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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Battlefield 4 skipping Wii U

TheLastStarFighter on 27 March 2013
pezus said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
KungKras said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
Battlefield is the "me too" to CoD. It's the Sonic to Mario, the Rock Band to Guitar Hero. It's a big seller, but second fiddle in the war shooters category. It's a significant absence for Wii U, no question, but the titles the system needs are the ones I listed. If CoD is on Wii U and sells millions (not a couple 100k) then Battlefield will follow. It's tough for the also-rans on a Nintendo console. Consumers this fall will pick up Zelda, MarioU and MarioKartU. After that Watch_Dogs, AC4 and CoD will battle for interest. When the world's biggest shooter is relegated to 2nd level interest because of a flagship Mario, the second-place shooter becomes an afterthought.

You have obviously never played Battlefield.

It's a PC shooter, leagues ahead of CoD in scale.

Didn't say it's not better.  Or different.  It's still a military shooter with less than half the sales of CoD.  It is second fiddle.  Rockband was better than Guitar Hero, many people liked Sonic better than Mario. Regardless, one is iconic with name value, one much less.  Right now Wii U needs the name value titles to sell hardware.  The others will follow if there is money to be made.

That said, I do think not having Battlefield is significant because it will be graphically of high quality on next gen titles.  It's also one that easily could have been on Wii U if they wanted, unlike titles that were mostly done with PS360 in mind.


Not less than half, but more than half its sales. Not many other games can say that though, can they?

Battlefield3 (2011):  12.97
CODMW3 (2011):  27.5

Battlefield = 47%, less than half.

But yes, it's a very big title!



Around the Network
superchunk on 27 March 2013
crissindahouse said:
superchunk said:
Well, saves me $60 to be spent on a different game.

not really since you said in another thread that you won't buy it because it's from ea.


But I stipulated that my ban on EA is partly due to its ban on Nintendo.



superchunk on 27 March 2013
pezus said:
superchunk said:
Well, saves me $60 to be spent on a different game.

Yup. But you also said that WiiU would be getting most games PS3 would get and that's why you sold your PS3.

Yes and when I said that, EA was all aboard Nintendo as they pledged full support at two E3s in a row. Now that EA is a being an asshole plus their DRM issues, I'm not buying their ish.



crissindahouse on 27 March 2013
superchunk said:
crissindahouse said:
superchunk said:
Well, saves me $60 to be spent on a different game.

not really since you said in another thread that you won't buy it because it's from ea.


But I stipulated that my ban on EA is partly due to its ban on Nintendo.

just say "i don't buy games on wii u which aren't on wii u" and not "say no to ea" then.

maybe you are also a pc gamer i don't know about and you would buy it on pc if it would be also on wii u.  if you don't buy it on wii u only because it's not available for it, that's not really "boycotting" ea.



bananaking21 on 27 March 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:
bananaking21 said:
carlos3189 said:
I don't understand people, WiiU came out 3 or 4 months ago, there hasn't been any kind of third party conference (E3, TGS, etc.), not even a Nintendo direct aimed to 3rd party support, and yet they claim WiiU is being abandoned... I see how several games are not being announced for the WiiU, but I also see how they aren't being announced for PS4 (Dead Island, Saints Row), what is the difference?


the difference is that dead island was announced before even the PS4 was announced. it is also releasing way before the PS4 is released. it is however, releasing while the WiiU would have been announced for 2 years and been on the market for over half a year

This is the most significant part of the whole thing. I think I even read the developers were looking to have BF4 working on Wii U.  I think EA really hates Nintendo.


i dont mean this as an insult or attack so please dont take me wrong, but when ever somebody says that EA hates nintendo or wants to spite them i see that as really childish, im not trying to be offensive but i really do. EA does have a point not to put battlefield on WiiU, the money they would make on the platform simply doesnt look like it would be enough. just look at CoD on the WiiU, it completely tanked, and now we are talking about a game that, is in the same genre as CoD and as you pointed out earlier, sells less. why would EA put it on the WiiU? also they risk stretching Dice thin, think about it, this is being released on 5 platforms, PC, Ps3, Xbox 360, PS4 and 720. thats A LOT it would be a lot for them to handle to release it on another platform, that will 99% wont make them any money or very little money. 

though i do say that this might come back and bite EA on the ass, if the next CoD does release on the WiiU and does have good sales, they are losing customers to CoD, and the WiiU fanebase will be CoD fans and then if EA tries to sell them battlefield later on, it will have a really hard time, as the people on WiiU already love CoD. EA could potentially lose a market in the future



Around the Network
cunger on 27 March 2013

Since when is Dead Island a high profile game?



superchunk on 27 March 2013
crissindahouse said:
superchunk said:
crissindahouse said:
superchunk said:
Well, saves me $60 to be spent on a different game.

not really since you said in another thread that you won't buy it because it's from ea.


