By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Thunderbird77 on 24 February 2016
Edit Thread
Miyamotoo said:
Thunderbird77 said:

Ea makes money selling software, they need hardware manufacturers. Nintendo makes money from hardware, 1st and 3rd party software. the impact of nintendo not having games from EA is insignificant to them while EA losing a whole hardware manufacturer is huge for EA.

Again your post doesn't make any sense if we know facts.

-EA games are selling much worse on Nintendo platforms than on PS/Xbox and PC platforms. So its not crucial for EA if they will release games on NX because in any case they will sell much worse than on PS/Xbox and PC. Also we already saw that EA abandoned Wii U right after launch, why would they do that if its so important for them to have games on Nintendo platform!?

-Wii U proved Nintendo that in modern age they can't have successful console without 3rd party, and they cant have stronger 3rd party support without probable strongest 3rd party developer, EA (EA IPs: Fifa, Battlefield, Star Wars, Need For Speed, Madden NFL, NHL, Mass Effect, Titan Fall, Rock Band, Plants vs Zombies, Medal of Honor, Dragon Age, Dead Space, Crysis...).

So yes, Nintendo definatly needs more EA than EA needs Nintendo.

EA games sell acordingly to their efforts on nintendo systems. And they lose a ton of potential money by having one hardware manufacturer less in their plan. Heck, they even ignore nintendo's handhelds. Nintendo's profits, on the other hand, aren't heavily impacted by the lack of a specific company support, that can be replaced. In other words: Even if we consider EA games necessary (they aren't), they can be replaced. And while EA can make money without nintendo, they're making a lot less than they could if they supported nintendo 's platforms and nothing wil compensate for that.

Wii proved the exact opposite of what you saidon the second paragraph.