Wii U losing all upcoming EA games

[LaughingMAN.S9]

This is going to sound fucked up since i loved nintendo growing up and still believe that they are one of the best developers in the world but personally...lol im fucking glad this is happening, its fucking justice, nintendo put themselves here from years of running their shit like a mafia in the 90s and ignoring or fucking over third parties.


I kno it shouldnt but it really almost makes me laugh how the developers who they couldnt give a fuck less about in the past, ea in particular are the same ones who they desparately need to survive now but have turned their backs on them for whatever reason



Sweet delicious beautiful irony.

[Nebagram]

You know, at first I thought 'shit, here we go again with Nintendo's Dreamcast' but then I thought 'actually, do I actually own any EA games on the Wii'? And the answer is: yes, but only 3 and none of them are what I'd call essential. I then looked back and asked the same question of the Gamecube, and got exactly the same answer. Outside of sports games I picked up dirt-cheap and can't be bothered to flog, I don't own any other EA games for any Nintendo system. EA not supporting the Wii U won't hurt Nintendo as much as it did Sega because EA barely supported the Wii beyond the usual annual re-releaseathons.

[bigbacon]

i agree it is a kick in the pants for Nintendo. the biggest publisher of games just dropped you, that is not good for them anyway you put it. Like EA games or not, enthusiasts don't make up the majority of sales, the casual gamer does. Nintendo screwed up IMO with the Wii U. too little to late, People learned with the Wii that it wsa under powered and that the fun wore off rather quickly. How many people do you know with a Wii that just sits there and never gets used? I bet a lot.

People learned from that so why does a Wii U? People don't understand the difference, they see another gimmicky controller with the Wii name slapped on it and equate it to the previous Wii experiences.

I honestly think Nintendo should get out of the main console game, stick with handhelds where they've excelled and continue to. They could make SO much more money just making games using thier powerful in the market IPs.

Again, like EA or not, HUGE hit to Nintendo and you can't deny that.

you stil need to look at it from EAs perspective as well. Why waste time and money on trying to get your games to work on an under powered system when they have 2 other great systems that their games can port between, and they know how to do it well. They will lose more a lot more money spending it to develop and then not getting the sales. The games that sell are going to sell boat loads on xbox and ps3 anyway, they don't need the Wii and its abysmal user base.

[kainemaxwell]

Less sports titles clogging up used game bins now.

[joshnickerson]

Because EA put so much effort into their launch titles...

[sloan]

The longer lasting effects of this decision remain to be seen. Despite the comparisons to Sega's Dreamcast console, it should also be noted that Nintendo is rife with cash, whereas Sega was not in such an advantageous position when Dreamcast went down. As has been stated, EA is a big player, and even though the few on these forums may be fine without their games, casual buyers ultimately buy the majority of consoles and games. Some father who is thinking of buying a system for his kid may well turn away from Wii U if it does not have games he may like playing (i.e. Madden). Still, my feeling is that if Nintendo plays it right, this may well work to its advantage overall.

[The 1 2 P]

I'm going to go with thinking something with the Wii pissed EA off pretty well enough to want to act like babies again tossing away an easy revenue stream.

Thats the thing, it isn't an easy revenue stream for EA or most other third party publishers if reports are to be believed. EA has supported the Wii U with 4 games since launch and I believe that all of them have underperformed by a wide margin. Thus it isn't worth the time and money to continue making games for them. This was actually a very smart business decision on EA's part.

Something tells me EA is in cahoots with Microsoft. They also didn't show up at Sony's PS4 press conference which was out of character.

Thats definitely not true. EA makes a good majority of their money on Sony's consoles. They have also supported the PS3 with exclusive content on several multiplatform games(Dante's Inferno, Medal of Honor, etc), including timed exclusive Battlefield 3 content.

A $50-$100 price drop, however, would definitely make the Wii U a more attractive purchase... and a better name...

If the Wii U does become a failure(and we really won't know for atleast a few more years) I think it will be safe to say that the name of the system was one of the major problems Nintendo had. There are alot of people that don't even know the Wii U exist and even more people that do know it exist but because of the name think its just some kind of Wii accessory.

