EA has no games in development for the Wii U.

  • 91 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Just look at the chart on the other thread. nintendo has never been in danger in their history. Even during Sony's most successful years, their game division only made more money than Nintendo did once or twice. The GC/GBA era was better for Nintendo than the PS2 era was for Sony. Just think about that for a second.

alexwatchtower

I just never understood why to some people, as gamers, that is important or it makes up for the evident problems with the system. It's not all about money. The fact they can make good profit doesn't make your gaming experience any better. Especially since they hardly share that with you or give back. Clearly.

That's not going to make the Wii U gaming experience better for those buying the console. It won't bring in more third party support. It won't fix the complaints a lot of people have with it.

Profit isn't everything. Even for a business. If they plan on just getting by, by taking advantage of whatever hardcore fans they have left, and squeezing every last peny out of that group, then that's not really a success because it's bad for long term business. You see it now with the Wii U. Going in the same direction, and offering their loyal fans a product that's below their expectations, with few game releases in between, could very well lead to continue losing customers and piss off more of their remaining user base.

If you are the type of gamer that games on multiple consoles, it won't be so bad, but if you are a Nintendo only gamer, and you game pretty regularly, you can't possibly be happy about this. Whether or not they rake in profit. 

We are discussing the future of a company so profit for that console is a big part of it. Does that mean what they do is good for the gamer, no, but it puts things in perspective from nintendo's point of view. 

Who is a Nintendo only gamer? i dont understand how that is even possible. Nintendo's games by their very nature encourage you to try out more games. They dont try to trap you in one kind of game year in and year out, offering online to keep you on that one game. And say you are one of these strange Nintendo only gamers, being angry at Nintendo will lead you to do what exactly? Quit gaming forever or try other games? At which point you are no longer a Nintendo only gamer. I understand there is a group of more casual gamers that dont really care about gaming that have a wii, a mario game or two and thats it. Its them that made nintendo billions last gen, losing EA doesnt matter to them, not having the next big idea like the Wiimote and wii sports is what matters.

#52 Posted by alexwatchtower (1561 posts) -

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

Just look at the chart on the other thread. nintendo has never been in danger in their history. Even during Sony's most successful years, their game division only made more money than Nintendo did once or twice. The GC/GBA era was better for Nintendo than the PS2 era was for Sony. Just think about that for a second.

dvader654

I just never understood why to some people, as gamers, that is important or it makes up for the evident problems with the system. It's not all about money. The fact they can make good profit doesn't make your gaming experience any better. Especially since they hardly share that with you or give back. Clearly.

That's not going to make the Wii U gaming experience better for those buying the console. It won't bring in more third party support. It won't fix the complaints a lot of people have with it.

Profit isn't everything. Even for a business. If they plan on just getting by, by taking advantage of whatever hardcore fans they have left, and squeezing every last peny out of that group, then that's not really a success because it's bad for long term business. You see it now with the Wii U. Going in the same direction, and offering their loyal fans a product that's below their expectations, with few game releases in between, could very well lead to continue losing customers and piss off more of their remaining user base.

If you are the type of gamer that games on multiple consoles, it won't be so bad, but if you are a Nintendo only gamer, and you game pretty regularly, you can't possibly be happy about this. Whether or not they rake in profit. 

We are discussing the future of a company so profit for that console is a big part of it. Does that mean what they do is good for the gamer, no, but it puts things in perspective from nintendo's point of view. 

Who is a Nintendo only gamer? i dont understand how that is even possible. Nintendo's games by their very nature encourage you to try out more games. They dont try to trap you in one kind of game year in and year out, offering online to keep you on that one game. And say you are one of these strange Nintendo only gamers, being angry at Nintendo will lead you to do what exactly? Quit gaming forever or try other games? At which point you are no longer a Nintendo only gamer. I understand there is a group of more casual gamers that dont really care about gaming that have a wii, a mario game or two and thats it. Its them that made nintendo billions last gen, losing EA doesnt matter to them, not having the next big idea like the Wiimote and wii sports is what matters.

