We wanted better support, certainly (what gamer wouldn't for their console of choice?).  But we got all the current gen sports games, some exclusives, and interesting derivatives of their bigger new IPs.

Compare that to now and it's not even remotely comparable.

Sort these lists by Publisher and look at EA.  Switch game list is broken into 2 lists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games_(M%E2%80%93Z)#Games_list_(M%E2%80%93Z)

It's not that EA hates money, for sure that is impossible. If there is one thing we know about EA, it's that they love money.

But what seems to be happening is that EA did not believe in the Nintendo Switch. They probably don't believe in the Nintendo platform at all. This is probably due to their results on the Wii and on the Wii U. On the Wii, they had terrible results due to the limited features of the software they released. It is well known that the Wii versions of their software were much less feature-rich (I'm not talking about frame rate or resolution here, but content). It is also known that they polluted the Wii library with low-quality software outside of their big brands. They were not alone in this lazy cash-grabbing, but it shows what kind of publisher they are.

As for the WiiU, we can't really blame them about it, that's true. Nintendo failed to produce a compelling product with the WiiU and the sales suffered. But they learned from it, and the 3DS, which lived alongside the WiiU, did very very well.

So, it is only logical to assume that Nintendo as a brand has value and that EA should never count them out.

Finally, as I said before, EA has a vested interest in the success of the Playstation and Xbox brands, because those are the platforms where EA can sell their yearly releases and make mad money. Nintendo is not following that trend and is going more after japanese-centric software and 3rd parties. So EA seems at once lost in that, and at the same time don't want to push that trend.

It's not about conspiracy, but about alliances and confidence in a brand.

EA has no confidence in Nintendo.

That is their mistake. Never underestimate Nintendo.

They should do like Ubisoft and find a proper synergy with Nintendo instead of lying on lame excuses.

In the end, what matters is that Nintendo maintains their success, and in turn increases the success stories of 3rd parties on their platform. This will cause EA to turn their eye to green pastures, and give the light of day to Nintendo.

But you can rest assured that EA is no partner to Nintendo, only a company that will profit from Nintendo's success rather than help build it.

Compare that to Ubisoft (Raving Rabbids), Capcom (Capcom 5), Namco (Tekken Tag U), Netherrealm (MK11), ... who will take a chance and try to help promote a platform so that they can make a market for themselves on it.

Compare that to now the inverse, how Sony invested millions in helping Squaresoft market Final Fantasy VII, FF a brand at the time that only managed to sell between a few hundred thousand and not even 1m in the US up until then. That is how you forge alliances.

Late ports/remasters have also sold well on Switch like Monster Hunter Generations, Skyrim & Crash N Sane Trilogy all selling over a million and possible over 2 million. That's on par with PS4/XBO late ports/remasters with the exception of GTA V, which I think we can agree is a massive outlier.

The thing is that you cant say your games arent a match for a platform or wont be profitable if you have made no attempt to release them on said platform. What evidence is EA using to conclude games like Need for Speed, Star Wars & Plants vs Zombies wouldnt be successful on Switch?

It's not that EA hates money, for sure that is impossible. If there is one thing we know about EA, it's that they love money.

Yep.

But what seems to be happening is that EA did not believe in the Nintendo Switch. They probably don't believe in the Nintendo platform at all. This is probably due to their results on the Wii and on the Wii U. On the Wii, they had terrible results due to the limited features of the software they released. It is well known that the Wii versions of their software were much less feature-rich (I'm not talking about frame rate or resolution here, but content). It is also known that they polluted the Wii library with low-quality software outside of their big brands. They were not alone in this lazy cash-grabbing, but it shows what kind of publisher they are.

I won`t ever dispute that EA is a bad publisher. Still we would probably find cases of content missing releases on other systems that didn`t impact much the sales.  

As for the WiiU, we can't really blame them about it, that's true. Nintendo failed to produce a compelling product with the WiiU and the sales suffered. But they learned from it, and the 3DS, which lived alongside the WiiU, did very very well.

I don`t really have anything against WiiU, but sure we can say that although it had several good gems, the SW was sparse.

So, it is only logical to assume that Nintendo as a brand has value and that EA should never count them out.

Sure Nintendo have a lot of value, but would it have same value as PS4/X1 together? Enough for them to instead of making the type of games they do and sell well on both to change gears to what sells on Switch? Wii also didn`t had 3rd parties doing stellar numbers did it?

Finally, as I said before, EA has a vested interest in the success of the Playstation and Xbox brands, because those are the platforms where EA can sell their yearly releases and make mad money. Nintendo is not following that trend and is going more after japanese-centric software and 3rd parties. So EA seems at once lost in that, and at the same time don't want to push that trend.

Exactly, they don`t want and probably don`t need to change to keep making the money they want, so why would or should they?

It's not about conspiracy, but about alliances and confidence in a brand.

EA has no confidence in Nintendo.

That is their mistake. Never underestimate Nintendo.

I haven`t seem they don`t have confidence or trust in Nintendo, what they don`t have is confidence that their product would have the needed returns on Nintendo and I don`t think that is a wrong assessment (I would prefer that they had no returns on any platform or that they changed to make good games, but well they sell a lot and there seems to be plenty of people that like what they do so let they receive that, I`ll look for the products I like on different companies).