I know a lot of people don't think this is a big deal because they don't like or play EA's games. But this may be the start of a much bigger exodus. EA may be the first publisher to pull all future support(for the time being) but they are certainly not the first to pull titles, as several have already been canceled. Perhaps things will be much different in a year or two but for the moment I don't see any positives from this announcement

[TonyTheTiger]

"Multiplatform" doesn't mean the same thing today as it did pre-Wii. The way Nintendo has been doing things lately makes going fully multiplatform a sucker bet. We saw it on the Wii. You'd have a game that was clearly designed for the PS3/360 take a visual hit and get tacked on motion control support that didn't add any value to the experience. And the reviews were consistent. "Stay away from the Wii port." EA probably sees the Wii U falling into the same trap. With Nintendo's machines you're stuck between "make a really good game designed specifically for that console" or "make a multiplatform game that is shittiest on that console."

[Press_Start]

. As has been stated, EA is a big player, and even though the few on these forums may be fine without their games, casual buyers ultimately buy the majority of consoles and games. Some father who is thinking of buying a system for his kid may well turn away from Wii U if it does not have games he may like playing (i.e. Madden).

Between the Mass Effect 3 fiasco, the SimCity DRM debacle, voted #1 Worst "video game" Company in USA, Day-One DLC, Microtransactions, Nickel n Diming out of the butt and not to mention all the lies, double-talk, and hypocrisy they spewed in the last two years, EA been sh!tting on non-Nintendo fans and Nintendo fans alike. This latest move is another nail in the coffin to that irrecoverable backlash they're inflicting on themselves. What they don't seem to realize is some Nintendo fans like me also own PS3/360 and may cost them sales not only with Big-N but Sony and MS platforms as well.

"Multiplatform" doesn't mean the same thing today as it did pre-Wii. The way Nintendo has been doing things lately makes going fully multiplatform a sucker bet. We saw it on the Wii. You'd have a game that was clearly designed for the PS3/360 take a visual hit and get tacked on motion control support that didn't add any value to the experience. And the reviews were consistent. "Stay away from the Wii port." EA probably sees the Wii U falling into the same trap. With Nintendo's machines you're stuck between "make a really good game designed specifically for that console" or "make a multiplatform game that is shittiest on that console."

I think PS4 and 720 will be in a similar situation except: it's either "Make a big budget AAA-title and take a huge loss from lower than expected sales" or "Make a cheaper version and just upscale it."

[Griking]

Sega didn't have dozens of publishers who'd work with them just because of their brand name.

It seems like Nintendo is in pretty much the same boat. EA, Ubisoft.. who's next?

[Griking]

Less sports titles clogging up used game bins now.

Time will tell if the Wii U follows suit but I didn't get into the Wii because I'm personally sick of Nintendo franchises and every time I'd visit a game store the shelves would be filled with stuff like dancing and and singing games, fitness titles and Imagine: Party Babyz

[eskobar]

Because EA put so much effort into their launch titles...

The same effort as any developer ... hell, even Nintendo didn't put much effort in the console ... yes, I'm talking about the 1gb update and the slooooooow menus

[kupomogli]

EA this, EA that. Blah blah blah blah blah.

The Mass Effect 3 fiasco was because entitled douchebag who played through what according to them was a great 40+ hour game and then complained about how the ending ruined it and cried to Amazon and other places until they were given refunds. SimCity was patched and working fine within four days from the release date, unlike Silent Hill HD Collection and Downpour not getting an announcement of a patch until six months after release, and then the 360 version of the HD Collection patch was cancelled, and that's only one example game(video of games framerate below.) Capcom has day one DLC, on disc content that's sold as DLC at a later date. Rarely does this happen, but several developers have released near unplayable ports of games on the PS3 or 360, with massive framerate drops, noticeable screen tear issues or sometimes both(on the PS3 more than the 360,) while EA has actually always released quality ports between both consoles.

