EA Has "No Games in Development" For Wii U

[Something Amyss]

Two years after promising an "unprecedented partnership" with Nintendo, EA has nothing in the works for the Wii U.

Well, this is technically an unprecedented partnership....I mean, a partner offering no games is new.

I don't quite understand, how does this make them (or arguably contribute to them being) "evil and stupid"?.

Because blind hate for EA, that's why!

Im ashamed to say I owned a Wii U in hopes that a new Zelda game and Metroid would be in the works but all I got was a repaved HD zelda game that may or may not be out this year.

I honestly don't get why people do this, when they could buy the console later when such games are announced officially or actually out.

It's not in my nature to be dramatic or exaggerate details. I'm saying it because for once it's absolutely true: EA has actually stooped so low as to try to get revenge on Nintendo. Honestly, though: should we expect any better from the #1 Worst Company in America?

That really was quite dramatic. I mean, EA was deemed the worst company in America by a user-submitted poll on a single consumer blog that usually doesn't get this kind of traffic. This sounds like a typical "EA is evil" rant, attributing to malice what could as easily be attributed to stupidity (or even other, less sinister things).

In sticking motives on EA, you're portraying as fact something which you are merely speculating.

 

[Alfador_VII]

These are now how many developers and publishers deciding to not get games on the WiiU? I honestly lost count. About 5 or 6?

Look at it the opposite way. Can you think of any major third party publishers supporting the Wii U at all? Ubisoft did some stuff at launch, but even they are backing away.

 

[Something Amyss]

They said that Frostbite 2 ran very badly, which is surprising at it works fine on 360 and PS3, and they're not even going to try converting Frostbite 3.

It's not all that surprising. The Wii U has RAM and architecture issues that may make it legitimately difficult to work with. And with legitimately more powerful hardware just around the bend, they may see no reason to bother. Especially since they loves them that one engine, and if it doesn't work on that architecture....

EA got pissy with Nintendo because they wouldn't let them put Origin on their online network. So if they're playing happy families with Sony and Microsoft, what does that mean for how their consoles support Origin?

Absolutely nothing.

People are making this into a bigger deal than it needs to be.

 

[VinLAURiA]

That really was quite dramatic. I mean, EA was deemed the worst company in America by a user-submitted poll on a single consumer blog that usually doesn't get this kind of traffic. This sounds like a typical "EA is evil" rant, attributing to malice what could as easily be attributed to stupidity (or even other, less sinister things).

In sticking motives on EA, you're portraying as fact something which you are merely speculating.

Well, you may have a-- Wait, I'm sorry. For a second there I forgot we were talking about EA. In case you haven't heard, the saying is reversed in their case: never attribute to stupidity what can easily be attributed to malice. Speculation? Yeah, with plenty of precedent.

 

[iTuneSpark]

These are now how many developers and publishers deciding to not get games on the WiiU? I honestly lost count. About 5 or 6?

Look at it the opposite way. Can you think of any major third party publishers supporting the Wii U at all? Ubisoft did some stuff at launch, but even they are backing away.

If that was true, then why would they bring AC4, Watch Dogs, and Splinter Cell Blacklist to the U.

In fact, it seems like Ubisoft is the only third-party publisher who is actually supporting the Wii U with their games (and WB Games to a certain extent). They've even gone on record a few times to defend the Wii U. How is this "backing away"?

 

[Gorrath]

I wouldn't say this is 'evil' on EA's part, just disingenuous. That's the real problem. If EA just manned up and said, 'Some of what we had planned for the Wii U is not going to work out like we had hoped.' I wouldn't be so miffed. Accusing people of 'blind EA hate' does not hold up here as people have every reason to find the diea that porting a handful of games over does not fulfill their earlier proclamation.

EA, if ya made a promise, and now ya can't keep it, just man up and explain why. Don't treat us like we're drooling morons.

 

[Alfador_VII]

These are now how many developers and publishers deciding to not get games on the WiiU? I honestly lost count. About 5 or 6?

Look at it the opposite way. Can you think of any major third party publishers supporting the Wii U at all? Ubisoft did some stuff at launch, but even they are backing away.

If that was true, then why would they bring AC4, Watch Dogs, and Splinter Cell Blacklist to the U.

In fact, it seems like Ubisoft is the only third-party publisher who is actually supporting the Wii U with their games (and WB Games to a certain extent). They've even gone on record a few times to defend the Wii U. How is this "backing away"?

OK, yes that's 3 games this year for the Wii U out of about a dozen they're bringing to previous gen consoles. Sad to say, that's the best 3rd party support there is, I just checked.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, you may have a-- Wait, I'm sorry. For a second there I forgot we were talking about EA. In case you haven't heard, the saying is reversed in their case: never attribute to stupidity what can easily be attributed to malice. Speculation? Yeah, with plenty of precedent.

But still speculation, not "truth."

You were the one claiming not to be prone to drama or exaggeration, remember.

