Now if only EA would stop producing for all other platforms as well

People around the internet seem to be making a huge fuss over this, but I really don't understand why. After month after month of new EA games being confirmed as not coming to the Wii U; month after month of pitiful Wii U hardware sales; and what titles EA did release failing horribly (most notably "best on Wii U" Need for Speed), this was really to be expected.

If you want to play Nintendo games, you buy a Nintendo platform. If you want to play 3rd party titles, you buy something else. That's what I've come to expect, and I'm rarely surprised.

That's not an unreasonable mind set, but it's not one I want to live with. I'm a one console owner, so this is exceedingly disappointing.

Well EA dug their own grave, you don't release Mass Effect 3 on WiiU to only announce a trilogy soon after for the other systems.  No matter how good NFS is, its a late port which will only sell moderately well at best on a console with an established fanbase.  Ports don't move new consoles.  If EA wanted some success on the WiiU they should've contributed to establishing an initial fanbase for the products by releasing original or NEW games on the system. 

EA put a half assed effort on the WiiU with their lineup choices so they get half assed sales.  I know this hurts Nintendo in the long run but I'm not going to cry over it, there is very little I buy from EA on my WiiU and PS3. 

You forgot the best part! IGN's article on the story also had this to say:


...Kotaku reports that Brown says the “early run of EA games on Wii U represented EA delivering on its E3 2011 partnership.”

Yeah, I disagree with brood on that matter, too. All of my previous generation Nintendo consoles are proof that I buy more third party games than 1st party - yes, even the Nintendo 64. And in the few, short months the Wii U has been available, this is still true for me.

Sure, third party games in the previous two gens sold fewer copies of their games on Nintendo consoles when compared to the other guys - with Soul Caliber II, Resident Evil 4, and a few others being exceptions, but they still sold well to each Nintendo console's respective audience.

The problem lies in how the western side of the industry is really trying to push Nintendo aside. I fully believe the main AAA producing third parties, along with graphics engine creators, are wanting this to be a two console race. I mean, look back to the days of pre-GameCube/PS2/Xbox. There were always just two main consoles (poor Sega.) NES/Master System, SNES/Genesis, N64/PSX. It wasn't until Nintendo flubbed up going with carts for the N64, that third parties decided to shift their focus on new sights. The GameCube was Nintendo trying to do things right - to make things more appealing for third parties. They just happened to not see how important online play or having an online interface/infrastructure was. And honestly, the Wii was just that, too - a new way to interact with games...that Nintendo thought would entice third parties to create new experiences (to keep from having Uncharted, Uncharted 2, Uncharted 3, God of War/2/3/4 etc etc.. basically, the same tired game mechanics over and over and over with updated/shinier graphics - brood will eat this line up for dinner. And as I look at my Wii game collection, it's true in a way - not for western third parties, but Japanese third parties really did bring some innovative new gameplay experiences to light. And I'm grateful for that.

It's also why I believe the industry is fighting with itself and the imminent east vs. west split. Oh, but here come the indies! In a way, the indies remind me a TON of when small scale studios made awesome games during the NES days. Sure, not all of them were great, but there were the occasional gems that truly stood out. And if Nintendo is welcoming that with open arms to the Wii U/3DS, then so will I.

But brood, to say that you only buy a Nintendo console for Nintendo games and nothing else...that's a boldface lie.

Actually, I believe my exact words were "If you want to play Nintendo games, you buy a Nintendo platform. If you want to play 3rd party titles, you buy something else. That's what I've come to expect, and I'm rarely surprised."  Note the "rarely surprised" part.  I've been quite open about the fact that I bought my Wii U as a secondary console to my PS3 & possibly PS4/Durango.  It's increasingly clear that's all it will ever be.  Besides, I still bought my Wii U to eventually play Nintendo games. It's just that Nintendo decided to launch the Wii U without any worth playing, so I had to make due elsewhere.

Nah...too easy.  :P: : : :  At least you admitted you have a (hypocrisy) problem. That's the first step towards recovery.

Me? Nah, I'm not the one with the problem. That'd be companies like EA, Epic, and whoever else is butthurt by Nintendo's existence.

