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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - EA sent ME3 on Wii U to die.

Pjams on 29 September 2012
CCFanboy said:
Pjams said:
I bet they'll port the trilogy to WiiU, but only after everyone buys ME3 first.


This. If they didn't believe it would sell it wouldn't be on there in the first place. Ignore wii u getting mass effect 3 and you'll see this whole trilogy is just a way to milk the game. I doubt mass effect 1 will have much (if any) effort put into it and will likely compare worse to the later games that were built to the strengths of ps3.

Truthfully mass effect 3 on wii u and the trilogy as a whole is just one last cash grab before moving on. Lets face it, even with mass effect 3 on wii u who will really care about the game as a whole on wii u or ps3? I care and will buy it but how many really will? The time when this would have had a much bigger impact has passed by and on all systems but 360 I think its too late to make any big impact on any side. This is all just ea making cash grabs for the series from as many platforms as possible.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the mass effect trilogy on 360 sold more than the trilogy on ps3 and mass effect 3 wii u combined. Still I'll be getting this on wii u regardless. I hope others will be joining me.

I own all three on PC and 360, I plan on buying the trilogy for PS3 as well. I am getting the WiiU but I don't plan on buying ME3 for it. Unless the  WiiU controller truly enhances the experience. 



 

Around the Network
Mr Khan on 29 September 2012
dharh said:
EA was probably already making the trilogy for PS360 before they got their hands on the Wii U dev kits. Either that or they figured it might be too much effort to port 3 games to Wii U without knowing how much success it might get, so they just decided to do ME3 first to feel it out.

EA should never have even tried to release ME on Wii U. Sequels of Games (real sequels, not like Final Fantasy) should finish on the brand(s) they started on.

Someone's mad about Bayonetta...



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

KungKras on 29 September 2012
oniyide said:
the_dengle said:
oniyide said:

Unless you have any actual evidence of "wrong doing" on EA's part then it is nothing but conspiracy theroy, that what conspiracy theory is.

Releasing ME3 on Wii U two weeks after ME Trilogy on 360 at the same price isn't "wrong doing?"

Not putting in the effort to make sure the Wii U versions of Madden and FIFA are on par with the PS360 versions even though they have three extra months to work on the game isn't "wrong doing?"

Refusing to publish games on Dreamcast out of spite simply because Sega wouldn't hand EA a sports game monopoly isn't "wrong doing?"

Rereleasing FIFA12 with updated rosters and nothing else and calling it FIFA13 isn't "wrong doing?"

Stripping down their 3DS handegg game, releasing it almost a full year late during the off-season at full price with half the features of the console version, then neglecting to release further iterations of the franchise on 3DS, resulting in NO further NFL games on the console due to their exclusivity, isn't "wrong doing?"

You sure have a curious definition of "wrong."

There's plenty more but I don't have time right now.


Can we stick to the subject of ME3 cause that is the only thing im talking about here, those others have nothing to do with the subject at hand. And no releasing ME3 on Wii U for the same price as the trilogy on 360 is not "wrong", its there product they can do what they want. Its stupid, foolish and crazy and pure greedy, but not wrong.

Understanding the past is important for understanding the present and future.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Darc Requiem on 29 September 2012
Mr Khan said:
dharh said:
EA was probably already making the trilogy for PS360 before they got their hands on the Wii U dev kits. Either that or they figured it might be too much effort to port 3 games to Wii U without knowing how much success it might get, so they just decided to do ME3 first to feel it out.

EA should never have even tried to release ME on Wii U. Sequels of Games (real sequels, not like Final Fantasy) should finish on the brand(s) they started on.

Someone's mad about Bayonetta...



You sure about that. I mean using his line of reasoning a multitude of franchises would become Wii U exclusive. Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Megaman, Castlevania, Tales of, etc. Of course, since the MSX was concieved by Microsoft, Metal Gear would become Xbox exclusive....



Alby_da_Wolf on 29 September 2012

I still think that plain and simple greed is a better explanation than conspiracy. With PC and XB360 they were able to sell all the three single titles and now the trilogy, with PS3 they sold the last two single titles and now the trilogy, with WiiU they want to at least sell one single title, ME3, then the trilogy. As to sell the trilogy they must port three titles to WiiU, doing it to sell two full priced boxes instead of just one could make a big difference on profits, or even be the difference between losing and profiting on the series on WiiU too.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


Around the Network
CCFanboy on 29 September 2012
Pjams said:

I own all three on PC and 360, I plan on buying the trilogy for PS3 as well. I am getting the WiiU but I don't plan on buying ME3 for it. Unless the  WiiU controller truly enhances the experience. 


Nice to hear your buying the trilogy for ps3. Like I say the majority probably won't care but that doesn't mean nobody will buy it. I bet the trilogy gets on wii u anyway because of how greedy ea are. What I'm thinking is this trilogy was planned with wii u arriving too late to get ports on there. So they opted to release the last using a different studio so they don't waste their own resources. Seems strange to put an entire team to get a game on there that you believe won't sell. Unless it costs next to nothing to port there. In which case there is nothing stopping the trilogy coming later anyway (besides resources). Sales will just persuade them more so if your interested in this game go for it. I bet it comes anyway but voting with your wallet will "convince" them faster.

