UPDATE: "Nintendo Was Dead to Us" After Wii U Launch, Says EA Source

[weirdee]

eh, if they consider a late port to be a solid effort in trying to do something with nintendo, maybe they're not the kind of developers that we should be putting our trust in? as much as i hear gossip from other users about their relationship with third parties (of which, when pressed for details, refer to something from the NES days which is kind of OLD), i'm still not convinced that these excuses are actually valid when we lack so much detail about them...frankly, for the "innovation" that we've been promised, there have been almost no sign that it will come from the bigger studios who rely on being boring to justify their massive budgets, while sony and microsoft do their best to pretend that they're not going to suck independent studios dry

i hardly believe that anybody should be taking advice from them on how to do longterm business

 

[Ipsen]

Games. Are. Toys. They should ALWAYS be aimed at the young...

Seems to me like gaming needs to grow up.

my first instinct to quote you came from that first line up there that is just filled with wrongness. games STARTED as toys aimed at the young, but that is no longer the case. that being said, obviously there's still a place for children's games, but all he said is that they aren't in that market, which is fair.

jesus dude, you have me defending EA now...

anyways, i included that second quoted line because in the same paragraph you say that they should always be aimed at the young and also need to grow up. so i pose this question to you... DAFUK?! that's like the Giant's spawn conditions in Minecraft, both can't be simultaneously true. (look up the reference if needed.)

No, Aiddon's point holds up. Calling them 'toys' was off-putting for me too, but the point stands. Targeting young audiences and succeeding is how not just Nintendo, but all of the console market lasts today.

I probably won't make this point well, but..

Playing E games while young fixes in a mindset of having fun with video games first. From there, the joy of seeing progression and variety in games keeps you a better repeat customer. If a kid starts out playing CoD, what else is there for you when that kid grows up, and is bored of CoD and its playstyle? I'd go all in on a bet that Mario leads to more interest in gaming as a whole than CoD does for young people. Hell, make it any age group.

There has to be a vision of the future, and honestly, third parties just don't have it. (beyond exploited sequels) It's truly a problem and a shame that not just Nintendo, but all consoles rely on third parties like EA.

And yes, EA is still stupid for saying that they aren't in the market for 'kids games'. EA is clearly, and soooo expressedly a business; why the fuck are you shaving off customer bases in the same realm as your 'intended audience'?

As for you last point, games STILL need to grow up. If you think CoD or Battlefield, or really 80% of the mature rated titles in the last couple generations are truly fitting of rating...yea, you're not so grown up yourself. No, these are just cultural fixations; the war-game fad as it is now will fade as the generations stop caring about them (the issue being that this will happen faster than normal, even to the point of irrevelancy). The impartiality of appeal that Mario holds would laster than of a game like CoD over the years, I wager.

 

[Grabehn]

I've never cared for the Wii U, nor the Wii after that appearence change and the waggle-centric stuff, but I care even less for EA or the oppinions of someone coming from there. EVERY single time it's some dumbass "hey people say this, let's say the same thing (and change anything afterwards)".

 

[PMAvers]

Oh, hey, speaking of "game journalism..."

https://twitter.com/petermooreEA/statuses/426443269900226560

Peter Moore
‏@petermooreEA
Don?t trust "anonymous sources". Nintendo's a great partner. They never have been, and never will be, ?dead? to EA... @EA .

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

Games. Are. Toys. They should ALWAYS be aimed at the young...

Seems to me like gaming needs to grow up.

my first instinct to quote you came from that first line up there that is just filled with wrongness. games STARTED as toys aimed at the young, but that is no longer the case. that being said, obviously there's still a place for children's games, but all he said is that they aren't in that market, which is fair.

jesus dude, you have me defending EA now...

anyways, i included that second quoted line because in the same paragraph you say that they should always be aimed at the young and also need to grow up. so i pose this question to you... DAFUK?! that's like the Giant's spawn conditions in Minecraft, both can't be simultaneously true. (look up the reference if needed.)

No, Aiddon's point holds up. Calling them 'toys' was off-putting for me too, but the point stands. Targeting young audiences and succeeding is how not just Nintendo, but all of the console market lasts today.

I probably won't make this point well, but..

Playing E games while young fixes in a mindset of having fun with video games first. From there, the joy of seeing progression and variety in games keeps you a better repeat customer. If a kid starts out playing CoD, what else is there for you when that kid grows up, and is bored of CoD and its playstyle? I'd go all in on a bet that Mario leads to more interest in gaming as a whole than CoD does for young people. Hell, make it any age group.

There has to be a vision of the future, and honestly, third parties just don't have it. (beyond exploited sequels) It's truly a problem and a shame that not just Nintendo, but all consoles rely on third parties like EA.

And yes, EA is still stupid for saying that they aren't in the market for 'kids games'. EA is clearly, and soooo expressedly a business; why the fuck are you shaving off customer bases in the same realm as your 'intended audience'?

As for you last point, games STILL need to grow up. If you think CoD or Battlefield, or really 80% of the mature rated titles in the last couple generations are truly fitting of rating...yea, you're not so grown up yourself. No, these are just cultural fixations; the war-game fad as it is now will fade as the generations stop caring about them (the issue being that this will happen faster than normal, even to the point of irrevelancy). The impartiality of appeal that Mario holds would laster than of a game like CoD over the years, I wager.

