Mandalore76 said:
The number of developers that EA has purchased and then closed because of EA's failed meddling in those developer's games says yes, EA makes crappy business decisions. Their bungling of the Star Wars property with Battlefront II last year, which actually brought governments into talking about regulating their gaming practices, also speaks volumes. As a consumer and a gamer, I don't have to be happy that EA cares more about how much money they can make off Loot Boxes and micro transactions than actually releasing games. |
Sure they make bad decisions. But first they don't do them in hindsight or intentionally. So saying they run their numbers, Switch version would give them good profits but they decided not to release just to fuck Nintendo is beyond asinine (and conspiracy theories all over the place about 3rd parties wanting Nintendo to go bankrupt). Do you consider MS a dumb company? What about Nintendo? Because we can see several bad decisions they made, some costing a lot of money, others relationship and even government ruling against.
Sure you don't have to be happy for them, but using their moniker of worst company have nothing to do with their business acumen as you tried to imply.
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."