disolitude said: EA has helped put Sega out of console business by not supporting the Dreamcast. Am I to feel bad for them or something?

Sega never even came close. First Nintendo kicked their asses and then Sony had a turn. Yeah the lack of EA support didn't help the Dreamcast but it wouldn't have sold well anyways.

On topic who didn't think the PS3 would win? I bet even Nintendo deep down didn't think they would win.

mike_intellivision said: Sega's downfall started when it tried to out-flank Sony and release the Saturn early to some select retailers. That led to some stores (such as the late lamented KB Toys) deciding to NEVER carry the console. The move also let Sony undercut on the price.

Exactly, that was only one of Sega's offenses, but as always, some Sega fans blaming Sony... The Dreamcast had no chance but not because of Sony, but because of Sega's precedents, i mean, putting defective add-on after defective add-on, then releasing the Saturn the way they did (instead of keeping the genius Saturnday and releasing it well, even if that meant releasing at the same time as the PS1), then never helping the devs to understand the architecture (that was really crazy at that time, using quadrilaterals instead of triangles, using 2 processors with one simultaneous access, etc.), then dropping it too early (announcing the Dreamcast after only a few years), they really were a train wreck, then the Dreamcast came along, a really great system, but the damage was already done...

 

coolestguyever said: disolitude said: EA has helped put Sega out of console business by not supporting the Dreamcast. Am I to feel bad for them or something? Sega never even came close. First Nintendo kicked their asses and then Sony had a turn. Yeah the lack of EA support didn't help the Dreamcast but it wouldn't have sold well anyways. On topic who didn't think the PS3 would win? I bet even Nintendo deep down didn't think they would win.

Lol, thanks for that extremely shallow and hateful reply. Really added much insight to this topic.

Ofcrouse you were like 2 when Sega was at its prime so what would you know? Not much as demonstrated by this post...

heruamon said: Talk about scapegoating...As the biggest software caompany at the time, shouldn't you have made sure you could support all 3 platforms?

That's not scape-goating. That's admitting you screwed up. Kind of the opposite of scape-goating. They, like many others, bet on the wrong horse and it had a greater effect on the game industry than the recession did.
As for the "you should support all 3" remark... They did. They always supported all three consoles. But has anybody really supported all 3 consoles equally since there's been 3 console generations? Who do you think would have gone out of business first last gen, the company that spent their resources developing PS2 games, or the company that spent their resources developing ps2, gamecube and xbox games? 

arcane_chaos said: So EA first blames nintendo and their wii, and now Sony and their PS3......EA loves playing the blame game

They have to play the blame game to try and keep their investors happy.  Over the past couple of years they have lost a ton of money and laid off a significant portion of their workforce.

Severance said: noname2200 said: RVDondaPC said: The PS3 got the least amount of support from EA from the get go. What the hell is this guy talking about? They had some cheap ports like the Orange Box and then they have EA published games that are 360 exclusive like Mass Effect and Left4Dead. That may not be EA's decision completely but regardless the PS3 has gotten the least amount of support from EA. I'm wondering what kind of "resources" this guy is referring to. Not a single one of those examples were under EA's control; Valve made the call regarding the Orange Box and Left4Dead, while Microsoft published the console version of the original Mass Effect. Orange box was ported by EA for the PS3. and Mass Effect 2 is published by EA.

Orange Box port was not done by the people who developed the game, and Valve's (Independent) engine is not PS3-friendly, so success there was not likely. 