Life's fairly spiffy for me at this current point in time. ;)

You have to admit, though: if you're a developer and you've seen those abysmal first 6 month Wii U sales (especially this month's 30-40K hardware sales), you'd be running away from the platform as quickly as possible too.  There's just too much risk involved and very little reward right now, even more so if it's an exclusive title.  It just doesn't make financial sense to release Wii U games right now, and it's on Nintendo to change that by selling Wii U hardware (something they've utterly failed at so far).

One of the possible reasons for EA to avoid Wii U is that it will probably be the only new console not employing anti-used schemes.

They dropped online passes recently which might mean that new consoles have their own mechanism to destroy or monetize used games sales.

What I'd like to know is two things:

- Peter Moore went to Japan after E3 2011, and the "unprecedented partnership" went to "Uh, here's some ports" (E3 2012) and now t(-_-t). What the hell happened in that meeting?

- Was the fact that one major UK chain got twelve copies of Need for Speed U a function of the system's sales, or EA intentionally sandbagging so they could justify bailing out? (That's not 1200, or 12000, by the way... it's TWELVE.)

The time for original IPs is during a system launch when buyers are looking to get almost anything with their new system.  It wouldn't have killed some of these big companies to have put even a little effort into their WiiU lineups.  There was a period these past few months where NOTHING came out, that would've been a perfect time to put something of substance out.  But it is obvious that most 3rd parties want nothing to do with Nintendo.  Launch titles are decided upon years before launch, not yesterday.  So a year or 2 before Nintendo was set to release the WiiU, these 3rd parties were doing nothing to be ready for the launch.  You can't blame sales for that, they never planned on being there to begin with. 

The Wii U's launch lineup suggests otherwise. The games were there, there were some reasonably major titles, and some of them were even released close to their counterparts on the successful platforms.  It's actually pretty surprising that Nintendo even got that much, considering their well-deserved history with 3rd parties. As usual, though, the 3rd party games didn't sell, and that probably did determine whether the Wii U was going to get the major releases the other platforms already received earlier this year.

See, but I feel like that mentality is backwards thinking.

You need good software to sell the hardware. You can't rely on just Nintendo to make the software that sells the system. Did Sony do that? No, third parties just made games for their system, consumers saw all of the content, and the PSX started flying off the shelves. Microsoft is the weird wild card in this situation, because Halo actually did move consoles - to which third parties decided, "Hey, let's go jump over to this big ol' X-shaped console and start making games!"

You can't pin this just on Nintendo. Software leads to hardware sales. Without third parties adding to that, it only makes it more difficult for the Wii U to get sales.

Actually, the exodus of 3rd party developers to the PlayStation was all Nintendo's doing after Nintendo poisoned the well with over a decade of incredibly toxic 3rd party relations. Sony didn't need to release a major title to move systems. 3rd parties just didn't want to deal with the terrible treatment they had received from Nintendo anymore, and Sony offered them a much better relationship.  Sony also offered what was perceived the freedom of the technological future while Nintendo was sticking w/ expensive and inferior proprietary media (for the record, I still liked the N64 more than the original PlayStation).  Huh. Some things never change.

I blame Nintendo. If a third party doesn't want to produce games for a Nintendo system, then I can only blame Nintendo. Obviously either Nintendo wasn't making the process easy enough, or it wasn't being reasonable enough. People like to blame EA right away, but I'd look straight at Nintendo. If Nintendo waived a fee for EA, up to a million copies sold, or whatever will allow EA to break even, then I feel like EA wouldn't take this route.

Da, this has also been my line of thinking. The success of the Xbox brand and the ascendancy of western-style shooter games and "RPGs" has really created an atmosphere where the western players seem eager to axe Nintendo and make it a two party system. Sony will adapt to whatever trends it needs to, and has developed a portfolio of properties that adhere to the western market (and many third-party Japanese developers are falling all over themselves to "reboot" their properties). In a way, this isn't too surprising. It's pretty remarkable as it is that there were two decades where Japanese companies completely controlled an increasingly major world entertainment medium.

Regardless, though, it doesn't really make sense for there to be three consoles. It never really did. This is only the case because Microsoft burned millions and millions of dollars butting into the industry in the first place. Nintendo innovated their way out of the Gamecube alley, and here's hoping that they can do it again. 

