We don't want your support EA.
Scisca said:
BS. Check how outstanding the sales of AC3 and CoD:BlOps2 are on Wii U. Why would EA care to waste money and working power on something like that? They have no interest in investing money in the extremely unlikely success of 3rd party games on Wii U. The burden is on Nintendo, they have to PAY developers to get games. They have to shell out that cash they've earned last gen, when they went after the casual gamers and decimated the fanbase interested in regular core 3rd party games. If they don't do that - screw them. Why should other companies waste their hard earned money? So that a handful of Nintendo fanboys can say "we have all games Sony and MS systems have" and don't buy them anyway? A doesn't need to do it. They would be stupid to do it. The current sales of core 3rd party games are so abyssmal, that there really is no guarantee that they would get back the costs of the port, so what do you want from them? This is about business, not about what is fair and ok in your opinion. You say that "lack of interest comes from lack of support, not the other way around" and I say - cool, you're right. But it's Nintendo's business to create that. Just like Sony has been struggling with PS3 in the past and is struggling with Vita right now. Nintendo has to take the financial risk if the want to recreate the core fanbase. EA is fine with MS and Sony platforms, so is everyone else. Nintendo wants a piece of this pie? They have to risk their money, not other companies' money. I mean, c'mon. Porting Crysis to Vita would make more sense financially than a port to Wii U. To me this is a clear signal. EA wanted to be sure they get their share of money out of it and told Nintendo to pay them for the port. Nintendo refused, so EA showed them the door. |
Reasons are pretty self-explanatory : Limited userbase, Console has only been on the market for...wait for it.... 6 weeks, customer already shelling out 349.99$ for the console; consequently, limited budget available.
Why would Nintendo pay EA to port an already multiplatform game to their console? I am baffled.
Vinniegambini said:
No, those are losses incured from July to September known as Q2. That quarter had quite an impressive software release, FIFA and Madden; yet, they posted a loss. It's sad but the business model the industry has been pushing forward have very low profit margins regardless of selling millions of copies. |
I was wrong. What did they invest in to make them lose so much money? What games didn't sell as well as expected? That is a lot of money to lose and to have 2 of their biggest sports games release at that time, is a shame.
Only Nintendo makes money on Nintendo home consoles those days. Look at Wii game sales, top 17 are Nintendo games and 3 dance games from Ubi. Top 50 is mix of Mario, dancing, music, shovel-ware ict... The only games from EA in top 100 are shovel-ware,WiiU situation is shaping similar. 16K of CoO is hardly an success compared to Mario U. ZombiU did ok due to bundles. EA will not put fps on WiiU because it will not sell, they probably rather invest in PS4 and Xbox3 then waste money on WiiU. There will be EA Active U, but Crysis U or Battlefield U? Not a hope.
| Scisca said: BS. Check how outstanding the sales of AC3 and CoD:BlOps2 are on Wii U. Why would EA care to waste money and working power on something like that? They have no interest in investing money in the extremely unlikely success of 3rd party games on Wii U. The burden is on Nintendo, they have to PAY developers to get games. They have to shell out that cash they've earned last gen, when they went after the casual gamers and decimated the fanbase interested in regular core 3rd party games. If they don't do that - screw them. Why should other companies waste their hard earned money? So that a handful of Nintendo fanboys can say "we have all games Sony and MS systems have" and don't buy them anyway? A doesn't need to do it. They would be stupid to do it. The current sales of core 3rd party games are so abyssmal, that there really is no guarantee that they would get back the costs of the port, so what do you want from them? This is about business, not about what is fair and ok in your opinion. You say that "lack of interest comes from lack of support, not the other way around" and I say - cool, you're right. But it's Nintendo's business to create that. Just like Sony has been struggling with PS3 in the past and is struggling with Vita right now. Nintendo has to take the financial risk if the want to recreate the core fanbase. EA is fine with MS and Sony platforms, so is everyone else. Nintendo wants a piece of this pie? They have to risk their money, not other companies' money. I mean, c'mon. Porting Crysis to Vita would make more sense financially than a port to Wii U. To me this is a clear signal. EA wanted to be sure they get their share of money out of it and told Nintendo to pay them for the port. Nintendo refused, so EA showed them the door. |
First of all, there's no way that they only just made the decision - with the game set for release in just a couple of months, you can be confident that it had to be stopped earlier than the Wii U launch. Therefore, the argument that BO2 and AC3 sales are in any way relevant is absurd on one count.
Second of all, AC3 is a late port and BO2 is predominantly played by people who play casually. Furthermore, BO2 is the second-best-selling third-party title on the Wii U (except possibly a few Japanese titles that are lacking VGChartz data), and isn't selling much worse than Call of Duties at previous system launches. Or are we meant to compare sales on the Wii U at launch to sales on a system that has an install base of over 70 million? So the argument that BO2 and AC3 sales are meaningful for the decision is absurd on another count.
Third of all, how are they meant to make a profit on the Wii U if they don't support it first? This is just a propagation of the same ludicrous argument put forward by third parties to justify not putting various games on the Wii - the idea that there was no proof that there was a market for the game. The game makes the market, the market doesn't make the game. You have to put the game on the system to create the market for the game.
