Ka-pi96 said:
Mnementh said:
FIFA and Skyrim sold about the same. Doom sold less. Still, look at Bethesda and their ports to the Switch and compare to EA. EA has FIFA (and the Legacy edition at that) and more independent stuff they publish: Unravel and Fe. Nobody thinks they port Battlefield, Anthem or Star Wars, but what about the Sims, Need for Speed, Mass Effect, Dragon Age (Skyrim was also an older game), Madden, Boom Blox (why not), Spore or Plants vs. Zombies (again: why not).
I know, Switch fans love to pile hate on Capcom, but while some ports are crappy, Capcom ported over nearly their full catalogue. And they often sold a lot less than FIFA. Now you say: but FIFA sells more on other platforms. True, but who cares. Porting FIFA is not more expensive than porting Dragon's Dogma and it sold more, so it made money for EA. EA doesn't port stuff to Switch not because of sales, but because they don't want to. And they are big enough to get away with it. Capcom takes the money from cheap Switch-ports happily, to finance the next Resident Evil for PS5.
|
A port of a 7? year old game and a brand new entry in one of the biggest gaming franchises on the planet selling about the same isn't exactly a good thing. Besides, EA and Bethesda aim for very different audiences. Bethesda are very much singleplayer focused, so sales are main factor for them. While EA are heavily multiplayer/microtransaction focused. If people are buying their games (not event that many, to be fair) but not sticking around for the MP and paying for microtransactions then they're not really worth investing too much into.
Plus, it doesn't matter whether it "made money for EA". It matters whether it made enough to be worth investing in over something else. Would they be better off investing that money or time into something else that could increase revenue for the PS4/Xbox versions? EA seem to think so.
|
Ka-pi96 said:
Mnementh said:
FIFA and Skyrim sold about the same. Doom sold less. Still, look at Bethesda and their ports to the Switch and compare to EA. EA has FIFA (and the Legacy edition at that) and more independent stuff they publish: Unravel and Fe. Nobody thinks they port Battlefield, Anthem or Star Wars, but what about the Sims, Need for Speed, Mass Effect, Dragon Age (Skyrim was also an older game), Madden, Boom Blox (why not), Spore or Plants vs. Zombies (again: why not).
I know, Switch fans love to pile hate on Capcom, but while some ports are crappy, Capcom ported over nearly their full catalogue. And they often sold a lot less than FIFA. Now you say: but FIFA sells more on other platforms. True, but who cares. Porting FIFA is not more expensive than porting Dragon's Dogma and it sold more, so it made money for EA. EA doesn't port stuff to Switch not because of sales, but because they don't want to. And they are big enough to get away with it. Capcom takes the money from cheap Switch-ports happily, to finance the next Resident Evil for PS5.
|
A port of a 7? year old game and a brand new entry in one of the biggest gaming franchises on the planet selling about the same isn't exactly a good thing. Besides, EA and Bethesda aim for very different audiences. Bethesda are very much singleplayer focused, so sales are main factor for them. While EA are heavily multiplayer/microtransaction focused. If people are buying their games (not event that many, to be fair) but not sticking around for the MP and paying for microtransactions then they're not really worth investing too much into.
Plus, it doesn't matter whether it "made money for EA". It matters whether it made enough to be worth investing in over something else. Would they be better off investing that money or time into something else that could increase revenue for the PS4/Xbox versions? EA seem to think so.
|
Porting games on Switch is REALLY easy. That's why you find many independant games on Switch (and PS4/Xone). Also, I am amazed by the argument "microtransactions". Do you have more than "I said so, so this is true", like a source ? No ? Well ...