They should do like Ubisoft and find a proper synergy with Nintendo instead of lying on lame excuses.

Why? I already pointed that, they rather have another team making another game for PS4/X1 with safe money on their pockets than changing to launch on Nintendo and possibly making less money.

In the end, what matters is that Nintendo maintains their success, and in turn increases the success stories of 3rd parties on their platform. This will cause EA to turn their eye to green pastures, and give the light of day to Nintendo.

That may happen, and for me Switch can be a success and EA rotten and wouldn`t lose a night sleep.

But you can rest assured that EA is no partner to Nintendo, only a company that will profit from Nintendo's success rather than help build it.

Compare that to Ubisoft (Raving Rabbids), Capcom (Capcom 5), Namco (Tekken Tag U), Netherrealm (MK11), ... who will take a chance and try to help promote a platform so that they can make a market for themselves on it.

Compare that to now the inverse, how Sony invested millions in helping Squaresoft market Final Fantasy VII, FF a brand at the time that only managed to sell between a few hundred thousand and not even 1m in the US up until then. That is how you forge alliances.

And that is kinda the difference, Sony and MS are ready to throw millions at SQ, EA, or Activision even for the "right to promote the game" while Nintendo isn`t. And sure I would also prefer Sony used that money to promote their own game or make more games instead of paying for the privilege of marketing CoD.

Can`t you really?

"All" a company do before launching any product is based on not releasing a product and doing projections. That is basically how they decide to release.

I think you and I agree on most points. I'll just talk about 3 on which you seemed to have misunderstood me.

1 & 2: Confidence in Nintendo, Ability to make money on Nintendo:

Here, we don't understand each other because what I mean by confidence is this: they don't trust that they can make money for themselves on a Nintendo brand. You seem to be saying the same thing. EA does not believe that they can make money on a Nintendo brand. Since we both agree that they love money, if they did have that confidence, they would go and try to make the money. But like you said, they are afraid to lose money because of some cases in the past. Some were their own fault, some were Nintendo's fault.

Yep we both agree on this. EA may be right or wrong or their capability to make money, but considering the games they do I would say they probably wouldn't profit much (thankfully).

One thing is for certain, is that EA is not a partner for Nintendo. They will leech money where the money is, and leave when it is not there and not help build the platform. They will pump out garbage content to make a cheap buck while diluting the platform's value, with no sense of the long-term effects on Nintendo and on their own (EA's) long-term success on Nintendo's platform. It is completely different from their attitude on Sony & MS platforms, and it can almost be seen as a form of SABOTAGE. Remember this term because that is why Nintendo fans are outraged at them. For Nintendo fans, the quality of the platform and of the support it gets is #1 because it guarantees a healthy library over the long run. EA ruins that party.

Well EA wouldn't really be partner for Sony or MS as well, they leech money on both platforms, it is just that they have had a lot more success with their bad practices on these two platforms.

3: Sony & MS vs Nintendo on 3rd parties:

This one comes back to the above point. EA is not a partner to Nintendo because Nintendo doesn't throw money at 3rd parties. This is a practice started by Sony, pushed even further by Microsoft, and it is a bit of a shameful practice in a sense. It makes Sony & MS in a sense slaves to 3rd parties, and EA gets comfortable choosing the highest bidder. It promotes this focus on money and gain, which fits EA perfectly.

Don't disagree.

Nintendo was known to refuse such a philosophy, and made EA perhaps quite upset.

Compare that now to Nintendo's approach, which invites 3rd parties to collaborate on games, to make games together as a team, that invests in making struggling companies succeed (Platinum) and that typically takes chances in smaller companies (Mistwalker, Monolith soft). A company that collaborates with other companies to promote healthy development practices in order to foster a sustainable industry.

Sure Nintendo improved their relationship with 3rd parties but it is still quite timid don't you agree? And on the taking chances or supporting small companies Sony and MS have done that also supporting struggling companies (I haven`t heard of Platinum struggling, I just heard of Bayonetta not being profitable so they wouldn`t release and Nintendo jumped in to have it, and that is a good thing for sure even more when at least 1M owners on Nintendo system seemed to appreciate the game).

Of course EA does not understand that, nor do they want to. (That is, until Nintendo becomes truly great as is their destiny and EA has no choice but to join the party.)

I fall back on what I said, EA is a greedy developer, and they have a conflict of vision and interest with Nintendo, and so they make up stupid reasons as to why they should not develop on Nintendo platforms, and to people who see through it, it stinks.

Agree with this as well, and sure there may be a time when EA will either see Nintendo platform as worth for them or they will be obligated to at least try because they aren`t finding enough profit on PS5/XSX.

I think you and I agree on most points. I'll just talk about 3 on which you seemed to have misunderstood me.

