By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Vinniegambini on 07 January 2013
Edit Thread
Scisca said:
Aielyn said:
Mazty said:
Companies aren't people; they don't get "mad" at one another. One thing drives companies - money. Simply put, there are not enough users of the Wii U to warrant making a port.

I've said it before, but some seem to have trouble comprehending it...

A company that looks at the current install base and judges their decisions based purely on that is backwards-thinking and on their way to bankruptcy. Companies must look at future potential, competition, and potential fanbase. Games sell on systems because developers and publishers develop fanbases on those systems. It is not enough to just throw a game at a system with a high install base, you have to make people want your games on the system. And the argument of "there's no interest in the game on that system" is just as ludicrous, because lack of interest comes from lack of support, not the other way around.

In short, if any company thinks the way you do, then they're going to get decimated by the next generation.

Meanwhile, we know they were already working on the port, that porting games to Wii U is relatively cheap, and that there aren't that many shooting games on the Wii U, while the PS3 and 360 have a glut of them to compete against. EA have proven time and again that they don't actually understand gaming, and that's why the only way they ever make a profit is by buying out successful developers... who, after a few years, end up becoming crap, at which point EA has to buy out more developers. Fortunate for Crytek that they're just partners with EA, not owned by them.

BS.

Check how outstanding the sales of AC3 and CoD:BlOps2 are on Wii U. Why would EA care to waste money and working power on something like that? They have no interest in investing money in the extremely unlikely success of 3rd party games on Wii U. The burden is on Nintendo, they have to PAY developers to get games. They have to shell out that cash they've earned last gen, when they went after the casual gamers and decimated the fanbase interested in regular core 3rd party games. If they don't do that - screw them. Why should other companies waste their hard earned money? So that a handful of Nintendo fanboys can say "we have all games Sony and MS systems have" and don't buy them anyway? A doesn't need to do it. They would be stupid to do it. The current sales of core 3rd party games are so abyssmal, that there really is no guarantee that they would get back the costs of the port, so what do you want from them? This is about business, not about what is fair and ok in your opinion.

You say that "lack of interest comes from lack of support, not the other way around" and I say - cool, you're right. But it's Nintendo's business to create that. Just like Sony has been struggling with PS3 in the past and is struggling with Vita right now. Nintendo has to take the financial risk if the want to recreate the core fanbase. EA is fine with MS and Sony platforms, so is everyone else. Nintendo wants a piece of this pie? They have to risk their money, not other companies' money.

I mean, c'mon. Porting Crysis to Vita would make more sense financially than a port to Wii U.

To me this is a clear signal. EA wanted to be sure they get their share of money out of it and told Nintendo to pay them for the port. Nintendo refused, so EA showed them the door.

Reasons are pretty self-explanatory : Limited userbase, Console has only been on the market for...wait for it.... 6 weeks, customer already shelling out 349.99$ for the console; consequently, limited budget available.

Why would Nintendo pay EA to port an already multiplatform game to their console? I am baffled.