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

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

potato_hamster said:
It's quite simple, really. EA doesn't hate Nintendo. In fact far from it. I had the opportunity to spend a few months working with teams at EA Canada. It's physically one of the biggest game studios in the world. There were statues, arcade machines, all kinds of things all over that campus, but one thing that always stood out to me was the plaque on the wall commemorating the time Miyamoto came to visit. That was a huge deal to them. EA has huge respect for Nintendo, make no mistake about it. But they respect their shareholders even more.

The reason EA doesn't invest more heavily in Nintendo platforms is very very simple. Money. EA games on Nintendo's platform don't give an adequate return on investment. Full Stop. WHen a new platform comes out, they test the water,, normally with a FIFA title and see how it sells. From there they branch out into Madden, Need for Speed, Sims, NHL etc. The first FIFA title sold well enough to warrant another FIFA title, but not well enough to warrant other titles. That second FIFA didn't sell well enough for EA to do anything other than pull the plug on putting their larger titles on the Switch. That's all there is to it.

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.



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

Around the Network
GhaudePhaede010 said:
potato_hamster said:
It's quite simple, really. EA doesn't hate Nintendo. In fact far from it. I had the opportunity to spend a few months working with teams at EA Canada. It's physically one of the biggest game studios in the world. There were statues, arcade machines, all kinds of things all over that campus, but one thing that always stood out to me was the plaque on the wall commemorating the time Miyamoto came to visit. That was a huge deal to them. EA has huge respect for Nintendo, make no mistake about it. But they respect their shareholders even more.

The reason EA doesn't invest more heavily in Nintendo platforms is very very simple. Money. EA games on Nintendo's platform don't give an adequate return on investment. Full Stop. WHen a new platform comes out, they test the water,, normally with a FIFA title and see how it sells. From there they branch out into Madden, Need for Speed, Sims, NHL etc. The first FIFA title sold well enough to warrant another FIFA title, but not well enough to warrant other titles. That second FIFA didn't sell well enough for EA to do anything other than pull the plug on putting their larger titles on the Switch. That's all there is to it.

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.

Last edited by potato_hamster - on 17 June 2019

potato_hamster said:
It's quite simple, really. EA doesn't hate Nintendo. In fact far from it. I had the opportunity to spend a few months working with teams at EA Canada. It's physically one of the biggest game studios in the world. There were statues, arcade machines, all kinds of things all over that campus, but one thing that always stood out to me was the plaque on the wall commemorating the time Miyamoto came to visit. That was a huge deal to them. EA has huge respect for Nintendo, make no mistake about it. But they respect their shareholders even more.

The reason EA doesn't invest more heavily in Nintendo platforms is very very simple. Money. EA games on Nintendo's platform don't give an adequate return on investment. Full Stop. WHen a new platform comes out, they test the water,, normally with a FIFA title and see how it sells. From there they branch out into Madden, Need for Speed, Sims, NHL etc. The first FIFA title sold well enough to warrant another FIFA title, but not well enough to warrant other titles. That second FIFA didn't sell well enough for EA to do anything other than pull the plug on putting their larger titles on the Switch. That's all there is to it.

When you think like an investor instead of like a gamer it makes full sense.

It sucks that people that want to play it on Switch can't, but it makes sense for EA and brings them the results they want.

Also at least on the forum I can't say there are that many Switch only users that want to buy much from EA so they aren't losing much on this (both fans and EA). We see more attacks against EA than desire to buy their games.



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

DonFerrari said:
potato_hamster said:
It's quite simple, really. EA doesn't hate Nintendo. In fact far from it. I had the opportunity to spend a few months working with teams at EA Canada. It's physically one of the biggest game studios in the world. There were statues, arcade machines, all kinds of things all over that campus, but one thing that always stood out to me was the plaque on the wall commemorating the time Miyamoto came to visit. That was a huge deal to them. EA has huge respect for Nintendo, make no mistake about it. But they respect their shareholders even more.

