• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

EA: Making Frostbite 3 Work On Wii U Is Not Impossible, focusing resources on XB1/PS4

No, it's not. I the an equal responsibility for 3rd Parties to HELP push things. Nintendo's 1rst party titles will sell consoles, no doubt, but EA should be better prepared to ride on that momentum by announcing and advertising games beforehand.

Ugh no. Absolutely not sorry, wrong on all accounts. EA doesn't need to push for shit since one less costumer on WiiU is one more costumer on another platform. You are looking at this business and somehow including things that are similar to friendship, or empathy.

No 3rd party publisher has any responsibility to make a Nintendo platform viable. And it's absolutely nuts that you think they have that responsibility.

Of course it's on Nintendo to prove it. Where did I say otherwise?

The point is that if EA want to be successful they need to start taking every platform seriously. Especially given their decline in recent years. They can't just bet on their sports licences to carry them as it's not working.

None of EA's recent failings have anything to do with them supporting the WiiU or not. Your argument carries no applicable logic at all. If the platform is performing poorly and doesn't present a good investment, then you don't need to take it seriously.

Nintendo is the problem, not EA.
 
If 3rd parties are expected to help push console sales then they should also expect to get a cut of the profits resulting from console sales and licensing fees.


Well under 10k in the launch month. What's important about that number is that the narrative that EA shouldn't have "expected big numbers" is founded on the delusion that EA actually "expected big numbers" instead of likely expecting numbers that aren't a complete and total cratering.

was this based on knowing what the lowest selling game on NPD was, and just knowing it sold less than that? I wonder what EA's own projections were.
 

F#A#Oo

Banned
If 3rd parties are expected to help push console sales then they should also expect to get a cut of the profits resulting from console sales and licensing fees.

Third parties do tend to get compensated. Ubisoft got a Zombi U Wii U bundle. Lego City got marketing plus mass exposure in ND's and Nintendo E3 conference. Platinum got money hats for Bayonetta 2 and TW101. They'll probably also receive the same treatment Lego City got when it comes to launch.

Microsoft has equally pushed third party software for years. Even timed exclusivity they are compensated with $$$ and marketing and advertising dollars.
 
This is why you're not in charge of platform strategy at EA.

Why? Because I didn't just fire 1,000 workers, and didn't put out garbage games (Madden 12 and FIFA 12) on the Wii U, lying to consumers saying they were Madden 13 and FIFA 13?

If they had platform strategy, it just failed with the Xbox One. THAT was their platform strategy.

EA and Microsoft didn't want to listen to the market, and tried to work together to push DRM onto the masses, and the masses said no thanks?

There's a reason a few of EA's execs just sold the majority of their shares in May, when the stock was near its 52 week high...it's called they're preparing for the losses and going to short it now. Make money both ways, On the way UP, and the way DOWN.
 
I wonder what the baseline install base is for EA to start working on Wii U again?

Always +1 of it's actual install base.
In all seriousness though, we would see EA games on WiiU at the end of 2014 at the earliest... by then it really won't matter anymore. So why even bother. They've given up on the platform long before launch. Getting back now is too late for them to make money off it, regardless of install base.
 
Third parties do tend to get compensated. Ubisoft got a Zombi U Wii U bundle. Lego City got marketing plus mass exposure in ND's and Nintendo E3 conference. Platinum got money hats for Bayonetta 2 and TW101. They'll probably also receive the same treatment Lego City got when it comes to launch.

Microsoft has equally pushed third party software for years. Even timed exclusivity they are compensated with $$$ and marketing and advertising dollars.

ZombiU only got a bundle in Europe at launch, and in the U.S. only after sales completely tanked and I don't believe NOA actually advertised the ZombiU bundle in the US. LEGO City is published by Nintendo, so they paid for the development of it.
Again, Bayonetta 2 and TW101 are being funded by Nintendo.

NOA is the problem with third parties, and I do think they have much of the blame to bear. NOA has had constant failures with the Wii U, from the launch ads, demo units, E3 stream running horribly, Best Buy events being run horribly, and recently...having a bad GamePad image on Nintendo.com, in an email, on Club Nintendo, and tweeting it out to nearly half a million followers.
NOA looks to me like they are purposely trying to sabotage the Wii U, so that some in current executive positions may get a new/higher position if others are changed/removed in the future.
If they aren't, I don't know what their excuses are for so many repeat failures in recent years.
 

jmizzal

Member
These are the same fools that said Frostbite 2 couldnt run on WiiU LOL

I bet Disney is gonna force them to port Star Wars games to WiiU
 
I bet Disney is gonna force them to port Star Wars games to WiiU


I do hope that Disney is aware of these issues, and I'm guessing that with their lawyers and legal teams they have clauses in the exclusivity contract that can cancel it for almost any reason.
If I were Disney, I would want my name on Nintendo consoles, since they seem to be more family oriented consoles.
 

