By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Carl2291 said:
RolStoppable said:

At this point I don't think it's about easy profit anymore, rather it's an attempt to hurt the Wii's image and at the same cover up for bad business decisions prior to this gen. If EA wanted easy money, they could just go ahead and port the three PS2 Burnout games that were never released on the GC or even re-release an old NfS title. Would be less work (even with some tweaks and upgrades) and of better quality too, improving sales as well as the profit margin.

The thing is, EA did completely bet on the wrong horse before this generation even began. They had nothing in the works for the Wii, except for the obligatory Madden which they were forced to make due to their contract with the NFL. EA has been losing money for years now and there has to be a scapegoat. As I understand it, shareholders have the power to change the top management of a company, if business doesn't go well. So those who are in charge of EA right now, deliberately greenlid games that would deliver them the excuses they needed.

Shareholder: "You are posting losses and I hear you missed the Wii."

EA: "It may look like that at first glance, but we released this and that game and look at the sales: There's no money to be made on the Wii. The games we typically make just don't sell all that well on the Nintendo console. Sales of our sports games and NfS series as well as new IPs like Dead Space by far don't reach the same level as on the HD consoles by Sony and Microsoft which we decided to back up before the start of this generation. This is proof that we made the right decision by focusing on the the PS3 and 360."

I don't think that it's implausible that Ricitiello and Co. would try to save their jobs at EA, even if that meant to burn a few million dollars on games that were set up to flop. Just recently EA blamed their poor results on the lack of sales of their Wii and DS games. Last generation EA wasn't dependent on Nintendo hardware to make profits, so things obviously aren't going too well on Sony and Microsoft systems this generation. But it's just easier to solely blame Nintendo and many people (especially the gaming media) are eager to eat such lines up without giving it any critical thought.

Regarding Wii in HD and milk jobs: doubtful. Hardware in the same ballpark doesn't translate to games of similar quality. If it would, The Orange Box on the PS3 would be as great as everywhere else. Who again ported The Orange Box to the PS3?

I think you've shared this theory with me before and I disagreed with it

The Orange Box was a rushed, one off ginger step bastard child of Valve's work. I don't think there has ever been a port that was worse than that one, but it's easily explainable. The PS3 at the time was selling like ass and sitting at 6 Million WW after a year on sale. Everyone was predicting it wouldn't even make 30 Million... Maybe 20! And the PS3 was being notoriously difficult for developers to make games with. As we can see now though, those problems have been worked past. People have got used to the hardware and for the past 2 Years the majority of ports have been pretty awesome. EA have actually started using the PS3 as the lead platform.


Are you sure about that? Would it make sense to develop a game for the strongest system, and port it down to weaker systems?