But shows like walking dead and breaking bad shows how people want see more mature anti escapist media in general. COD was as antiescapist as possible. I felt like a powerless grunt unable to save the world

 

[Atmos Duality]

Publicly, EA isn't about to shit all over Nintendo. Hence, the tweet to silence the rumors.
Besides, EA has enough PR issues to worry about. (and lest we forget it was an anonymous source that sparked a firestorm of litigation against EA years back. I imagine they're still feeling the burn from EA Spouse)

But behind closed doors, I have no doubt that most 3rd parties are done with Big N. Including EA.
There's no incentive for 3rd parties to support the WiiU.

It has virtually no games with any buzz to move the system resulting in a tiny install base that's rapidly being overtaken by EITHER next gen console. And even Nintendo themselves seem to be dragging their feet as much as they can in getting games out for it.

Might as well admit the truth; Nintendo is dead in the water this gen.

 

[Falterfire]

No, Aiddon's point holds up. Calling them 'toys' was off-putting for me too, but the point stands. Targeting young audiences and succeeding is how not just Nintendo, but all of the console market lasts today.

I think you're confusing two points. Kids games need to exist, but no one company needs to make them and no one game needs to target them. To use an example in other media: Kids movies need to exist, but that doesn't mean that you need to make sure The Wolf of Wall Street or Django Unchained is a movie a kid can watch.

If EA wants to target an older audience and finds that their target market doesn't buy a certain console, it certainly makes sense not to build games for that console. Is it possibly a poor idea to not include kids games in your target market? Only if you think you have development teams who could make good kids games.

Honestly Popcap is the only EA development studio currently geared up to effectively target that demographic. Aside from that, they're better off leaving the kids game development to studios that specialize in developing such games.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

No, Aiddon's point holds up. Calling them 'toys' was off-putting for me too, but the point stands. Targeting young audiences and succeeding is how not just Nintendo, but all of the console market lasts today.

I probably won't make this point well, but..

Playing E games while young fixes in a mindset of having fun with video games first. From there, the joy of seeing progression and variety in games keeps you a better repeat customer. If a kid starts out playing CoD, what else is there for you when that kid grows up, and is bored of CoD and its playstyle? I'd go all in on a bet that Mario leads to more interest in gaming as a whole than CoD does for young people. Hell, make it any age group.

There has to be a vision of the future, and honestly, third parties just don't have it. (beyond exploited sequels) It's truly a problem and a shame that not just Nintendo, but all consoles rely on third parties like EA.

And yes, EA is still stupid for saying that they aren't in the market for 'kids games'. EA is clearly, and soooo expressedly a business; why the fuck are you shaving off customer bases in the same realm as your 'intended audience'?

As for you last point, games STILL need to grow up. If you think CoD or Battlefield, or really 80% of the mature rated titles in the last couple generations are truly fitting of rating...yea, you're not so grown up yourself. No, these are just cultural fixations; the war-game fad as it is now will fade as the generations stop caring about them (the issue being that this will happen faster than normal, even to the point of irrevelancy). The impartiality of appeal that Mario holds would laster than of a game like CoD over the years, I wager.

I would just say it exposes game developers as still being insecure about making what amount to toys. Though as oxymoronic as it might seem, the way for gaming to grow up is to stop trying to act like adults because the idea of 'adult' they have is almost a joke in nature. M-rated titles really come off as bad 90s comics at times, being little more than shallow pandering to pretentious "hardcore" gamers who are still very insecure about playing games. They think if they wave around blood and gore or throw stuff like Battlefield into the mix suddenly they seem more mature when it fact it makes them look pathetic. It's a very puerile mindset that's just not healthy for the industry.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Another anonymous source from the publisher "working on perhaps the biggest franchise in games today," said Nintendo "just doesn't care about US developers" based on his experience working with the console-maker.

So the "anonymous source" is Kanye West? What was Mike Myers' reaction?
It's sad to see so much bad blood between Nintendo and 3rd parties. If they're going to turn things around for the Wiiu, they're not going to do it on their own. But I think they should try and get pc devs to work with them; not to make pc ports but to make pcish type games specifically for the Wiiu.

 

[weirdee]

That really fast response from Peter Moore is totally not suspicious, nope.

 

[sageoftruth]

I'd suggest people read the article sourced before freaking out. It's not just about EA's opinion and has good points that have been argued on these threads for months.

Thanks for suggesting that. It was interesting to read, but in the end, it sounded like they were saying that Nintendo should just try to copy what the competition is doing. It saddened me to read some of the comments that were posted afterwards. I get the impression many of them were not gamers, and it was depressing to see how they saw us, saying that all gamers want is better graphics, and more shooters, sports games, and violent, gritty games. I felt tempted to create an account just so I could argue with that mindset.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Electronic Arts Chief Operating Officer Peter Moore has very pointedly denied the "dead to us" claim on Twitter. "Don't trust 'anonymous sources'. Nintendo's a great partner," he wrote. "They never have been, and never will be, 'dead' to EA."