As for Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3, M$ had publishing rights to those titles before Bioware was bought out by EA (Along with Pandemic).  It's never been confirmed, but as part of M$ agreement to return the rights to EA, they got exclusivity, which makes sense.  In the typical pie, the publisher gets $16 for each title, so you can see why EA would agree to this deal.  Mass Effect is probably going to push 2.5 to 3 million copies on the 360, so EA wasn't going to let that cash go for their shiny new IP acquisition...it's probably why they are pissed at M$, since they can't port the game to the PS3.  Also, as M$ learned from Ninja Gaiden Sigma, they probably have an ironclad deal for the game to prevent a port.  I suppose EA could launch a totally new ME game with a different plot and a different verse, but that's a huge new amount of investment. 

stof said: heruamon said:   Talk about scapegoating...As the biggest software caompany at the time, shouldn't you have made sure you could support all 3 platforms?   That's not scape-goating. That's admitting you screwed up. Kind of the opposite of scape-goating. They, like many others, bet on the wrong horse and it had a greater effect on the game industry than the recession did. As for the "you should support all 3" remark... They did. They always supported all three consoles. But has anybody really supported all 3 consoles equally since there's been 3 console generations? Who do you think would have gone out of business first last gen, the company that spent their resources developing PS2 games, or the company that spent their resources developing ps2, gamecube and xbox games?

In general I agree, but to me, part of their problem has been their buying spree....before they can integrate a company, they buy a new one.  They would been better served to establish solid publishing deals with developers, ala Valve deal, imho.  They paid $800 for Bioware and Pandemic, and closed it 8 months later. 

RVDondaPC said: noname2200 said: RVDondaPC said: The PS3 got the least amount of support from EA from the get go. What the hell is this guy talking about? They had some cheap ports like the Orange Box and then they have EA published games that are 360 exclusive like Mass Effect and Left4Dead. That may not be EA's decision completely but regardless the PS3 has gotten the least amount of support from EA. I'm wondering what kind of "resources" this guy is referring to. Not a single one of those examples were under EA's control; Valve made the call regarding the Orange Box and Left4Dead, while Microsoft published the console version of the original Mass Effect. EA's control or not, its resources which are being put forth into the 360 which the PS3 did not receive. I am aware of the situation "That may not be EA's decision completely" but the fact remains that they are blaming allocating too many resources for the PS3 when infact they are showing the least amount of support for the PS3. Had their been PS3 exclusive games and content that didn't sell then I would buy the reasoning, but seeing as there is not, it makes no sense. It also ignores the fact that their games have sold poorly across all platforms and their best selling franchise is infact FIFA which sells the most on the PS3. This guy is passing the buck. He's saying it's their fault, but really not their fault. Have their games even sold well on the Wii?? We all know Dante's inferno is gonna be another EA stinker, but even if they had shifted those resources to the Wii would they have done anything with it?

I'll leave the Wii issue aside for now (although they've recently reiterated their stance on that topic) and ignore the fact that they have not, to the best of my knowledge, made a single 360-exclusive game either.

The rest of your post may have some merit, although I suspect you're putting a few more words in Ricitello's mouth than he intended. Nonetheless, my original point stands: all three of the examples that you picked were poor examples. EA specifically lobbied Valve to let them create a PS3 port for the Orange Box: Valve had zero interest in porting the game and did next to nothing to help EA. The lack of Left4Dead on the PS3 can also be laid exclusively at Valve's feet; EA has no way of forcing Valve to let EA port the game. Finally, EA could not, under any circumstances, publish a PS3 version of the original Mass Effect, due to Microsoft's licensing of the console version.

You chose the three biggest examples where EA either WAS pro-PS3 or in which it could NOT do anything about the PS3 due to a third-party's actions. All I'm saying is that you would have been better served by citing other games in their stead.

noname2200 said: I'll leave the Wii issue aside for now (although they've recently reiterated their stance on that topic) and ignore the fact that they have not, to the best of my knowledge, made a single 360-exclusive game either. The rest of your post may have some merit, although I suspect you're putting a few more words in Ricitello's mouth than he intended. Nonetheless, my original point stands: all three of the examples that you picked were poor examples. EA specifically lobbied Valve to let them create a PS3 port for the Orange Box: Valve had zero interest in porting the game and did next to nothing to help EA. The lack of Left4Dead on the PS3 can also be laid exclusively at Valve's feet; EA has no way of forcing Valve to let EA port the game. Finally, EA could not, under any circumstances, publish a PS3 version of the original Mass Effect, due to Microsoft's licensing of the console version. You chose the three biggest examples where EA either WAS pro-PS3 or in which it could NOT do anything about the PS3 due to a third-party's actions. All I'm saying is that you would have been better served by citing other games in their stead.

