistic statements, like WiiU was inferior to PS3/360 given by an EA employee on Twitter, they possibly aren't telling the real reasons.

No conspiracy at all, I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo itself manage to fuck this up, given their unfriendly approach toward third-parties and, if the unprecedented partnership would involve turning EA into a WiiU big player, they rather said 'no', kept control to the platform to themselves and pissed off EA in return.

There was a brillant post some time ago about third-parties stance toward Nintendo platforms:

It's not this issue in particular that is a 'conspiracy' against Nintendo, but it's an example of why third parties are against Nintendo.

Third parties do their best business when the dominant platforms are 3rd party dominated. Fairly simple, but what this means is they will, from a business perspective, want platforms THEY control to some extent. EA wants the main platform to be the one they are the big player on. They can (combined with Activision etc) control the message of the console that way. They basically stronarmed Sega to run the Mega Drive/Genesis the way they wanted. Statistically the PS2 was the Square/GTA/EA box, not the Ico/Jak box.

They would love a 3rd party Nintendo, because all Nintendo would then do is help sell platforms EA/Activision control. As a 1st party, Nintendo boxes are a liability, 'sucking away' a chunk of the industry to a place they cannot control.

Why else did Microsoft get up in the industry at all? A 4 billion dollar massive failure followed by the biggest failed hardware scandal in consumer electronics history, and yet they basically instantly got ongoing massive 3rd party support for both machines. It's because they bent over for EA etc.

If EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc have such a strong vision, they should have the balls to create their own console, rather than back-seat drive Sony and Microsoft. But their vision for the industry is to bully their way ahead with the least risk possible, they let others take the risks for them. Luckily for them there are now two international multimedia conglomerates willing to take these risks on their behalf for the chance at being the centre of a fantasy living room control unit.

This could have happened if the unprecedented partnership went further and EA become WiiU's big player. WiiU would have become EA's box. Nintendo forsaw that and decided to keep the control to themselves, so EA decided to back off.

Yes, this is speculation, but a possibility.

 

[Chuck]

https://twitter.com/petermooreea/status/426443269900226560

boom.

 

[shinobi602]

heh

 

[Saint Gregory]

heh

Out of curiosity, does EA have any games planned for Nintendo this year?

Sounds dead to me.

 

[Jonm1010]

https://twitter.com/petermooreea/status/426443269900226560

boom.

Much like treasurehunterg above, EA has never and will never be in the business of publicly shitting on another console company unless the relationship turned incredibly toxic. Even then I doubt it. Does this surprise anyone?

Businesses know better then that. Thats why PR Departments for big companies are massive. Why big companies have multiple marketing companies working for them. You think Moore was gonna come out and stand behind this article?

But being as large as they are candid responses are gonna slip up and humans can pick the wrong words in conversation from time to time.

 

[flatearthpandas]

...you do realize that your entire reasoning fails in face of the fact that no 3rd party has achieved success on the Wii U, right?

This thread is of course about a statement made by an EA source, but you CAN'T make the systematic problems facing Nintendo all about EA. Most 3rd parties who have tried with the Wii U have failed, and MOST 3rd parties are not finding it worth the effort.

Unless you're one of those people who believes there's some sorta of industry-wide conspiracy to shun the Wii U, you need to accept the fact that the blame (and onus for change) resides with Nintendo. And not just partially, not just kinda, and not even most of. ALL of the blame resides with Nintendo.

Is that a fact though?
As I understand, Lego City did well enough for itself. As did Monster Hunter. Rayman sold the most on Wii U.

Speaking of Rayman, it's a shame about Ubisoft, really. They certainly have tried and have not met with much success.

But I'm not sure what other third parties you're talking about that have tried. Do you mean "tried" the way EA tried, by cutting content, game modes, and/or porting months old games, etc.?

Not really interested in playing list wars, but pretend that you owned a Wii U and think about how many third party "efforts" you honestly would have felt worth paying full price for. How many can you truthfully look at and say, this company is clearly trying to build good will with a potentially new audience?

