EA deserves this heat. Its pathetic and they shouldn't be trying to get Nintendo to leave the business.
That's all there is to it.
Sal.Paradise said:
I've poured this whole post through a fine sieve, and the only actual reasoning I can find that you've put forward as to why your dislike of EA is rational, as separated from just the pure hatred and the name calling, is the line "frostbyte works on PS360 but not on Wii U? No. That is a baldfaced lie". Thing is they never said that, the guy just said the results of testing the engine were 'not too promising'. So, this post really is just a continuation of your baseless hatred that I've grown accustomed to seeing from you in every EA thread. (I particularly like the insinuation of just how many people not on your side of the argument must be anti-nintendo fanboys.) Hopefully this really is the last time you comment on the issue, because what you post on this topic is mostly toxic and I think reflects poorly on Wii U fans and those with legitimate gripes against EA. |
Fact: The Wii U is more powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360
Fact: Frostbite 3 games are going to PS3 and Xbox 360
"Not too promising" means precisely what, now? If they port the engine now, and support it with games (and not the gimped excuses for games they've tried so far), it will certainly be wortwhile financially, especially with more universally beloved properties like Star Wars in the mix. It is not a question of power, so it is a question of, what, precisely?
And i'm not insinuating anything. I am stating, as an additional fact, that many of the EA-defenders are using this to further their anti-Nintendo agenda. Not all, of course, some people honestly buy into it, which makes me kind of sad. But those I am calling out here, You know who you are, we all do. So stop it.
And this, indeed, will be my final post on the matter.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
| pokoko said: EA is a business that has chosen to invest their resources in one direction and not another. That's the bottom line. As those resources are EA's to invest, they get to make the decision on that. Not gamers. Not bloggers. Not forum-goers. This is the same for any business that has finite resources, and it's obvious that EA is trying to streamline the process of where their resources are spent in order to maximize efficiency. If you only had a certain amount to invest, wouldn't you try to invest where you get the greatest return? Sometimes when reading these forums, I have to step back and remember that not everyone has business experience. I read people talking about expensive investments as though these companies use free Monopoly money that they can just print out at will. "Oh, it doesn't cost anything else to make a Wii U version, they've already got the PS3 and 360 versions!" It kind of blows my mind that people think that, as though these games are made by a couple of guys working for minimum wage who can knock out a port in a couple of days. I know with the Vita, it kind of gets frustrating when certain companies don't develop for it. Do I think they're making a mistake by not working to help build an alternative market? Yes. Do I think Vita gamers are hungry for content and that the Vita represents a "blue ocean"? Absolutely. Am I mad that these companies aren't willing to invest in the game system that I like a lot? No, I'm not. They can do as they wish with their money, even if I believe they should rethink their position. I've got to say, a lot of the rage I see directed at EA seems kind of childish. |
Then why they decided to launch Mass Effect 3 while Mass Effect trilogy on other platforms? Or FIFA with missing features? Were those good business decisions? No they weren't. They could have simple not launch any game for the Wii U from the beginning or simple release the Mass Effect Trilogy for the Wii U, there was no excuse for EA not to launch the that game for the system.
We Nintendo fans are mad because they are talking about this "unprecedented" support and that their relations with Nintendo are still good, which is complete BS. Something most have happen between the two, whatever happen will be just speculation. EA could end all this flaming by just saying "with are not supporting the Wii U because of business decisions" or "we currently have problems with our partnership with Nintendo" and not blame the power of system or any other shenanigans.
Nintendo and PC gamer
RolStoppable said:
See, this is exactly what many Nintendo fans on these forums have been saying weeks before the Wii U launch. All the signs that EA set up these games for failure were there before release, so it was clear that EA's games would do terribly. Consequently, these poor sales would then be used by EA as justification to pull Wii U support and forum members around here would jump to EA's defense and say that it is a logical business decision to pull support. But where have you guys been when the Mass Effect Trilogy was announced for the other systems or when it was announced that the sports games would be missing features? Do you guys believe that those were smart decisions by EA or do you think that those were hilariously bad decisions by EA, if they wanted their games to succeed? I mean, it's pretty obvious that a trilogy for $60 is a much more attractive offer than $60 for a single game. The most disappointing thing is that you, JayWood2010, concede that EA's games weren't up to par, yet defend EA for it. You picked the wrong side. If the unbiased gamer is confronted with a choice between gamers or companies, then he doesn't have to think twice which side he belongs to. |
Yes I do, money-wise.
I don't think the cost of porting three whole games over for the ME trilogy on Wii U instead of just one would have been recompensed by the small increase in sales that would have resulted.
And as far as their sports titles having features missing on new hardware; they always do, and getting the game out earlier was probably a smarter thing to do sales-wise than delay it past holiday-season and miss out on the holiday sales rush. (it was released on Wii U late-Novemeber, correct?).
