Quantcast
Locked: Why does E.A have issue with Nintendo still

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why does E.A have issue with Nintendo still

KrspaceT said:
NPD released data on the best selling/best revenue generating titles in the US that are third party on the switch up to May.

I've heard some talk that Bethesda title counts are off due to lacking digital, but regardless of that here is what there is there.

https://nintendoeverything.com/best-selling-third-party-games-for-switch/

1 – Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle
2 – Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy
3 – Diablo III: Eternal Collection
4 – Just Dance 2019
5 – Just Dance 2018
6 – LEGO Marvel Super Heroes 2
7 – LEGO The Incredibles
8 – NBA 2K18
9 – Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate
10 – FIFA 18

10th best selling in the most important region for games overall, if not FIFA specifically, and it isn't good enough to get proper support...though it does give me a bit more context for why it feels like Activision has been stepping up support since Crash and it's single developer over a weekend porting a level.

(Hope that guy got a raise for it...)

It's more surprising considering it's a Football game, which isn't really popular in N.A. than it is in the rest of the world, which says it a lot



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

Around the Network

EA is one company in which I do not care if they support the Switch or not. I have a ps4 and don't own a single EA game for it. EA could release free games on the Switch and I still wouldn't care. I simply don't like their games. The last "EA" game I loved was Dead Space, but that was really Visceral and EA proceeded to kill Visceral.



potato_hamster said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

This would make more sense if the people here were debating bringing only new games to the console but most here are completely lost on why EA wouldn't bring their 16-bit and other classic titles to the console (or even E-shop back on Wii and WiiU). To not bring the newest and biggest is one thing that many can go back and forth on forever because some people will ignorantly back a company and some will ignorantly attack said company. However, I do not think anyone can argue that not bringing their older titles to Switch, even if only to make a quick and easy buck and never bring the newest content to Switch, makes absolutely no sense.

EA is missing out on cheap to produce titles making them a healthy return - even if that return is only to fund their next big Playstation and XBOX titles. Capcom has done this and look at their success with Switch. Why EA would not see that business model and (in the case of Switch specifically) do the same is a question that nobody can accurately nail down. And to many people, it screams that the relationship has soured on a more personal level - considering EA have a marketing team and upper management that gets paid to know exactly how well other companies are doing, what they are doing, and how they are doing it. EA knows that can be a successful revenue stream (the business model has been laid before them) yet they refuse to take it and we are all left confused about why that is.

Well, for all their sports games, re-releasing them would mean re-licensing them. That's teams, players, logos, sponsors, etc. Not simple. And then there's all the other games that feature music that would have to be re-licensed. Also not simple and could mean that any of these titles lose their potential profitability.

All of those logos and music they've put in their games throughout the years has come back to bite them in a lot of ways.

And then you're assuming that EA has been diligent backing and storing the source code on many of these old games. Unfortunately based on my experience this is not the case. It's actuallly a pretty common issue in the industry and many re-masters have been bogged down or flat out cancelled because of a lack of access to some or all of the original source code and/or art assets.

EA does publish more than sports titles. But OK. And changing music for licensing reasons is not something foreign to any publisher. Also, this is EA, aren't they like, the biggest game publisher on Earth? If anyone can work through those rather minor hurdles, it is them (although I was not speaking about sports titles because I understand the hell they would be to re-release).

Also, it comes off as... ...a bit strange that the company would be on stage for the first live Switch presentation and announce, "unprecedented support" for Switch and only show one title. Since then they have released (what, like) three footy titles and a game that was already in development for Switch that they picked up publishing late on. It feels a little more personal considering the rather public way Nintendo outed E.A. over the whole Origin service. Not to say the conspiracy theories are true (EA hates Nintendo); rather, that there does seem to be a case for the argument and it is not exactly all, "smoke and mirrors" like some users have implied. Nor is it fiscally irresponsible to release old ports of games like Capcom has (I think Capcom has released more than twenty Switch titles and only one is an actual new title) and make a decent profit while satiating Nintendo and that fanbase. No doubt if Capcom can do it, EA with its much deeper pockets can make it work.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

GhaudePhaede010 said:
potato_hamster said:

Well, for all their sports games, re-releasing them would mean re-licensing them. That's teams, players, logos, sponsors, etc. Not simple. And then there's all the other games that feature music that would have to be re-licensed. Also not simple and could mean that any of these titles lose their potential profitability.

All of those logos and music they've put in their games throughout the years has come back to bite them in a lot of ways.

