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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why does E.A have issue with Nintendo still

DonFerrari on 17 June 2019

Revenue on other platforms is what make they don't care much about having a relationship with Nintendo.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
sethnintendo on 17 June 2019
Darwinianevolution said:
I'm honestly more annoyed they aren't bringing their old games, I want pretty much nothing that they do nowadays. I guess old games are more difficult to monetize according to EA's standards...

They didn't even bother putting anything on the Wii VC.  It wouldn't have made them a shitload of money but I even would have picked up a few of their 16 bit games.  Guess it's all or nothing these days.



TomaTito on 17 June 2019

I like that the majority of EAs support has been ports of games they only publish.
If not they would have been half assed jobs.

Player2 said:

Why did the scorpion stung the frog?

Good to see you around P2

Last edited by TomaTito - on 17 June 2019

@Twitter | Switch | Steam

You say tomato, I say tomato 

"¡Viva la Ñ!"
Jigsawx1 on 17 June 2019

I think the problem is that the frosbite engine still doens´t run fine on a hardware that is lower then Ps/One and the most of their games are using frostbite. if nintendo would create a hardware to compete they would get games from ea and others there are no issues between nin and ea because its still all about your money so if it would be possible they would port every game for sure



Ljink96 on 17 June 2019

As much as I hate EA they do have a reason I can understand. They like to say if you make a box, we just can't expect them to support it. It has to be similar to the other current platforms to where they don't have to do too much extra work.That's why even now they don't even do handheld stuff like they used to. EA used to be the whores of the gaming industry, they'd take development on anything. But now they're razor focused on profit.

The Tegra X1 chip is amazing for a mobile chip, but it's still ARM based and the GPU trails the PS4 and Xbox 1 considerably. So I don't expect them to support Nintendo Switch to the best of their ability. But at the end of the day I couldn't give a damn about EA's software so it doesn't bother me and it must not bother them much to treat Switch as a legacy console already.



Around the Network
HollyGamer on 17 June 2019

Sega console era want to have a talk with with EA as well



Alcyon on 17 June 2019
Ka-pi96 said:
Mnementh said:

FIFA and Skyrim sold about the same. Doom sold less. Still, look at Bethesda and their ports to the Switch and compare to EA. EA has FIFA (and the Legacy edition at that) and more independent stuff they publish: Unravel and Fe. Nobody thinks they port Battlefield, Anthem or Star Wars, but what about the Sims, Need for Speed, Mass Effect, Dragon Age (Skyrim was also an older game), Madden, Boom Blox (why not), Spore or Plants vs. Zombies (again: why not).

I know, Switch fans love to pile hate on Capcom, but while some ports are crappy, Capcom ported over nearly their full catalogue. And they often sold a lot less than FIFA. Now you say: but FIFA sells more on other platforms. True, but who cares. Porting FIFA is not more expensive than porting Dragon's Dogma and it sold more, so it made money for EA. EA doesn't port stuff to Switch not because of sales, but because they don't want to. And they are big enough to get away with it. Capcom takes the money from cheap Switch-ports happily, to finance the next Resident Evil for PS5.

A port of a 7? year old game and a brand new entry in one of the biggest gaming franchises on the planet selling about the same isn't exactly a good thing. Besides, EA and Bethesda aim for very different audiences. Bethesda are very much singleplayer focused, so sales are main factor for them. While EA are heavily multiplayer/microtransaction focused. If people are buying their games (not event that many, to be fair) but not sticking around for the MP and paying for microtransactions then they're not really worth investing too much into.

Plus, it doesn't matter whether it "made money for EA". It matters whether it made enough to be worth investing in over something else. Would they be better off investing that money or time into something else that could increase revenue for the PS4/Xbox versions? EA seem to think so.

Ka-pi96 said:
Mnementh said:

FIFA and Skyrim sold about the same. Doom sold less. Still, look at Bethesda and their ports to the Switch and compare to EA. EA has FIFA (and the Legacy edition at that) and more independent stuff they publish: Unravel and Fe. Nobody thinks they port Battlefield, Anthem or Star Wars, but what about the Sims, Need for Speed, Mass Effect, Dragon Age (Skyrim was also an older game), Madden, Boom Blox (why not), Spore or Plants vs. Zombies (again: why not).

I know, Switch fans love to pile hate on Capcom, but while some ports are crappy, Capcom ported over nearly their full catalogue. And they often sold a lot less than FIFA. Now you say: but FIFA sells more on other platforms. True, but who cares. Porting FIFA is not more expensive than porting Dragon's Dogma and it sold more, so it made money for EA. EA doesn't port stuff to Switch not because of sales, but because they don't want to. And they are big enough to get away with it. Capcom takes the money from cheap Switch-ports happily, to finance the next Resident Evil for PS5.

