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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - EA is not committed to Switch, they don't understand the Switch market yet.

DonFerrari on 02 November 2017
Flilix said:
DonFerrari said:

I believe in that, and then the consoles 3rd parties that do those type of games should launch their game on Switch because of reasons?

So again my point come back to "Switch as portable is better than a console, because Nintendo made it"

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're statement was 'This gen they all like everything portable, because Switch is now hybrid.', which isn't true (at least, not for me). I'm not interested in Playstation, but if I would get one, I'd definitely take the Vita over PS4.

That is exactly my point. PSVita already had the console games on a portable platform and was a failure. Nintendo is doing and now is the best thing ever for the Nintendo userbase. A lot of people put the reason to own Switch as to play console games on the go, but it actually is to play Nintendo games on the go.

burninmylight said:
DonFerrari said:

And PSVita isn't?

I'm sure it is, but most of us have never had one. But 3DS sure is a sweet piece of work though! I have no idea why you talk about portable gaming without talking about the 3DS.

I have no idea what you're trying to say or prove for that other stuff you typed, so I'm not going to reply to it.

You know why, because 3DS wasn't trying to be the console games portable, while PSVita was. PSvita was shunned while now Switch is adored. So the point that it is good because it is Nintendo stand.

Pagan said:
_Dog said:

Would you have done the same for the PS4 and Xbox One when they launched? Be honest.

You dont need as much manpower for ps/xbox as for the switch. As a switch owner i want ea support but if i would be on ea's position, i wouldnt invest until a 20m base or at least a revision of the switch.

PS4 and Xbox One were coming from PS3 and X1 that come from PS2 and Xbox.... all of them they had success on Fifa even on the small userbase. So if they decided not to launch a Fifa on the new console it would seem strange... And guess what they launched Fifa on Switch and it bombed, so there you go.

DarthMetalliCube said:

What is with these guys? They are so clueless. They were way late on the NES train and weren't really much of a presence on the Wii either. Are they opposed to money or something? 

Don't understand the market? What kind of a dumbass excuse is that? They're gamers. They aren't from Mars.. Just make/publish quality freaking games. I think don't think we can resort to "teh cazualz!" excuse any longer based on the Switch's library, and the console is obviously poised to have a very large and diverse userbase, so chances are you'll get some sales regardless of WHAT you make.. I suppose I shouldn't expect such a souless corporate entity in gaming to understand a company like Nintendo and its base though. 

So are we under the impression that 3rd parties does as good on Nintendo as they do on Xbox and Playstation? Or is it that Xbox and Playstation buy games without quality?

Why should EA makes games targeting specifically Nintendo fanbase and lose the other 100M fanbase of Xbox and PS4?



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."

Around the Network
Slarvax on 02 November 2017
Lonely_Dolphin said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
EA only made Fifa due to contract. They never had plans beyond that title.

Not that I don't believe it but what contract?

Apparently they have to release at least 1 FIFA game on every platform. I remember reading about it a long time ago.



Bet with bluedawgs: I say Switch will outsell PS4 in 2018, he says PS4 will outsell Switch. He's now permabanned, but the bet will remain in my sig.

NNID: Slarvax - Steam: Slarvax - Friend Code:  SW 7885-0552-5988

burninmylight on 02 November 2017
DonFerrari said:
Flilix said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're statement was 'This gen they all like everything portable, because Switch is now hybrid.', which isn't true (at least, not for me). I'm not interested in Playstation, but if I would get one, I'd definitely take the Vita over PS4.

That is exactly my point. PSVita already had the console games on a portable platform and was a failure. Nintendo is doing and now is the best thing ever for the Nintendo userbase. A lot of people put the reason to own Switch as to play console games on the go, but it actually is to play Nintendo games on the go.

burninmylight said:

I'm sure it is, but most of us have never had one. But 3DS sure is a sweet piece of work though! I have no idea why you talk about portable gaming without talking about the 3DS.

I have no idea what you're trying to say or prove for that other stuff you typed, so I'm not going to reply to it.

You know why, because 3DS wasn't trying to be the console games portable, while PSVita was. PSvita was shunned while now Switch is adored. So the point that it is good because it is Nintendo stand.

That's far from the reason that the Vita failed and the 3DS thrived. I'm sure you know what they are, so I'm not going to waste time listing them. But just to indulge you, why would the 3DS try to be the "console games portable" when the Wii and Wii U existed? And are you denying that it didn't have console games on the go, like Xenoblade Chronicles, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Smash, Metal Gear Solid 3, Resident Evil: Revelations and plenty of other games that either existed on home consoles or would have worked just fine on them?

I never did like the "Vita tried to be a like a home console so it failed, 3DS didn't so it succeeded" argument. This isn't the original Game Boy days, where there was a thick line of demarcation between what you could expect on a  home console and portable system. If a portable has good games that people want and comes with the right price, people will get it.



DonFerrari on 02 November 2017
burninmylight said:
DonFerrari said:

That is exactly my point. PSVita already had the console games on a portable platform and was a failure. Nintendo is doing and now is the best thing ever for the Nintendo userbase. A lot of people put the reason to own Switch as to play console games on the go, but it actually is to play Nintendo games on the go.

You know why, because 3DS wasn't trying to be the console games portable, while PSVita was. PSvita was shunned while now Switch is adored. So the point that it is good because it is Nintendo stand.