 

[shinobi602]

Hot damn lol

 

[Shiggy]

Because you said in your previous quote that EA already knew WiiU was going to fail, I'll quote this part especifically:



That's why I asked you to bring a statement from 2012 prior to WiiU launch to confirm they already knew that's gonna happen. Your provided link is from June 2013, they announced the decision to pull WiiU in May 2013: http://kotaku.com/ea-has-no-games-in-development-for-nintendos-wii-u-507588994. Given EA's grudgey reactions toward Nintendo after the months post-announcement and several unrealistic statements, like WiiU was inferior to PS3/360 given by an EA employee on Twitter, they possibly aren't telling the real reasons.

As a business, their actions tell what their projections were. Had they thought the Wii U was worth putting resources at, then they would have done so. It's obvious that their projections did not show this based on their releases.

No conspiracy at all, I wouldn't be surprise if Nintendo itself manage to fuck this up, given their unfriendly approach toward third-parties and, if the unprecedented partnership would involve turning EA into a WiiU big player, they rather said 'no', kept control to the platform to themselves and pissed off EA in return.

So you think their approach to third parties would have been much different when compared to their previous platforms? I don't think we have any indication for that.

This could have happened if the unprecedented partnership went further and EA become WiiU's big player. WiiU would have become EA's box. Nintendo forsaw that and decided to keep the control to themselves, so EA decided to back off.

Yes, this is speculation, but a possibility.

Another possibility is that EA wanted to co-develop the Wii U and create their own graphics card for the platform. That's where Nintendo said that they would rather have EA make the bluetooth chip, which made EA back off from the plans.

Yes, that's also speculation, and possibly even more likely than what you just brought up.

Don't trust PR guys.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Is that a fact though?
As I understand, Lego City did well enough for itself. As did Monster Hunter. Rayman sold the most on Wii U.

Speaking of Rayman, it's a shame about Ubisoft, really. They certainly have tried and have not met with much success.

But I'm not sure what other third parties you're talking about that have tried. Do you mean "tried" the way EA tried, by cutting content, game modes, and/or porting months old games, etc.?

Not really interested in playing list wars, but pretend that you owned a Wii U and think about how many third party "efforts" you honestly would have felt worth paying full price for. How many can you truthfully look at and say, this company is clearly trying to build good will with a potentially new audience?

People seem to have forgotten but EA actually was one of the better 3rd party publishers on Wii. While Ubisoft and Activision flooded the console with party and petz games they at least tried to treat the console seriously and released some really good games for it. I still play Grand Slam Tennis to this day which is more than I can say for any other Wii 3rd party game.

 

[flatearthpandas]

He created the analogy in the first place. I played along for fun and to maybe get him to understand that there are reasons why companies have been tepid to throw support behind nintendo.

As for the rest of the post, I'm not gonna re-explain my position for the umpteenth time. You can re-read what I have already wrote or read royalan's post or shimmy's link for a start. Both pretty clearly explain where EA is coming from with their lack of support. Agree with it or not.

You're right, he did create the analogy. I apologize.

You don't need to explain your position any further. Nintendo needs to pay EA and other third parties to make their games for their system, pay for the marketing, etc. and anything less is a total 100% failure on Nintendo's part and any company that puts out an easily ignored, poor value proposition SKU is totally blameless for any resulting poor performance. I get it.

I do disagree with it and I think a little effort on EA or Nintendo's part could have brought about a mutually beneficial arrangement. If you really think they made an honest effort, good for you.

 

[Broken Joystick]

heh

They could at least do better with the 3DS, I think the last release from them that wasn't Fifa was in 2011? That's not exactly how you treat a "great partner"

 

[cafemomo]

They could at least do better with the 3DS, I think the last release from them that wasn't Fifa was in 2011? That's not exactly how you treat a "great partner"

If you count a reskinned version of FIFA11 that they dubbed FIFA 14 Legacy Edition a new game then that was their latest release.

 

[Jonm1010]

People seem to have forgotten but EA actually was one of the better 3rd party publishers on Wii. While Ubisoft and Activision flooded the console with party and petz games they at least tried to treat the console seriously and released some really good games for it. I still play Grand Slam Tennis to this day which is more than I can say for any other Wii 3rd party game.

60+ titles in fact.