Most complaints about EA can be said of any developer and usually even more so. It's obvious why you're bitching about it, and we all know if this happened to the PS4 or Next Box at launch and not the Wii U you'd be praising it. It sucks that the Wii U lost EA's support, sure, but they lost support for good reason. They've released several games and have made nothing from it. They've probably lost millions due to how much printing and shipping costs are and the only return they're going to get is a small portion of the inevitable $20 price cut for all remaining copies. But sure. They should keep releasing games that don't sell.

Here are some EA games that offered you a complete title without the purchase of any DLC, and what was released was nothing more than fluff.

Dante's Inferno, Mirror's Edge, Need For Speed Hot Pursuit, Most Wanted, Shift, Shift 2, The Run, Crysis 2, Crysis($15 when it launched on consoles wasn't it?,) Dead Space, Dead Space 2, Fight Night series, Alice, SSX, Army of Two series, and I'd assume sports games.

The only games that they've released that have had major DLC releases were the Bioware games, their FPS games, and Kingdoms of Amalur(which was a second party title only being partially funded and published by EA.) Atleast with their day one DLC and DLC that they're working on to release in the future, they announced it as such. They didn't include it on the disc and then sold it to you. They didn't withhold it back off the disc and then people found out that half the characters on Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 were already on the vanilla disc just not playable a hacked 360. Instead of bullshitting the customer about what's on the disc, EA usually has told customers what they would get when purchasing the game and what has been developed afterwards. Now Dead Space 3 DLC being announced two weeks later is different from what usually happens and Visceral Stated they started it once the game was already printed. Who knows. But it's clear that it's not on disc DLC, so we know there's the possibility that it was developed after printing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amu1h8JwVxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHNA_PIemtc
^Silent Hill Downpour. The first video it drops to 0fps atleast 10 times in a span of four minutes and is constantly dropping frames. The second video is how certain PS3 models run the game, which make it literally unplayable. Just remember though. These issues weren't fixed by Konami until well past six months after release.

*edit*

Why is there no bitching about 2K games or other developers? They release NBA 2K13 on the Wii U last year, but MLB2K this year didn't get a Wii U release and now they're announcing no WWE 2K14 for the Wii U. EA actually released more than one game before they dropped system support.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ate-punched-up

[CDiablo]

Its just business but I dont think EA understands the Wii market. Most Wii U owners are gamers and have at least an XBOX or PS3 available to them. EA feels that they could just throw late and or shit ports out on the market and make money off the suckers that only own a Wii U and never had the chance to experience these games otherwise. They were wrong. The amount of people that only own a Wii U are probably less than 5% of owners. Just like the Wii publishers are throwing scraps at the Wii U and hoping that there will be an easy buck out of it. Once that easy buck comes in only then will there be a discussion of real ports or original titles. Publishing games is big business, and EA wants no part in taking the risk of testing the market for anything but late and or crappy ports. The only way more games are going to get on the system is having more systems sold and more games sold. Its pretty hard to see if that will happen without anyone making games for the system.

[Daltone]

Its just business but I dont think EA understands the Wii market. Most Wii U owners are gamers and have at least an XBOX or PS3 available to them. EA feels that they could just throw late and or shit ports out on the market and make money off the suckers that only own a Wii U and never had the chance to experience these games otherwise. They were wrong. The amount of people that only own a Wii U are probably less than 5% of owners. Just like the Wii publishers are throwing scraps at the Wii U and hoping that there will be an easy buck out of it. Once that easy buck comes in only then will there be a discussion of real ports or original titles. Publishing games is big business, and EA wants no part in taking the risk of testing the market for anything but late and or crappy ports. The only way more games are going to get on the system is having more systems sold and more games sold. Its pretty hard to see if that will happen without anyone making games for the system.

I'd go the other way and say that EA knows exactly what it is doing with the Wii market.