Mlatador

Banned
Ugh no. Absolutely not sorry, wrong on all accounts. EA doesn't need to push for shit since one less costumer on WiiU is one more costumer on another platform. You are looking at this business and somehow including things that are similar to friendship, or empathy.

No 3rd party publisher has any responsibility to make a Nintendo platform viable. And it's absolutely nuts that you think they have that responsibility.



None of EA's recent failings have anything to do with them supporting the WiiU or not. Your argument carries no applicable logic at all. If the platform is performing poorly and doesn't present a good investment, then you don't need to take it seriously.

Nintendo is the problem, not EA.

First, if you are one of the major publishers in the industry, it's of course your responsibily to a great deal to provide early adopters of newly launched hardware with "good" incentives to buy your games, help create momentum and thus help push the hardware - which in the end will be another viable market for you.

Second, the problem with your way of thinking or logical deduction is that you just don't seem to understand why the Wii U is struggling with sales right now.

You're incedibly narrow minded in this regard.

It's not the hardware, as the E3 has clearly shown there's enough hardware power.
It's not the Gamepad - which is everything the best standard dual analog controller is - plus much more

It have been marketing mistakes, name confusion and some other fuck ups. FUNDAMENTALLY the Wii U is a capable system, and a bussiness like EA should have been able to see that. Now they are backpedaling with their statements. It's like EA doesn't know what they want.

Their customers do, though, and that's probably the reason why Mass Effect 3 didn't do so great, after the Mass Effect Trilogy was announced only 2 weeks before it's release. They should have release the Trology instead of MS3 - now that would have been a great "welcome to your new Nintendo Platform, Wii U owner" and brought them definitely more success, but no, it's all Nintendo's fault, right?
 

F#A#Oo

Banned
ZombiU only got a bundle in Europe at launch, and in the U.S. only after sales completely tanked and I don't believe NOA actually advertised the ZombiU bundle in the US. LEGO City is published by Nintendo, so they paid for the development of it.
Again, Bayonetta 2 and TW101 are being funded by Nintendo.

NOA is the problem with third parties, and I do think they have much of the blame to bear. NOA has had constant failures with the Wii U, from the launch ads, demo units, E3 stream running horribly, Best Buy events being run horribly, and recently...having a bad GamePad image on Nintendo.com, in an email, on Club Nintendo, and tweeting it out to nearly half a million followers.
NOA looks to me like they are purposely trying to sabotage the Wii U, so that some in current executive positions may get a new/higher position if others are changed/removed in the future.
If they aren't, I don't know what their excuses are for so many repeat failures in recent years.

Oh I didn't know this. No wonder Iwata named himself boss. lol

NOA need to get their act together.
 
ZombiU only got a bundle in Europe at launch, and in the U.S. only after sales completely tanked and I don't believe NOA actually advertised the ZombiU bundle in the US. LEGO City is published by Nintendo, so they paid for the development of it.
Again, Bayonetta 2 and TW101 are being funded by Nintendo.

NOA is the problem with third parties, and I do think they have much of the blame to bear. NOA has had constant failures with the Wii U, from the launch ads, demo units, E3 stream running horribly, Best Buy events being run horribly, and recently...having a bad GamePad image on Nintendo.com, in an email, on Club Nintendo, and tweeting it out to nearly half a million followers.
NOA looks to me like they are purposely trying to sabotage the Wii U, so that some in current executive positions may get a new/higher position if others are changed/removed in the future.
If they aren't, I don't know what their excuses are for so many repeat failures in recent years.

Jesus fucking Christ, this post. Goddamn.
 

Sinnick

Member
I think the "who's responsibility to do what" thing is being looked at the wrong way.

If a platform holder wants a reluctant publisher to bring its titles to a system, then the platform holder needs to ask the publisher what needs to happen for that to occur. Let's assume the publisher actually provides an answer. It's then on the platform holder to determine whether the answer was (a) reasonable, (b) feasible, and (c) compatible with the company's own long term goals. If the answer doesn't have all three characteristics, then it may not be in the platform holder's interest to meet the needs of the publisher.

Therefore, when looking at EA and Nintendo, we need to ask...