 

[royalan]

You don't need to explain your position any further. Nintendo needs to pay EA and other third parties to make their games for their system, pay for the marketing, etc. and anything less is a total 100% failure on Nintendo's part and any company that puts out an easily ignored, poor value proposition SKU is totally blameless for any resulting poor performance. I get it.

Come on, why even bother with discussion if you're going to resort to crap arguments like this? Nobody's saying that and you KNOW it.

 

[Apophis2036]

Last December in the US on the Wii U:
Wipeout* outsold NBA2K13 and FIFA
Sing Party outsold Madden
Standalone Nintendo Land outsold Assassin's Creed 3.
Skylanders outsold Batman
Epic Mickey outsold Call of Duty
And Just Dance 4 outsold them all.
And they all sold less than 100K, some probably a lot less.

*the licensed party game by Activision, not to be confused with the racing game

Anyone who reads those stats and still wonders why third party publishers don't greenlight more core WiiU software is mad...

 

[DragonSworne]

Out of curiosity, does EA have any games planned for Nintendo this year?

Sounds dead to me.

I think only fifa for 3ds and they are contractually obligated by FIFA itself.

 

[axisofweevils]

I assume @petermooreEA is a genuine account? If so, wow.

 

[Jonm1010]

You're right, he did create the analogy. I apologize.

You don't need to explain your position any further. Nintendo needs to pay EA and other third parties to make their games for their system, pay for the marketing, etc. and anything less is a total 100% failure on Nintendo's part and any company that puts out an easily ignored, poor value proposition SKU is totally blameless for any resulting poor performance. I get it.

I do disagree with it and I think a little effort on EA or Nintendo's part could have brought about a mutually beneficial arrangement. If you really think they made an honest effort, good for you.

Very mature argument.

Fact of the matter is EA has to deal with real world decisions. Opportunity costs, Return on Investment, Investor confidence, Developer interests etc.

Nintendo is in the position they are in with third parties because of actions they took and decisions they have made over the generations and because their competitors were able to foster better working relationships with these companies and publishers. Thats indisputable. This sour relationship didn't happen in a vacuum.

We can go line by line over the details of what those particular actions and inactions were and what their competitors have done better but I'm sure you are familiar with them.

Developers have the upper hand these days because they consist of the majority of money in the industry and provide the majority of titles. Without the support of most of the major players your console will be devoid of content given todays costs of development. As Nintendo has seen first hand and we have all been witness too.

So in this industry, in this economy, in this market, under these conditions that Nintendo has brought on themselves, Nintendo is in the position of needing to prove to developers that they are once again a viable platform and that developers can find success with them....Assuming thats the route they wish to take.

That should also be indisputable but for some reason a not insignificant number of people seem to think the onus should rely partially on developers and publishers to do the work for Nintendo. Thats not there job!

 

[Pancakes R Us]

Anyone who reads those stats and still wonders why third party publishers don't greenlight more core WiiU software is mad...

Exactly. I don't care what EA said about an unprecedented partnership. The company clearly came to its senses and saw that Wii U was going to fail / is failing and decided not to output anything for it. And you know what? EA made the right decision for themselves as a company that is in the business of making money (just like Nintendo). The console is running on life support with the super-core Nintendo base by its bedside, only buying first party titles (cause that's what this base does). The audience just isn't there.

I love Nintendo. I grew up with their systems and to this day mainly only play on their systems (only own a PSP that's non Nintendo). I don't, however, care about things like 'unprecendented partnership' betrayalton. Why? Because Nintendo would have done the EXACT same thing if they were in EA's position. The PlayStation was born out of Nintendo screwing Sony over. These companies need to make a profit and they will do what they need to in order to achieve this. I love Nintendo as do many people on this board, but I just don't understand the do-or-die Nintendo crazies on this board or the rest of the internet with the 'Nintendo can do no and has never done any wrong' attitude. It's always someone else's fault. Guess what? Wii U isn't someone else's fault. It's Nintendo's. All those years of stupid, fucked up decisions and stances has finally given them a good, hard bite on the arse. And they deserved it.

