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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - EA: "There isn't much room for other titles than 1st party on Switch"

EA gonna EA. They're just talking straight out of their ass at this point.



Around the Network

Nothing new under the sun. And probably they deem it not enough profit to be made in several of the games they release on PS4/X1 if they were to port to Switch. But yes let's hate EA for not releasing the games we wouldn't buy anyway.



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."

Dulfite said:
Vgchartz Switch Numbers in database:
Minecraft - 1.89 million
Skyrim - 1.15 million
Crash Bandicoot trilogy - 1.11 million
Fifa18 - 1.10 million
Octopath Traveler - 1.02 million

How many does EA need to sell to think it's profitable? If a million isn't enough then that's sad. I'm sure if they released all their games on Switch they'd sell enough to profit and save their company some face.

That number seem low to me because minecraft switch is over a million in Japan alone.



EA are expected to say this because their business model that revolves around microtransactions in multiplayer games and Nintendo's userbases on their platforms have always been the least receptive to this especially as they're platforms sold mainly off single player games something EA wrote off only to prove themselves wrong so obviously they'd do everything to not put anything on the platform the problem for them is the shareholders don't care they see a potential diamond mine so EA have to come up with excuses as to why they haven't made any proper effort.



Chicho said:
Dulfite said:
Vgchartz Switch Numbers in database:
Minecraft - 1.89 million
Skyrim - 1.15 million
Crash Bandicoot trilogy - 1.11 million
Fifa18 - 1.10 million
Octopath Traveler - 1.02 million

How many does EA need to sell to think it's profitable? If a million isn't enough then that's sad. I'm sure if they released all their games on Switch they'd sell enough to profit and save their company some face.

That number seem low to me because minecraft switch is over a million in Japan alone.

All those numbers are leftovers from before the point where VGC stopped tracking sell-through numbers for software. They are estimates up until the end of 2018.

Since then VGC only adds updates to shipment numbers to the database, but such numbers are hard to come by for the vast majority of games, so there really isn't much material for software sales analyses nowadays.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Around the Network
GoOnKid said:
SwitchUP said:
EA: we cant sell loot shit boxes on the switch, so theres no room for our worthless garbage. Fuck you EA, nobody noticed you werent there any fucking way. This is the only company that's shittier than crapcom. What an achievement.

Activision Blizzard says hi. I fully agree on everything else, though.

Well Activision put Crash and Spyro trilogies, didn't they ?

And those games are well suited for the console



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me

SKMBlake said:
GoOnKid said:

Activision Blizzard says hi. I fully agree on everything else, though.

Well Activision put Crash and Spyro trilogies, didn't they ?

And those games are well suited for the console

And EA put Unravel on Switch because that is also suited.

Now, they won't put a lot of money in a port that they don't expect to profit enough on the system. But as always everyone in VGC is a better businessman than company heads proven by track record of both =p



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."

DonFerrari said:
Nothing new under the sun. And probably they deem it not enough profit to be made in several of the games they release on PS4/X1 if they were to port to Switch. But yes let's hate EA for not releasing the games we wouldn't buy anyway.

We don't need another reason to hate EA... and we certainly don't need to defend them.



SKMBlake said:
GoOnKid said:

Activision Blizzard says hi. I fully agree on everything else, though.

Well Activision put Crash and Spyro trilogies, didn't they ?

And those games are well suited for the console

Yes that is true, however that was merely by accident after one single developer tried to build a Crash level out of curiosity on the Switch and it turned out it worked perfectly fine. Only then the publisher allowed the team to build a Switch version. So this story implicates that Activision had no intention to release it on the obvious well suited platform at first, but it's even worse because it also tells us that they didn't even consider it necessary to put the Switch to a simple benchmark test and validate what can and cannot be done on the system. They had a Skylanders game at launch, though, I have to admit. Turned out that flopped hard, so maybe that's the reason why they didn't want to keep dong stuff with it.

Maybe Activision might not be the worst publisher on the Switch, okay I give in, but they are certainly one of them.

DonFerrari said:
SKMBlake said:

Well Activision put Crash and Spyro trilogies, didn't they ?

And those games are well suited for the console

And EA put Unravel on Switch because that is also suited.

Now, they won't put a lot of money in a port that they don't expect to profit enough on the system. But as always everyone in VGC is a better businessman than company heads proven by track record of both =p

Mind to explain then why EA hasn't released a Madden game yet? Especially in the US where the sport is big and the Switch is thriving, and it would also be a multiplayer game which work very well on the system. Sure, expecting small profits is one thing but common sense is another. 

I don't want to fight, I know we had a lot of debates in the past but even you must see that their practices are strange at best.



Well EA is exactly right. Developers don't want to make games for 2014 cell phone CPU hardware. When I was studying programming in university do you think I dreamed about working for Blizzard anymore? I don't want to work on a 15 year old game. EA makes good games for high end PCs, thank god.

Imagine Nintendo made all their SNES games for the NES instead? Donkey Kong Country NES is all we got after 15 years of using the NES over and over. That's what Nintendo has been doing. Forcing people to make PS2 games during the PS3 era, PS3 games during the PS4 era. Now it has already been 8 years since Nintendo hit the PS3 era, and we're still waiting for PS4 level hardware while EA has moved on to the PS5. Good for them.

Jedi: Fallen Order was my favorite game of 2019, and it wasn't on the Switch. I sold my Switch.