The reason EA doesn't invest more heavily in Nintendo platforms is very very simple. Money. EA games on Nintendo's platform don't give an adequate return on investment. Full Stop. WHen a new platform comes out, they test the water,, normally with a FIFA title and see how it sells. From there they branch out into Madden, Need for Speed, Sims, NHL etc. The first FIFA title sold well enough to warrant another FIFA title, but not well enough to warrant other titles. That second FIFA didn't sell well enough for EA to do anything other than pull the plug on putting their larger titles on the Switch. That's all there is to it.

When you think like an investor instead of like a gamer it makes full sense.

It sucks that people that want to play it on Switch can't, but it makes sense for EA and brings them the results they want.

Also at least on the forum I can't say there are that many Switch only users that want to buy much from EA so they aren't losing much on this (both fans and EA). We see more attacks against EA than desire to buy their games.

I'd buy Madden and NHL day one if they came out for Switch, but I know what kind of minority that makes me when it comes to Switch owners.



potato_hamster said:
DonFerrari said:

When you think like an investor instead of like a gamer it makes full sense.

It sucks that people that want to play it on Switch can't, but it makes sense for EA and brings them the results they want.

Also at least on the forum I can't say there are that many Switch only users that want to buy much from EA so they aren't losing much on this (both fans and EA). We see more attacks against EA than desire to buy their games.

I'd buy Madden and NHL day one if they came out for Switch, but I know what kind of minority that makes me when it comes to Switch owners.

I'd play NHL too, you aren't alone. 

Honestly I'm just frustrated. I've posted before that it seems like EA is the only major developer to really not expand on the Switch over time....I mean there are just things out there that just frustrate me. 

I'm sure you've heard the tales of Titanfall and COD devs laughing at the idea of having their games on it, or the tale about Crash only getting ported after a single developer ported over a level over a weekend on his own time. I wish there was parity everywhere, but still you see titles from other publishers with a bit more frequency and for somewhat of a better word ambition: Activision went from Skylanders to Crash, Spyro, Diablo, and now Nitro Racing DnD. Capcom and Square are putting more titles on it, even 2K and Ubisoft put a few things on it. 

EA just seems....the exception. 

I don't know what Nintendo is supposed to do: the Switch sells well, and the titles on it clearly aren't doing horribly. Enter the Freakin' Gungeon sold a million units per official release announcement, and I'd be legitimately curious to see what VGchartz projections into 2019 would have revealed. 

Heck the projections on FIFA 19 actually had them doing better in the same span of time than FIFA 18 did, per the comments left on it here. 

I'm sure I hear the big old 'power' argument fine and all, but would a third powerbox actually be wanted, or even sell half as well as the Switch has so far even with the same 1st party library? Sales and power seem like an annoying catch 22 here. 

Be different enough to stand out when the market already has things (as opposed to chasing trends like Live Services), and you have sales but not enough power. No games. 

Be the same to run everything (....Witcher 3....) but enter a crowded market and get Battleborned...power but no sales.



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Around the Network
KrspaceT said:
potato_hamster said:

I'd buy Madden and NHL day one if they came out for Switch, but I know what kind of minority that makes me when it comes to Switch owners.

I'd play NHL too, you aren't alone. 

Honestly I'm just frustrated. I've posted before that it seems like EA is the only major developer to really not expand on the Switch over time....I mean there are just things out there that just frustrate me. 

I'm sure you've heard the tales of Titanfall and COD devs laughing at the idea of having their games on it, or the tale about Crash only getting ported after a single developer ported over a level over a weekend on his own time. I wish there was parity everywhere, but still you see titles from other publishers with a bit more frequency and for somewhat of a better word ambition: Activision went from Skylanders to Crash, Spyro, Diablo, and now Nitro Racing DnD. Capcom and Square are putting more titles on it, even 2K and Ubisoft put a few things on it. 

EA just seems....the exception. 

I don't know what Nintendo is supposed to do: the Switch sells well, and the titles on it clearly aren't doing horribly. Enter the Freakin' Gungeon sold a million units per official release announcement, and I'd be legitimately curious to see what VGchartz projections into 2019 would have revealed. 

Heck the projections on FIFA 19 actually had them doing better in the same span of time than FIFA 18 did, per the comments left on it here. 