What does EA want from Nintendo? Is it reasonable? Is it feasible? Finally, Is it compatible with Nintendo's long term goals?
 
I think the "who's responsibility to do what" thing is being looked at the wrong way.

If a platform holder wants a reluctant publisher to bring its titles to a system, then the platform holder needs to ask the publisher what needs to happen for that to occur. Let's assume the publisher actually provides an answer. It's then on the platform holder to determine whether the answer was (a) reasonable, (b) feasible, and (c) compatible with the company's own long term goals. If the answer doesn't have all three characteristics, then it may not be in the platform holder's interest to meet the needs of the publisher.

Therefore, when looking at EA and Nintendo, we need to ask...

What does EA want from Nintendo? Is it reasonable? Is it feasible? Finally, Is it compatible with Nintendo's long term goals?

I agree, except there's one problem with this. EA went on stage at E3, and showed games (specifically Battlefield) as coming to the Wii U. EA then backed off of that, because apparently their developers are too lazy to know how to port games/engines properly? They also couldn't afford to pay a few developers to figure it out, and fired 1,000 of them in April/May. The rumors were it was because Nintendo didn't let EA push them around in the online front...and from what we have seen from EA and Microsoft, I would say those rumors probably have some truth to them.

EA announced getting rid of online passes 2 weeks before the Xbox One reveal in May? Xbox One reveal with always online, DRM. Microsoft announces partnership with EA on the sports side?

I do agree, there are things Nintendo could probably do to make it better for EA, but I don't know if I would want to deal with liars personally.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Good news, hopefully they make some more competent ports for Wii U. No reason Wii U only fans should miss out on all the fun.
 

hamchan

Member
Mlatador said:
First, if you are one of the major publishers in the industry, it's of course your responsibily to a great deal to provide early adopters of newly launched hardware with "good" incentives to buy your games, help create momentum and thus help push the hardware - which in the end will be another viable market for you.

Nope, they have no responsibility to help push the WiiU at all. The only responsibility they have is to their shareholders and choosing where they think the most profits lie, which is apparently the PS4/Xbone and not the WiiU.

The only people with the responsibility to push the hardware and make it viable is Nintendo. It's also Nintendo's responsibility to convince third party publishers to make games for their platform. Otherwise third parties have no obligation to put anything anywhere, that's why they're third parties.
 
Nope, they have no responsibility to help push the WiiU at all. The only responsibility they have is to their shareholders and choosing where they think the most profits lie, which is apparently the PS4/Xbone and not the WiiU.

The only people with the responsibility to push the hardware and make it viable is Nintendo. It's also Nintendo's responsibility to convince third party publishers to make games for their platform. Otherwise third parties have no obligation to put anything anywhere, that's why they're third parties.

While I do agree about Nintendo pushing console sales and using third parties to HELP push the Wii U, EA hasn't provided them with much of anything to do that. I do agree though, Nintendo of America in particular has been a horrible, horrible, horrible partner with/for third parties in recent years.

As for EA's responsibility, I don't think they much care about shareholders, by allowing executives to keep their same pay rates while cutting 1,000 employees and closing studios. If EA was concerned with brand building, they would take a lesson from a studio like Treyarch.

While Infinity Ward couldn't find the time to port the Call of Duty games to the Wii, Treyarch not only learned how to do it early on, but improved upon each one. They delivered the Wii U an awesome game in Black Ops II, WHICH I think is a prime example of Nintendo of America completely failing to support a third party.

EA is operating like your typical ENRON corporation, IMO. Partying it up, having ignorant employees that don't care saying stupid things on twitter, then deleting them, and are in it while the getting is good. Then when/if the market crashes they'll be looking to blame everybody but themselves for bad management...while running away with millions (at least a few at the top).

If EA can't find a way to port their cookie cutter games to the Wii U, I think that says a lot about their developers and management in general. Some developers and publishers lead by example, others lead by excuses. Currently, EA is one leading by excuses.
 

EDarkness

Member
Ugh no. Absolutely not sorry, wrong on all accounts. EA doesn't need to push for shit since one less costumer on WiiU is one more costumer on another platform. You are looking at this business and somehow including things that are similar to friendship, or empathy.

You are right. However, EA IS responsible for selling their own product. And if they put out half-assed or extremely late versions of games, then that is 100% on them. Has nothing to do with Nintendo. So if EA wants people to buy their games, then they have to work to do so. No one is gonna give them money for free. So releasing kiddie Madden on the Wii and then wondering why the game wasn't selling was their own fault. Same with releasing Mass Effect 3 with no DLC (a huge part of the game) when the trilogy was going to be released on the other systems is crazy and had nothing to do with Nintendo.

