Quantcast
View Post
potato_hamster said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

This would make more sense if the people here were debating bringing only new games to the console but most here are completely lost on why EA wouldn't bring their 16-bit and other classic titles to the console (or even E-shop back on Wii and WiiU). To not bring the newest and biggest is one thing that many can go back and forth on forever because some people will ignorantly back a company and some will ignorantly attack said company. However, I do not think anyone can argue that not bringing their older titles to Switch, even if only to make a quick and easy buck and never bring the newest content to Switch, makes absolutely no sense.

EA is missing out on cheap to produce titles making them a healthy return - even if that return is only to fund their next big Playstation and XBOX titles. Capcom has done this and look at their success with Switch. Why EA would not see that business model and (in the case of Switch specifically) do the same is a question that nobody can accurately nail down. And to many people, it screams that the relationship has soured on a more personal level - considering EA have a marketing team and upper management that gets paid to know exactly how well other companies are doing, what they are doing, and how they are doing it. EA knows that can be a successful revenue stream (the business model has been laid before them) yet they refuse to take it and we are all left confused about why that is.

Well, for all their sports games, re-releasing them would mean re-licensing them. That's teams, players, logos, sponsors, etc. Not simple. And then there's all the other games that feature music that would have to be re-licensed. Also not simple and could mean that any of these titles lose their potential profitability.

All of those logos and music they've put in their games throughout the years has come back to bite them in a lot of ways.

And then you're assuming that EA has been diligent backing and storing the source code on many of these old games. Unfortunately based on my experience this is not the case. It's actuallly a pretty common issue in the industry and many re-masters have been bogged down or flat out cancelled because of a lack of access to some or all of the original source code and/or art assets.

EA does publish more than sports titles. But OK. And changing music for licensing reasons is not something foreign to any publisher. Also, this is EA, aren't they like, the biggest game publisher on Earth? If anyone can work through those rather minor hurdles, it is them (although I was not speaking about sports titles because I understand the hell they would be to re-release).

Also, it comes off as... ...a bit strange that the company would be on stage for the first live Switch presentation and announce, "unprecedented support" for Switch and only show one title. Since then they have released (what, like) three footy titles and a game that was already in development for Switch that they picked up publishing late on. It feels a little more personal considering the rather public way Nintendo outed E.A. over the whole Origin service. Not to say the conspiracy theories are true (EA hates Nintendo); rather, that there does seem to be a case for the argument and it is not exactly all, "smoke and mirrors" like some users have implied. Nor is it fiscally irresponsible to release old ports of games like Capcom has (I think Capcom has released more than twenty Switch titles and only one is an actual new title) and make a decent profit while satiating Nintendo and that fanbase. No doubt if Capcom can do it, EA with its much deeper pockets can make it work.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000