So we can expect all of EA's upcoming titles to get a WiiU release then? Hmm, thought not.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Hoo, an anonymous source from EA said something bad about my investment/nostaligia kindler, best leap to it's defence, because if I don't who will?!

I'm not overtly fond of EA these days but the tandem effort of the EA Hate Brigade and the Nintendo Defense Force are working overtime. This wouldn't even be news if not even a semblance of it struck true, so let's admit that A) the Wii-U is doing poorly and the gimmick lightning hasn't struck twice, and B) EA isn't THAT stupid to burn bridges.

Seriously learn what 'hyperbole' means people.

 

[Nouw]

The way I see it, third-party ports aren't going to sell well because they're competing with Nintendo's first party exclusives.

Oh, hey, speaking of "game journalism..."

https://twitter.com/petermooreEA/statuses/426443269900226560

Peter Moore
‏@petermooreEA
Don?t trust "anonymous sources". Nintendo's a great partner. They never have been, and never will be, ?dead? to EA... @EA .

Good save EA.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Seriously, is there some memo I missed where people are obligated to insult EA every single article that involves anything that can be connected to them? Because that describes about half the comments.

As for the article, this is why you should always be suspicious when someone is making inflammatory comments, but insists on staying anonymous. Especially when there is no real reason to. I mean, if he was trashing EA, OK, I can see why he'd remain anonymous, considering that they could fire him if they knew his identity. But in this case, what would be gained by being anonymous?

The only reason for him to be anonymous is that he is a lower-level employee at EA, or not an EA employee at all. Either way, he is professing to speak for an entire company's policies without having any grounds for doing so. As for the possibility that a higher-up was the commenter...if they were a higher-up at EA, why would they remain anonymous? I mean, EA has PR problems, so it's not like their higher-ups have a problem with putting their foot in their mouth publicly.

 

[Ipsen]

No, Aiddon's point holds up. Calling them 'toys' was off-putting for me too, but the point stands. Targeting young audiences and succeeding is how not just Nintendo, but all of the console market lasts today.

I think you're confusing two points. Kids games need to exist, but no one company needs to make them and no one game needs to target them. To use an example in other media: Kids movies need to exist, but that doesn't mean that you need to make sure The Wolf of Wall Street or Django Unchained is a movie a kid can watch.

If EA wants to target an older audience and finds that their target market doesn't buy a certain console, it certainly makes sense not to build games for that console. Is it possibly a poor idea to not include kids games in your target market? Only if you think you have development teams who could make good kids games.

Honestly Popcap is the only EA development studio currently geared up to effectively target that demographic. Aside from that, they're better off leaving the kids game development to studios that specialize in developing such games.

Context includes EA in this. Big-boy publisher EA. Yes, this one company needs to make them. No one company needs to make kids games, but there aren't too many companies like EA. You can hardly extricate EA's games, and whatever they provide to the medium, from the tone of their business practices. There's no reason a company as large as EA needs to eschew 'kids games', since they're soooo clearly in the games business to make as much money as possible.

Besides, it all comes off as disingenuous when you push away kids games, because now your 'adult games' have to actually be mature. If not, then EA's studios just look like peurile children trying to make something edgy... for other peurile children.

My point isn't that every company needs to focus on kids games from their genesis. My point was more of observing the trends leading to the point we're at now. Developers can (and should) focus on what they want, but depending on how their vision pans out, they could be serving a fad, or making something memorable and impactful for the medium.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

So we can expect all of EA's upcoming titles to get a WiiU release then? Hmm, thought not.

This is why I live by the "you can SAY whatever you want, but your actions show your real intent" philosophy. And EA's intent: that they don't care about any of Nintendo's platforms and probably won't for the foreseeable future. Seriously, I think Nintendo just needs to start looking to the East for partners because the West has been worthless for the past ten years

Context includes EA in this. Big-boy publisher EA. Yes, this one company needs to make them. No one company needs to make kids games, but there aren't too many companies like EA. You can hardly extricate EA's games, and whatever they provide to the medium, from the tone of their business practices. There's no reason a company as large as EA needs to eschew 'kids games', since they're clearly in the games business to make as much money as possible.

Besides, it all comes off as disingenuous when you push away kids games, because now your 'adult games' have to actually be mature. If not, then EA's studios just look like peurile children trying to make something edgy... for other peurile children.

My point isn't that every company needs to focus on kids games from their genesis. My point was more of observing the trends leading to the point we're at now. Developers can (and should) focus on what they want, but depending on how their vision pans out, they could be serving a fad, or making something memorable and impactful for the medium.

Exactly; why the HELL would an entire publisher shun trying to make games for younger demographics? If you're able to rope them in while they're younger you'll no doubt make more endearing and loyal fans out of them. Furthermore, you need them to replace people who inevitably don't game as much anymore or don't game at all after awhile. It's just sloppy business. This would be the equivalent of, say, Warner Bros not making ANY family films and focusing on R-rated stuff. Not a good long term plan for business

 

[james.sponge]

It became a kids IP platform and we don't really make games for kids

EA sound cute when they claim they are serious company making games for mature audiences.