I am going to make my point on this clear: I do not like EA. I enjoy their IPs, but I will never support their games by purchasing them new. They will always be bought used from here on out. Does it bother me that EA is choosing to not support Nintendo? No, it does not at all. If I want to play a FPS for the Wii U I will buy CoD and reward Activision for their willingness to support the Wii U.  EA's behavior seems to indicate to me that they are cash strapped, and if the development costs for the PS4/Durango are more excessive that current development costs then I see EA going the way of Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


Two points:

How hard would it be for EA to put Criterion in charge of porting their engines and games onto the Wii U, and making them eShop exclusives?
Had Nintendo allowed  EA to have free reign on the Wii U's online system then they would have a tsunami of support for the console.

So what games are we missing out on? Only one I care about is the next Need for Speed.

Sports titles, already announced Dragon Age 3, inevitable Mass Effect sequels, Battlefield 4, Henry Hatsworth 2...

Don't forget every Star Wars title EA's making, since those will be made with the Frostbite 3 engine.

EA did some really interesting things with their sports games on Wii U last year. It's going to be hard to go back to not having all the neat things I could do on the GamePad in Madden and FIFA.

This is a big deal until the Nintendo Direct Friday morning. After that, Wii U owners are going to forget that EA exists. And hopefully, within a year or two, whichever console still stands between Sony and Microsoft will do the same. They aren't both surviving, they are two similar. PS4 or Durango - there aren't enough core gamers for both to exist.

Say what you will, but Nintendo and Wii U survive thanks to the dominance of the 3DS.

So folks, this will pass. Just relax.

This Nintendo Direct is just for titles coming out this summer.

Turning the eShop into Wii U(O)rigin (ha!) was not the answer. You don't give away your entire online infrastructure just to please one company.

My 150 plus hours of Fifa 13 gameplay beg to differ.

Not to worry, Sega jumped off board at the end of the Wii life cycle refusing to release Sonic Generations and Sonic 4 Episode 2 on Wii, and Nintendo's fans gave long forgotten about that.

Is it that simple?

Tell me more about how EA supported nintendo in the N64 days and nobody else would... i would hope they have gotten better since then.

so you say nintendo should bribe EA into supporting their platforms?


part of the issue is that EA as a company is hurting(along with the entire industry,) they have been shutting down studios, pulling out of the facebook scene, they have a second consecutive golden poo reward, constant PR nightmares...

and EA isn't alone, this year alone THQ and (the second incarnation of) Atari have both gone under, Sega is likely to follow suit as well, and Square has held unreasonable expectations to its western neighbors,

EA is basically shutting out anything that doesn't ensure profitability

this last generation put the industry as we know it in a bit of a hole, this next one will either dig them up, or bury them for good.

I tend to think that the next generations first year will bury them for good. A third party like EA will want to release a hot new game on PS4/Durango but will it risk not releasing on the 360/PS3? I imagine for Ubisoft it might be even more difficult, since they do support the Wii U.

Five systems to develop a game.

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but this might be a rough ride for 3rd parties.

This is why I actually see the Wii U being successful because it will be cheaper to develop for compared to its competition.

and if nintendo can bridge porting methods to the system then all power to them

i think people take the word unprecedented the wrong way.... EA has been Unprecedentedly insulting/slanderous/lazy/contempted/vindictive.

I have 3 reason's why this is just going to be a fart in the wind. ps4/durango price, Zelda, future wii u price drop. Wii U may not be the most appealing console now, but it will be more appealing in the future.

"Does it bother me that EA is choosing to not support Nintendo"

Actually EA stopped production on all platforms that aren't selling--Vita on the sh!t list, 3DS, and Mac as well.  When 95% of your sales come from PS3/Xbox360/PC you can see why they wouldn't even bother with making ports that generate no profit for them.

--------------------------------
And it really doesn't matter about release dates neither--Injustice was released same day and it's sales are still 1/10th of ps3/xbox.  Nintendo has to increase the Wii U userbase and you really can't see it improving anytime soon, maybe in the fall. 

PC is on that list too.  Its not getting most games either but more than those other one.

well, its still an unprecedented relationship... they weren't lying in that sense

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=559004


So tell me how you really feel...

I read that Twitter thread. Not only is it chock full of douchebaggery, but it's partially untrue. Either dude's twitter account was hacked, it's a false account, or he is an unprofessional twit.

http://www.empowernetwork.com/lorimooney/files/2012/08/Just-Another-Day-At-The-Office1.jpg