Of course, the smarter decision on EA's part may have been to never release the above games and focus those resources somewhere else instead.
| Machiavellian said: people do not purchase Nintendo systems to play 3rd party games. |
Wrong. Lets use VGChartz numbers.
~460 Million 3rd party games sold on Wii.
~440 Million 3rd party games sold on DS.
~900 Million 3rd party games sold on Nintendo platforms for the generation.
__________________
~548 Million 3rd party games sold on PS3.
~230 Million 3rd party games sold on PSP.
~778 Million 3rd party games sold on Sony platforms for the generation.
__________________
~609 Million 3rd party games sold on X360.
__________________
As you can see, consumers bought plenty of 3rd party games on Nintendo platforms 
Carl2291 said:
Wrong. Lets use VGChartz numbers. ~460 Million 3rd party games sold on Wii. ~440 Million 3rd party games sold on DS. ~900 Million 3rd party games sold on Nintendo platforms for the generation. ~548 Million 3rd party games sold on PS3. ~230 Million 3rd party games sold on PSP. ~778 Million 3rd party games sold on Sony platforms for the generation. ~609 Million 3rd party games sold on X360. As you can see, consumers bought plenty of 3rd party games on Nintendo platforms |
Very good observation. It's also not true by a fair margin that Nintendo sells more games on their platforms than 3rd party devs, on the Wii and DS Nintendo-published games "only" account for ~40% of all sold SW (likely even less since VGChartz doesn't track most of the shovelware)
| KHlover said: Either the tracking here on VGChartz is terrible or EA did only release Sport games on the WiiU...yeah, maybe they would have sold some games if they actually released them... |
Search under "Electronic Arts" instead.
Mr Khan said:
Fact: The Wii U is more powerful than PS3 and Xbox 360 Fact: Frostbite 3 games are going to PS3 and Xbox 360 "Not too promising" means precisely what, now? If they port the engine now, and support it with games (and not the gimped excuses for games they've tried so far), it will certainly be wortwhile financially, especially with more universally beloved properties like Star Wars in the mix. It is not a question of power, so it is a question of, what, precisely? And i'm not insinuating anything. I am stating, as an additional fact, that many of the EA-defenders are using this to further their anti-Nintendo agenda. Not all, of course, some people honestly buy into it, which makes me kind of sad. But those I am calling out here, You know who you are, we all do. So stop it. And this, indeed, will be my final post on the matter. |
Not too promising means; not too promising. Probably means they'd have to invest significant time to make it run at a level they find acceptable, time that they're not willing to put in based on the projected returns.
But that's speculation; what I can say for sure is that they didn't say that Frostbite doesn't work on Wii U, which is what you were trying to claim to justify your hatred.
As for your comment 'it will certinaly be worthwhile financially', I don't think you can argue this. Remember, and I think explained this in detail to you before a while ago in a GTA V on Wii U thread, the question for third parties isn't simply 'will the project be profitable', it is 'will the project be more profitable than if we had decided to allocate the same resources elsewhere'.
Oh and, no matter how many times you paint people with a large brush as being anti-this or anti-that and try to intimidate them into not posting, they won't 'stop' saying something you don't like simply because you tell them to, if it doesn't break any rules. No, not even when you're a mod.
| KHlover said: Wasn't the number $1.000.000 for a WiiU port thrown around by Ubisoft? If it is correct even 60.000 copies would be enough to make a (small) profit off the port even if the publisher should only receive $20 of the $60 the consumer pays (does anyone have the real number?). |
You don't have to take my word for this if you don't believe me, but the number was $1.2 million and using Barozi's pie-chart of breakdown of a $60 game, it was ~50k copies to break even from that.
If you need to see it I'll have to dig through my old posts to find it.
The problem for EA at the moment is, they're not even hitting that 50k figure to break even; let alone make a profit which is the goal.
| dharh said: People are mad at EA cause they are making shit games left and right. The trail of EA is littered with the dead bodies of prior consumed game studios. Also, no game developer that does not want to create new style games that use the gamepad gives a shit about the WiiU. Currently many studios want to make traditional games, which most would deem useless to attempt to make on the WiiU. How many WiiU owners want to play Madden on the WiiU when it doesn't have any extras that use the gamepad? Next to none I'll bet. |
Poor Madden support for gamepad, chalk one up for EA, right?
| Sal.Paradise said:
Yes I do, money-wise. I don't think the cost of porting three whole games over for the ME trilogy on Wii U instead of just one would have been recompensed by the small increase in sales that would have resulted. And as far as their sports titles having features missing on new hardware; they always do, and getting the game out earlier was probably a smarter thing to do sales-wise than delay it past holiday-season and miss out on the holiday sales rush. (it was released on Wii U late-Novemeber, correct?). Of course, the smarter decision on EA's part may have been to never release the above games and focus those resources somewhere else instead. |
@bold. That's the key
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