Drop a few quick ports in at first - are they profitable, how difficult are they to port? Your foot is in the door publisher wise. The big question is: is it worth developing games for this system? Slow sales, other publishers jumping ship. Probably not worth putting effort in to developing things exclusively. Not going to sell enough port-wise because your main user base already has a PS3/Xbox and Nintendo aren't doing anything to attract them over. Bottom line - drop it.

[Bojay1997]

Its just business but I dont think EA understands the Wii market. Most Wii U owners are gamers and have at least an XBOX or PS3 available to them. EA feels that they could just throw late and or shit ports out on the market and make money off the suckers that only own a Wii U and never had the chance to experience these games otherwise. They were wrong. The amount of people that only own a Wii U are probably less than 5% of owners. Just like the Wii publishers are throwing scraps at the Wii U and hoping that there will be an easy buck out of it. Once that easy buck comes in only then will there be a discussion of real ports or original titles. Publishing games is big business, and EA wants no part in taking the risk of testing the market for anything but late and or crappy ports. The only way more games are going to get on the system is having more systems sold and more games sold. Its pretty hard to see if that will happen without anyone making games for the system.

I strongly disagree with your premise about most WiiU owners having an Xbox 360 or PS3 available to them. While that may be true of the WiiU owners here, I seriously doubt that's the case for most WiiU owners. I suspect many WiiU owners have a 3DS or DS or Wii available to them. I can't imagine many WiiU owners this early on had 360s and PS3s and decided to pick up the WiiU simply for the handful of Nintendo first party games released to date. That may change once the major flood of Nintendo first party stuff starts hitting, but I just think that younger gamers and families don't play sports games or EA games with the same interest that teenage and twenty something men do. Those guys are never going to be the primary audience for the WiiU just like they weren't for the Wii. The only thing that saved the Wii for EA was there were so many hardware units out there that EA couldn't help but sell copies of whatever they put out there including reskins and shovelware.

[kupomogli]

EA feels that they could just throw late and or shit ports

I agree. Damn EA. Damn them for giving Nintendo fanboys the shittiest versioin of Most Wanted. The version with 30fps, no frame drops, PC textures, and the best use of the touch pad compared to every other third party developer. /s

360



Wii U

[TonyTheTiger]

What EA knows is that the Wii U's existence is at odds with the financial realities of the industry. Exclusives don't pay the bills anymore. And the Wii U is more or less built for them. The original Wii was too, but at least the Wii was in enough homes that there were enough people buying the inferior ports to justify producing them. But the Wii U doesn't even have that on its side. So EA, and any third party for that matter, has to decide between releasing inferior ports of their multiplatform titles on a console that has seen only lukewarm success or making very good games on the Wii U that pretty much have to be exclusive. When the console isn't selling enough to make producing inferior ports worthwhile (at least worthwhile enough to tolerate the negative response to said ports) and exclusives aren't worthwhile period, total abandonment is probably the best option.

This event is just more evidence that the industry needs to reevaluate its spending practices. We need to reel it in enough so that "exclusive" isn't a dirty word. So the Wii U can get its system sellers without it being financial suicide for the publisher.

[kupomogli]

^Here's an idea that would work in getting exclusives for the Wii U while also work in the developer or publishers favor. The developer/publisher would pay for the dev kit, the printing and shipping costs, and would make 100% of the profit for a limited time that would otherwise be split between Nintendo and the publisher.

This would benefit Nintendo as they wouldn't lose any money and get exclusives for the console. It would also benefit the publisher who would be making around the same amount as if they sold two copies on either Microsoft or Sony's console.

Why don't console publishers do this to get exclusives. It's not like they're funding the developer/publishers to create exclusives for them by doing this, so if the game flops there's still an exclusive and no loss for the console developer.

[Griking]

I agree. Damn EA. Damn them for giving Nintendo fanboys the shittiest versioin of Most Wanted. The version with 30fps, no frame drops, PC textures, and the best use of the touch pad compared to every other third party developer.

You're comparing the graphics of a game on the 360, a console that's 8 years old now to the graphics of a "next gen" console that came out less than a year ago? I'd sure as hell hope that the Wii U looked better.