People talk about panic mode Nintendo bringing out the best in them. This isn't panic mode Nintendo, this is OMG we are well and truly fucked Nintendo. Sadly, I think the people running the company in Japan are so far up their own arses that I don't have faith in a turnaround. Home console market is gone and we all know which direction the handheld market is going. I truly think they're in such a panic state that they don't really know what to do next. Prove me wrong, Nintendo.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Anyone who reads those stats and still wonders why third party publishers don't greenlight more core WiiU software is mad...

Ea didn't cancel only 'core' titles though. They cancelled everything.

Even if you accept the premise only kids games sell on the WiiU you're still left wondering why a Peggle 2 or a PvZ: Garden warfare don't merit ports.

I assume @petermooreEA is a genuine account? If so, wow.

I would never describe anything relating to Peter "ya know, things break" Moore as genuine.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Very mature argument.

Fact of the matter is EA has to deal with real world decisions. Opportunity costs, Return on Investment, Investor confidence, Developer interests etc.

Nintendo is in the position they are in with third parties because of actions they took and decisions they have made over the generations and because their competitors were able to foster better working relationships with these companies and publishers. Thats indisputable. This sour relationship didn't happen in a vacuum.

We can go line by line over the details of what those particular actions and inactions were and what their competitors have done better but I'm sure you are familiar with them.

Developers have the upper hand these days because they consist of the majority of money in the industry and provide the majority of titles. Without the support of most of the major players your console will be devoid of content given todays costs of development. As Nintendo has seen first hand and we have all been witness too.

So in this industry, in this economy, in this market, under these conditions that Nintendo has brought on themselves, Nintendo is in the position of needing to prove to developers that they are once again a viable platform and that developers can find success with them....Assuming thats the route they wish to take.

That should also be indisputable but for some reason a not insignificant number of people seem to think the onus should rely partially on developers and publishers to do the work for Nintendo. Thats not there job!

Where have I said the onus is on EA or any publisher?

Of course, the onus is on Nintendo to get devs on their platform because, ultimately, only Nintendo needs it to survive. But that doesn't make it Nintendo's fault when EA hamstrings its own titles and sends them to die. That isn't a problem with Nintendo failing to build an audience. ZombiU is an audience failure. W101 is an audience failure. Those are solid efforts that failed, both in new IPs. That is not the problem EA faces.

EA has done nothing to build goodwill and if they had genuinely tried to build an audience for their games in the past, that audience might actually be there. Alternately, Nintendo could have paid them to try and build that audience.

If either had happened, things could be different. I'm just saying there is blame to go around. Sorry if I come off a little antagonistic.

 

[DragonSworne]

The console is running on life support with the super-core Nintendo base by its bedside, only buying first party titles (cause that's what this base does). The audience just isn't there.

Or you know, they buy their third party games on other sytems where the game has a larger online userbase, better performance, and more content.

That leaves the only thing to buy on a Nintendo system are Nintendo games...

 

[Phades]

Hot damn lol

So with both peter and rob getting "served", does this mean "it is on" now?


Lol, I don't expect anything to happen really, but the thought amuses me.

 

[Pancakes R Us]

Or you know, they buy their third party games on other sytems where the game has a larger online userbase, better performance, and more content.

That leaves the only thing to buy on a Nintendo system are Nintendo games...

Yes, I agree that this is the case for Wii U owners with more than one system, but there's no doubt a significant number of Wii U-only owners (or perhaps Nintendo-only owners) that don't. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, because people should only spend their hard earned money on what they value, but either way this is the situation Nintendo has created for itself.

 

[shinobi602]

So with both peter and rob getting "served", does this mean "it is on" now?

I guess

 

[flatearthpandas]

Yes, I agree that this is the case for Wii U owners with more than one system, but there's no doubt a significant number of Wii U-only owners (or perhaps Nintendo-only owners) that don't. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, because people should only spend their hard earned money on what they value, but either way this is the situation Nintendo has created for itself.

We can really only speculate as to that number and how "significant" it is. I've seen some Wii U only people on Gaf, but don't know any in real life. It's a hard number to quantify.

 

[Jonm1010]

Where have I said the onus is on EA or any publisher?

Of course, the onus is on Nintendo to get devs on their platform because, ultimately, only Nintendo needs it to survive. But that doesn't make it Nintendo's fault when EA hamstrings its own titles and sends them to die. That isn't a problem with Nintendo failing to build an audience. ZombiU is an audience failure. W101 is an audience failure. Those are solid efforts that failed, both in new IPs. That is not the problem EA faces.