And no, the burden is NOT on Nintendo. Nintendo's job is to create a living ecosystem. It's EA's job to create its market within that ecosystem.
By the way, Nintendo has tried creating ecosystems for various genres, specifically, by releasing games within that genre, before. Third parties responded by saying "you can't compete with Nintendo, so we're not going to make a game of that genre".
So here's my challenge to you: explain how Nintendo is meant to get out of this little circle - if Nintendo doesn't release a game of that type on the system, it's "there's no market on the Wii U for our game". If Nintendo does release a game of that type on the system, it's "what, we're meant to compete against Nintendo?" - what's the escape for this setup? What can Nintendo do to convince these third parties to release games on the system? And don't say "money", because you've just said that EA are telling Nintendo that they have to pay JUST TO HAVE A MULTIPLATFORM GAME ON THE SYSTEM. Not an exclusive, a multiplatform game. How does this make any sense, whatsoever?
Seriously, explain it to me.
Godchild1020 said:
|
I really don't know to be quite frank. I'm inclined to think that it is mismanagement and poor investment choices (Star Wars MMO, PopCap games, etc.). Furthermore, the mentality of still having bonuses and receiving millions in bonuses for company CEO's and management is also an incurring cost. When Nintendo posted a loss, Iwata took full responsibility, cut his salary by 67% and the developers at Nintendo took a 20% paycut. Costs-cutting measures were made and one year later after posting a loss, Nintendo will have returned to profitability by March 2013, not bad.
Aielyn said:
First of all, there's no way that they only just made the decision - with the game set for release in just a couple of months, you can be confident that it had to be stopped earlier than the Wii U launch. Therefore, the argument that BO2 and AC3 sales are in any way relevant is absurd on one count. Second of all, AC3 is a late port and BO2 is predominantly played by people who play casually. Furthermore, BO2 is the second-best-selling third-party title on the Wii U (except possibly a few Japanese titles that are lacking VGChartz data), and isn't selling much worse than Call of Duties at previous system launches. Or are we meant to compare sales on the Wii U at launch to sales on a system that has an install base of over 70 million? So the argument that BO2 and AC3 sales are meaningful for the decision is absurd on another count. Third of all, how are they meant to make a profit on the Wii U if they don't support it first? This is just a propagation of the same ludicrous argument put forward by third parties to justify not putting various games on the Wii - the idea that there was no proof that there was a market for the game. The game makes the market, the market doesn't make the game. You have to put the game on the system to create the market for the game. And no, the burden is NOT on Nintendo. Nintendo's job is to create a living ecosystem. It's EA's job to create its market within that ecosystem. By the way, Nintendo has tried creating ecosystems for various genres, specifically, by releasing games within that genre, before. Third parties responded by saying "you can't compete with Nintendo, so we're not going to make a game of that genre". So here's my challenge to you: explain how Nintendo is meant to get out of this little circle - if Nintendo doesn't release a game of that type on the system, it's "there's no market on the Wii U for our game". If Nintendo does release a game of that type on the system, it's "what, we're meant to compete against Nintendo?" - what's the escape for this setup? What can Nintendo do to convince these third parties to release games on the system? And don't say "money", because you've just said that EA are telling Nintendo that they have to pay JUST TO HAVE A MULTIPLATFORM GAME ON THE SYSTEM. Not an exclusive, a multiplatform game. How does this make any sense, whatsoever? Seriously, explain it to me. |
+1
| Aielyn said: Sounds to me like something equivalent to that Operation Rainfall thing needs to be started, targeted at EA. |
Please, just no.
| ocean-1984 said: ... shovel-ware... |
As soon as I saw this, I knew you were full of it.
Shovelware games do not sell well. Ever. If you think that games like Carnival Games are shovelware, then explain why it sold nearly 4 million copies while the 99% of other games similar to it all flopped.
The shovelware games are the games that were heaped onto the system at low cost in the hopes of getting "lucky". Games in the top 100 are games that were properly made and were mostly the "originals" - the games that convinced developers to heap other games that are "similar" to them onto the system. Carnival Games (to stick with this specific instance) was properly made for the Wii, and was released when there was no particular reason to think that there was a market for the game. It flourished, and within about half a year, there was a flood of similar titles. The "half a year" is relevant, by the way.
Indeed, this distinction is a good demonstration of WHY Crysis 3 should be released on the Wii U - because it would create the market, and perform well.
Oh, and by the way everyone, Crysis routinely sells under 1 million copies, according to VGChartz. If the dev costs of the game are high enough to be an issue, then releasing on more platforms should help them to not make a massive loss on the game. If the dev costs are low, there's no harm in releasing the game on the Wii U anyway. So really, the argument that dev costs relative to potential sales are the reason is just plain wrong.
There is definitely some sort of feud going on between Nintendo and EA. I asked Rol about this a few months ago and he gave me the chronology if you will. EA hates Nintendo, so I wouldn't expect much support from them. Even the support thus far has been idiotic (a gimped Madden and an ME3 port when trilogy was being released for other systems - doesn't make much sense).
Still, Wii U owners shouldn't expect a lot of Western 3rd party support at all. I know I don't.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
