Forums - Nintendo Discussion - EA: "There isn't much room for other titles than 1st party on Switch"

SpokenTruth said:
konnichiwa said:

Nah people were mad with EA for not bringing games like Dead space, SSX etc etc while at the same time getting weak weird games.

Yes, we were but we did get a Dead Space denotative and an SSX title.  Now?  Nothing.

Check those game lists I posted.  Look at the difference.  It's staggering.

Did you like those games that they had put out? Cause i def remember people complaining about them. Is it a something is better than nothing scenario?



Around the Network
konnichiwa said:
SpokenTruth said:

We wanted better support, certainly (what gamer wouldn't for their console of choice?).  But we got all the current gen sports games, some exclusives, and interesting derivatives of their bigger new IPs.

Nah people were mad with EA for not bringing games like Dead space, SSX etc etc while at the same time getting weak weird games.

Could those games have even run on Wii properly?



DonFerrari said:
padib said:

Nintendo was known to refuse such a philosophy, and made EA perhaps quite upset.

Compare that now to Nintendo's approach, which invites 3rd parties to collaborate on games, to make games together as a team, that invests in making struggling companies succeed (Platinum) and that typically takes chances in smaller companies (Mistwalker, Monolith soft). A company that collaborates with other companies to promote healthy development practices in order to foster a sustainable industry.

Sure Nintendo improved their relationship with 3rd parties but it is still quite timid don't you agree? And on the taking chances or supporting small companies Sony and MS have done that also supporting struggling companies (I haven`t heard of Platinum struggling, I just heard of Bayonetta not being profitable so they wouldn`t release and Nintendo jumped in to have it, and that is a good thing for sure even more when at least 1M owners on Nintendo system seemed to appreciate the game).

Yeah, Sony & MS have also developed relations with small companies, that's true.

To answer your question about whether 3rd party initiatives are a bit timid or not on Nintendo's part, I have been doing a lot of research on the relationship between Nintendo and 3rd parties and here is what I discovered. During the time that Iwata was president of Nintendo, something happened that radically changed the mood of japanese 3rd parties towards Nintendo for the better. Here are something things that happened during his tenure:

  • There was an initiative to loan Nintendo IPs to 3rd parties in order to increase software output of Nintendo IPs (Nintendo could not handle it all themselves). This forged relationships with 3rd parties such as Namco, Tecmo, Capcom to name a few, for who working on a Nintendo IP was a prestige. Some of these companies (esp. Namco) were on very bad terms with Nintendo due to legal battles over royalties and cartridges at the end of the NES era.
  • Strategic Japanese exclusives were secured such as Monster Hunter on 3DS (which was big on PSP). This gave recognition to Capcom and strengthened the partnership. Nintendo doesn't often pull this kind of move but that was an important move for them (a bit like how Sony gave 1st party treatment to Squaresoft with their big migration of FFVII in the PS1 days).
  • Nintendo worked closely with and eventually absorbed Namco's Monolith Soft, a team of former Squaresoft employees.
  • Similarly, they published The Last Story, a game by Mystwalker, Sakaguchi's indie game dev consulting studio which he started after leaving Square.
  • Nintendo pushed for experimental relationships with Squaresoft even if the prior president of Nintendo had created a rift. The games and devs in question are Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, the Brownie Brown studio, and a number of games produced by them.
  • The Capcom 5 was a set of exclusive games Capcom would produce for Nintendo on the gamecube as part of an exclusivity deal (yep money, another rare move by Nintendo).
  • The complete success of the portable line bolstered confidence in the Nintendo brand (mainly for portables).

I would say that, with Japanese developers, Nintendo is doing great.

With American developers, you have the Ubisoft move with Rabbids, and then you have some 3rd party companies making ports to the Wii (they were definitely approached by NOA). In the end though, Nintendo's relationship with Western 3rd parties is their weak point. Also, western games tend to prioritize graphics and raw power, which goes against the grain of Nintendo console philosophy (big money can still be made without that I need to point out).

On that I can easily agree with you.

But the question is, is it important? Perhaps Oniyide is right in saying that those games are not needed on Nintendo consoles. Perhaps they dilute the overall quality of the library, perhaps they change the appeal of the console by targeting an audience that doesn't mesh well with Nintendo's current direction (japanese type arcade and rpg games). To be honest, I am not sure what would be the best here.

