EA To Nintendo: Wii'll Come Back If U Sell More Boxes
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Adam.
If you write another title like that, I will go to you're house and stick a Wii up your ass. No, not the remote. The whole system.
Seriously. It was painful. I know what I said was extreme, but still.
If you write another title like that, I will go to you're house and stick a Wii up your ass. No, not the remote. The whole system.
Seriously. It was painful. I know what I said was extreme, but still.
tlgAlaska said:
Add to that the fact that even before the WiiU release, EA announced the ME Trillogy pack with several DLC for $60 on the PS3, while the WiiU version of only ME3 was $50.
So even if anyone was interested, they would have gotten the fucking trilogy instead of that one games.
The fact that the port was made by an inexperienced team and that even before the release there were news of how the game has FPS drop issues... yeah... I just wonder why the game didn't sell.
I googled a couple "top wii games" lists and EA only had a couple titles, and none were exclusives. People buy the Wii because they like Nintendo games (Mario, Zelda, etc) not because of EA's massive game library. If I could scroll through the lists and say "wow EA really made bank of the Wii" thats one thing, but it doesnt really seem like thats the case. I wonder why the world's most hated game publisher is publicly attacking one of the world's most loved console companies. Nintendo is throughly divorced from the console wars so dragging them into MS and Sony's stink seems like a poor strategy.
No, I don't think that's why. Every single one of these titles was available on the 360 (which people already have) first and is targeted at 360's demographics. The Wii U could have sold a hundred million units and these games still wouldn't do well on it. Make something that isn't a hasty port of a year-old game, and I guarantee it'll sell better.Karloff said:
I know you're afraid to ever take any risks, but try making a decent exclusive platformer. Wii U owners eat that stuff up; it's the reason they got a Wii U instead of a competing console full of AAA trash. Hell, if you don't wanna do anything too risky, give Wii U owners a version of your upcoming Plants Vs Zombies 2 and sell it on the eShop. It's ideal for the console, small enough in scope that the port shouldn't be too expensive to make, and not something that people have already been playing for a year (but only if you get on it quick).
P.S. Thanks
I feel like I'm going crazy, because what EA is saying makes sense to me. I'm not saying they are right necessarily. But here is something to consider. They make games that need to sell multiple millions of copies to be a success. That's poor budgeting, but that's how they do it. How are they supposed to sell, say, 3 million copies of a new game when there are only 3 and a half million consoles? The only way to do that is if either nearly everyone with a Wii U buys one, or people buy a Wii U to get the game. It seems like common sense to me that, after seeing where backing Microsoft based on hopes and prayers got them, they are willing to look at other options, but are going to wait for some concrete reason to do so.
As for them "changing their tune", that will happen when you get a new CEO, and time passes to show you a more successful route. Plus, come on. How many people on here, pre- and even partially post-launch were denouncing the Wii U as a total failure? And you are attacking EA for doing the same thing, then realizing later they were possibly in error?
As for them "changing their tune", that will happen when you get a new CEO, and time passes to show you a more successful route. Plus, come on. How many people on here, pre- and even partially post-launch were denouncing the Wii U as a total failure? And you are attacking EA for doing the same thing, then realizing later they were possibly in error?
I agree that EA is not looking at the long term, and needs to change their business projections. Readjusting goals and aims takes time, though. Do I think EA will succeed until they do? No. I think they are idiots for having game budgets so high selling millions of copies is required to turn a profit. Until they change their business model, though, it seems to be reasonable to take a "wait and see" approach, after doing otherwise with the Xbomb bit them in the ass.Kwil said:
That and said ports were also completely half-assed in one form or another. It's almost like EA INTENTIONALLY sabotaged that lineup just so they had an excuse to cut off Wii U support, though now with MS being under fire they're going to have to switch their attitudes fast.mirage202 said:
And once again Nintendo proves if you want to get a job done you have to do it yourself. 3rd parties apparently can't be trusted to do their jobs properly
The publishers are playing a fucking insane game with Nintendo.rofltehcat said:
They whine like crazy that they can't sell games on it because of first party stuff outshining them.
So Nintendo doesn't bring it's first party stuff for 9 months.
So they don't release games for the Wii U because it hasn't sold enough units?
Seems legit. It'd help if EA wasn't hellbent on doing things backwards, they released Mass Effect 3 on Wii U the same day as the trilogy for less on every other format. What did they think was going to happen?
Beacuse let's be honest, EA games don't sell consoles. Nintendo's first party games always sell Nintendo consoles. There's not much EA can do and I find it sad that Nintendo fans are blaming EA for not making games for the console with such low sales.Ronack said:
Its a business.
Its just as a silly to get mad at Ubisoft for making Rayman Legends a multiplatform title. Rayman Origins sold the least on the Wii, making Legends and exclusive would have been a huge mistake.