This is very unlikely to be some kind of conspiracy against nintendo and stopping games like battlefield getting on there. It seems more to do with timing and resources.



One more thing to complete my year = senran kagura localization =D

oniyide on 29 September 2012
Alby_da_Wolf said:
I still think that plain and simple greed is a better explanation than conspiracy. With PC and XB360 they were able to sell all the three single titles and now the trilogy, with PS3 they sold the last two single titles and now the trilogy, with WiiU they want to at least sell one single title, ME3, then the trilogy. As to sell the trilogy they must port three titles to WiiU, doing it to sell two full priced boxes instead of just one could make a big difference on profits, or even be the difference between losing and profiting on the series on WiiU too.


This, nice to see not everyone is paranoid.  I find it a little strange that when the trilogy gets announced for other systems all of a sudden, their is outrage about ME3 on Wii U. I didnt see anywhere near this outrage when it was announced at E3



lilbroex on 29 September 2012

That is because no one cared about ME3 and they still don't. Most people would rather have just 1 and 2 with out 3 than 3 by itself.



the_dengle on 29 September 2012
oniyide said:


Can we stick to the subject of ME3 cause that is the only thing im talking about here, those others have nothing to do with the subject at hand. And no releasing ME3 on Wii U for the same price as the trilogy on 360 is not "wrong", its there product they can do what they want. Its stupid, foolish and crazy and pure greedy, but not wrong.

You asked for evidence of wrong-doing. Those example prove that EA has been willing to sacrifice potential profits for the sake of scumbaggery many times in the past. They show no signs of halting this practice.

Especially the Dreamcast example. You mean to tell me that not publishing their games on Dreamcast was a profit-driven decision? Nah, they made an outrageous ultimatum, and Sega didn't cave. EA had to save face. They refused to publish on Dreamcast, in spite of the easy profit they would have made from simple ports of games like Madden and Need for Speed, just to prove that they weren't bluffing. They could easily have said, "You know what, that no-third-pary-sports-games offer sounds like a good deal." They still would have had very little competition on the console, and more than enough sales to justify the cost of porting. EA made a business decision that lost them potential profits out of spite. They absolutely did, there is no arguing that point. If it has been proven that they did that in the past, then there is reason to believe they would do that in the present.

This is an essential part of the case against EA. ME3 is NOT the first time they've done something like this, so arguing against the principal of the matter is pointless. EA has acted this way before.

And I happen to believe that making a business decision rooted in pure greed is, in fact, "wrong." You can make hefty profits without sticking it to your customers that way. Compare Valve's TF2 model (was that decision made to make Valve money? Absolutely. Does it also please their fans? You bet it does.) to Capcom's extensive use of on-disc DLC. There's a difference between good business and greed.



oniyide on 29 September 2012
the_dengle said:
oniyide said:


Can we stick to the subject of ME3 cause that is the only thing im talking about here, those others have nothing to do with the subject at hand. And no releasing ME3 on Wii U for the same price as the trilogy on 360 is not "wrong", its there product they can do what they want. Its stupid, foolish and crazy and pure greedy, but not wrong.

You asked for evidence of wrong-doing. Those example prove that EA has been willing to sacrifice potential profits for the sake of scumbaggery many times in the past. They show no signs of halting this practice.

Especially the Dreamcast example. You mean to tell me that not publishing their games on Dreamcast was a profit-driven decision? Nah, they made an outrageous ultimatum, and Sega didn't cave. EA had to save face. They refused to publish on Dreamcast, in spite of the easy profit they would have made from simple ports of games like Madden and Need for Speed, just to prove that they weren't bluffing. They could easily have said, "You know what, that no-third-pary-sports-games offer sounds like a good deal." They still would have had very little competition on the console, and more than enough sales to justify the cost of porting. EA made a business decision that lost them potential profits out of spite. They absolutely did, there is no arguing that point. If it has been proven that they did that in the past, then there is reason to believe they would do that in the present.

This is an essential part of the case against EA. ME3 is NOT the first time they've done something like this, so arguing against the principal of the matter is pointless. EA has acted this way before.

And I happen to believe that making a business decision rooted in pure greed is, in fact, "wrong." You can make hefty profits without sticking it to your customers that way. Compare Valve's TF2 model (was that decision made to make Valve money? Absolutely. Does it also please their fans? You bet it does.) to Capcom's extensive use of on-disc DLC. There's a difference between good business and greed.


what the hell the DC have to do with Wii U? What does Sega have to do with Ninty, what does something happened more than a decade ago have to do with whats going on now?? Not saying that back then that was a cool move, still doesnt change the fact that it has nothing to do with ME3 on Wii U today, there not even the same situation.

@bolded. fair enough.