And then you're assuming that EA has been diligent backing and storing the source code on many of these old games. Unfortunately based on my experience this is not the case. It's actuallly a pretty common issue in the industry and many re-masters have been bogged down or flat out cancelled because of a lack of access to some or all of the original source code and/or art assets.

EA does publish more than sports titles. But OK. And changing music for licensing reasons is not something foreign to any publisher. Also, this is EA, aren't they like, the biggest game publisher on Earth? If anyone can work through those rather minor hurdles, it is them (although I was not speaking about sports titles because I understand the hell they would be to re-release).

Also, it comes off as... ...a bit strange that the company would be on stage for the first live Switch presentation and announce, "unprecedented support" for Switch and only show one title. Since then they have released (what, like) three footy titles and a game that was already in development for Switch that they picked up publishing late on. It feels a little more personal considering the rather public way Nintendo outed E.A. over the whole Origin service. Not to say the conspiracy theories are true (EA hates Nintendo); rather, that there does seem to be a case for the argument and it is not exactly all, "smoke and mirrors" like some users have implied. Nor is it fiscally irresponsible to release old ports of games like Capcom has (I think Capcom has released more than twenty Switch titles and only one is an actual new title) and make a decent profit while satiating Nintendo and that fanbase. No doubt if Capcom can do it, EA with its much deeper pockets can make it work.

Unprecedented support was for the Wii U but after their first ports most of them questionable (except NFS Most Wanted U) and none of them selling they quickly abandoned ship.  Not blaming them on that one completely but to sell ME3 to Wii U owners when releasing trilogy on other systems is a wtf moment.  I wouldn't even blame them for not supporting Switch at first with wait and see attitude.  Now there is no excuse except they just don't give a shit.

Going back to classic titles.  Hell I'm sure they could have released Road Rash 2, Desert Strike, Jungle Strike, General Chaos and many more 16 bit titles on the Wii VC and made some decent dollars with minimum effort.  The fact they released zero VC titles on Wii which sold gangbusters says something.  Least they did a copy of NBA Jam on Wii which was supposed to be exclusive and charge high price for Wii version then they went and dropped it on PS3 and 360 as download title for half price.  Picked my copy up used on Wii.



potato_hamster said:
It amazes me how many people think how unimportant real, signifcant third party support from companies like EA is for long-term success of a console's life.

Yes I know, "Fuck EA, they're cancer, worst company in America"... EA brings in $5 billion a year. That's an enormous consumer base. Their games matter to the gaming community whether you like it or not.

There are millions of people out there that won't consider a console that doesn't have games like Call of Duty, Madden, Grand Theft Auto, and Assassin's Creed. How many Switches could Nintendo sell if they had these franchises on their platform?

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

You're right that EA games absolutely do matter and are a very big part of the gaming community but overall they have had very little relevance to the Nintendo fanbase for 30+ years.

Wii U literally launched with 3 of those 4 franchises you listed and went on to be their worst selling console ever, now obviously those games didnt cause it to fail but they certainly didnt help it in any meaningful way.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

You could make the argument that Nintendo needed those games 20+ years ago to prevent Playstation/Xbox from gaining such a strong foothold but that type of software is synonymous with those brands at this point.

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc do not need Nintendo to make their AAA titles succeed and Nintendo does not need those AAA titles to make their platforms succeed, its really as simple as that.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

Around the Network
zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:
It amazes me how many people think how unimportant real, signifcant third party support from companies like EA is for long-term success of a console's life.

Yes I know, "Fuck EA, they're cancer, worst company in America"... EA brings in $5 billion a year. That's an enormous consumer base. Their games matter to the gaming community whether you like it or not.

There are millions of people out there that won't consider a console that doesn't have games like Call of Duty, Madden, Grand Theft Auto, and Assassin's Creed. How many Switches could Nintendo sell if they had these franchises on their platform?

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

You're right that EA games absolutely do matter and are a very big part of the gaming community but overall they have had very little relevance to the Nintendo fanbase for 30+ years.

Wii U literally launched with 3 of those 4 franchises you listed and went on to be their worst selling console ever, now obviously those games didnt cause it to fail but they certainly didnt help it in any meaningful way.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

You could make the argument that Nintendo needed those games 20+ years ago to prevent Playstation/Xbox from gaining such a strong foothold but that type of software is synonymous with those brands at this point.

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc do not need Nintendo to make their AAA titles succeed and Nintendo does not need those AAA titles to make their platforms succeed, its really as simple as that.

Thank you.