EA has done nothing to build goodwill and if they had genuinely tried to build an audience for their games in the past, that audience might actually be there. Alternately, Nintendo could have paid them to try and build that audience.

If either had happened, things could be different. I'm just saying there is blame to go around. Sorry if I come off a little antagonistic.

Again, why is the onus on EA to do anything as extensive as that? Why is it EA that should be building an audience on Nintendo's consoles that they can make money on? Especially when that audience they want is already on two other consoles with huge consumer bases? I't makes no sense. And trying to blame EA for not trying to "build an audience" seems misguided.


If anything these failures by Ubisoft show that even had EA allocated more resources to build new IP's or bring more titles with more features that it was in vain. If anything these failures show that EA would have probably been better off not supporting the console at all.

 

[MYE]

heh

Hot damn lol

I guess

lol

EA Source must be shitting his pants right about now

 

[Jonm1010]

lol

EA Source must be shitting his pants right about now

This is why CEO's and public faces of companies shouldn't be on twitter.

Peter looks like a petty fool trying to save face for his company. Leave that to the PR department.

 

[royalan]

lol

EA Source must be shitting his pants right about now

See, now this is that shit that I don't like.

EA, you're not fooling anyone. All one has to do is take a look at the software EA has planned for the Wii U to know that the company doesn't give even the most diarrhea of shits about Nintendo or the Wii U. So why even bother logging into to twitter to spout bullshit nobody believes? I understand that EA is never going to come out and publicly diss the Wii U as a company, but in that case why not just keep quiet?

 

[Hiltz]

That's hilarious if the source really did come from EA. Still, its understandable why third parties have been scared off to support Nintendo.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

lol

EA Source must be shitting his pants right about now

Not really, there have been numerous anti-Nintendo quotes attributed to EA sources even prior to its release.
Unless they just have a crazed anti-nintendo zealot working there contacting the Press at every opportunity.

There was a GAF thread by someone who went to a talk by Peter Moore, where Peter Moore himself said Nintendo are arrogant and should leave the industry, but I can't source it.
But if that's what your COO is saying behind closed doors, you don't have much to worry about.

I understand that EA is never going to come out and publicly diss the Wii U as a company, but in that case why not just keep quiet?

EA are beholden to shareholders who are already asking hard questions about their strategy to the extent they have taken out a lawsuit against them for insider trading.

Ignoring business opportunities based on spite is not going to impress them.

EA also have business partners who are not going to be thrilled to hear about how EA make 'real games', and not kiddy shit. Partners like Disney. Partners who also have good working relationships with Nintendo.

 

[metikulous]

Or you know, they buy their third party games on other sytems where the game has a larger online userbase, better performance, and more content.

That leaves the only thing to buy on a Nintendo system are Nintendo games...

The majority of people who would like to buy the Wii U for Nintendo games aren't biting at the current price either so it fails at that as well.

Majority of GAF, myself included, seems to keep saying they'll bite when it's $200. Hopefully they can somehow manage it and pull themselves back up.

 

[jroc74]

I didn't say anything about never; but Nintendo hasn't actively cultivated an audience for the types of games EA makes, for games like COD, for games like Skyrim in recent history. You can pull examples from eons ago as if it's remotely relevant to the current market situation or current audience tastes if you want. You can bring up The Legend of Zelda, Mario Kart and Metroid as if they're titles aimed at the same demographic audience as Take-Two and Bethesda are after - as if they act as a precursor to third party success with games like FIFA or Grand Theft Auto - but they don't, and that's not saying anything about the quality of the titles.

Product positioning and branding is important. Nintendo has spent decades creating their family friendly brand, strong mascots and strong all-ages properties. That isn't the same as building a market that's conducive to the success of "core" titles from the big third party publishers.

Last December in the US on the Wii U:
Wipeout* outsold NBA2K13 and FIFA
Sing Party outsold Madden
Standalone Nintendo Land outsold Assassin's Creed 3.
Skylanders outsold Batman
Epic Mickey outsold Call of Duty
And Just Dance 4 outsold them all.
And they all sold less than 100K, some probably a lot less.

