I really wish a company other than EA could make NFL and FIFA games. Those two licenses allow EA to get away with all the shit it's pulled over the years.

Do they?  I've not heard that.  

Nintendo games, generally speaking, do not have the mega budgets of AAA multi-plats that've we've all become accustomed too.  As for Sony, they're supporting an ecosystem, so their investment decisions, and the math involved in them, are different than those of most other publishers.  

I'm not interested in defending VG publishers or developers.  I'm simply explaining the reality that many people seem to ignore.  Games exist for one reason only - to make money for the shareholders of the companies involved.  If they can't make money, you and I can't play them.  

I mean, you're getting a game, sure.  But they basically have stated that it will not be the singleplayer story drive adventure game people were hoping, a break for this endless barage of sandbox this and sandbox that and multiplayer, multiplayer, multiplayer!  Instead, their statement indicates it will be gutted and revamped into yet another nebulously structured sandbox or pseudo sandbox game, probably with multiplayer, so that they can cram in their take on "games as a service" (they've said multiple times this concept is priority) which is basically microtransactions, loot boxes, and DLC palooza.  Honestly, with EA's history with so many franchises and the many studio deaths EA has to its name and the reputation they have for constantly overstepping their bounds and meddling with game design, no one is going to give them benefit of the doubt.  And no one should.  

Have you not been reading the thread? Or even the topic post? Or even the thread title?

I reported this thread for trolling EA.
"Another victim of this shitty company" is okay for the mods.

Will use it in the next Sony / Nintendo / MS threads and see what happens.

We can yell at EA, Activision, etc. all we want, but the market is really to blame. You make a single player masterpiece and sell millions, but some cheap game with microtransactions generates 10x the revenue at 1/50th the cost. The people out there who rationalize dumping 100s to 1000s of dollars into a single title because they keep buying loot boxes encourage this behavior.

I'm sad for the industry as an artform, but I cynically get it as a business move.

But at the same time, it can be said that a successful single player game, if well managed, can become a popular franchise that will give them millions in profits over the years, while those cheap games with microtransactions die as soon as their popularity fades, leaving those companies with the task to find the next big thing.

Nintendo model is possible, but requires talent, hardwork and commitment to quality.  Zelda and Mario are among best managed series in gaming history and have my deepest respect.

Ask another company to make "Breath of the Wild" or "Odyssey" and they simply won't be able. Ask them to make another Skinner box game and have it done by next month. 

Nintendo isn't the only company to look after. There are plenty examples out there: Capcom has done a fine job with Monster Hunter, Ubisoft has also managed the Far Cry series pretty well (and they only got into trouble with Assassins Creed because of their greedy manners), Square-Enix with Dragon Quest or the biggest of all: Rockstar with GTA.

I wasn't saying they were, but they are best at it from my perspective and who others follow.  In 30+ years they've watched even great companies mismange once massive series.  It is pretty incredible of them to see massive revenue from a Pokemon Go and still insist on making a quality new Pokemon game on Switch.  Most companies don't think about ten years down the road, they think about next quarter or maybe end of fiscal year.