Topic: Need for Speed Most Wanted U: It's deserves your purchase!

[ymeegod]

Think he was referring to "print" discounts.  Everything goes through Nintendo and I believe Nintendo gives an discount to how many copies are printed--meaning if the order is small the fees are at the highest meaning the developers/publishers really don't get much profit. 

Also Nintendo controls the Eshop and the front page is loaded 90% of 1st/2nd party titles usually, MS and Sony's does a great deal to promote 3rd party games.  Just got done a few rounds of Zombies and MS front page was 3 three party titles (CoD Ghost (activision), ACIV (ubisoft) and one indie game think it was Castle Crashes (the rest were free to play tank game and a couple of ads for TV shows).

[Soren]

Criterion was caught in the crossfire of EAs war with Nintendo. I believe if Ward looks at it with a level head he'll see EA screwed them over royally.


Hindsight being what it is, EA intentionally sabotaged the release of the Wii U version. They slashed the price 50% on day 1 on their digital storefront (Origin), ensuring that anyone who was going to buy the game did it through them almost exclusively. Many of us in this thread did so. Meanwhile, the eShop version has been left to rot at $60, still to this day, leaving Nintendo with little reason to spend money marketing the game from the very beginning. It's a miracle the game is still getting featured at all(it's halfway down on the front page right now).

[smallsharkbigbite]

Why would EA selling the Wii U version for 29.99 on day 1 be a bad thing?  If anything it should have pushed extra sales and pushed word of mouth on the game. Digital sales would have suffered, but EA and Nintendo make money out of disc sales as well. Their preference may be digital but they'll gladly sell discs.

Yme is right. There are lots of little things Nintendo could have done without spending a bunch on marketing. As outsiders its tough for us to know what usually happens. Maybe its standard for certain things to be provided by Nintendo or at least standard for Sony/Microsoft to provide.  If Nintendo didn't provide something that was expected, I can see the reason for being upset. 

Nintendo charges something like $12 a disc for licensing so shouldn't they have some obligation for that fee?  That's the way I look at it. Nintendo's job is to have an ecosystem that third parties can make money on. Until that time they should be doing everything they can to help third parties be successful. After they've developed that system that is profitable then its on the third parties. Thats just my 2 cents.

Uncle Bob its impossible to know the details behind every deal so its convenient to ask for proof when there is no way to provide that proof. In my experience new consoles often get late ports that have significant marketing. The easiest example is Madden 25. This came out 3 months late but was advertised heavily for ps 4/xbo. I'd almost be surprised if Sony/Microsoft didn't have a hand in that marketing.  I could probably go through the last several console launches and come up with more than 10 late ports that received good marketing. 

Lastly, I don't really know how anyone can not blame this to some extent on Nintendo. Nintendo and EA both spit in each others faces. Did EA send the game to die?  Yes. But they sent it to die because the relationship was broken. At a macro level Nintendo shares blame for the deterioration of the relationship. I don't think you can look at the micro level (game) only and pretend the macro doesn't matter. It would be like me punching my auto mechanic in the face and then being surprised when he doesn't fix my car.  Then blame him solely for not fixing my car when my actions led to him not fixing my car. 

[UncleBob]

If the game had came out at the console's launch, then I wouldn't be commenting about it being a late port.  It came out several months after the launch (I guess in the "launch window").

It's a great game and it deserved more sales than it got - but I think it's folly to say that it's on Nintendo.  If EA, one of the two largest third party developers, doesn't have the faith to market their game, why should that fall back on Nintendo?

Skylanders: Giants released as a late port on WiiU (due to the launch window timing).  The game still had plenty of marketing buzz.

Here's a follow-up.  I don't really follow advertising, so I don't really know...  Was there much of a marketing budget for the original release of NFS:MW when it was released on the 360/PS3?

[smallsharkbigbite]

If the game had came out at the console's launch, then I wouldn't be commenting about it being a late port.  It came out several months after the launch (I guess in the "launch window").

Rumor is that they tried to make it a launch game.  It looks like EA and Nintendo were getting along and EA starting this project and a bunch of projects on the Wii U.  At some point in the middle things soured and EA didn't really give a crap about Wii U projects.  It's likely they didn't want to allocate the necessary resources to help NFS Most Wanted become a launch title.  I know you only blame EA for that, but EA's attitude changed because of the treatment they received from Nintendo.  That's why I think there is enough blame to go around.  Either way I doubt he came to Nintendo 1/31/13 to ask for help.  They had to come to Nintendo at a time when relations were good and they actually thought Nintendo might help them out.  It would have been before the Wii U launched and Nintendo could have given them that ultimatum (make it out for launch and we'll help you).  Obviously there was no desire on their end to help out. 

It's a great game and it deserved more sales than it got - but I think it's folly to say that it's on Nintendo.  If EA, one of the two largest third party developers, doesn't have the faith to market their game, why should that fall back on Nintendo?

So what, no third party has faith in their game?  It's all the third parties fault that the Wii U has no significant third party activity?  Nintendo isn't to blame at all?  If this was just EA skipping Nintendo consoles I'd see your point.  At the rate major third party games are missing the Wii U, I can't help but think Nintendo is the problem.  At the very least you should be upset that Nintendo doesn't care about giving you the consumer the best gaming experience. 