I'm sure I hear the big old 'power' argument fine and all, but would a third powerbox actually be wanted, or even sell half as well as the Switch has so far even with the same 1st party library? Sales and power seem like an annoying catch 22 here. 

Be different enough to stand out when the market already has things (as opposed to chasing trends like Live Services), and you have sales but not enough power. No games. 

Be the same to run everything (....Witcher 3....) but enter a crowded market and get Battleborned...power but no sales.

No matter how strong you feel about it, in the end of the day it's about making money and EA don't think they'll make enough to be worth launching the games on the Switch.

And you two are about the few people in here that really genuinely wants their game on Switch for your playing =]

Myself I avoid their games even on PS4 (at least the yearly sports game). I'm guilty of buying some games like Mirror's Edge and Unravel, but that is because from time to time EA invest in some games that are quite unique and good.



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

DonFerrari said:
KrspaceT said:

I'd play NHL too, you aren't alone. 

Honestly I'm just frustrated. I've posted before that it seems like EA is the only major developer to really not expand on the Switch over time....I mean there are just things out there that just frustrate me. 

I'm sure you've heard the tales of Titanfall and COD devs laughing at the idea of having their games on it, or the tale about Crash only getting ported after a single developer ported over a level over a weekend on his own time. I wish there was parity everywhere, but still you see titles from other publishers with a bit more frequency and for somewhat of a better word ambition: Activision went from Skylanders to Crash, Spyro, Diablo, and now Nitro Racing DnD. Capcom and Square are putting more titles on it, even 2K and Ubisoft put a few things on it. 

EA just seems....the exception. 

I don't know what Nintendo is supposed to do: the Switch sells well, and the titles on it clearly aren't doing horribly. Enter the Freakin' Gungeon sold a million units per official release announcement, and I'd be legitimately curious to see what VGchartz projections into 2019 would have revealed. 

Heck the projections on FIFA 19 actually had them doing better in the same span of time than FIFA 18 did, per the comments left on it here. 

I'm sure I hear the big old 'power' argument fine and all, but would a third powerbox actually be wanted, or even sell half as well as the Switch has so far even with the same 1st party library? Sales and power seem like an annoying catch 22 here. 

Be different enough to stand out when the market already has things (as opposed to chasing trends like Live Services), and you have sales but not enough power. No games. 

Be the same to run everything (....Witcher 3....) but enter a crowded market and get Battleborned...power but no sales.

No matter how strong you feel about it, in the end of the day it's about making money and EA don't think they'll make enough to be worth launching the games on the Switch.

And you two are about the few people in here that really genuinely wants their game on Switch for your playing =]

Myself I avoid their games even on PS4 (at least the yearly sports game). I'm guilty of buying some games like Mirror's Edge and Unravel, but that is because from time to time EA invest in some games that are quite unique and good.

Other publishers port and remaster older games. Not only for Switch, for everything. Crash andSpyro trilogy and Crash racing are an example for Activision. But you see this with pretty much everyone, Sega (Sega Ages), Capcom (practically everything from Megaman to Resident Evil), Square (again practically everything), Nintendo (NES classics), Sony (Medievil). These devs love their legacy and that is why they remaster them for a new generation. EA is about the only dev who doesn't do it - and this is not only for Switch but for every platform. While every dev loves their history, EA ignores it. With entering the Switch, the device is getting a lot of these older games remade. As EA don't make them, nothing for Switch here. I am too not very much interested in what EA does today, but they are one of the oldest publishers and they did make excellent games over the time. If they would acknowledge and value their history, I would this very much appreciate.

If you look over the history part of their Wikipedia article you see how much they changed since founding:

Hawkins had developed the ideas of treating software as an art form and calling the developers, "software artists".

EA routinely referred to their developers as "artists" and gave them photo credits in their games and numerous full-page magazine ads.

The square "album cover" boxes (such as the covers for 1983's M.U.L.E. and Pinball Construction Set) were a popular packaging concept by Electronic Arts, which wanted to represent their developers as "rock stars".

Hence they choose the name Electronic Arts. That these days they tend to abbreviate that name, shows their shift in focus. They nowadays do not care for their history. I think players on many platforms, including Switch, would appreciate remasters of their classics. They just don't do that.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:
DonFerrari said:

No matter how strong you feel about it, in the end of the day it's about making money and EA don't think they'll make enough to be worth launching the games on the Switch.