That's far from the reason that the Vita failed and the 3DS thrived. I'm sure you know what they are, so I'm not going to waste time listing them. But just to indulge you, why would the 3DS try to be the "console games portable" when the Wii and Wii U existed? And are you denying that it didn't have console games on the go, like Xenoblade Chronicles, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Smash, Metal Gear Solid 3, Resident Evil: Revelations and plenty of other games that either existed on home consoles or would have worked just fine on them?

I never did like the "Vita tried to be a like a home console so it failed, 3DS didn't so it succeeded" argument. This isn't the original Game Boy days, where there was a thick line of demarcation between what you could expect on a  home console and portable system. If a portable has good games that people want and comes with the right price, people will get it.

If the console games on the go isn't what made PSVita fail, then it also isn't what makes the Switch succeed, period.

Switch is thriving because it is a Nintendo Handheld (yes we can call it a hybrid and that it play on TV), but most here want it for portability. So it isn't thriving because it is a console being portable.



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."

burninmylight on 02 November 2017
DonFerrari said:
burninmylight said:

That's far from the reason that the Vita failed and the 3DS thrived. I'm sure you know what they are, so I'm not going to waste time listing them. But just to indulge you, why would the 3DS try to be the "console games portable" when the Wii and Wii U existed? And are you denying that it didn't have console games on the go, like Xenoblade Chronicles, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Smash, Metal Gear Solid 3, Resident Evil: Revelations and plenty of other games that either existed on home consoles or would have worked just fine on them?

I never did like the "Vita tried to be a like a home console so it failed, 3DS didn't so it succeeded" argument. This isn't the original Game Boy days, where there was a thick line of demarcation between what you could expect on a  home console and portable system. If a portable has good games that people want and comes with the right price, people will get it.

If the console games on the go isn't what made PSVita fail, then it also isn't what makes the Switch succeed, period.

Switch is thriving because it is a Nintendo Handheld (yes we can call it a hybrid and that it play on TV), but most here want it for portability. So it isn't thriving because it is a console being portable.

I'm pretty sure Breath of the Wild, Splatoon and Mario Odyssey are making the Switch succeed like a mo-fo. They also happen to be console games.

Again, I don't  understand the point you're trying to make comparing the Vita to the Switch. I don't see why you should compare anything to the Switch. Because every time you try to compare them as handhelds, you're going to get reminded that the Switch is also a console in some people's eyes. Every time you try to compare it to a console, you're going to get reminded that some see it as a portable. And most people see it the way it was intended to be, a hybrid. And everyone is correct. Stop wasting your time trying to give reasons for its success with outdated notions of whether its a portable or not and recognize that it is home to some highly rated, highly anticipated games, with more to come.

You might also want to take a look at this:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=232578



Around the Network
fedfed on 02 November 2017

what do they make?



Switch!!!

Alkibiádēs on 02 November 2017
DonFerrari said:
burninmylight said:

That's far from the reason that the Vita failed and the 3DS thrived. I'm sure you know what they are, so I'm not going to waste time listing them. But just to indulge you, why would the 3DS try to be the "console games portable" when the Wii and Wii U existed? And are you denying that it didn't have console games on the go, like Xenoblade Chronicles, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Smash, Metal Gear Solid 3, Resident Evil: Revelations and plenty of other games that either existed on home consoles or would have worked just fine on them?

I never did like the "Vita tried to be a like a home console so it failed, 3DS didn't so it succeeded" argument. This isn't the original Game Boy days, where there was a thick line of demarcation between what you could expect on a  home console and portable system. If a portable has good games that people want and comes with the right price, people will get it.

If the console games on the go isn't what made PSVita fail, then it also isn't what makes the Switch succeed, period.

Switch is thriving because it is a Nintendo Handheld (yes we can call it a hybrid and that it play on TV), but most here want it for portability. So it isn't thriving because it is a console being portable.

Compare the Switch's first year on the market with that of the Playstation Vita and you'll see why the Vita failed and the Switch didn't. 



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Jumpin on 02 November 2017
mZuzek said:
Jumpin said:

They changed their mind with the Wii U at some point. But thetre was a point when they were going to go all out supporting it because they believed in it. Then with the Switch,and now they don't believe in it.

That was more PR bullshit than ever actual support. They released plenty of games at launch, and that was that.

Because they changed their mind after they saw Wii U. If EA wasn't planning to support the Wii U at first, then why have any PR at all? It's not like they gain anything from positive PR about consoles they have no intention to support, and they certainly have nothing to gain from putting games on those consoles. They definitely blundered with the Wii U, and lost a lot of money for believing in the console.

Now they're blundering again with the Switch, and are missing out on a lot of money for not believing in it.

 

EA is a company with terrible judgment. Bethesda looks like one with much better instincts.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

StuOhQ on 02 November 2017

The reason FIFA didn't do well on the Switch is that the market isn't built yet. Bethesda seems to understand that they are creating a place in the Nintendo ecosystem for themselves by releasing multiple titles from different genres over the course of six months or so.

If none of their first three games make any money, they might exit as well. But their commitment (and the fact that their games actually interest more Switch owners) will hopefully pay off in a big way for them.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Podings on 02 November 2017

EA isn't in the business of making games for people that like video games anymore.

Just like how many movie producers really aren't in the business of making movies for people that like film as a medium.