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

Nintendo doesn't need EA tbh, Switch's success demonstrates that, and as a Switch owner I don't need EA either.

I'm quite happy without the likes of Mass Effect Andromeda, Battlefield V, or Anthem, thanks very much.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 22 June 2019

Around the Network
curl-6 said:

Nintendo doesn't need EA tbh, Switch's success demonstrates that, and as a Switch owner I don't need EA either.

I'm quite happy without the likes of Mass Effect Andromeda, Battlefield V, or Anthem, thanks very much.

Take the lead.  People don't understand EA can go fuck themselves.  If they could have support system by themselves then they would have released it.  They can't and only thing EA has is that they killed Sega from console market which isn't true because Sega was already fucked.



twintail said:
KrspaceT said:

Ammibo are actually far more akin to 'LOL Surprise' and Kindereggs than digital content. Also most if not a vast majority of Amiibo content are costume DLC, hardly levels or such, and you don't plop them down to get super weapons for Splatoon 

Nah, that is just defending Nintendo for allowing ingame content to be locked until the player had an appropiate amiibo. Costumes are still content.

Yeah, but your argument was to compare it to loot boxes anyway, but amiibo (if you wanna completely ignore their function as figurine, which people also purchase without anything digital) is more akin to pretty standard DLC. There is no 'surprise mechanic' hidden behind Amiibo, you know what you get: a new Mii-costume in Mario Kart, a new level in Twilight Princess remaster on WiiU, Amiibo-fighters in Smash and so on.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

potato_hamster said:
Mnementh said:

Well, exactly one of these IPs is actually from EA, so this is not the greatest of all points. (Also technically AssCreed is on Switch, but you mean current ones.)

But you have to see, that this sword uts both ways: Think how much more Sony and MS could sell, if they had games like Mario Kart, Zelda, Xenoblade, Pokemon and Civilization.

The basic point is: a gaming platforms sells based on the games it has. More games is always better. Some games are very popular and help more. And different games deliver for different tastes. So if current Nintendo platform owner dislike games that aren't actually on their platform it makes a lot of sense: if they would like these games, they had chosen another platform. And that current PS4/XB1 owners dislike Nintendo games makes also sense - if they would like them, they would own a Nintendo platform.

Would it be great if one platform had all games? Pronably that would also be bad, but the more games a platform accumulates, the better. Currently it doesn't look too bad for Switch. That the lineup doesn't contain stuff you like means you probably don't own one. But that doesn't change the fact that millions like the Switch - because they have different tastes than you and therefore deem different games important.

*claims that since one of the games I listed was from EA on a point about overall third party support means my point isn't great*

*claims "sword cuts both ways" by pointing out Sony would sell more Playstations if they had Nintendo first party games... and Civilization*

*goes on some tangent about how Nintendo owners don't like PS4/Xbox games, and PS4/Xbox owners don't like Nintendo games so its fine their libraries don't have that much in common, or something*

*thinks I probably don't own a Switch because I don't like how poor the third party support is for the Switch*

Okay man. You think whatever you want to think. There's obviously no reasonable conversation to be had with you.


So you can't argue logical against my argument and decide to just claim they are unreasonable, without any basis... yeah, nice discussion style.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh said:
potato_hamster said:

*claims that since one of the games I listed was from EA on a point about overall third party support means my point isn't great*

*claims "sword cuts both ways" by pointing out Sony would sell more Playstations if they had Nintendo first party games... and Civilization*

*goes on some tangent about how Nintendo owners don't like PS4/Xbox games, and PS4/Xbox owners don't like Nintendo games so its fine their libraries don't have that much in common, or something*

*thinks I probably don't own a Switch because I don't like how poor the third party support is for the Switch*

Okay man. You think whatever you want to think. There's obviously no reasonable conversation to be had with you.


So you can't argue logical against my argument and decide to just claim they are unreasonable, without any basis... yeah, nice discussion style.

Your post is logically sound.  I don't even own Switch yet but know it will eventually be my next platform.  I'm just waiting for games that  I want to be released  Would I like twisted metal on Nintendo platform.  Hell yea I would but I know it's all Sony.  Problem with console is you give and take what it has to offer.  Right now Nintendo has only thing to offer to me in future.  I already have a gaming PC.  I can play all AAA 3rd party games if I wanted to.  I want to eventually play Nintendo games so eventually I will have to get a switch.



Around the Network
twintail said:
Mnementh said:

Yeah, but your argument was to compare it to loot boxes anyway, but amiibo (if you wanna completely ignore their function as figurine, which people also purchase without anything digital) is more akin to pretty standard DLC. There is no 'surprise mechanic' hidden behind Amiibo, you know what you get: a new Mii-costume in Mario Kart, a new level in Twilight Princess remaster on WiiU, Amiibo-fighters in Smash and so on.

The only thing I was comparing was the need for money to access content. Sure, you are right they are not the same, but I never said they were. 

Well, your exact words were: "You are worried about mobile loot boxes now when nintendo locked contemt behind amiibo purchases back on the wiiu?"