Sure, Nintendo has to sell their hardware. But EA didn't do their own games justice which is their job.
 

EDarkness

Member
The funniest thing about this whole comment is that their Wii U support is only "slightly lower" than the other consoles? Really? REALLY? Slightly? Damn, I think their definition of "slightly" needs adjustment, because based on their release schedule this year (and even into next year) they have fraggin' NOTHING for the Wii U.

Heh, yeah...slightly lower.
 

Grief.exe

Member
Why does EA feel the need to lie to us?

They tell us that the Wii U can't run FB3. They say that PCs can't run the Ignite engine for their sports games.

Both of these statements are outright lies. Why can't they just say the consumer base isn't on those platforms for those products?
 
This whole theory is completely misguided. It's on Nintendo to prove to third parties that their platform is not only a viable option, but a great opportunity for revenue in genres across the spectrum. With the other options out there, EA and the likes aren't the ones who have to take a freaking leap of faith. Get real.

I have a few questions for you: do believe EA was justified in giving the Wii U audience last-year ports of Madden and FIFA at full price? Was it a clever marketing decision to announced a ME Trilogy Pack weeks before the release of the definitive version of ME3 for the Wii U at the same price? Was it a great decision to release a 3DS Madden game without multiplayer?
 

EDarkness

Member
Why does EA feel the need to lie to us?

They tell us that the Wii U can't run FB3. They say that PCs can't run the Ignite engine for their sports games.

Both of these statements are outright lies. Why can't they just say the consumer base isn't on those platforms for those products?

Not sure why, but I wonder if it's because of a bit of platform bias. The reason why the others are that way is because they personally like them and want to see them succeed. Some developers/publishers just identify better with certain pieces of hardware. I've always assumed that this was the case for a lot of people in the industry.

They can't really come out and say, "We really like X system so that's why it's getting all the love."
 
You are right. However, EA IS responsible for selling their own product. And if they put out half-assed or extremely late versions of games, then that is 100% on them. Has nothing to do with Nintendo. So if EA wants people to buy their games, then they have to work to do so. No one is gonna give them money for free. So releasing kiddie Madden on the Wii and then wondering why the game wasn't selling was their own fault. Same with releasing Mass Effect 3 with no DLC (a huge part of the game) when the trilogy was going to be released on the other systems is crazy and had nothing to do with Nintendo.

Sure, Nintendo has to sell their hardware. But EA didn't do their own games justice which is their job.
This bears repeating. Short and simple.
 
Sure, Nintendo has to sell their hardware. But EA didn't do their own games justice which is their job.
No, EA's job as a publicly-traded corporation is, just like Nintendo, to make money via what they see as the best course of action. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But in light of software sales on the WiiU EA made the correct decision to cut their losses. "Doing their own games justice" would likely have been throwing money down the drain.
 

jaz013

Banned
No, EA's job as a publicly-traded corporation is, just like Nintendo, to make money via what they see as the best course of action. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But in light of software sales on the WiiU EA made the correct decision to cut their losses. "Doing their own games justice" would likely have been throwing money down the drain.

They didn't "do their own games justice", therefore, there were low sales: half-assed Madden, lazy FIFA port (good new features, sadly), overpriced, badly executed and poorly supported ME3 over-shadowed by a cheaper and full-feature Trilogy. What's so difficult to understand?

I stick to my "Origin or Die!" theory (could be wrong, but each day sounds more plausible, and with MS backing the RDM features, they are full force in the pedal, backwards).
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
Why are people surprised to see this?

Nintendo hasn't had shite for 3rd party relations post-SNES. Anyone who buys a Nintendo console for 3rd party games is out of touch with reality.
 

jtb

Banned
this changes nothing. EA has zero incentive to shift their development resources away from PS4/Xbone even if it is technically possible.
 
"Doing their own games justice" would likely have been throwing money down the drain.

They did exactly that by wasting resources on Madden 12 and FIFA 12 on the Wii U, and sabotaging Mass Effect 3's Wii U launch, 2 weeks before it released.

Also, continuing to pay your ex-CEO for 2 years after he has resigned for supposedly being "accountable", is throwing money down the drain. Talk about stupid.

"Yeah guys, we can't afford to keep on a few of the 1,000 employees we just fired to port games to the Wii U to continue to build brand awareness across all platforms, but we can pay our ex-CEO a few million and give him a 2 years severance package because he did such a poor job and made such wonderful decisions."

