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

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox and EA Deal - Worth it? Whats next?

Darc Requiem on 28 February 2014

Depends on how much they paid. Moneyhats are not always good for the 3rd party developer. When Sega first went third party they took a bunch of moneyhats from MS to put some of their best titles on the Xbox...all which tanked. Short term the money was beneficial but in the wide term the majority of gamers didn't get the play some of their best efforts.



Around the Network
J_Allard on 28 February 2014
ethomaz said:

J_Allard said:

I'd love to read that, do you by chance have an actual quote from EA saying it? That's all I'm asking for.

I quoted two times already.

"We had some forecast at that time from where we thought both Xbox and PlayStation would be and that’s what we based our decision on." 

You seem confused, I asked for a quote from EA saying it. Not you putting your own personal guesswork and spin on it. Please try again.



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 February 2014
gergroy said:
ethomaz said:

gergroy said:

No they didnt.  They said they made the deal using forcasts.  That doesnt mean they were forcasting that the xbox was going to sell more, just that the money they asked from microsoft was based on their forcasted sales.  If anything, their statement means they thought the x1 would sell less, since they are still happy with their deal.

They said... they said they made the decisions based in the projeted sales for the consoles... that's means Xbone > PS4... so they choose make the exclusivity deal with Microsoft.

Key phase "We had some forecast at that time from where we thought both Xbox and PlayStation would be and that’s what we based our decision on."

What the only possible forecast that can make a company based a deicion on? The choose console to be strong than the other... it is easy to read guys... but some will think the forecast showed Xbone done bad and EA even so based in that choose it lol.

Turned out that now EA is crying because their estimates didn't happened.


You are reading something that isnt there.  There are many ways that phrase can be read, like i said before in my post, it could be that they used those forcasts to charge microsoft more money.  More money from microsoft means less risk.  Great for a new ip with a start up company.  

That being said, it could also mean they thought xbox would sell more.  Or it could mean they thought the demographics on xbox were better, or it could mean a bunch of things.  It is a very vague statement.  

Bottom line, EA never said they thought xbox one would sell more.  They made a vague statement that some people are interpreting as saying that.  


No. Microsoft just paid them, plain and simple. Titanfall could've been made for the PS4 but Microsoft stepped in because they didnt want Sony to have it thats all. They were a small dev team but it could've launched later for the PS4 and PS3. EA judged things based on the actions of the 360 launching a year ahead and having a better price the gen before. 



gergroy on 28 February 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
gergroy said:
ethomaz said:

gergroy said:

No they didnt.  They said they made the deal using forcasts.  That doesnt mean they were forcasting that the xbox was going to sell more, just that the money they asked from microsoft was based on their forcasted sales.  If anything, their statement means they thought the x1 would sell less, since they are still happy with their deal.

They said... they said they made the decisions based in the projeted sales for the consoles... that's means Xbone > PS4... so they choose make the exclusivity deal with Microsoft.

Key phase "We had some forecast at that time from where we thought both Xbox and PlayStation would be and that’s what we based our decision on."

What the only possible forecast that can make a company based a deicion on? The choose console to be strong than the other... it is easy to read guys... but some will think the forecast showed Xbone done bad and EA even so based in that choose it lol.

Turned out that now EA is crying because their estimates didn't happened.


You are reading something that isnt there.  There are many ways that phrase can be read, like i said before in my post, it could be that they used those forcasts to charge microsoft more money.  More money from microsoft means less risk.  Great for a new ip with a start up company.  

That being said, it could also mean they thought xbox would sell more.  Or it could mean they thought the demographics on xbox were better, or it could mean a bunch of things.  It is a very vague statement.  

Bottom line, EA never said they thought xbox one would sell more.  They made a vague statement that some people are interpreting as saying that.  


No. Microsoft just paid them, plain and simple. Titanfall could've been made for the PS4 but Microsoft stepped in because they didnt want Sony to have it thats all. They were a small dev team but it could've launched later for the PS4 and PS3. EA judged things based on the actions of the 360 launching a year ahead and having a better price the gen before. 


Yeah, microsoft paying them is exactly what i think that quote means...



Imaginedvl on 28 February 2014
poklane said:
ethomaz said:

J_Allard said:

I'd love to read that, do you by chance have an actual quote from EA saying it? That's all I'm asking for.

I quoted two times already.

"We had some forecast at that time from where we thought both Xbox and PlayStation would be and that’s what we based our decision on." 

