Crono141 said:
|
I mean on Mass Effect, my most excellent friend. I do not follow Madden.
Looking at some of the conspiracy theories being put forth, maybe it is time that some stockholders started asking questions.
Of course, for there to be a conspiracy, people have to be smart enough to think along those lines. I just have a feeling this might be the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
And if Nintendo really wants to make sure it gets EA games, it can always buy the company 8*>
Mike from Morgantown
 I am Mario.I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble. Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492 NNID: Mike_INTV |
Khuutra said:
I mean on Mass Effect, my most excellent friend. I do not follow Madden. |
My bad.
Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.
JWeinCom said:
1. Ok. 2. People would kill people to make money. Not to lose money. 3. You do realize that the Origin Wii U rumor has never been confirmed? 4. So, tell the stockholders that you don't think it's the right platform for their games. That's what Nintendo does when people ask them to produce mobile games. Shareholders don't really make decisions like that, and I'm not sure there is a huge clamoring for Wii U games. 5. A million dollars is not something EA would throw away casually on a halfbaked anti Wii U scheme. Big companies like this tend to be very focussed on NOT losing money. I'm not sure where you got a million dollars (could be more could be less), but that's only part of the cost. There is also a little thing called opportunity cost. EA is devoting resources and employees to this project. What game are they not developing because they are developing this one? Plus, EA is releasing several other games for the Wii U. They're doing Madden, they're doing Fifa, they're doing Medal of Honor, and Need for Speed is practically confirmed for the console. How many times do they need to prove their point to investors? Do they want Medal of Honor to fail too? Need for speed? That's a lot of wasted time and effort for a console they don't want to bring games to. Oh, and Dead Space Extraction was a generally well received game. It sold poorly, but most people who played it really seemed to enjoy it, and at the very least it had great graphics. Sometimes you release games and they flop despite your best wishes. Just ask Red Steel 2. @Mr Kahn- By evidence do you mean random speculation? Because that's all there was in that post. Edit: Madden 13 uses the Madden 12 engine. The Vita version does too, because they were developed by the same team. Madden ports to new consoles always lack features. Besides, now EA is producing yet another game they want to fail? Boy they're really going out of their way for this. |
2. His point was that a million dollars isn't much to sacrifice now if it excuses you from having to do something you don't want to do later.
3. Fair enough, but then explain to me what happened between E3 2011's on-stage declaration of "an unprecedented partnership" and then E3 2012, with NO EA on-stage presence, one late, now-rendered-worse-than-worthless port in a sizzle reel, and two feature-stripped sports games. As well as the outright cancellation of Battlefield 3. What happened in the interim?
4. Japanese stockholders and American stockholders are very different beasts. In Japan, companies go out of their way to make sure shareholders have as little say as possible, and Nintendo has a lot of private ownership (from Yamauchi). In America, stockholders are very demanding, and just "saying" something to them isn't going to quiet them, especially with a company with profitiability as inconsistent as EA. They need to provide a more compelling reason, so they will
5. They are devoting a company that ports games to iOS. They are clearly trying to make this as minimal-investment as possible.
Madden & Fifa: Feature-stripped
NfS and MoH: were these ever confirmed? I honestly don't know on that one.
Dead Space Extraction: Here was a game that nobody wanted. It doesn't matter how well you do something, if you're doing something well that nobody wants, you know it's not going to do anything. EA sent that game out to die, for one, and then realized it was worth nothing when they released it later on PS3 for free w/purchase of other game.
Red Steel 2: Ubisoft cut expectations in half before they released the game. I remember this very clearly. They knew they had a lemon on their hands with that one, too.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
| JWeinCom said:
2. People would kill people to make money. Not to lose money. |
This applies to people who need to make money. It's not neccessarily true to people who have money to burn. They burn the money just to make a point.
a company supports a console and you guys still cry a company doesnt you still cry...I dont get it
Not following the idea that ME3 being released at full price on the Wii U means EA wants to beat up Nintendo. Wouldn't that also mean that EA hates Sony? I mean, oh em gee, ME2 released at full price on the PS3! I see it now, EA hates the Japanese and possibly aliens.
The only questionable move is the announcement of the Trilogy edition. It would have been smarter to wait a month, but would it really have made a difference? If you already own a PS3/360/PC, and you were interested in the franchise, then you've probably played the Mass Effect games already. If you don't, and you're upgrading from the Wii, then you're going to have to pay full price for the latest game, JUST LIKE ON THE PS3, which fits in with EA's past practices. The only difference here, unlike on the PS3, is that you know a Trilogy version exists, so you can get it elsewhere or wait to see if it releases on the Wii U. So, in effect, the announcement is good for gamers.
It's unrealistic to think that EA isn't going to try to get full price for ME3 on a different console when they've done the exact same thing before.
