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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - EA’s “Unprecedented Partnership” with Nintendo and Other Fairy Tales...

Arcturus on 09 May 2013
RicardJulianti said:
pokoko said:
Mr Khan said:
pokoko said:
Honestly stopped reading when this guy presented an insane and unsubstantiated rumor from reddit as plausible.

It's better than the lunacy that suggests that EA is perfectly justified in all of this.

No, it's not.  Let's forget how crazy the rumor is, the idea that EA was somehow ready to take over Nintendo's online infrastructure months before the Wii U shipped, or that EA had made all these plans dependent on the basis that they would control the Nintendo online store without bothering to get approval from Nintendo themselves.  All of that is nuts from a practical standpoint, but let's put that aside.

That people are grasping at straws by trusting an anonymous reddit poster that claims to have knowledge of what was said at a meeting between Nintendo and EA in Japan is what gets me.  People are just taking this as truth without any kind of proof.  Never mind that it makes zero sense; why are people putting faith in it when there is no evidence whatsoever?

There is nothing about this that fits well with reality.  It would be a nightmare to implement and there would be all kinds of problems and details to work out.  It's the kind of arrangement that would take years to hammer out in terms of logistics.

What I'm getting from all of this is that people believe it because they want to believe it.  It takes all responsibility away from Nintendo and puts it on EA.  We get instant Jedi and Sith.  Yes, it would account for the situation now, but you can always easily make up explainations after the fact.  A child can do that.  What if someone made up a rumor that said EA was angry at Nintendo because Nintendo was giving Activision a much better promotional deal with their Call of Duty franchise?  Would we instantly believe that without proof?

I don't know what happened between EA and Nintendo.  Personally, I think it does have to do with Origin and how it works from within EA games.  My guess is that Nintendo won't give EA the same kind of freedom that Microsoft and Sony have agreed upon.  That, I think, would be the most logical possibility.

However, that anyone in the gaming media is taking that rumor and just running with it, that's kind of sad.

Again....read the entire article before you start talking as if you have. There is one (1) paragraph about the supposed Origin rumor, and it isn't mentioned again. It's not like I am basing the entire argument around EA wanting Origin integrated. I don't bring it up later and say anything remotely close to "See? It IS true!"

You can even ignore that paragraph entirely, supplimenting your personal theory on what happened and everything still holds true. But don't try to dismiss the entire article because you don't like one theory. EA games still require an Origin account, so it's not as if Nintendo isn't letting them use their proprietary stuff for their games. 

The fact of the matter is, SOMETHING happened between the two and EA is full of hippocrites. THAT is the point of the article.

A lot can change over the period of a year and a half. Relationships between companies can change, markets change. That does not make EA a "hippocrite". Things changed and EA decided not to support the console as much as the vague "Unprecedented Partnership" implied.



Around the Network
RicardJulianti on 09 May 2013
Arcturus said:

A lot can change over the period of a year and a half. Relationships between companies can change, markets change. That does not make EA a "hippocrite". Things changed and EA decided not to support the console as much as the vague "Unprecedented Partnership" implied.


"It is the first next-generation platform coming out, so we're really supporting it"

"what we’re describing as ‘Gen 4′ is yet to come. It’s that we’re excited about, and that’s what we’re investing in.”

Those two quotes are over the span of 7 months. They most likely had dev kits from Sony and MS when they made the first comment, so it's not like they just went "Oh, well....hmmm....these have so much more power, we are going to pull the plug on what we've been working on"

They say one thing (we're really supporting it) but do another (actively cannibalize ME3 sales among other things). Fire in one hand, water in the other. The very definition of hypocrisy. To say they have a "strong partnership with Nintendo" and they are "really supporting it" but do the exact opposite is absolutely hypocrisy.



Arcturus on 09 May 2013
RicardJulianti said:
Arcturus said:

A lot can change over the period of a year and a half. Relationships between companies can change, markets change. That does not make EA a "hippocrite". Things changed and EA decided not to support the console as much as the vague "Unprecedented Partnership" implied.


"It is the first next-generation platform coming out, so we're really supporting it"

"what we’re describing as ‘Gen 4′ is yet to come. It’s that we’re excited about, and that’s what we’re investing in.”

Those two quotes are over the span of 7 months. They most likely had dev kits from Sony and MS when they made the first comment, so it's not like they just went "Oh, well....hmmm....these have so much more power, we are going to pull the plug on what we've been working on"

They say one thing (we're really supporting it) but do another (actively cannibalize ME3 sales among other things). Fire in one hand, water in the other. The very definition of hypocrisy. To say they have a "strong partnership with Nintendo" and they are "really supporting it" but do the exact opposite is absolutely hypocrisy.

How about some context for those quotes?

As for ME3, how is that any different from EA releasing ME2 on the PS3 at full price a full year after the games release on the 360, when it could be purchased on the 360 for probably $20-$30 at the time, and for $5 through Steam? ME2 still sold well on the PS3, despite it being cheaper on other platforms.



RicardJulianti on 09 May 2013
Arcturus said:
RicardJulianti said:
Arcturus said:

A lot can change over the period of a year and a half. Relationships between companies can change, markets change. That does not make EA a "hippocrite". Things changed and EA decided not to support the console as much as the vague "Unprecedented Partnership" implied.


"It is the first next-generation platform coming out, so we're really supporting it"

"what we’re describing as ‘Gen 4′ is yet to come. It’s that we’re excited about, and that’s what we’re investing in.”