EA has been making, and is continuing to make terrible business decisions. It's why short selling the stock, I think makes sense if you can.
 
They did exactly that by wasting resources on Madden 12 and FIFA 12 on the Wii U, and sabotaging Mass Effect 3's Wii U launch, 2 weeks before it released.
What part of "cutting your losses" did you not understand? Software development isn't an overnight process and sometimes you're simply going to lose. See also: current WiiU sales.
 
What part of "cutting your losses" did you not understand? Software development isn't an overnight process and sometimes you're simply going to lose. See also: current WiiU sales.

What part of wasting resources don't you understand? I can explain it to you, I can't help you understand it.

Nobody said anything about software development being an overnight process, are you trying to continue justifying EA making year old games and selling them as "new", wasting resources on those games? Or, perhaps you like that they fired 1,000 developers, and had an employee come out and try to talk trash about a system, that just had a recent EA game released on it?

"Cutting your losses" would be accepting your CEO's resignation, and telling him, "See ya later alligator!", not continuing to feed the hand that caused your losses. It would be cutting the entire executive board's pay, since apparently under all their leadership, games like Dead Space 3 failed to meet basic expectations on two consoles with 100+ million install base. Or, Crysis 3? How about Medal of Honor?

What about current Wii U sales? That has nothing to do with EA wasting resources and failing to build brand momentum in a positive way by releasing year old games, lying to consumers saying they are "new".
 
So I'm wondering, if Frostbite 2 and 3 aren't currently running on the Wii U, and they won't be until there's a bigger audience, what happens with future games and the engine if the audience grows? If say, in a year the audience numbers are up to par, and they start working on the engine again and/or games, how will they handle it?

Do they start release Wii U versions of old games? Or do they start releasing Wii U versions of new games? And if the latter, will they be day and date with the other console versions, or will they be months later, due to extra time needed to complete the engine?
 
What part of wasting resources don't you understand? I can explain it to you, I can't help you understand it.
I think EA is quite aware they wasted resources developing anything for the WiiU launch. But they didn't waste as many resources because they cut their losses.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the EA CEO issue. Shocker, no company makes perfect decisions. Sometimes CEO compensation is tied into contracts or whatever and results in bad CEOs getting big payouts. Sometimes there's no good reason. You seem really obsessed with it, though.

What about current Wii U sales? That has nothing to do with EA wasting resources and failing to build brand momentum in a positive way by releasing year old games, lying to consumers saying they are "new".
It's a comparison to illustrate a point. The fact that you brought "lying" into the argument makes the comparison even more appropriate given what was said by Nintendo regarding the launch "window".
 

EDarkness

Member
No, EA's job as a publicly-traded corporation is, just like Nintendo, to make money via what they see as the best course of action. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But in light of software sales on the WiiU EA made the correct decision to cut their losses. "Doing their own games justice" would likely have been throwing money down the drain.

Wait...so you're saying that they SHOULDN'T try to actually make a profit on their own games? I don't buy that at all. The point is they are responsible for selling their own games. If they don't want to, fine. But that's no one's fault but their own. Funny that you want to give them a pass for basically low quality work (Need for Speed notwithstanding). I guess the Wii owners who got duped with FIFA shouldn't be pissed off, either. We just have to understand that EA was just cutting their losses.
 
So I'm wondering, if Frostbite 2 and 3 aren't currently running on the Wii U, and they won't be until there's a bigger audience, what happens with future games and the engine if the audience grows? If say, in a year the audience numbers are up to par, and they start working on the engine again and/or games, how will they handle it?

Do they start release Wii U versions of old games? Or do they start releasing Wii U versions of new games? And if the latter, will they be day and date with the other console versions, or will they be months later, due to extra time needed to complete the engine?

(Hi everyone, I'm new posting here. Been browsing for a while though.)

I have been thinking the exact same thing, reading through various articles/information.

Even if it is purely a "business" decision, at this point, it will be painful for EA if the Wii U's sales pick up significantly (once the actual attractive games arrive). There seems to be a lot riding on both the Xbox One and PS4 selling ridiculously well straight off the bat, including massive third-party attach rates.

Sure, only time will tell, but it seems short sighted on EAs part.
 
I think EA is quite aware they wasted resources developing anything for the WiiU launch. But they didn't waste as many resources because they cut their losses.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the EA CEO issue. Shocker, no company makes perfect decisions. Sometimes CEO compensation is tied into contracts or whatever and results in bad CEOs getting big payouts. Sometimes there's no good reason. You seem really obsessed with it, though.