But one thing is certain, it's that if EA did make games on Nintendo consoles, esp. if encouraged by Nintendo, the games would need to match the quality of what gamers expect to play on a Nintendo console. To me that's fundamental. So no shovelware, and no feature-weak half-ports. It's not welcome.



oniyide said:
SpokenTruth said:

Yes, we were but we did get a Dead Space denotative and an SSX title.  Now?  Nothing.

Check those game lists I posted.  Look at the difference.  It's staggering.

Did you like those games that they had put out? Cause i def remember people complaining about them. Is it a something is better than nothing scenario?

It definitely more of a 'something is better than nothing' situation.  At least with Wii they tried to bring popular IPs over.  With Switch they aren't even trying.

But the real kicker isn't just about comparing EA on Wii to EA on Switch.  It's also about comparing EA on Switch to the rest of the industry on Switch.  Bethesda?  CD Projeckt Red?  Who they hell could have expected these guys to support Switch before EA does?

So you have both issues.  EA against itself from the Wii days and EA against 3rd parties that used to shun Nintendo.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

padib said:
DonFerrari said:

Yeah, Sony & MS have also developed relations with small companies, that's true.

To answer your question about whether 3rd party initiatives are a bit timid or not on Nintendo's part, I have been doing a lot of research on the relationship between Nintendo and 3rd parties and here is what I discovered. During the time that Iwata was president of Nintendo, something happened that radically changed the mood of japanese 3rd parties towards Nintendo for the better. Here are something things that happened during his tenure:

  • There was an initiative to loan Nintendo IPs to 3rd parties in order to increase software output of Nintendo IPs (Nintendo could not handle it all themselves). This forged relationships with 3rd parties such as Namco, Tecmo, Capcom to name a few, for who working on a Nintendo IP was a prestige. Some of these companies (esp. Namco) were on very bad terms with Nintendo due to legal battles over royalties and cartridges at the end of the NES era.
  • Strategic Japanese exclusives were secured such as Monster Hunter on 3DS (which was big on PSP). This gave recognition to Capcom and strengthened the partnership. Nintendo doesn't often pull this kind of move but that was an important move for them (a bit like how Sony gave 1st party treatment to Squaresoft with their big migration of FFVII in the PS1 days).
  • Nintendo worked closely with and eventually absorbed Namco's Monolith Soft, a team of former Squaresoft employees.
  • Similarly, they published The Last Story, a game by Mystwalker, Sakaguchi's indie game dev consulting studio which he started after leaving Square.
  • Nintendo pushed for experimental relationships with Squaresoft even if the prior president of Nintendo had created a rift. The games and devs in question are Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, the Brownie Brown studio, and a number of games produced by them.
  • The Capcom 5 was a set of exclusive games Capcom would produce for Nintendo on the gamecube as part of an exclusivity deal (yep money, another rare move by Nintendo).
  • The complete success of the portable line bolstered confidence in the Nintendo brand (mainly for portables).

I would say that, with Japanese developers, Nintendo is doing great.

With American developers, you have the Ubisoft move with Rabbids, and then you have some 3rd party companies making ports to the Wii (they were definitely approached by NOA). In the end though, Nintendo's relationship with Western 3rd parties is their weak point. Also, western games tend to prioritize graphics and raw power, which goes against the grain of Nintendo console philosophy (big money can still be made without that I need to point out).

On that I can easily agree with you.

But the question is, is it important? Perhaps Oniyide is right in saying that those games are not needed on Nintendo consoles. Perhaps they dilute the overall quality of the library, perhaps they change the appeal of the console by targeting an audience that doesn't mesh well with Nintendo's current direction (japanese type arcade and rpg games). To be honest, I am not sure what would be the best here.

But one thing is certain, it's that if EA did make games on Nintendo consoles, esp. if encouraged by Nintendo, the games would need to match the quality of what gamers expect to play on a Nintendo console. To me that's fundamental. So no shovelware, and no feature-weak half-ports. It's not welcome.

Yes I can agree that even though it is a different approach (loan IPS vs giving money) it have been effective with Japanese devs (even more because 3DS and now Switch had sold much better than PS in Japan so the devs were certainly interested on the system).

And yes on West is where they have to work more and also agree that for the most part Nintendo isn't really missing much by not having the majority of the devs in the west. Sure Rockstar, CKProject and a couple of others would be good to have but the rest is just something I don't even care about.

