RolStoppable said:
See, this is exactly what many Nintendo fans on these forums have been saying weeks before the Wii U launch. All the signs that EA set up these games for failure were there before release, so it was clear that EA's games would do terribly. Consequently, these poor sales would then be used by EA as justification to pull Wii U support and forum members around here would jump to EA's defense and say that it is a logical business decision to pull support. But where have you guys been when the Mass Effect Trilogy was announced for the other systems or when it was announced that the sports games would be missing features? Do you guys believe that those were smart decisions by EA or do you think that those were hilariously bad decisions by EA, if they wanted their games to succeed? I mean, it's pretty obvious that a trilogy for $60 is a much more attractive offer than $60 for a single game. The most disappointing thing is that you, JayWood2010, concede that EA's games weren't up to par, yet defend EA for it. You picked the wrong side. If the unbiased gamer is confronted with a choice between gamers or companies, then he doesn't have to think twice which side he belongs to. |
Yes I do, money-wise.
I don't think the cost of porting three whole games over for the ME trilogy on Wii U instead of just one would have been recompensed by the small increase in sales that would have resulted.
And as far as their sports titles having features missing on new hardware; they always do, and getting the game out earlier was probably a smarter thing to do sales-wise than delay it past holiday-season and miss out on the holiday sales rush. (it was released on Wii U late-Novemeber, correct?).
Of course, the smarter decision on EA's part may have been to never release the above games and focus those resources somewhere else instead.