It's a comparison to illustrate a point. The fact that you brought "lying" into the argument makes the comparison even more appropriate given what was said by Nintendo regarding the launch "window".

I absolutely agree about Nintendo lying about the launch window, but I don't justify one lying with another. Two wrongs, don't make a right. Perhaps for you they do? I mean, why else are you trying to justify it with that?

Perhaps you missed where I said I think NOA actually is most of Nintendo's problem? I'm not a Nintendo defender in the least (http://www.coffeewithgames.com/2013/06/dear-nintendo-of-america.html), and think they have some very serious issues. BUT I even have a solution that I think would work well for both EA and Nintendo, but EA is showing they don't want it. They lied to Nintendo, they lied to consumers. EA doesn't exactly have a glowing track record with consumers...

EA wasted resources, and actually has caused themselves future losses with their own actions. What was the last NFL game I purchased? ESPN NFL 2K5. Why? Because I knew when EA got the exclusivity contract, their games would become the same recycled garbage every year. That was the case. EA is very narrow minded in their thinking, if they think these type of business decisions won't influence future buying decisions. I own a PS3 and a Wii/Wii U. I'll probably end up with another console in the future, but I will gladly look over any DICE/EA game due to their continued lying stupidity. If EA couldn't keep a few of those 1,000 staffers on to learn how to port games to the Wii U, I think that's pathetic. THAT's one reason for bringing up the CEO being fired, but maintaining a 2 year severance package. It's typical ENRON corporation corruption.

It's very unfortunate, for the developers actually working on games. It's actually one reason I have some respect for Mr. Iwata. Instead of firing staff, he took a significant pay cut, as did other Nintendo board members. Why? They were the leadership making the decisions that affected the company overall.

There's a reason the EA execs were selling large portions of their stocks in May. Insider trading still happens, ALL the time. Short sell.

I don't think anybody is looking for a company to make perfect decisions, but repeat stupid decisions is incredible. Defending laziness and lying to consumers, is pretty amazing.
 

KKRT00

Member
So I'm wondering, if Frostbite 2 and 3 aren't currently running on the Wii U, and they won't be until there's a bigger audience, what happens with future games and the engine if the audience grows? If say, in a year the audience numbers are up to par, and they start working on the engine again and/or games, how will they handle it?

Do they start release Wii U versions of old games? Or do they start releasing Wii U versions of new games? And if the latter, will they be day and date with the other console versions, or will they be months later, due to extra time needed to complete the engine?

If WiiU wont grow in a year, there wont be any WiiU Frostbite games. Mass Effect, Mirrors Edge and Battlefront are already next-gen only, more games will follow [Dragon Age probably too]. Making games for 360/PS3 will be only viable for 2 years, after that next-gen instal base will be large enough to skip them.

There could be also be other way, with mobile going into DX11 there is a chance that future small budget titles will be created across all platforms [pc, current&next gen, mobile] and thats where WiiU will be included if userbase will be high enough.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
I don't think anybody is looking for a company to make perfect decisions, but repeat stupid decisions is incredible. Defending laziness and lying to consumers, is pretty amazing.
Dropping the Wii U is probably the smartest thing EA has done in awhile. I don't see any indication that third parties are having success on the platform. Even Ubi is scaling back support at this point. Look at Ubi's last quarter:

Breakdown of sales by platform for Q4 are as follows: Nintendo DS 0%, Nintendo 3DS 2%, PC 20%, PS3 33%, PSP, 1%, Wii 14%, Xbox 360 27%, Vita 1%, Wii U 1%, other formats 3%.

It's not stupidity or laziness, and it's not a conspiracy. The games aren't selling.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I do hope that Disney is aware of these issues, and I'm guessing that with their lawyers and legal teams they have clauses in the exclusivity contract that can cancel it for almost any reason.
If I were Disney, I would want my name on Nintendo consoles, since they seem to be more family oriented consoles.

Disney is looking to make money. The Infinity thing is a perfect fit for the U and it's more family friendly audience. Epic Mickey 2 was on U. I'm sure future Marvel Hero games will be on U. It's not like Disney owned ip are missing.
 

Brofield

Member
I wonder if this omnidirectional backpeddling is the first ripples we're seeing of positive change for EA's and Nintendo's relationship since John Ravioli's departure.

Also, for some reason I'm digging EA's choice of buzzwords this generation so far. 'Unprecedented', 'Omnidirectional', so exciting!
 
Top Bottom