Also yes if Nintendo decides to put the money on it to bring or ensure ports from EA, Ubi, Activistion, etc it must also demand an acceptable level of quality (dictated by Nintendo) so that whatever is inferior to PS or Xbox is just because technically it wasn't possible (so basically graphical features).



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

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Yes I can agree that even though it is a different approach (loan IPS vs giving money) it have been effective with Japanese devs (even more because 3DS and now Switch had sold much better than PS in Japan so the devs were certainly interested on the system).

And yes on West is where they have to work more and also agree that for the most part Nintendo isn't really missing much by not having the majority of the devs in the west. Sure Rockstar, CKProject and a couple of others would be good to have but the rest is just something I don't even care about.

Also yes if Nintendo decides to put the money on it to bring or ensure ports from EA, Ubi, Activistion, etc it must also demand an acceptable level of quality (dictated by Nintendo) so that whatever is inferior to PS or Xbox is just because technically it wasn't possible (so basically graphical features).

I'm completely on the same page as you here.



Haven't read the whole thread yet.

Why does EA like leaving money on the table? Their investors can't be happy with that. I've found myself buying a lot more Ubisoft games lately, just because they are available on Nintendo consoles. The last EA game I bought was Mass Effect. This was just last year, 2019, on Steam for $4.99 on sale. Before that? Either Boom Blox or Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10. Either of those would have been roughly 2009. A fucking decade between purchases. I count 5 EA games I bought for the GameCube alone. I guess if they don't want me as a customer anymore, that is their business.

By the way, I do play Simpsons Tapped Out on mobile. I have spent exactly $0.00 on that game.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2012 (Borderlands 2) - 11 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

theRepublic said:
Haven't read the whole thread yet.

Why does EA like leaving money on the table? Their investors can't be happy with that. I've found myself buying a lot more Ubisoft games lately, just because they are available on Nintendo consoles. The last EA game I bought was Mass Effect. This was just last year, 2019, on Steam for $4.99 on sale. Before that? Either Boom Blox or Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10. Either of those would have been roughly 2009. A fucking decade between purchases. I count 5 EA games I bought for the GameCube alone. I guess if they don't want me as a customer anymore, that is their business.

By the way, I do play Simpsons Tapped Out on mobile. I have spent exactly $0.00 on that game.

Someone asked the same thing on another thread about GTA and Rockstar....




The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

Other third parties have managed to sell games on Switch. But I agree with EA in so far that most of their games aren't interesting to Nintendo gamers.

Little bit of advice to EA (since it's probable at least a few people from that company peruse this forum): You actually have to be compelling to sell on Nintendo. Don't pretend it's not possible just because your product manager/producer/pipeline/greenlight system has the creative potential of a puddle of piss. You have to do better than spitting out over-produced revisions of the most overused concepts of the past 15 years.

It's not surprising the company hasn't scored a break-out hit since the Sims, after buying Maxis off of Will Wright back over 20 years ago.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 15 February 2020

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

theRepublic said:
Haven't read the whole thread yet.

Why does EA like leaving money on the table? Their investors can't be happy with that. I've found myself buying a lot more Ubisoft games lately, just because they are available on Nintendo consoles. The last EA game I bought was Mass Effect. This was just last year, 2019, on Steam for $4.99 on sale. Before that? Either Boom Blox or Tiger Woods PGA Tour 10. Either of those would have been roughly 2009. A fucking decade between purchases. I count 5 EA games I bought for the GameCube alone. I guess if they don't want me as a customer anymore, that is their business.

By the way, I do play Simpsons Tapped Out on mobile. I have spent exactly $0.00 on that game.

I think EA used to do well on the casual game scene. It might have one day been a major AAA scale pillar. They had some interesting stuff going on with Sims and SinCity, I used to play Tapped Out too, though it took a massive shit in quality a couple years ago, luckily it happened pretty much the same time Fire Emblem Heroes released so I had something else to move onto. Although, IMO, FEH has also taken a shit in quality in the last year or so, and I still have yet to find a game to replace it, so I play more from habit now than fun.

I used to like my casual games. But there’s not been anything super interesting lately.

I’m shocked they haven’t done any major SPORE or Ultima stuff. I think having a casual MMO where players build creatures and watch their success in the galaxy would be an incredibly compelling game.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 16 February 2020

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.