Too bad that turned out to be a complete lie, as PS3 and PS4 references were found in Titanfall's pc Beta, and a Dualshock and blurred out console were seen in a behind the scenes vid. Respawn also always held PS3/PS4 versions open for the first Titanfall, until EA suddeny outed the deal was permanent for the first game.

You realize that the "references" you are talking about are resource folder names which ARE automatically generated by cross platform tools (like Unity) and framework? Either you missed that part when the news came out and just focused on what was really fiting in your agenda or you do not understand what they were talking about... In both case, "lies" is a definitly not the right word here :)



Around the Network
gergroy on 28 February 2014
ethomaz said:

gergroy said:

You are reading something that isnt there.  There are many ways that phrase can be read, like i said before in my post, it could be that they used those forcasts to charge microsoft more money.  More money from microsoft means less risk.  Great for a new ip with a start up company. 

That being said, it could also mean they thought xbox would sell more.  Or it could mean they thought the demographics on xbox were better, or it could mean a bunch of things.  It is a very vague statement.

Bottom line, EA never said they thought xbox one would sell more.  They made a vague statement that some people are interpreting as saying that.

You don't make a deal with a product that won't sell well... EA was caught of surprise with the last numbers... mainly NPD.


Who is talking about a product not selling well?  Just because the xbox one isnt selling as well as the ps4 doesnt mean games on it arent going to sell.  



Imaginedvl on 28 February 2014
gergroy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
gergroy said:


You are reading something that isnt there.  There are many ways that phrase can be read, like i said before in my post, it could be that they used those forcasts to charge microsoft more money.  More money from microsoft means less risk.  Great for a new ip with a start up company.  

That being said, it could also mean they thought xbox would sell more.  Or it could mean they thought the demographics on xbox were better, or it could mean a bunch of things.  It is a very vague statement.  

Bottom line, EA never said they thought xbox one would sell more.  They made a vague statement that some people are interpreting as saying that.  


No. Microsoft just paid them, plain and simple. Titanfall could've been made for the PS4 but Microsoft stepped in because they didnt want Sony to have it thats all. They were a small dev team but it could've launched later for the PS4 and PS3. EA judged things based on the actions of the 360 launching a year ahead and having a better price the gen before. 


Yeah, microsoft paying them is exactly what i think that quote means...

And this is perfectly expected. Sony did the same for other games, the only difference is that Microsoft made a very good deal out of this one :)



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 February 2014
gergroy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
gergroy said:
ethomaz said:


No. Microsoft just paid them, plain and simple. Titanfall could've been made for the PS4 but Microsoft stepped in because they didnt want Sony to have it thats all. They were a small dev team but it could've launched later for the PS4 and PS3. EA judged things based on the actions of the 360 launching a year ahead and having a better price the gen before. 


Yeah, microsoft paying them is exactly what i think that quote means...


Seriously, Microsoft pays everyone for everything. Why would this be so new to you? No need to be so defensive. Plants vs Zombies is another timed excluisve that MS paid for. They obviously paid EA in bulk.



gergroy on 28 February 2014
Imaginedvl said:
poklane said:
ethomaz said:

J_Allard said:

I'd love to read that, do you by chance have an actual quote from EA saying it? That's all I'm asking for.

I quoted two times already.

"We had some forecast at that time from where we thought both Xbox and PlayStation would be and that’s what we based our decision on." 

Too bad that turned out to be a complete lie, as PS3 and PS4 references were found in Titanfall's pc Beta, and a Dualshock and blurred out console were seen in a behind the scenes vid. Respawn also always held PS3/PS4 versions open for the first Titanfall, until EA suddeny outed the deal was permanent for the first game.

You realize that the "references" you are talking about are resource folder names which ARE automatically generated by cross platform tools (like Unity) and framework? Either you missed that part when the news came out and just focused on what was really fiting in your agenda or you do not understand what they were talking about... In both case, "lies" is a definitly not the right word here :)


Well, when they were starting development of the game, they did plan on it being on the ps3, that is actually why they chose the source engine.  They never started development on playstation platforms though...



ethomaz on 28 February 2014

J_Allard said:

You seem confused, I asked for a quote from EA saying it. Not you putting your own personal guesswork and spin on it. Please try again.

Again from EA.

"We had some forecast at that time from where we thought both Xbox and PlayStation would be and that’s what we based our decision on." 

More clear than that... impossible.