EA CEO: We should have bet on the Wii

[DMeisterJ]

Since we're turning this into a 'profits' argument; Wouldn't it make more sense for EA (or any company for that matter) to make a casual game, rather than a hardcore game for the Wii? I mean if Game Party, Carnival games, or Mario and Sonic are any indication, a game doesn't have to be quality to sell on the Wii. Why not make a game that costs a lot less than a "hardcore" game, and sell millions of units? I mean, if a hardcore game and a casual game sell the same amount of units, the Casual game would still be more profitable, as it would obviously cost less to make.

Also, the thread title is sensationalizing. He didn't say "We should have bet on the Wii", nor was it implied. I know you didn't quote him, but by putting the colon after "EA CEO", you make it look like he said those exact words.

But he does say that "there's a second and third place that is meaningful, against which we can build a profitable business. That's a good and positive thing.” And "that, for the first time in history, the second and third placed consoles were still ‘meaningful’."

So basically, he's saying that they did put too much stock into the HD consoles, but they are still able to generate profits for them (As we can see in their fiscal reports), and obviously, they won't be stopping support for these two gaming consoles.