By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - EA “exploring other products” for Switch, has to consider “player differences”

routsounmanman on 20 June 2017
V-r0cK said:
routsounmanman said:

In your magical dream world, you can obviously house XBone or PS4 hardware within a tablet? I swear people deliberately forget that Switch is a handheld; or at least a hybrid.

BraLoD is correct.  

Who told Nintendo to make a tablet/hybrid to begin with?  I swear people deliberately forget that Nintendo has the decision to make a system equal or greater than their competitors.

This is nothing more than the result of Nintendo's decision, which anybody could've seen a mile away, when making a significally weaker console than the competitors in which developers are more accustomed to.

Actually, they cannot. MS and Sony go on an arms race, often taking heavy losses as they drop prices and sell at a loss. They use money from other divisions to fund their gaming deficits. Nintendo simply cannot do it, as they are a much smaller company.



My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio

Around the Network
Mnementh on 20 June 2017
Teeqoz said:
Mnementh said:

They were?

No, this doesn't work if you release one old port or something. The players that like EA-portfolio will get a console, if itgets all or most games, not if it gets one old port. There measure in a lot of expectations though. Players at this point expect to have all EA-games on Sony and no serious EA-support on Nintendo. But generally: if they release major parts of their portfolio, many gamers will lose their doubts.

Speaking of expectations: based on their stellar support of the 3DS I expected more from Atlus for Switch than this one SMT-announcement. If they not reinforce the trust of the gamers somewhere down the line, Atlus might lose potential on the Switch.

But EA has nothing to gain by splitting their fanbase. Heck, the ideal situation for EA would be if everyone who bought there games were on the same console - that way they could lower developing costs.

It doesn't make sense to release multiple games for a system, if all it does is move the already existing fanbase from one platform to the other, while at the same time costing more to develop. For it to make sense for EA, there has to be potential to expand the fanbase substantially enough.

I agree actually. But EA could just say it: we hate multiple platforms and choices, so we want to reduce them. Oh wait, probably it's better they don't say it out loud.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Rem87919394 on 20 June 2017
Goodnightmoon said:
V-r0cK said:

BraLoD is correct.  

Who told Nintendo to make a tablet/hybrid to begin with?  I swear people deliberately forget that Nintendo has the decision to make a system equal or greater than their competitors.

This is nothing more than the result of Nintendo's decision, which anybody could've seen a mile away, when making a significally weaker console than the competitors in which developers are more accustomed to.

You guys cannot be more simple sometimes, feels like your argument about everything is always the same, powah. Nintendo not taking the decision of making another generic third party box is what is gonna make Switch a huge success to begging with, so that was undoubtly the right decision. 

The user that complained about a downgraded port wasn't talking about graphics so all this converstaion about "blame them for the weaker hardware" is pretty out of place.

We're simple yet you're the simple ones constantly complaining about 3rd party ports being worse😂😂😂



JEMC on 20 June 2017

And that's the reason EA will fail with the Switch. Seriously, people bought the Switch to play games, not to play gimped versions of the games they want to play.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Goodnightmoon on 20 June 2017
DonFerrari said:

Goodnightmoon said:

You guys cannot be more simple sometimes, feels like your argument about everything is always the same, powah. Nintendo not taking the decision of making another generic third party box is what is gonna make Switch a huge success to begging with, so that was undoubtly the right decision. 

The user that complained about a downgraded port wasn't talking about graphics so all this converstaion about "blame them for the weaker hardware" is pretty out of place.

To both... Fifa 14 on consoles launch had a missing feature on PS4 and PS4 were always the main seller of the game... and even with a gimped port it outsold X1 version... so stop with all the excuses for not buying 3rd party content on Nintendo and still demanding more to be released and not sold. Because we all hear how Nintendo is the best that there is and that no 3rd party is competent and how all their games are bad and generic. So why do you want them?