A port of a 7? year old game and a brand new entry in one of the biggest gaming franchises on the planet selling about the same isn't exactly a good thing. Besides, EA and Bethesda aim for very different audiences. Bethesda are very much singleplayer focused, so sales are main factor for them. While EA are heavily multiplayer/microtransaction focused. If people are buying their games (not event that many, to be fair) but not sticking around for the MP and paying for microtransactions then they're not really worth investing too much into.

Plus, it doesn't matter whether it "made money for EA". It matters whether it made enough to be worth investing in over something else. Would they be better off investing that money or time into something else that could increase revenue for the PS4/Xbox versions? EA seem to think so.

Porting games on Switch is REALLY easy. That's why you find many independant games on Switch (and PS4/Xone). Also, I am amazed by the argument "microtransactions". Do you have more than "I said so, so this is true", like a source ? No ? Well ...



Jumpin on 17 June 2019
Ka-pi96 said:
KrspaceT said:

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/02/15/nintendo-says-ea-satisfied-with-fifa-switch-sales-more-to-come

Let's start with the fact that FIFA 18 was reported to be satisfactory, and I am also aware that FIFA 19 was down across the board from what I've heard. VGChartz data also suggests FIFA 19 was moving better than FIFA 18 in the same period on Switch. 

This is also on top of the fact FIFA on Switch was gimped both times before this Legacy Edition insult.

Well firstly, being satisfied with something doesn't mean that you're happy with it. Besides, there is more FIFA coming so...

And secondly, sales figures aren't really that important for FIFA. Much more important is the micro-transaction revenue. How was that? Things that will maximise micro-transaction revenue are the focus for the PS4/Xbox versions anyway, so if the Nintendo version is seriously lacking in terms of micro-transactions then it's only natural it would receive much less attention from EA.

Bingo! And note that this strategy has been the core reason for their push into purchasing mobile companies and trying to transform them into casual  FarmVille revenue model. Microtransactions and predictable/sustainable revenue streams is what EA is all about.

More than any other company, EA has been transforming their AAA model into a sustainable revenue stream to adapt/change the old “here’s this year’s version of our AAA franchise, buy it!” 

Last edited by Jumpin - on 17 June 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

potato_hamster on 17 June 2019

It's quite simple, really. EA doesn't hate Nintendo. In fact far from it. I had the opportunity to spend a few months working with teams at EA Canada. It's physically one of the biggest game studios in the world. There were statues, arcade machines, all kinds of things all over that campus, but one thing that always stood out to me was the plaque on the wall commemorating the time Miyamoto came to visit. That was a huge deal to them. EA has huge respect for Nintendo, make no mistake about it. But they respect their shareholders even more.

The reason EA doesn't invest more heavily in Nintendo platforms is very very simple. Money. EA games on Nintendo's platform don't give an adequate return on investment. Full Stop. WHen a new platform comes out, they test the water,, normally with a FIFA title and see how it sells. From there they branch out into Madden, Need for Speed, Sims, NHL etc. The first FIFA title sold well enough to warrant another FIFA title, but not well enough to warrant other titles. That second FIFA didn't sell well enough for EA to do anything other than pull the plug on putting their larger titles on the Switch. That's all there is to it.



Darwinianevolution on 17 June 2019
potato_hamster said:
It's quite simple, really. EA doesn't hate Nintendo. In fact far from it. I had the opportunity to spend a few months working with teams at EA Canada. It's physically one of the biggest game studios in the world. There were statues, arcade machines, all kinds of things all over that campus, but one thing that always stood out to me was the plaque on the wall commemorating the time Miyamoto came to visit. That was a huge deal to them. EA has huge respect for Nintendo, make no mistake about it. But they respect their shareholders even more.

The reason EA doesn't invest more heavily in Nintendo platforms is very very simple. Money. EA games on Nintendo's platform don't give an adequate return on investment. Full Stop. WHen a new platform comes out, they test the water,, normally with a FIFA title and see how it sells. From there they branch out into Madden, Need for Speed, Sims, NHL etc. The first FIFA title sold well enough to warrant another FIFA title, but not well enough to warrant other titles. That second FIFA didn't sell well enough for EA to do anything other than pull the plug on putting their larger titles on the Switch. That's all there is to it.

Are they really so averse to dissapointing retuns (not even losses, just dissapointing profits)? You'd think risk-reward is a principle most people have a decent grasp on. Is it really worth it for EA to have such all or nothing approach, instead of a safer but less profitable one?



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.