*the licensed party game by Activision, not to be confused with the racing game

As for cultivating third party relationships, that's just as important as cultivating audiences. Bringing on a swathe of developers is part and parcel of creating an attractive product which goes towards cultivating an audience.

You say that Nintendo have been investing significantly into building an audience for the types of third party titles EA makes, I presume? Please do elaborate.

Anyone who reads those stats and still wonders why third party publishers don't greenlight more core WiiU software is mad...

Yea....this is it in a huge nutshell. Whats the excuse for each of those games that sold poorly on the Wii U, but sold better elsewhere?

Its time to face facts...Nintendo, the Wii brand is family friendly, thats all. If you are a 3rd party ...expect to have craptacular numbers on the Wii U and prepare to be outsold by family friendly games.

I can see the 3rd party support lining up around the corner for Nintendo as we speak!!!!!

Then we have no idea what Sony and MS offer companies when they discount their games on their consoles. In the case of PS+...there has to be some financial arrangement with game makers. Nintendo needs to get its online presence in order pronto. Or they will see even less users going forward.

 

[Roto13]

You guys know stuff like Skylanders and Just Dance are massively successful, right? You might as well say Battlefield 4 sells less than Minecraft so it's a failure.

Not saying any of those games sold well on Wii U, as they most likely didn't, but try not to frame it in the dumbest way possible, ok?

heh

Actions speak louder than words.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Again, why is the onus on EA to do anything as extensive as that? Why is it EA that should be building an audience on Nintendo's consoles that they can make money on? Especially when that audience they want is already on two other consoles with huge consumer bases? I't makes no sense. And trying to blame EA for not trying to "build an audience" seems misguided.


If anything these failures by Ubisoft show that even had EA allocated more resources to build new IP's or bring more titles with more features that it was in vain. If anything these failures show that EA would have probably been better off not supporting the console at all.

Again, I didn't say the onus was there for EA.

If they don't have any interest in building an audience on Nintendo platforms, I would agree they shouldn't waste money putting any games there at all. If they did have an interest in building an audience, why send terrible value proposition ports out to die?

That said, there are reasons why EA might want to build an audience. A reason to actually try to build an audience on Nintendo consoles would obviously be to expand the audience for their games and make more money. Assuming that there is a portion of the Wii/Wii U audience that doesn't buy other consoles. Another reason would be to take advantage of the hardware to make a unique game not possible anywhere else... but that one is mostly a laugh.

Are you saying it wouldn't be beneficial to EA to have an audience on Nintendo hardware? I'm saying it would and that either EA or Nintendo (or both!) could have made that happen. There are benefits for both.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Yea....this is it in a huge nutshell. Whats the excuse for each of those games that sold poorly on the Wii U, but sold better elsewhere?

Its time to face facts...Nintendo, the Wii brand is family friendly, thats all.

So I'll ask again;

If EAs almost immediate cessation of support for the WiiU was entirely business driven, why did they cancel all titles, not just 'core' titles they would not sell to family friendly audiences?

Where is PvZ2 for 3DS? Where is PvZ: Garden warfare for WiiU? where is Peggle 2 for both?

 

[VariantX]

You guys know stuff like Skylanders and Just Dance are massively successful, right? You might as well say Battlefield 4 sells less than Minecraft so it's a failure.

Not saying any of those games sold well on Wii U, as they most likely didn't, but try not to frame it in the dumbest way possible, ok?

Actions speak louder than words.

That's pretty much all that needs to be said on the matter. The fact that there's no Wii U or 3DS versions of peggle 2 and PvZ , games that sell to the demographic that Nintendo resonates strongly with, says it all.

 

[Shiggy]

Again, I didn't say the onus was there for EA.

If they don't have any interest in building an audience on Nintendo platforms, I would agree they shouldn't waste money putting any games there at all. If they did have an interest in building an audience, why send terrible value proposition ports out to die?

That said, there are reasons why EA might want to build an audience. A reason to actually try to build an audience on Nintendo consoles would obviously be to expand the audience for their games and make more money. Assuming that there is a portion of the Wii/Wii U audience that doesn't buy other consoles. Another reason would be to take advantage of the hardware to make a unique game not possible anywhere else... but that one is mostly a laugh.

