More proof that Nintendo is the new EA, and to think people thought I was trolling.
"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"
| IsawYoshi said: I've said plenty of times before that the fault doesn't lie just with Nintendo or publishers. Their both got their share. I don't see why Nintendo should bother if EA doesn't though, but the question is why EA didn't bother. You could say because of previous sales, but ME3 was sent out to die, and Fifa 13 much like it, not to mention that Fifa was pretty half assed. What he sais is right though. I can hardly find Wii U third party games on store shelves. You're never going to be able to sell anything without anything to sell, so I can see his frustration... :P |
Because Nintendo needs EA more than EA needs Nintendo. And they owe it to the people that bought their system, EA owe those people nothing.
At the end of the day if Nintendo think MS and Sony don't need to suck up to third parties as well then they're out of sync.
I always feel like the best response to all this "but why should Nintendo even bother?!" chatter is using Skyrim on PS3 as an example, where Sony supposedly literally sent out coders to help get the DLC working on PS3.
I mean, if we apply the "why should Nintendo bother?" logic, then why would Sony have bothered? It was months after the DLC had launched on the other platforms; Bethesda clearly didn't care enough or they would've made it work themselves; and even worse it was just DLC rather than a full game. If people wanted Skyrim they'd have bought it by the time there was all this DLC kerfuffle; or gone to another platform if DLC mattered that much.
But regardless, Sony got it sorted. Because in principle was a big deal - Skyrim was a big title and clearly Sony didn't want this kind of disparity with a rival console getting all the content and them getting none. So they reached out and got it sorted.
And yes, it's just a one-off example, but it just shows that as a company, Sony are willing to work with third parties to fix things if the issues are sizeable enough.
I'd go as far as to say that all this "exclusive content only on x" rubbish is part of Sony and Microsoft realising the value of some third party games. It's a horrible, horrible practice but they bid on all this stuff because they realise that Destiny - or Call of Duty - or Batman or whatever else is that is coming out is a key game that they want to make most attractive on their platform, so they pay extra money to have that incentive. Nintendo's attitude towards third parties seems to be "if you want to put your games on our platform, that's great" and leave it at that. Which is fine, and probably the more traditional thing to do in these situations, but when their competitors are trying so much harder to get things done then I don't know why their fans think all this stuff should be showing up "because it's not Nintendo's job" so they're not doing anything wrong.
Seece said:
Because Nintendo needs EA more than EA needs Nintendo. And they owe it to the people that bought their system, EA owe those people nothing. |
I get that, my point is that they can't fight the war alone. Take a look at this poster
Can't say I can see Wii U being mentioned. This is what I mean. There is a total lack of interest from EA's part for the Wii U. How much would it take them to slap the Wii U logo on there? Not to mention that 3DS isn't there either. Nintendo is to proud to be licking EA's firm behind without getting something back. All of EA's wii u games have been sent out to die, practicly without being mentioned in their own commercials. Unless EA tried to do anything themselves I wouldn't have supported them either. Once again, the question is why EA doesn't do anything.
| Kresnik said: I always feel like the best response to all this "but why should Nintendo even bother?!" chatter is using Skyrim on PS3 as an example, where Sony supposedly literally sent out coders to help get the DLC working on PS3. I mean, if we apply the "why should Nintendo bother?" logic, then why would Sony have bothered? It was months after the DLC had launched on the other platforms; Bethesda clearly didn't care enough or they would've made it work themselves; and even worse it was just DLC rather than a full game. If people wanted Skyrim they'd have bought it by the time there was all this DLC kerfuffle; or gone to another platform if DLC mattered that much. But regardless, Sony got it sorted. Because in principle was a big deal - Skyrim was a big title and clearly Sony didn't want this kind of disparity with a rival console getting all the content and them getting none. So they reached out and got it sorted. And yes, it's just a one-off example, but it just shows that as a company, Sony are willing to work with third parties to fix things if the issues are sizeable enough. I'd go as far as to say that all this "exclusive content only on x" rubbish is part of Sony and Microsoft realising the value of some third party games. It's a horrible, horrible practice but they bid on all this stuff because they realise that Destiny - or Call of Duty - or Batman or whatever else is that is coming out is a key game that they want to make most attractive on their platform, so they pay extra money to have that incentive. Nintendo's attitude towards third parties seems to be "if you want to put your games on our platform, that's great" and leave it at that. Which is fine, and probably the more traditional thing to do in these situations, but when their competitors are trying so much harder to get things done then I don't know why their fans think all this stuff should be showing up "because it's not Nintendo's job" so they're not doing anything wrong. |
Agreed. Whilst the blame for this fiasco lies squarely with EA, Nintendo needs to realize that sometimes, they need to take one on the chin to keep their bussiness partners and consumers happy. When the former is abandoning you in droves and the later is showing a decidely lukewarm reception to your product, you would want to take steps outside of standard operandi to get them both back on your side.