But I stipulated that my ban on EA is partly due to its ban on Nintendo.

then just say "i don't buy games on wii u which aren't on wii u" and not "say no to ea"

But that's not true.

My BF3 experience on PS3 had already made me strongly feel that I was going to go back to PC for BF games. However, EAs personal issue with Nintendo and their DRM changes/Origin have made me ban EA all together until they change.

I could even accept an always on DRM in BF games as that's the only way I'd play them anyways. But, the fact that EA has pulled a 180 on Nintendo support has made me say FU. Nintendo >>>>> EA. Plus, I see EA going further and further into practices that are starkly to the detriment of the industry and consumers.



bananaking21 on 27 March 2013
cunger said:

Since when is Dead Island a high profile game?


since the last one sold 5 million units



crissindahouse on 27 March 2013
superchunk said:
 

But that's not true.

My BF3 experience on PS3 had already made me strongly feel that I was going to go back to PC for BF games. However, EAs personal issue with Nintendo and their DRM changes/Origin have made me ban EA all together until they change.

I could even accept an always on DRM in BF games as that's the only way I'd play them anyways. But, the fact that EA has pulled a 180 on Nintendo support has made me say FU. Nintendo >>>>> EA. Plus, I see EA going further and further into practices that are starkly to the detriment of the industry and consumers.

i edited my post when you posted this.

didn't know that you play on pc. so you mean you won't buy it on pc because ea isn't supporting nintendo consoles? ok that makes more sense then, sry.



TheLastStarFighter on 27 March 2013
bananaking21 said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
bananaking21 said:
carlos3189 said:
I don't understand people, WiiU came out 3 or 4 months ago, there hasn't been any kind of third party conference (E3, TGS, etc.), not even a Nintendo direct aimed to 3rd party support, and yet they claim WiiU is being abandoned... I see how several games are not being announced for the WiiU, but I also see how they aren't being announced for PS4 (Dead Island, Saints Row), what is the difference?


the difference is that dead island was announced before even the PS4 was announced. it is also releasing way before the PS4 is released. it is however, releasing while the WiiU would have been announced for 2 years and been on the market for over half a year

This is the most significant part of the whole thing. I think I even read the developers were looking to have BF4 working on Wii U.  I think EA really hates Nintendo.


i dont mean this as an insult or attack so please dont take me wrong, but when ever somebody says that EA hates nintendo or wants to spite them i see that as really childish, im not trying to be offensive but i really do. EA does have a point not to put battlefield on WiiU, the money they would make on the platform simply doesnt look like it would be enough. just look at CoD on the WiiU, it completely tanked, and now we are talking about a game that, is in the same genre as CoD and as you pointed out earlier, sells less. why would EA put it on the WiiU? also they risk stretching Dice thin, think about it, this is being released on 5 platforms, PC, Ps3, Xbox 360, PS4 and 720. thats A LOT it would be a lot for them to handle to release it on another platform, that will 99% wont make them any money or very little money. 

though i do say that this might come back and bite EA on the ass, if the next CoD does release on the WiiU and does have good sales, they are losing customers to CoD, and the WiiU fanebase will be CoD fans and then if EA tries to sell them battlefield later on, it will have a really hard time, as the people on WiiU already love CoD. EA could potentially lose a market in the future

It may sound childish, but it's naive to think it's not true.  Trip Hawkins felt that Nintendo had too much control, and he credited EA's succes with ignoring Nintendo and focusing on Genesis:

http://mynintendonews.com/2011/07/14/nintendo-trip-hawkins-believes-nintendo-will-eventually-lose-out-to-the-web-browser/

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/nintendo-development-system-called-feudal-by-trip-hawkins/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-03-08-hawkins-apple-and-nintendo-changed-business-for-worse

EA has always had a view that developers should be in control. They rejected Nintendo, and have long shown support for competing systems, ones they can control. Trip brags about forcing Sega to do what they want, because Sega needed EA where Nintendo didn't.

EA has said in the past the ideal world for them will be one box, perhaps a cloud type box where developer have free reign and the console maker is irrelevant. Nintendo is the company that is furthest from their ideal model.  They want Nintendo to fail.  In the opinion of EA it is in their best interest.  They may be right. Larry Probst has stated his goals of 35%+ market share for EA software. They want world domination, and they view Nintendo - as the worlds biggest games software maker - as competition, not an ally.

Sony and MS are primarily hardware makers, as such they are a better fit for EA.