1 & 2: Confidence in Nintendo, Ability to make money on Nintendo:

Here, we don't understand each other because what I mean by confidence is this: they don't trust that they can make money for themselves on a Nintendo brand. You seem to be saying the same thing. EA does not believe that they can make money on a Nintendo brand. Since we both agree that they love money, if they did have that confidence, they would go and try to make the money. But like you said, they are afraid to lose money because of some cases in the past. Some were their own fault, some were Nintendo's fault.

One thing is for certain, is that EA is not a partner for Nintendo. They will leech money where the money is, and leave when it is not there and not help build the platform. They will pump out garbage content to make a cheap buck while diluting the platform's value, with no sense of the long-term effects on Nintendo and on their own (EA's) long-term success on Nintendo's platform. It is completely different from their attitude on Sony & MS platforms, and it can almost be seen as a form of SABOTAGE. Remember this term because that is why Nintendo fans are outraged at them. For Nintendo fans, the quality of the platform and of the support it gets is #1 because it guarantees a healthy library over the long run. EA ruins that party.

3: Sony & MS vs Nintendo on 3rd parties:

This one comes back to the above point. EA is not a partner to Nintendo because Nintendo doesn't throw money at 3rd parties. This is a practice started by Sony, pushed even further by Microsoft, and it is a bit of a shameful practice in a sense. It makes Sony & MS in a sense slaves to 3rd parties, and EA gets comfortable choosing the highest bidder. It promotes this focus on money and gain, which fits EA perfectly.

Nintendo was known to refuse such a philosophy, and made EA perhaps quite upset.

Compare that now to Nintendo's approach, which invites 3rd parties to collaborate on games, to make games together as a team, that invests in making struggling companies succeed (Platinum) and that typically takes chances in smaller companies (Mistwalker, Monolith soft). A company that collaborates with other companies to promote healthy development practices in order to foster a sustainable industry.

Of course EA does not understand that, nor do they want to. (That is, until Nintendo becomes truly great as is their destiny and EA has no choice but to join the party.)

I fall back on what I said, EA is a greedy developer, and they have a conflict of vision and interest with Nintendo, and so they make up stupid reasons as to why they should not develop on Nintendo platforms, and to people who see through it, it stinks.

Yes, we were but we did get a Dead Space denotative and an SSX title.  Now?  Nothing.

Check those game lists I posted.  Look at the difference.  It's staggering.

Nah people were mad with EA for not bringing games like Dead space, SSX etc etc while at the same time getting weak weird games.

Yeah, Sony & MS have also developed relations with small companies, that's true.

To answer your question about whether 3rd party initiatives are a bit timid or not on Nintendo's part, I have been doing a lot of research on the relationship between Nintendo and 3rd parties and here is what I discovered. During the time that Iwata was president of Nintendo, something happened that radically changed the mood of japanese 3rd parties towards Nintendo for the better. Here are something things that happened during his tenure:

• There was an initiative to loan Nintendo IPs to 3rd parties in order to increase software output of Nintendo IPs (Nintendo could not handle it all themselves). This forged relationships with 3rd parties such as Namco, Tecmo, Capcom to name a few, for who working on a Nintendo IP was a prestige. Some of these companies (esp. Namco) were on very bad terms with Nintendo due to legal battles over royalties and cartridges at the end of the NES era.
• Strategic Japanese exclusives were secured such as Monster Hunter on 3DS (which was big on PSP). This gave recognition to Capcom and strengthened the partnership. Nintendo doesn't often pull this kind of move but that was an important move for them (a bit like how Sony gave 1st party treatment to Squaresoft with their big migration of FFVII in the PS1 days).
• Nintendo worked closely with and eventually absorbed Namco's Monolith Soft, a team of former Squaresoft employees.
• Similarly, they published The Last Story, a game by Mystwalker, Sakaguchi's indie game dev consulting studio which he started after leaving Square.
• Nintendo pushed for experimental relationships with Squaresoft even if the prior president of Nintendo had created a rift. The games and devs in question are Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, the Brownie Brown studio, and a number of games produced by them.
• The Capcom 5 was a set of exclusive games Capcom would produce for Nintendo on the gamecube as part of an exclusivity deal (yep money, another rare move by Nintendo).
• The complete success of the portable line bolstered confidence in the Nintendo brand (mainly for portables).

I would say that, with Japanese developers, Nintendo is doing great.

With American developers, you have the Ubisoft move with Rabbids, and then you have some 3rd party companies making ports to the Wii (they were definitely approached by NOA). In the end though, Nintendo's relationship with Western 3rd parties is their weak point. Also, western games tend to prioritize graphics and raw power, which goes against the grain of Nintendo console philosophy (big money can still be made without that I need to point out).

On that I can easily agree with you.

But the question is, is it important? Perhaps Oniyide is right in saying that those games are not needed on Nintendo consoles. Perhaps they dilute the overall quality of the library, perhaps they change the appeal of the console by targeting an audience that doesn't mesh well with Nintendo's current direction (japanese type arcade and rpg games). To be honest, I am not sure what would be the best here.

But one thing is certain, it's that if EA did make games on Nintendo consoles, esp. if encouraged by Nintendo, the games would need to match the quality of what gamers expect to play on a Nintendo console. To me that's fundamental. So no shovelware, and no feature-weak half-ports. It's not welcome.