It baffles me that people still think Nintendo needs Western AAA multiplats to succeed. The Switch is one of the fastest selling systems of all time and it's doing so without EA, without COD, without Assassin's Creed, without most of the big Western blockbusters. Most Switch owners have a PS4/Xbone to play those games on.



zorg1000 said:

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

Eh, Wii U multiplats were barely any better than their PS360 counterparts, but now we have this handheld mode with Switch, so Nintendo can get away with this. People get excited because X game is now playable on the go, that turned the table.

OP- I guess the fact that EA is pushing graphic in their games hard, is the biggest factor here.



KingofTrolls said:
zorg1000 said:

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

Eh, Wii U multiplats were barely any better than their PS360 counterparts, but now we have this handheld mode with Switch, so Nintendo can get away with this. People get excited because X game is now playable on the go, that turned the table.

OP- I guess the fact that EA is pushing graphic in their games hard, is the biggest factor here.

What is hard to understand that Nintendo games sell Nintendo systems.  Sure Sony and Microsoft depend on third party.  Nintendo has been doing it's own thing since Wii/DS era.  Would I like AAA third party games on Nintendo systems ?  Sure.  But I am going to buy a Nintendo system for Nintendo games.  I have a gaming PC for other shit.

PS I don't even on a Switch yet.  Maybe the Daemon x Machina convince me to finally get but probably wait  for Animal Crossing.



KingofTrolls said:
zorg1000 said:

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

Eh, Wii U multiplats were barely any better than their PS360 counterparts, but now we have this handheld mode with Switch, so Nintendo can get away with this. People get excited because X game is now playable on the go, that turned the table.

OP- I guess the fact that EA is pushing graphic in their games hard, is the biggest factor here.

Absolutely and I'm not sure if you meant to or not but you are supporting what I said since one of the things I listed was system features as a major selling point for Nintendo hardware.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

zorg1000 said:
potato_hamster said:
It amazes me how many people think how unimportant real, signifcant third party support from companies like EA is for long-term success of a console's life.

Yes I know, "Fuck EA, they're cancer, worst company in America"... EA brings in $5 billion a year. That's an enormous consumer base. Their games matter to the gaming community whether you like it or not.

There are millions of people out there that won't consider a console that doesn't have games like Call of Duty, Madden, Grand Theft Auto, and Assassin's Creed. How many Switches could Nintendo sell if they had these franchises on their platform?

What's even more amazing is anyone thinking EA is important to the long term success of any Nintendo platform.

You're right that EA games absolutely do matter and are a very big part of the gaming community but overall they have had very little relevance to the Nintendo fanbase for 30+ years.

Wii U literally launched with 3 of those 4 franchises you listed and went on to be their worst selling console ever, now obviously those games didnt cause it to fail but they certainly didnt help it in any meaningful way.

I've said it dozens of times on these forums, the AAA/mainstream/hardcore western titles you are referring to are a welcome addition but not necessary for Nintendo platforms to succeed.

You could make the argument that Nintendo needed those games 20+ years ago to prevent Playstation/Xbox from gaining such a strong foothold but that type of software is synonymous with those brands at this point.

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc do not need Nintendo to make their AAA titles succeed and Nintendo does not need those AAA titles to make their platforms succeed, its really as simple as that.

Maybe you're right, maybe I'm having a hard time seeing beyond my own perspective right now. Thanks for the response.

Hey if you want to shrug it off and think it doesn't matter, that's fine. I was one of those people that loved the PSP and Vita and was hoping for the Switch to fill the gap the Vita left when Sony announced there would be no replacement. For people like me, the Switch is lacking, and Nintendo doesn't seem to give two shits. Most of Nintendo's first party offerings in the years coming doesn't appeal at all to me. And now most of what third parties are offering I've already played years and years ago. I want to be able to play GTA and RDR2 on the go. I want to be able to play Madden and NHL on the go. I want to be able to play a game like Cyberpunk 2077 on the go. I want to have to decide when a new game is announced if I'd rather play it in it's best presentation on my PS4 or if I'm willing to bit the bullet with the Switches performance so I could play it on-the-go. What do I get instead? A port of Grid: Autosport, and a port of Witcher 3, both of which I've played to my hearts content already.

I'd like to think there's tens of millions of people like me out there, but maybe I'm a rare exception.

I'm literally getting Links Awakening in September mostly because I travel a lot, want something new to play, and that's the one that seems like it wont be too bad to kill some time on. I don't think it's gonna be an amazing game. I'm not excited about it, there's just not really anything better. My Switch games purchases are getting more and more and more rare. I'm so glad my Switch was given to me. I'd be pretty annoyed at this point if I dropped $300 on this.