And you two are about the few people in here that really genuinely wants their game on Switch for your playing =]

Myself I avoid their games even on PS4 (at least the yearly sports game). I'm guilty of buying some games like Mirror's Edge and Unravel, but that is because from time to time EA invest in some games that are quite unique and good.

Other publishers port and remaster older games. Not only for Switch, for everything. Crash andSpyro trilogy and Crash racing are an example for Activision. But you see this with pretty much everyone, Sega (Sega Ages), Capcom (practically everything from Megaman to Resident Evil), Square (again practically everything), Nintendo (NES classics), Sony (Medievil). These devs love their legacy and that is why they remaster them for a new generation. EA is about the only dev who doesn't do it - and this is not only for Switch but for every platform. While every dev loves their history, EA ignores it. With entering the Switch, the device is getting a lot of these older games remade. As EA don't make them, nothing for Switch here. I am too not very much interested in what EA does today, but they are one of the oldest publishers and they did make excellent games over the time. If they would acknowledge and value their history, I would this very much appreciate.

If you look over the history part of their Wikipedia article you see how much they changed since founding:

Hawkins had developed the ideas of treating software as an art form and calling the developers, "software artists".

EA routinely referred to their developers as "artists" and gave them photo credits in their games and numerous full-page magazine ads.

The square "album cover" boxes (such as the covers for 1983's M.U.L.E. and Pinball Construction Set) were a popular packaging concept by Electronic Arts, which wanted to represent their developers as "rock stars".

Hence they choose the name Electronic Arts. That these days they tend to abbreviate that name, shows their shift in focus. They nowadays do not care for their history. I think players on many platforms, including Switch, would appreciate remasters of their classics. They just don't do that.

Yes I don't like EA or their focus, but that is the direction they use, so the lack of games on Switch isn't because they hate Nintendo as OP thinks.

And I'm glad that we get past the hate for remasters and remakes in VGC =]



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

DonFerrari said:
Mnementh said:

Other publishers port and remaster older games. Not only for Switch, for everything. Crash andSpyro trilogy and Crash racing are an example for Activision. But you see this with pretty much everyone, Sega (Sega Ages), Capcom (practically everything from Megaman to Resident Evil), Square (again practically everything), Nintendo (NES classics), Sony (Medievil). These devs love their legacy and that is why they remaster them for a new generation. EA is about the only dev who doesn't do it - and this is not only for Switch but for every platform. While every dev loves their history, EA ignores it. With entering the Switch, the device is getting a lot of these older games remade. As EA don't make them, nothing for Switch here. I am too not very much interested in what EA does today, but they are one of the oldest publishers and they did make excellent games over the time. If they would acknowledge and value their history, I would this very much appreciate.

If you look over the history part of their Wikipedia article you see how much they changed since founding:

Hawkins had developed the ideas of treating software as an art form and calling the developers, "software artists".

EA routinely referred to their developers as "artists" and gave them photo credits in their games and numerous full-page magazine ads.

The square "album cover" boxes (such as the covers for 1983's M.U.L.E. and Pinball Construction Set) were a popular packaging concept by Electronic Arts, which wanted to represent their developers as "rock stars".

Hence they choose the name Electronic Arts. That these days they tend to abbreviate that name, shows their shift in focus. They nowadays do not care for their history. I think players on many platforms, including Switch, would appreciate remasters of their classics. They just don't do that.

Yes I don't like EA or their focus, but that is the direction they use, so the lack of games on Switch isn't because they hate Nintendo as OP thinks.

And I'm glad that we get past the hate for remasters and remakes in VGC =]

I don't think this hate was ever a real thing. Because why shouldn't you replay a great game on your most modern device. Well, there is certainly an argument against remasters too soon. But if you would've to keep a 15 year old device and an TV that device can connect to to replay a great game, this surely becomes ridiculous. If last years game got remastered, OK, I can pass. But still it doesn't hurt me either.



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

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Why is it always E (period) A, as if the electronics are being disconnected from the arts...



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.