Are you saying it wouldn't be beneficial to EA to have an audience on Nintendo hardware? I'm saying it would and that either EA or Nintendo (or both!) could have made that happen. There are benefits for both.

From a business perspective, it doesn't make sense to create games for Wii U when there are more viable platforms. Why waste money on projects when you yield a higher return on other platforms? Of course, they could try building an audience on Nintendo platforms - but that's a much more risky endeavour than creating the next Battlefield, and thus potential future cashflows were discounted with a risk premium.

I'd suggest you read a bit about investment decisions and you will easily understand why EA did not really try with Wii U. Their market research must have been pretty accurate about the prospects of the console.

 

[jroc74]

So I'll ask again;

If EAs almost immediate cessation of support for the WiiU was entirely business driven, why did they cancel all titles, not just 'core' titles they would not sell to family friendly audiences?

Where is PvZ2 for 3DS? Where is PvZ: Garden warfare for WiiU? where is Peggle 2 for both?

I dont think I ever said it was purely financial with EA....if I did that Fifa 14 PS2 game proves that it isnt and I changed my stance after that post. Right now I'm talking about 3rd party support in general, overall.

COD...online games I can understand....I have to buy all my sport games on Playstation consoles now since friends, co workers all have PS3, 4. Family....brother has a 360....and I dont know what his next console will be.

I even mentioned history...Madden played better on Sega consoles and launched first on Sega consoles. And Madden was borderline atrocious on the N64. There is a history here with Nintendo and EA many of us dont really know too much about.

 

[royalan]

That's pretty much all that needs to be said on the matter. The fact that there's no Wii U or 3DS versions of peggle 2 and PvZ , games that sell to the demographic that Nintendo resonates strongly with, says it all.

...I'm still looking for this proof that the Nintendo of today resonates strongly with "family friendly" audiences outside of pure I'm going to say this because it sounds right. If that were true, the family friendly games by 3rd parties should have been successful on Wii U, but they really haven't been.

So far, the only audience Nintendo is resonating strongly with is the Nintendo audience.

 

[squidyj]

So we're clear, you're calling your own analogies silly once someone can throw them in your face with how a company actually looking to expand their brand to a new market would behave?

No one ever expected EA to blindly throw support to Nintendo. But they very clearly hamstrung their own products and sent them out to die and have done none of the things one would realistically expect from a company trying to expand their brand into a new market.

They've done nothing to earn consumer trust on Nintendo hardware. Plain and simple.

Maybe that's Nintendo's fault for not paying EA to try harder over the years. Maybe it's Nintendo's fault for not establishing the proper markets, despite innovating the FPS presence on consoles with Goldeneye, and following up next gen with FPS/adventure Metroid Prime and funding third person horror projects like Eternal Darkness.

Whoever you want to blame for EA not trying or whatever reasons you want to attribute, they aren't trying and haven't tried. In the OP, EA claims they tried. Many people are understandably indignant.

Are you honestly trying to say they tried with the Wii U? I disagree.
That the Wii U is not a good place for EA games? I agree, and EA made damn sure of it.
That EA games could never sell well on Nintendo hardware? Disagree. But someone does have to try. EA could have built a "hardcore" audience on the Wii if they wanted. They didn't. They could have tried to build an audience on the Wii U. They didn't.

If they made an honest attempt and/or if Nintendo paid them to make an honest attempt, maybe things would be different. Neither thing happened. It would have benefited both if either had tried. Blame is on both of them.

I'm sorry, what market?

 

[Shiggy]

So I'll ask again;

If EAs almost immediate cessation of support for the WiiU was entirely business driven, why did they cancel all titles, not just 'core' titles they would not sell to family friendly audiences?

They already incurred those costs. Their internal projections must have indicated that they could recoup some of the costs, which obviously did not come true. In retrospect, not releasing those titles would've made more sense financially. But I guess not even EA expected the Wii U to be SUCH a trainwreck.

Where is PvZ2 for 3DS? Where is PvZ: Garden warfare for WiiU? where is Peggle 2 for both?

Porting costs money. Not even family oriented titles sell too well on those platforms. Why port something when it will not recoup the costs?