Quick question: Sony has already stated that they're going to allow publishers to deal with DRM and used game sales themselves

You understand that they can already do this, right? Online passes and the like? You understand the non-specific answer given likely applies to that?

To answer your question, I wouldn't put it past them, no. But then, I wouldn't put it past them to require always-on DRM out of the box, but it doesn't make it true or even likely that it's going to happen.

That doesn't translate to ERMAGERD, CONSPIRACY!

 

[VinLAURiA]

But still speculation, not "truth."

You were the one claiming not to be prone to drama or exaggeration, remember.

Precisely. What I made was an educated guess. Speculation, granted, but dramatic or exaggerated? Again, this is EA we're talking about. In any case, this is semantics. The examples I've listed are scenarios the Big N themselves were considering when they rejected the deal. I'm just relaying what's already been documented.

Do a little research and you'll find I'm honestly not exaggerating.

 

[Callate]

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/01/17/wiiu-memory-story/
This explains a lot of it. Whilst the Wii U is more powerful than current gen consoles in a lot of ways it's 1) Got a weird architecture, it took a year or so to learn the PS3's and if people are predicting the Wii U won't be a success then maybe they aren't bothering with the effort

2)The Wii U is actually 40% slower than the 360 and PS3 at using it's RAM.

I think there are ways to circumvent the problem and get 360/PS3 type performance but it's a bit of a worrying choke

That's just the kind of info I was looking for. Thanks for the link.

 

[ZeroMachine]

I think this is further evidence that Nintendo should ditch the console market and stick to handhelds.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

I wouldn't say this is 'evil' on EA's part, just disingenuous. That's the real problem. If EA just manned up and said, 'Some of what we had planned for the Wii U is not going to work out like we had hoped.' I wouldn't be so miffed. Accusing people of 'blind EA hate' does not hold up here as people have every reason to find the diea that porting a handful of games over does not fulfill their earlier proclamation.

EA, if ya made a promise, and now ya can't keep it, just man up and explain why. Don't treat us like we're drooling morons.

I don't think it's disingenuous, just business sense. Nintendo knew they needed buy-in from the big boys in order to sell hardware. So, they cosy up to EA and, I'm sure, offer all sorts of sweetners in the royalty and fees department, and JR makes a big fuss about doing amazing stuff on Wii-U. I have no doubt that Nintendo were trying to hammer out similar deals and announcements from Activision and Ubisoft, but either way, being in bed with EA, like them or not, would let the public know that all of their favorite franchises would be coming to a Wii-U very soon, so go and buy one as soon as it comes out.

Fast forward to now... EA is losing money every quarter, JR got the boot, and the Wii-U has shifted about 5 units, with the 'real' console transition about to hit. If I were running EA, I know where I'd be investing my cash and resources, and it doesn't start with the letter 'W'. ;-)

I couldn't agree with you more about wishing corporations would be more honest about their reasoning (especially when it's so freakin' obvious why they're doing what they're doing), but this is corporate America... Wall Street would never let that happen!

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

In the same vein, the Wii was just a re-release of the game cube with motion controls

Tell me about it! I'm not sure how many people actually know that the inside of the Wii is pretty much exactly the same, chip for chip, as the Gamecube. The only difference is the CPU and GPU are overclocked in the Wii - they didn't even fix all of the horrible hardware lock-up bugs that the GPU has, and because it's running faster you hit these problems far more often. So we had to program round these often unknown and undocumented hardware crashes... Grrrrr!

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

In the same vein, the Wii was just a re-release of the game cube with motion controls

Tell me about it! I'm not sure how many people actually know that the inside of the Wii is pretty much exactly the same, chip for chip, as the Gamecube. The only difference is the CPU and GPU are overclocked in the Wii - they didn't even fix all of the horrible hardware lock-up bugs that the GPU has, and because it's running faster you hit these problems far more often. So we had to program round these often unknown and undocumented hardware crashes... Grrrrr!

Seriously...? SERIOUSLY?! This makes me annoyed. People always gloat about how "Oh at least Nintendo has enough sense to make their consoles backwards compatible". That must have been extremely easy for Nintendo to do considering THEY SOLD US THE SAME SHIT A SECOND TIME! People complain that Sony and Microsoft only focus on graphics with their consoles but at least they're selling us something we couldn't do on the previous consoles.

/rage over

 

[Gorrath]

I wouldn't say this is 'evil' on EA's part, just disingenuous. That's the real problem. If EA just manned up and said, 'Some of what we had planned for the Wii U is not going to work out like we had hoped.' I wouldn't be so miffed. Accusing people of 'blind EA hate' does not hold up here as people have every reason to find the diea that porting a handful of games over does not fulfill their earlier proclamation.

EA, if ya made a promise, and now ya can't keep it, just man up and explain why. Don't treat us like we're drooling morons.