I'm not making excuses, Fifa 2018 on Switch will be the best portable soccer experience ever, the missing feature wouldn't stop me if I was interested, I just don't like most realistic sport games at all so I don't care, but in this case I was just pointing that all that conversation about blaming Nintendo for the "downgraded" port is stupid, cause nobody was talking about graphics or anything related with the tech, just a missing feature.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 20 June 2017
routsounmanman said:
V-r0cK said:

BraLoD is correct.  

Who told Nintendo to make a tablet/hybrid to begin with?  I swear people deliberately forget that Nintendo has the decision to make a system equal or greater than their competitors.

This is nothing more than the result of Nintendo's decision, which anybody could've seen a mile away, when making a significally weaker console than the competitors in which developers are more accustomed to.

Actually, they cannot. MS and Sony go on an arms race, often taking heavy losses as they drop prices and sell at a loss. They use money from other divisions to fund their gaming deficits. Nintendo simply cannot do it, as they are a much smaller company.

Curiously I always hear how much better Nintendo is financially than Sony... and funnier than that PS4 were released making profit on 1SW and PSN+ sold together... and less than 6 months after the HW was breaking even alone.

Goodnightmoon said:
DonFerrari said:

To both... Fifa 14 on consoles launch had a missing feature on PS4 and PS4 were always the main seller of the game... and even with a gimped port it outsold X1 version... so stop with all the excuses for not buying 3rd party content on Nintendo and still demanding more to be released and not sold. Because we all hear how Nintendo is the best that there is and that no 3rd party is competent and how all their games are bad and generic. So why do you want them?

I'm not making excuses, Fifa 2018 on Switch will be the best portable soccer experience ever, the missing feature won't stop me if I was interested, I just don't like most realistic sport games at all so I don't care, but in this case I was just pointing that all that conversation about blaming Nintendo for the "downgraded" port is stupid, cause nobody was talking about graphics or anything related with the tech, just a missing feature.

Other consoles had gimped ports with missing features and there weren't breakdowns and poor sales.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Goodnightmoon on 20 June 2017
Rem87919394 said:
Goodnightmoon said:

You guys cannot be more simple sometimes, feels like your argument about everything is always the same, powah. Nintendo not taking the decision of making another generic third party box is what is gonna make Switch a huge success to begging with, so that was undoubtly the right decision. 

The user that complained about a downgraded port wasn't talking about graphics so all this converstaion about "blame them for the weaker hardware" is pretty out of place.

We're simple yet you're the simple ones constantly complaining about 3rd party ports being worse😂😂😂

 I wasn't the one complaining about the port, you know?



routsounmanman on 20 June 2017
DonFerrari said:
routsounmanman said:

Actually, they cannot. MS and Sony go on an arms race, often taking heavy losses as they drop prices and sell at a loss. They use money from other divisions to fund their gaming deficits. Nintendo simply cannot do it, as they are a much smaller company.

Curiously I always hear how much better Nintendo is financially than Sony... and funnier than that PS4 were released making profit on 1SW and PSN+ sold together... and less than 6 months after the HW was breaking even alone.

They are more fincancially stable than Sony, precicely because they're being cautious. And do you know what happened during the (early) PS3 days to Sony? Huge amounts of losses for an extended amount of time. If that were to happen to Nintendo, lights out.



My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio

Jumpin on 20 June 2017

Honestly, I don't think EA makes anything that Nintendo fans generally find interesting.

They're for a different kind of gamer.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

DonFerrari on 20 June 2017
routsounmanman said:
DonFerrari said:

Curiously I always hear how much better Nintendo is financially than Sony... and funnier than that PS4 were released making profit on 1SW and PSN+ sold together... and less than 6 months after the HW was breaking even alone.

They are more fincancially stable than Sony, precicely because they're being cautious. And do you know what happened during the (early) PS3 days to Sony? Huge amounts of losses for an extended amount of time. If that were to happen to Nintendo, lights out.

From what I know PS3 lost about 6B on the first 3 years and I also heard that Nintendo had more than this as cash. So we don't need to excuse Nintendo on being the one that gambles the less, they may make the more different HW, but they are the ones that puts less weight and finnancial commitment out of the 3. MS alone put 3B only to buy mohjang.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."