I don't think there are any other games that are PS3 or 360 exclusive. Infact EA seems to hit up every console(or just about) with each of their games. Which makes it even dumber for them to put the blame on the failures of the PS3. My point was that it gave no exclusive support or content to the PS3, which makes one wonder about their comment of picking PS3 to be in first, yet showing absolutely no special treatment to back up such a comment.  I agree the games I chose were not the best examples but they are the only thing that really differentiates EA's support between the PS3 and the 360. I do agree that porting the Orange box is a sign of supporting the PS3, but really it's just a half assed catch up job to try to balance out an advantage that the 360 already had from Valve. 

With being the publisher of big 360 exclusives, regardless of who controls the IP, it would seem they have more eggs in the MS basket than the PS3. Yet they still blame the PS3. Also the quote may be admitting some guilt but if you pay attention to it what it's really saying is "we made a mistake, but it really wasnt our fault, the PS3 fucked up worse and it's their fault" Instead of saying "we failed to realize the potential of the Wii" they chose to say "We failed cuz the PS3 failed"

Edit: the guy's actual quotes really arent that bad. I guess reading the posts after it kind of painted a different picture in my head. He is actually right for the most part. Though the 360 may be just as much as a failure as the PS3 in terms of EA developed games, the fact that they probably didnt bank on the 360 being that much of a winner to begin with didn't hurt them as much. Infact the 360 probably exceeded their expectations from what they were before this generation got started. So that is probably why they mentioned only the PS3's failure and the Wii's surpirse dominance and don't mention the 360 as part of the reason. Either way I still stand by my opinion that the majority of the reason why they failed is not because of the consoles they chose but because of the games they developed for them. 

RVDondaPC said: noname2200 said: I'll leave the Wii issue aside for now (although they've recently reiterated their stance on that topic) and ignore the fact that they have not, to the best of my knowledge, made a single 360-exclusive game either. The rest of your post may have some merit, although I suspect you're putting a few more words in Ricitello's mouth than he intended. Nonetheless, my original point stands: all three of the examples that you picked were poor examples. EA specifically lobbied Valve to let them create a PS3 port for the Orange Box: Valve had zero interest in porting the game and did next to nothing to help EA. The lack of Left4Dead on the PS3 can also be laid exclusively at Valve's feet; EA has no way of forcing Valve to let EA port the game. Finally, EA could not, under any circumstances, publish a PS3 version of the original Mass Effect, due to Microsoft's licensing of the console version. You chose the three biggest examples where EA either WAS pro-PS3 or in which it could NOT do anything about the PS3 due to a third-party's actions. All I'm saying is that you would have been better served by citing other games in their stead. I don't think there are any other games that are PS3 or 360 exclusive. Infact EA seems to hit up every console(or just about) with each of their games. Which makes it even dumber for them to put the blame on the failures of the PS3. My point was that it gave no exclusive support or content to the PS3, which makes one wonder about their comment of picking PS3 to be in first, yet showing absolutely no special treatment to back up such a comment.  I agree the games I chose were not the best examples but they are the only thing that really differentiates EA's support between the PS3 and the 360. I do agree that porting the Orange box is a sign of supporting the PS3, but really it's just a half assed catch up job to try to balance out an advantage that the 360 already had from Valve.  With being the publisher of big 360 exclusives, regardless of who controls the IP, it would seem they have more eggs in the MS basket than the PS3. Yet they still blame the PS3. Also the quote may be admitting some guilt but if you pay attention to it what it's really saying is "we made a mistake, but it really wasnt our fault, the PS3 fucked up worse and it's their fault" Instead of saying "we failed to realize the potential of the Wii" they chose to say "We failed cuz the PS3 failed"

In terms of their placing the blame on the PS3, I tend to agree: I just want to reiterate that I was only making a narrow point. I think we're actually in agreement on this subject.