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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - EA currently has NX dev kits, Nintendo and EA having multiple meetings in March to decide if they will support the NX

RolStoppable said:
superchunk said:
For generations I clamored for better 3rd party support. Now I don't care. All I want to see is what Nintendo will do with nx.

Congrats. You've leveled up.

Not sure if superchunk should be happy about this...   



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
MikeRox said:
Thunderbird77 said:

Ea makes money selling software, they need hardware manufacturers. Nintendo makes money from hardware, 1st and 3rd party software. the impact of nintendo not having games from EA is insignificant to them while EA losing a whole hardware manufacturer is huge for EA.

Only if that hardware manufacturer shifts a bucket load of units.

 

Current gen home consoles, not supporting Wii U they have cut out 15% of their potential market. (Much smaller when you include PC). Most of that 15% either already have another platform they can pay Fifa on, or wouldn't be buying Fifa anyway.

 

So it's nowhere near the sacrifice to EA you make it sound. Hell the Vita ports of Fifa sold better than the Wii and Wii U ones. No loss not supporting hardware your market isn't on.

 

Now flip that around. Nintendo on the other hand need software to sell hardware. Not having titles like Fifa is an instant deal breaker for EAs audience. Ergo they aren't buying that console to start with. That is Nintendo's loss.

 

I fail to see how EA have more to lose from this than Nintendo.

Source for the bold part? None? I guessed so. The market isn't there because they don't want to.

As I said before, EA is just one company, and it's games are replaceable.



MikeRox said:
Thunderbird77 said:

Yet again wrong, it's called reaping what you sow. Third parties sell worse when they don't try. When they do try, they get better sales on nintendo platforms. When they do crappy decisions on ps and xbox, they also get poor sales there, No magic involved.

You can talk about third party support or EA, one doesn't equal the other. Also, it's safer to say sony and ms NEED third parties or else they'd crash, nintendo has been profiting without them for a while. Theyr support helps a console's success but isn't absolutely necessary for staying in the market.

Wii didn't really have much better 3rd party support than anything and calling it casual just screams for me to ignore the statement.

Wii U proved many things but not the ones you talk about.

Well they seem to sell well enough on PlayStation and Xbox for them to be happy.

 

Or if curiosity. What 3rd party multi million selling blockbusters have Nintendo platforms enjoyed that sold better than on PlayStation or Xbox? And we're they similar games to core Nintendo releases?

They can be happy all they want, the point here is they're leaving tons of money on the table by not supporting nintendo platforms while nintendo's profits are minimaly affected by the abscence of EA.

Best case I can see is rayman legends, although there are some others. Overall, late ports sold bad on both ps4, x1 and wii u



Thunderbird77 said:
MikeRox said:

Well they seem to sell well enough on PlayStation and Xbox for them to be happy.

 

Or if curiosity. What 3rd party multi million selling blockbusters have Nintendo platforms enjoyed that sold better than on PlayStation or Xbox? And we're they similar games to core Nintendo releases?

They can be happy all they want, the point here is they're leaving tons of money on the table by not supporting nintendo platforms while nintendo's profits are minimaly affected by the abscence of EA.

Best case I can see is rayman legends, although there are some others. Overall, late ports sold bad on both ps4, x1 and wii u

MikeRox just said that people who pay for EA games are likely to have Nintendo console in conjunction to other consoles/PC, so what 'tons of money' are they leaving on the table catering small percentage of the gaming world who only have Nintendo consoles.



Miyamotoo said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

So, if they received those kits during Q4 2015, Q4 2017 launch confirmed for NX?

Why do you think that!? One year is more than enuf time to make ports for NX, especially if NX have similar power and architecture to X1/PS4.

I'm assuming that Ninty sent kits to other devs too, and that if it won't be EA or Activision or any other giant, at least a few other 3rd parties, smaller and less haughty than the big ones, will be willing to make at least a few titles either full or timed exclusive, and so developed on NX first, for launch or launch window, so they'll need the full two years of a average dev cycle. About ports, yes, particularly for EA and Activision serial, overmilked, annual sports and FPS titles, one year shoiuld largely be more than enough, but I guess Ninty will want those titles just to avoid that NX be the only one not getting them, but it will rely on far different stuff, both 3rd and 1st party, to make it different. Hence my assumption about giving devs two years, I'm not giving EA more credit than due, but just using them as a clue about devkits having been sent to other devs too some months ago and that at least a few of the latter will be more committed to NX development than EA (not an outlandish and unlikey assumption    ).



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
Train wreck said:
Thunderbird77 said:

They can be happy all they want, the point here is they're leaving tons of money on the table by not supporting nintendo platforms while nintendo's profits are minimaly affected by the abscence of EA.