Regardless, I blame the liberal media for this entire issue.
| pokoko said: Not following the idea that ME3 being released at full price on the Wii U means EA wants to beat up Nintendo. Wouldn't that also mean that EA hates Sony? I mean, oh em gee, ME2 released at full price on the PS3! I see it now, EA hates the Japanese and possibly aliens. The only questionable move is the announcement of the Trilogy edition. It would have been smarter to wait a month, but would it really have made a difference? If you already own a PS3/360/PC, and you were interested in the franchise, then you've probably played the Mass Effect games already. If you don't, and you're upgrading from the Wii, then you're going to have to pay full price for the latest game, JUST LIKE ON THE PS3, which fits in with EA's past practices. The only difference here, unlike on the PS3, is that you know a Trilogy version exists, so you can get it elsewhere or wait to see if it releases on the Wii U. So, in effect, the announcement is good for gamers. It's unrealistic to think that EA isn't going to try to get full price for ME3 on a different console when they've done the exact same thing before. Regardless, I blame the liberal media for this entire issue. |
That's actually not true, as I remember; ME2 launched at $20 on the PS3 with all DLC sans Arrival included.
Khuutra said:
That's actually not true, as I remember; ME2 launched at $20 on the PS3 with all DLC sans Arrival included. |
No way? I even did research first, turned up an article saying it would release at full price with a lot of people complaining.
Alright then, I stand corrected, and will no longer openly mock the EA/Nintendo conspiracy people.
Mr Khan said:
2. His point was that a million dollars isn't much to sacrifice now if it excuses you from having to do something you don't want to do later. 3. Fair enough, but then explain to me what happened between E3 2011's on-stage declaration of "an unprecedented partnership" and then E3 2012, with NO EA on-stage presence, one late, now-rendered-worse-than-worthless port in a sizzle reel, and two feature-stripped sports games. As well as the outright cancellation of Battlefield 3. What happened in the interim? 4. Japanese stockholders and American stockholders are very different beasts. In Japan, companies go out of their way to make sure shareholders have as little say as possible, and Nintendo has a lot of private ownership (from Yamauchi). In America, stockholders are very demanding, and just "saying" something to them isn't going to quiet them, especially with a company with profitiability as inconsistent as EA. They need to provide a more compelling reason, so they will 5. They are devoting a company that ports games to iOS. They are clearly trying to make this as minimal-investment as possible. Madden & Fifa: Feature-stripped NfS and MoH: were these ever confirmed? I honestly don't know on that one. Dead Space Extraction: Here was a game that nobody wanted. It doesn't matter how well you do something, if you're doing something well that nobody wants, you know it's not going to do anything. EA sent that game out to die, for one, and then realized it was worth nothing when they released it later on PS3 for free w/purchase of other game. Red Steel 2: Ubisoft cut expectations in half before they released the game. I remember this very clearly. They knew they had a lemon on their hands with that one, too. |
2. We don't know how much ports cost, but considering there are four confirmed games in development, that's a lot of wasted money to prove a point. And considering that their are 4 confirmed games in development, that's 4 million at least, and the use of tons of developer time. Besides, if the game costs only a million to produce, maybe they expect to turn a profit on this.
3. Who knows. Not me. It's quite possible that there are other projects in development for Wii U that haven't been announced.
4. First off, we're assuming there is some huge shareholder demand for hardcore Wii U games, and I don't think that's the case. Secondly, if EA wanted to, they could point to their failures on the Wii. Or, they could use MOH, Fifa, Need for Speed, and Madden as examples. There was no need to make another game with the intention of flopping.
5. The game looks and plays really well, and pretty much nobody has disputed that. Whatever their origins, the company is doing a good job with the port, so I don't see the relevance of the company's iPhone start.
6. EA Sports launch games typically are stripped of features. The PS Vita version of Madden even is stripped of features. Are they sending that out to die too?
7. MOH Warfighter is confirmed. Need For Speed is not confirmed, but it's the same sort of situation as Black Ops 2 was before Nintendo's conference. It's not official, but it's clearly being done. That leaves us with 5 games EA is making just to prove this point. I guess they just really hate the Wii U if they're willing to burn so many resources just to be able to not develop for it.
8. If EA wanted Dead Space to die, they could have just half assed the game. Why make a good game if you wanted it to not sell?
As for Ubisoft, why did they make Red Steel 2 if they thought it would fail? More anti Nintendo conspiracy? Or, did they just start developing the game, and realize in the time they spent development that the project was unlikely to succeed. Sometimes you start a project with good intentions, and by the time you realize it won't work, it's too late to bail out. Things like this happen, and it's generally not a sign of an insidious plot. See; No More Heroes X-Box 360/PS3, Blue Dragon, Playstation Move. Sometimes companies **** up. Plus, again, we could be wrong and this can turn a profit. A ten year old port of Rayman 2 sold 500k copies on the 3DS, so it's not absurd that an 8 month ME3 port can at least break even.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
