By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Barozi on 28 March 2013
Edit Thread
TheLastStarFighter said:
bananaking21 said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

It may sound childish, but it's naive to think it's not true.  Trip Hawkins felt that Nintendo had too much control, and he credited EA's succes with ignoring Nintendo and focusing on Genesis:

http://mynintendonews.com/2011/07/14/nintendo-trip-hawkins-believes-nintendo-will-eventually-lose-out-to-the-web-browser/

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/nintendo-development-system-called-feudal-by-trip-hawkins/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-03-08-hawkins-apple-and-nintendo-changed-business-for-worse

EA has always had a view that developers should be in control. They rejected Nintendo, and have long shown support for competing systems, ones they can control. Trip brags about forcing Sega to do what they want, because Sega needed EA where Nintendo didn't.

EA has said in the past the ideal world for them will be one box, perhaps a cloud type box where developer have free reign and the console maker is irrelevant. Nintendo is the company that is furthest from their ideal model.  They want Nintendo to fail.  In the opinion of EA it is in their best interest.  They may be right. Larry Probst has stated his goals of 35%+ market share for EA software. They want world domination, and they view Nintendo - as the worlds biggest games software maker - as competition, not an ally.

Sony and MS are primarily hardware makers, as such they are a better fit for EA.

 


out of all the nintendo fans and people i talked to saying , claiming and coming up with theories about how EA hates nintendo you are the only one to ever back it up with a legitimate reason. but here is the thing, even if EA doesnt like nintendo it still released games on their consoles, Wii and gamecube as an example. the point is, when there is money to be made EA sure as hell has been there. EA didnt go all of a sudden now and say "you know what, we hate nintendo and the money we made on their consoles, lets stop making them". battlefield isnt on WiiU for reasons other than hatred. its not going to be released because it doesnt seem like a good financial business decision

Absolutely.  But it only takes about 20k sales to pay for a port.  Maybe a little more for a game like battlefield.  With 100k they would easily be in the black, and they would sell 100k.  When it comes to EA there is a mix of reasons in their business decisions.  They balance making money on software with helping their biggest software competitor. A Battlefield port would probably make a little money but not a lot. Having Battlefield on WiiU might push systems, however, which is not in EA's overall goals.  This is in contrast with a company like, say Ubisoft, which wants Nintendo to sell as many hardware units as possible, and tries to have an early presence on Wii U and all other systems. With EA there is a mix of pure business, strategic software giant vs software giant business and a little bit of personal feelings from guys like Hawkins and Probst that goes in to how they operate.  I honestly think they make some poor financial decisions based on some of their business 'principles', and that shows in their recent CEO departure.  EA should be printing money right now.

That only applies for late ports and even then 20k is far too low (this doesn't include advertising costs either).
A simultaneous port needs much much much more to break even.

At least 300k lifetime or maybe even 400k for an AA to AAA HD game port.