Nintendo needs to understand that sometimes to get a good deal you must first swallow a bad one.
| Samus Aran said: Nintendo can't possibly care about every single small third party game out there. I don't really see why he complains about Nintendo, he should complain about EA. Should Nintendo lend their franchises out to (good) third party studios? Definitely, but that's a different issue. |
He's complaining about both, not just Nintendo. He's saying the devs pushed for the game to be marketed and sold appropriately, but neither seemed bothered. If you're wondering why Nintendo should bother, see Kresnik's post earlier in the thread.
| Kresnik said: I always feel like the best response to all this "but why should Nintendo even bother?!" chatter is using Skyrim on PS3 as an example, where Sony supposedly literally sent out coders to help get the DLC working on PS3. I mean, if we apply the "why should Nintendo bother?" logic, then why would Sony have bothered? It was months after the DLC had launched on the other platforms; Bethesda clearly didn't care enough or they would've made it work themselves; and even worse it was just DLC rather than a full game. If people wanted Skyrim they'd have bought it by the time there was all this DLC kerfuffle; or gone to another platform if DLC mattered that much. But regardless, Sony got it sorted. Because in principle was a big deal - Skyrim was a big title and clearly Sony didn't want this kind of disparity with a rival console getting all the content and them getting none. So they reached out and got it sorted. And yes, it's just a one-off example, but it just shows that as a company, Sony are willing to work with third parties to fix things if the issues are sizeable enough. I'd go as far as to say that all this "exclusive content only on x" rubbish is part of Sony and Microsoft realising the value of some third party games. It's a horrible, horrible practice but they bid on all this stuff because they realise that Destiny - or Call of Duty - or Batman or whatever else is that is coming out is a key game that they want to make most attractive on their platform, so they pay extra money to have that incentive. Nintendo's attitude towards third parties seems to be "if you want to put your games on our platform, that's great" and leave it at that. Which is fine, and probably the more traditional thing to do in these situations, but when their competitors are trying so much harder to get things done then I don't know why their fans think all this stuff should be showing up "because it's not Nintendo's job" so they're not doing anything wrong. |
Nintendo is a business - and will do things that will benefit them. When EA shows no interest in the Wii U or the games they port for them - I don't see why they should waste their money. You honestly cannot blame them for not promoting Need for Speed Most Wanted U.
@Untrue in my opinion.
Nintendo aren't misers when it comes to third party's - they have shown in recent times are willing to help third parties . For example, Publishing Ninja Gaiden Razors edge, Publishing Lego City Undercover, Publishing and promoting professor layton in the west, promotion of ZombiU, the exclusive sonic exclusive deals, Skylander Bundles, Just dance bundles, publishing and promoting bravely default in the west, publishing and promoting resident evil revelations in europe.
Nintendo of Australia had heavy involvement in advertising Disney Infinity down under - which exclusively promoted the Wii U and Wii version. Nintendo should not bend over backwards for a company that simply has no interest in their platforms. In this case they were right to not promote NFS most wanted U - even though the game was awesome.
| Kresnik said: I always feel like the best response to all this "but why should Nintendo even bother?!" chatter is using Skyrim on PS3 as an example, where Sony supposedly literally sent out coders to help get the DLC working on PS3. I mean, if we apply the "why should Nintendo bother?" logic, then why would Sony have bothered? It was months after the DLC had launched on the other platforms; Bethesda clearly didn't care enough or they would've made it work themselves; and even worse it was just DLC rather than a full game. If people wanted Skyrim they'd have bought it by the time there was all this DLC kerfuffle; or gone to another platform if DLC mattered that much. But regardless, Sony got it sorted. Because in principle was a big deal - Skyrim was a big title and clearly Sony didn't want this kind of disparity with a rival console getting all the content and them getting none. So they reached out and got it sorted. And yes, it's just a one-off example, but it just shows that as a company, Sony are willing to work with third parties to fix things if the issues are sizeable enough. I'd go as far as to say that all this "exclusive content only on x" rubbish is part of Sony and Microsoft realising the value of some third party games. It's a horrible, horrible practice but they bid on all this stuff because they realise that Destiny - or Call of Duty - or Batman or whatever else is that is coming out is a key game that they want to make most attractive on their platform, so they pay extra money to have that incentive. Nintendo's attitude towards third parties seems to be "if you want to put your games on our platform, that's great" and leave it at that. Which is fine, and probably the more traditional thing to do in these situations, but when their competitors are trying so much harder to get things done then I don't know why their fans think all this stuff should be showing up "because it's not Nintendo's job" so they're not doing anything wrong. |
Why would Nintendo care about what Sony does? They are trying to be more like EA not Sony.
"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