I don't think it's disingenuous, just business sense. Nintendo knew they needed buy-in from the big boys in order to sell hardware. So, they cosy up to EA and, I'm sure, offer all sorts of sweetners in the royalty and fees department, and JR makes a big fuss about doing amazing stuff on Wii-U. I have no doubt that Nintendo were trying to hammer out similar deals and announcements from Activision and Ubisoft, but either way, being in bed with EA, like them or not, would let the public know that all of their favorite franchises would be coming to a Wii-U very soon, so go and buy one as soon as it comes out.

Fast forward to now... EA is losing money every quarter, JR got the boot, and the Wii-U has shifted about 5 units, with the 'real' console transition about to hit. If I were running EA, I know where I'd be investing my cash and resources, and it doesn't start with the letter 'W'. ;-)

I couldn't agree with you more about wishing corporations would be more honest about their reasoning (especially when it's so freakin' obvious why they're doing what they're doing), but this is corporate America... Wall Street would never let that happen!

Oh I agree that it is business that drove the decision. All of the circumstantial evidence suggests that the picture you illustrated is probably close to true if not spot on. When I say they are being disingenuous, I mean with regards to claiming that what they've done on the Wii U thus far constitutes them keeping their promise about an unprecedented relationship with Nintendo. If you can't keep your promise because it would be terrible business sense to do it, just come out and say it, don't try to pretend like a handful of ports is a fulfillment of your promise. If they don't want to talk about the business aspect because they are afraid it would harm their partner, Nintendo, then just say something innocuous. What EA shouldn't do is what it did, come out and claim it has fulfilled a promise it plainly can't or won't. It comes off as insulting to the consumer when you say crap like that. If I were EA, I would have jumped ship on the Wii U as well, at least until the house of N can get it's shit together.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I keep getting this image whenever I read this article of Nintendo being stuck in a hole, and EA are trolling them with a rope ladder.

 

[Something Amyss]

Do a little research and you'll find I'm honestly not exaggerating.

Research into their past does not preclude you exaggerating things. They're two different levels. You just exaggerated a guess and portrayed it as "truth." Therefore...Yeah. You honestly are exaggerating.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

As for the "unprecedented partnership" EA promised in 2011? According to Brown the publisher's early run of games for the console, which included Mass Effect 3, Need for Speed Most Wanted, Madden and FIFA, was the company keeping that promise.

Yes that sounds about right.

Everyone knows EA always keeps it promises.

To be fair Nintendo also made the promise of how it was going to work hard to make better relationships with the thirds party. I can't be mad at EA for this, when MANY of those who "promised" to work with Nintendo are now saying, screw that.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Double Post. Ignore this.

 

[DiamanteGeeza]

I wouldn't say this is 'evil' on EA's part, just disingenuous. That's the real problem. If EA just manned up and said, 'Some of what we had planned for the Wii U is not going to work out like we had hoped.' I wouldn't be so miffed. Accusing people of 'blind EA hate' does not hold up here as people have every reason to find the diea that porting a handful of games over does not fulfill their earlier proclamation.

EA, if ya made a promise, and now ya can't keep it, just man up and explain why. Don't treat us like we're drooling morons.

I don't think it's disingenuous, just business sense. Nintendo knew they needed buy-in from the big boys in order to sell hardware. So, they cosy up to EA and, I'm sure, offer all sorts of sweetners in the royalty and fees department, and JR makes a big fuss about doing amazing stuff on Wii-U. I have no doubt that Nintendo were trying to hammer out similar deals and announcements from Activision and Ubisoft, but either way, being in bed with EA, like them or not, would let the public know that all of their favorite franchises would be coming to a Wii-U very soon, so go and buy one as soon as it comes out.

Fast forward to now... EA is losing money every quarter, JR got the boot, and the Wii-U has shifted about 5 units, with the 'real' console transition about to hit. If I were running EA, I know where I'd be investing my cash and resources, and it doesn't start with the letter 'W'. ;-)

I couldn't agree with you more about wishing corporations would be more honest about their reasoning (especially when it's so freakin' obvious why they're doing what they're doing), but this is corporate America... Wall Street would never let that happen!

Oh I agree that it is business that drove the decision. All of the circumstantial evidence suggests that the picture you illustrated is probably close to true if not spot on. When I say they are being disingenuous, I mean with regards to claiming that what they've done on the Wii U thus far constitutes them keeping their promise about an unprecedented relationship with Nintendo. If you can't keep your promise because it would be terrible business sense to do it, just come out and say it, don't try to pretend like a handful of ports is a fulfillment of your promise. If they don't want to talk about the business aspect because they are afraid it would harm their partner, Nintendo, then just say something innocuous. What EA shouldn't do is what it did, come out and claim it has fulfilled a promise it plainly can't or won't. It comes off as insulting to the consumer when you say crap like that. If I were EA, I would have jumped ship on the Wii U as well, at least until the house of N can get it's shit together.

Ah! My apologies... I misunderstood.

In that case, I totally agree with you!