Again, its business.
It's not EA's obligation to make games for the Wii U to sell it. Nintendo made the console, Nintendo should be responsible for moving its units. Releasing the Wii U with no major 1st party games was a very damaging idea. The Wii U can't hold on to JUST Super Mario 3D World alone for the holiday season. And the new Smash Bros comes out next spring so we can forget about that for the holidays.
The Wii U is going to need more than Mario, Pikmin and The Wonderful 101 (so basically Mario and 2 niche titles) to sell units.
The Wii actually had a stellar first year with it releases. Seems like the Wii U was put out a year earlier than expected to make up for Nintendo's recent losses.....
I don't think you read the article.Dragonbums said:
Unless EA is totally suicidal, going on the Nintendo Wii U is a failed venture already.
On the other hand, Nintendo needs to sell some consoles, and having wildly popular AAA games would do that.
So no, EA has the upper hand here.
The publishers have a reason to be wary of how Nintendo does things. The Wii is the perfect example.SkarKrow said:
It wasn't because Nintendo's 1st party games were "outshining" the 3rd party. It was Nintendo's rigorous family orientated marketing that killed the chances for a lot of 3rd party games to do well. Capcom's Zack and Wiki would not have failed had there not been the notion that the Wii was the console that your child and grandfather could play together.
Games like MadWorld (even with the rampant TV and internet ads) failed due to the Wii's image as the console that mummy and daddy can play with their kids. Kind of hard to sell a game where you constantly kill people in a grindhouse film fashion on that kind of console don't you think?
Tatsunoko VS Capcom sold even world that the 2 above and it was a fighting game. But it was a much more competitive fighting game than Smash Bros and such, so on the Wii it was even more niche than fighting games typically are.
Meanwhile Nintendo markets their first party games and pushed a philosophy onto the Wii. That philosophy hurt some publishers.
SO I can't say I can blame the publishers for being a little pissed here. They couldn't sell well on the console that sold the most. And the "they should make better games" argument fails when we see these same publishers and developers making games on the consoles that sold half as well and selling miles better. Something doesn't make senses. It's either something Nintendo's doing or the publishers are making bad games on only Nintendo's console, and the latter isn't as likely.
Nintendo not making 1st party games for the WiiU's first year only shot themselves in the foot. Turns out Nintendo fans wait for the releases before spending hundreds on a console. Who knew?
And at any rate, Mass Effect 3 would not have benefited too much from being released on the WiiU at the same time as the other platforms. The lack of being able to access your previous character would have made sure of that. It worked for the PS3's Mass Effect 2 because A) it was a game that PS3 fans wanted badly, and B) having to choose the choices for 1 previous title with a sequel coming vs. choosing choices for 2 previous titles isn't so bad.
Like I said before on this forum. It's Nintendo's responsibility to sell its console, not EA's, Capcom's or Ubisoft's. And if Nintendo fans want to see better games from the aforementioned companies, then don't ignore their games when they get released like you did on the Wii.
Zack and Wiki was an ignored gem that was passed over by GAMERS. Capcom tried with that one.
EA is suicidal. They've been pulling shit throughout the entire year that would've sunk another company in weeks. It's an 8th wonder why they haven't shut down yet. (And based on their stocks if they don't switch it up it will happen very soon.) I definitely read the article. However if you've been following the relationship with Nintendo and EA you would see that this isn't some third party dev jumping ship.lacktheknack said:
They have actively acted like asshats towards Nintendo. Waving their dicks in their face and throwing fits when they don't get their way.
Most people believe that EA broke off with Nintendo because before release EA wanted Origin to run the WiiU's online servers. Nintendo wising up to the what Origin really was told them to fuck off.
After that many games that were promised to be on the WiiU never showed up. On top of that multiple devs started having "Twitter tantrums" by saying lies like the system not being able to handle the Crysis engine despite the fact that before release the creator of the engine himself stated otherwise(and has not retracted that statement at all) and EA themselves said before release it could handle that engine. They also said that the WiiU was complete garbage. Which is funny, seeing as how EA is notorious for making in house games that are shit, or taking studios that used to do good work and making them produce shit games for a quick buck. They also got two golden shit awards, so I don't know when they thought they had the privilage to talk.
Shortly after they said that there were still a few games under development for the WiiU.
AFTER THAT they then they jumped ship to the Xbone, however realizing that nobody like the Xbone and were not all that surprised EA would go buddy buddy with them, then said that Nintendo and them have a solid relationship.
Now they are saying that they will make games for the WiiU when the WiiU sells. I have a feeling this whole thing is kind of one sided.
Fine by me. Nintendo doesn't need a multi million shovel ware company on their console.