Those two quotes are over the span of 7 months. They most likely had dev kits from Sony and MS when they made the first comment, so it's not like they just went "Oh, well....hmmm....these have so much more power, we are going to pull the plug on what we've been working on"

They say one thing (we're really supporting it) but do another (actively cannibalize ME3 sales among other things). Fire in one hand, water in the other. The very definition of hypocrisy. To say they have a "strong partnership with Nintendo" and they are "really supporting it" but do the exact opposite is absolutely hypocrisy.

How about some context for those quotes?

As for ME3, how is that any different from EA releasing ME2 on the PS3 at full price a full year after the games release on the 360, when it could be purchased on the 360 for probably $20-$30 at the time, and for $5 through Steam? ME2 still sold well on the PS3, despite it being cheaper on other platforms.

Context is provided in the article through links to the source.

It's an entirely different situation. The Mass Effect Trilogy featured all 3 games, different amounts of DLC, and were available on cheaper consoles a week before 3 was released on Wii U. People who pick up launch consoles are "hardcore" gamers unless the thing is some weird fluke of sales like the PS2 or the Wii. It is likely for said hardcore gamers to have more than one system as well so if they really wanted to play Mass Effect but never have......they will pick up 3 games for the price of 1 on a console they already have.

EA didn't release a special edition of ME2 on the 360/PC a week before the PS3 version came out that featured all of the DLC and had the first game in the box as well. THAT would have been a similar situation.



Lafiel on 09 May 2013

boycot them, that will teach them - worked wonders when you guys did it during the Wii gen



Around the Network
Heavenly_King on 09 May 2013
Roma said:
Heavenly_King said:
Roma said:
Heavenly_King said:
I guess being forced to use the gamepad second screen annoys EA?

when did Nintendo force people to do that? you can use buttons only you know

but the second screens NEEDS to offer something gameplay wise.


no it does not. It can be a logo if they choose to

interesting.



Open World-Survival-Game Days Gone

mike_intellivision on 09 May 2013
superchunk said:
Scoobes said:
Concerning Fifa, don't EA have a deal with Fifa where they have to release on every feasible platform?

Same deal exists with Madden, Star Wars (now), and I believe a few other sports titles like Tiger.

However, every contract has loopholes and / or exclusions. Madden 25 is not coming to Nintendo consoles, so clearly there is a Nintendo clause.


There is probably a sales quota that has to be reached. And by putting out late version and/or incomplete/incompetent ports that don't sell, a company can get out of the requirement.

So a semi-lackluster WiiU Madden 13 released moths after the other versions did not sell well -- so no Madden the next year. 

Notice EA did not do that when it had the same trouble with the original Xbox 360 version. And it kept releaseing Xbox (original Xbox) versions until 2008.

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
Scoobes on 09 May 2013
RicardJulianti said:
Arcturus said:

A lot can change over the period of a year and a half. Relationships between companies can change, markets change. That does not make EA a "hippocrite". Things changed and EA decided not to support the console as much as the vague "Unprecedented Partnership" implied.


"It is the first next-generation platform coming out, so we're really supporting it"

"what we’re describing as ‘Gen 4′ is yet to come. It’s that we’re excited about, and that’s what we’re investing in.”

Those two quotes are over the span of 7 months. They most likely had dev kits from Sony and MS when they made the first comment, so it's not like they just went "Oh, well....hmmm....these have so much more power, we are going to pull the plug on what we've been working on"

They say one thing (we're really supporting it) but do another (actively cannibalize ME3 sales among other things). Fire in one hand, water in the other. The very definition of hypocrisy. To say they have a "strong partnership with Nintendo" and they are "really supporting it" but do the exact opposite is absolutely hypocrisy.

7 months is a long time in business terms and very long in a fast moving tech-based industry. I don't think you can go so far as to call it hypocrisy when the details surrounding the relationship between the two companies is completely unknown. All we're seeing are the results of a soured relationship without the benefit of all the information.




Get your Portable ID!

mike_intellivision on 09 May 2013

If I recall correctly, there was a lot of speculation/discussion that Nintendo was going to have Steam or Origin as the on-line backbone for the WiiU.

And certainly something seems to have happened between the companies.

There are rarely evenly split or no-fault break-ups. But my guess is that this is mostly on EA. American companies often do not understand Japanese business practices or traditions. That can lead to misunderstandings -- or worse.

And before someone starts on power issues, if people didn't know the power of the WiiU would not match the next Sony or Microsoft consoles at E3 in 2011, they were kidding themselves.

Nintendo allows people to sign into Origin. Nintendo allows a Uplay app. So if this is about Origin, it was about something more.



      


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
RicardJulianti on 09 May 2013
Scoobes said:

7 months is a long time in business terms and very long in a fast moving tech-based industry. I don't think you can go so far as to call it hypocrisy when the details surrounding the relationship between the two companies is completely unknown. All we're seeing are the results of a soured relationship without the benefit of all the information.

Well how about the 3 months between the first quote and the announcement of the ME Trilogy? Actively cannibalizing sales and subsequently not releasing any DLC/making it available digitally isn't exactly being supportive.

The very reason we don't have details makes it hipocrisy. It makes it seem like there is no logical reasoning behind what they are doing by pulling support while saying they still have a strong relationship. If we had details, there wouldn't be any more lies.....no starting a fire with one hand and putting out a different one with the other.

You can't say you have a strong partnership with Nintendo, but not even try to bring your newest engine to the system, and thereby eliminating at least 15 future titles. It doesn't work that way....that's not a strong partnership.