Best case I can see is rayman legends, although there are some others. Overall, late ports sold bad on both ps4, x1 and wii u

MikeRox just said that people who pay for EA games are likely to have Nintendo console in conjunction to other consoles/PC, so what 'tons of money' are they leaving on the table catering small percentage of the gaming world who only have Nintendo consoles.

First: Who?  And based on what? Also, by that way of thinking, most of their ps and xbox customers probably have a PC so why not make it PC exclusive? It's not like people want to play games on their system of choice, right?



Thunderbird77 said:
MikeRox said:

Well they seem to sell well enough on PlayStation and Xbox for them to be happy.

 

Or if curiosity. What 3rd party multi million selling blockbusters have Nintendo platforms enjoyed that sold better than on PlayStation or Xbox? And we're they similar games to core Nintendo releases?

They can be happy all they want, the point here is they're leaving tons of money on the table by not supporting nintendo platforms while nintendo's profits are minimaly affected by the abscence of EA.

Best case I can see is rayman legends, although there are some others. Overall, late ports sold bad on both ps4, x1 and wii u

 

If they felt they were leaving money at the table you would still be seeing EA titles on Wii U.

 

Ports aren't free, even when late. Couple all the compromises that would be needed to fit 8th gen titles onto the Wii U and this forum would be full of "rubbish watered down port" complaints anyway.

 

So for it to be worthwhile it would need to be built from the ground up on a Nintendo platform. They tried that on the Wii and they still didn't shift in notable quantities to warrant the investment risk.

 

NX could potentially run parity ports of PS4 games. But even in the GameCube days the ps2 and Xbox still enjoyed the majority of the 3rd party software sales.

 

There is no evidence anywhere that in not supporting a Nintendo platform, any third party is pissing away free money.

 

Wasn't Rayman Legends deemed a sales disappointment? I understand despite having the best release, many Nintendo fans choose to boycott it because of the delay to get ps3 and 360 ports to market, because you know, their other high profile Wii U exclusive release sold way below expectations?


Or do we still think Nintendo fans on forums know what's better for third parties than practically every third party publisher in the world? They all know if it fits the Nintendo audience it can be a go-er, but the vast majority of titles will sell far less on a Nintendo platform because they are either already playing the same games on a better specced format or they quite simply aren't interested in the games in the first place.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Thunderbird77 said:
MikeRox said:

Only if that hardware manufacturer shifts a bucket load of units.

 

Current gen home consoles, not supporting Wii U they have cut out 15% of their potential market. (Much smaller when you include PC). Most of that 15% either already have another platform they can pay Fifa on, or wouldn't be buying Fifa anyway.

 

So it's nowhere near the sacrifice to EA you make it sound. Hell the Vita ports of Fifa sold better than the Wii and Wii U ones. No loss not supporting hardware your market isn't on.

 

Now flip that around. Nintendo on the other hand need software to sell hardware. Not having titles like Fifa is an instant deal breaker for EAs audience. Ergo they aren't buying that console to start with. That is Nintendo's loss.

 

I fail to see how EA have more to lose from this than Nintendo.

Source for the bold part? None? I guessed so. The market isn't there because they don't want to.

As I said before, EA is just one company, and it's games are replaceable.

 

Front page of vgchartz? (Sorry its currently 18% but steadily dropping)

 

Couple in users such as myself who will pick the best version (which could potentially be NX if they spec it right) and Nintendo only gamers and I'd say 15% of EAs actual target audience is being overly generous.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

MikeRox said:

Or do we still think Nintendo fans on forums know what's better for third parties than practically every third party publisher in the world? They all know if it fits the Nintendo audience it can be a go-er, but the vast majority of titles will sell far less on a Nintendo platform because they are either already playing the same games on a better specced format or they quite simply aren't interested in the games in the first place.

I agree that 3rd parties only put games on Nintendo platforms that they know matches the kind of audience that Nintendo cultivates.  If Nintendo wants all the multiplat games then they're going to have to work with 3rd parties.  I don't mean in a way where they heavily fund their marketing campaigns but in a way where they change the western perception of their hardware from 'baby/casual platform' to something more neutral so that there isn't a social stigma towards owning a Nintendo console.  It's one of the reasons why I'm constantly irritated with NOA because they do nothing but try to cultivate that 'baby/casual toy' stigma like they're competing with Mattel and Hasbro instead of Sony and Microsoft.



KLAMarine said:
jason1637 said:

You can but there's many others that only play these type of games every year. 

Then I'd suggest those people invest on a different console.

They already have. This is a big part of the reason why Nintendo is in the state that it's in.