EA is like the ex-girlfriend spouting crap after the breakup.  It's petty and makes them an easy target to blame things on.  But Nintendo quite simply doesn't care.  They don't care that NFS was on the Wii U or if a future version is on the Wii U.  They don't care if third parties make good Wii U games or crappy Wii U games or no Wii U games at all.  And they aren't going to try anything to get any third party to replace the gap  that games like this create.  You can blame EA if you want, but the Wii U will be a worse console without great third party support.  Nintendo should care that the Wii U is a worse console because of that, but they don't.

Skylanders: Giants released as a late port on WiiU (due to the launch window timing).  The game still had plenty of marketing buzz.

It was only a month late and they were advertising all the versions including Wii U.  It also did pretty terrible on the Wii U so I don't know that it should be the third party gold standard for how to be successful on the Wii U. 

[Soren]

I know you only blame EA for that, but EA's attitude changed because of the treatment they received from Nintendo. 

Yeah, how dare Nintendo say no to an Origin-based Nintendo Network.

Why would EA selling the Wii U version for 29.99 on day 1 be a bad thing?

It's bad because every other retailer except Origin was selling the game full price. They sacrificed long term sales to cash in early knowing the game was projected to sell poorly anyway.

[smallsharkbigbite]

I know you only blame EA for that, but EA's attitude changed because of the treatment they received from Nintendo. 

Yeah, how dare Nintendo say no to an Origin-based Nintendo Network.

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying in my previous posts.  Your unbiased simplification of Nintendo's third party issues to just this one issue is spot on.  I'm glad you were able to sift through my verbiage to pull this out.  All the third parties that have either left Nintendo or are in the process would certainly stay with Nintendo if they had Origin Network.  Rockstar, EA, Ubisoft, Warner Bros, Activision would all prioritize Wii U projects.  We know that PS4 is very popular because it uses Origin.  It's not like Nintendo has other third party relationship issues.  It's not like Nintendo reached out to EA for help with their online infrastructure. 

Why would EA selling the Wii U version for 29.99 on day 1 be a bad thing?

It's bad because every other retailer except Origin was selling the game full price. They sacrificed long term sales to cash in early knowing the game was projected to sell poorly anyway.

Most games either have a day 1 sale or pre-order bonus nowadays.  I don't see how a brief sale early in the game's life would lead to fewer sales.  It may lead to less money for EA as the retailer, but it doesn't lead to less money for Nintendo since they get the same licensing fee regardless of sale price. 

If anything it probably was incentive to some people that would pick the cheaper Xbox/PS versions for cheaper to pick up the Wii U version.  Also, I'm pretty sure it was a website glitch and not an intentional sale.  I remember seeing the post on here and thinking about it for a day.  I checked the next day and the Wii U version was $59.99 while the PS3/360 versions remained $29.99.  If it was intentional they probably would have had the Wii U version on sale as long as the others. 

I mean we are talking about the Origin website, not Walmart.  Most people probably never knew about this sale and it's long term effects were certainly minimal. 

[Soren]

You made a statement about EA's specific relationship with Nintendo and I answered it. Now you want to make look like I'm oversimplifying Nintendo's third party issues. Stop, just stop.

EA knew no one was going to buy the game at full price. Accidental or not, the Origin sale was their best chance to recoup the investment they made porting the game. And I find it gard to believe it was a glitch when the press release for the sale mentioned Wii U as well as other platforms.

[smallsharkbigbite]

You made a statement about EA's specific relationship with Nintendo and I answered it. Now you want to make look like I'm oversimplifying Nintendo's third party issues. Stop, just stop.

Except that it's not true for EA either.  The Genesis got the best version of EA sports games because Sega worked with EA.  Square gave their RPGs to PS1 over the N64, Rockstar skipped Nintendo with GTA.  EA has been constantly pulling things from Nintendo over the years.  EA dropped Nascar, MVP Baseball, NCAA sports from the Gamecube.  They followed it up by pulling Tiger Woods, NFS, All Mature Titles (Mass Effect/Battlefront) for the Wii.  I'm not sure what happened with EA, but if anything whatever happened simply quickened the effect that was already happening.  By the end of the Wii U there never was going to be any EA support without positive interaction from Nintendo.   


I think you also simplify it to EA pitching Nintendo and being surprised when Nintendo didn't use them.  Nintendo went to EA for online help.  There also had to be some sort working relationship with EA for EA to bring as many games as they did at launch.  Mass Effect 1 + 2 skipped Wii and they brought 3 to the Wii U.  NFS Most wanted skipped Wii and they brought it to Wii U.  Yeah, you can argue they torpedoed those releases, but they lost money bringing to the Wii U so they cared enough about the Wii U to put investment to it at one point.  Had whatever positive effect not happened, I think you'd have seen Madden 13 and maybe Fifa 13 at launch and that is it (based on their Wii support).  Then based on sales they probably wouldn't have developed sequels for those either. 

EA knew no one was going to buy the game at full price. Accidental or not, the Origin sale was their best chance to recoup the investment they made porting the game. And I find it gard to believe it was a glitch when the press release for the sale mentioned Wii U as well as other platforms.

If EAs only chance to recoup was to sell the game at a loss, then I still don't know how the sale was a bad thing.  And I still don't know how an obscure sale that 95% of the people in the US didn't know about would have a material affect on the total sales for that game.  I got NSMB U for $39.99 on sale durting the first month at Target.  Did that sale hamper Wii U sales as Nintendo went for initial adopters instead of long term sales?  I just don't understand your argument here.  Games go on sale all the time.