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

They were?

No, this doesn't work if you release one old port or something. The players that like EA-portfolio will get a console, if itgets all or most games, not if it gets one old port. There measure in a lot of expectations though. Players at this point expect to have all EA-games on Sony and no serious EA-support on Nintendo. But generally: if they release major parts of their portfolio, many gamers will lose their doubts.

Speaking of expectations: based on their stellar support of the 3DS I expected more from Atlus for Switch than this one SMT-announcement. If they not reinforce the trust of the gamers somewhere down the line, Atlus might lose potential on the Switch.

But EA has nothing to gain by splitting their fanbase. Heck, the ideal situation for EA would be if everyone who bought there games were on the same console - that way they could lower developing costs.

It doesn't make sense to release multiple games for a system, if all it does is move the already existing fanbase from one platform to the other, while at the same time costing more to develop. For it to make sense for EA, there has to be potential to expand the fanbase substantially enough.

And that is where Nintendo money have to go to incentivize devs to make a real effort on the system, release a good port at the same time, and if sales shows up the next interation they may decide themselves to launch.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."