So you actually compared it. Maybe you meant something different, but people here cannot read your mind, if you mean something different. So if you're being cryptic and ambiguous in your posts, you cannot expect everyone to react to what you meant, but have to endure people who answer to what you wrote.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

twintail said:
Mnementh said:

Well, your exact words were: "You are worried about mobile loot boxes now when nintendo locked contemt behind amiibo purchases back on the wiiu?"

So you actually compared it. Maybe you meant something different, but people here cannot read your mind, if you mean something different. So if you're being cryptic and ambiguous in your posts, you cannot expect everyone to react to what you meant, but have to endure people who answer to what you wrote.

There is no ambiguity. Comparing things doesn't mean that you necessarily equate them as being 100% the same. This is the real life nature of comparisons. if I compared Japanese ppl to South African ppl, obviously that is not a 100% sameness. It is about things that are similar between both subjects. No where in my original comment that I say that both items are the same thing. That is your misunderstanding. 

Now, if you can't accept my clarification of my comment, then there is nothing I can do for you. 

The way you worded it definitely implies they're 100% equally egregious business practices at the least, to the point where everyone who hates loot boxes but were ok with amiibo are now hypocrites apparently. You then try to say you were just making a statement based on content locked behind paywalls in general, which wasn't the only or even main problem people were criticising about loot boxes in the first place, making your whole argument a straw man.

Argue whatever semantics you like, you're in the wrong here.



KrspaceT said:
NPD released data on the best selling/best revenue generating titles in the US that are third party on the switch up to May.

I've heard some talk that Bethesda title counts are off due to lacking digital, but regardless of that here is what there is there.

https://nintendoeverything.com/best-selling-third-party-games-for-switch/

1 – Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle
2 – Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy
3 – Diablo III: Eternal Collection
4 – Just Dance 2019
5 – Just Dance 2018
6 – LEGO Marvel Super Heroes 2
7 – LEGO The Incredibles
8 – NBA 2K18
9 – Monster Hunter Generations Ultimate
10 – FIFA 18

10th best selling in the most important region for games overall, if not FIFA specifically, and it isn't good enough to get proper support...though it does give me a bit more context for why it feels like Activision has been stepping up support since Crash and it's single developer over a weekend porting a level.

(Hope that guy got a raise for it...)

It's more surprising considering it's a Football game, which isn't really popular in N.A. than it is in the rest of the world, which says it a lot



EA is one company in which I do not care if they support the Switch or not. I have a ps4 and don't own a single EA game for it. EA could release free games on the Switch and I still wouldn't care. I simply don't like their games. The last "EA" game I loved was Dead Space, but that was really Visceral and EA proceeded to kill Visceral.



potato_hamster said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:

This would make more sense if the people here were debating bringing only new games to the console but most here are completely lost on why EA wouldn't bring their 16-bit and other classic titles to the console (or even E-shop back on Wii and WiiU). To not bring the newest and biggest is one thing that many can go back and forth on forever because some people will ignorantly back a company and some will ignorantly attack said company. However, I do not think anyone can argue that not bringing their older titles to Switch, even if only to make a quick and easy buck and never bring the newest content to Switch, makes absolutely no sense.

EA is missing out on cheap to produce titles making them a healthy return - even if that return is only to fund their next big Playstation and XBOX titles. Capcom has done this and look at their success with Switch. Why EA would not see that business model and (in the case of Switch specifically) do the same is a question that nobody can accurately nail down. And to many people, it screams that the relationship has soured on a more personal level - considering EA have a marketing team and upper management that gets paid to know exactly how well other companies are doing, what they are doing, and how they are doing it. EA knows that can be a successful revenue stream (the business model has been laid before them) yet they refuse to take it and we are all left confused about why that is.

Well, for all their sports games, re-releasing them would mean re-licensing them. That's teams, players, logos, sponsors, etc. Not simple. And then there's all the other games that feature music that would have to be re-licensed. Also not simple and could mean that any of these titles lose their potential profitability.

All of those logos and music they've put in their games throughout the years has come back to bite them in a lot of ways.

And then you're assuming that EA has been diligent backing and storing the source code on many of these old games. Unfortunately based on my experience this is not the case. It's actuallly a pretty common issue in the industry and many re-masters have been bogged down or flat out cancelled because of a lack of access to some or all of the original source code and/or art assets.

EA does publish more than sports titles. But OK. And changing music for licensing reasons is not something foreign to any publisher. Also, this is EA, aren't they like, the biggest game publisher on Earth? If anyone can work through those rather minor hurdles, it is them (although I was not speaking about sports titles because I understand the hell they would be to re-release).

Also, it comes off as... ...a bit strange that the company would be on stage for the first live Switch presentation and announce, "unprecedented support" for Switch and only show one title. Since then they have released (what, like) three footy titles and a game that was already in development for Switch that they picked up publishing late on. It feels a little more personal considering the rather public way Nintendo outed E.A. over the whole Origin service. Not to say the conspiracy theories are true (EA hates Nintendo); rather, that there does seem to be a case for the argument and it is not exactly all, "smoke and mirrors" like some users have implied. Nor is it fiscally irresponsible to release old ports of games like Capcom has (I think Capcom has released more than twenty Switch titles and only one is an actual new title) and make a decent profit while satiating Nintendo and that fanbase. No doubt if Capcom can do it, EA with its much deeper pockets can make it work.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000