I meant one console owner. As in Wii U only. Most of my life I have only been able to or cared to game on one console at a time. There's a lot of people who can't afford more than one console. Even if I could afford two, I usually sold off one of them when I bought the other. So yeah, for those guys, an unsupported system can really suck, especially when they look over to see what's on the other side and seeing all the games they might be missing out on.

And no if they piss off gamers it's not that they will be angry at Nintendo that's the problem, but they can push them into their competitor's arms basically. Some gamers are loyal forever. But I think that's only a small portion. Most gamers are loyal to a point. Like I said, for me personally, when the games dried up so bad on the N64, I jumped out and imported a Dreamcast even though it cost me way over retail to import it from Japan.

I'm sure most probably don't go to the extremes I went, but I was a very big gamer at the time. But I would assume most gamers that were burnt, or felt disatisfied, might simply end up going with the other manufacturer the next time around. So sometimes there's really no advantage to continuing to drag on a system that's not being properly supported or might have simply been a poor design choice from the get go. Especially if you have enough credibility with the industry, to do a re-boot. Which Nintendo does. 

#53 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

I just never understood why to some people, as gamers, that is important or it makes up for the evident problems with the system. It's not all about money. The fact they can make good profit doesn't make your gaming experience any better. Especially since they hardly share that with you or give back. Clearly.

That's not going to make the Wii U gaming experience better for those buying the console. It won't bring in more third party support. It won't fix the complaints a lot of people have with it.

Profit isn't everything. Even for a business. If they plan on just getting by, by taking advantage of whatever hardcore fans they have left, and squeezing every last peny out of that group, then that's not really a success because it's bad for long term business. You see it now with the Wii U. Going in the same direction, and offering their loyal fans a product that's below their expectations, with few game releases in between, could very well lead to continue losing customers and piss off more of their remaining user base.

If you are the type of gamer that games on multiple consoles, it won't be so bad, but if you are a Nintendo only gamer, and you game pretty regularly, you can't possibly be happy about this. Whether or not they rake in profit. 

alexwatchtower

We are discussing the future of a company so profit for that console is a big part of it. Does that mean what they do is good for the gamer, no, but it puts things in perspective from nintendo's point of view. 

Who is a Nintendo only gamer? i dont understand how that is even possible. Nintendo's games by their very nature encourage you to try out more games. They dont try to trap you in one kind of game year in and year out, offering online to keep you on that one game. And say you are one of these strange Nintendo only gamers, being angry at Nintendo will lead you to do what exactly? Quit gaming forever or try other games? At which point you are no longer a Nintendo only gamer. I understand there is a group of more casual gamers that dont really care about gaming that have a wii, a mario game or two and thats it. Its them that made nintendo billions last gen, losing EA doesnt matter to them, not having the next big idea like the Wiimote and wii sports is what matters.

I meant one console owner. As in Wii U only. Most of my life I have only been able to or cared to game on one console at a time. There's a lot of people who can't afford more than one console. Even if I could afford two, I usually sold off one of them when I bought the other. So yeah, for those guys, an unsupported system can really suck, especially when they look over to see what's on the other side and seeing all the games they might be missing out on.

And no if they piss off gamers it's not that they will be angry at Nintendo that's the problem, but they can push them into their competitor's arms basically. Some gamers are loyal forever. But I think that's only a small portion. Most gamers are loyal to a point. Like I said, for me personally, when the games dried up so bad on the N64, I jumped out and imported a Dreamcast even though it cost me way over retail to import it from Japan.

I'm sure most probably don't go to the extremes I went, but I was a very big gamer at the time. But I would assume most gamers that were burnt, or felt disatisfied, might simply end up going with the other manufacturer the next time around. So sometimes there's really no advantage to continuing to drag on a system that's not being properly supported or might have simply been a poor design choice from the get go. Especially if you have enough credibility with the industry, to do a re-boot. Which Nintendo does. 

The way I see it. If you are serious into this hobby, if you really love playing all kinds of games you CANNOT just own a Nintendo console. You miss out too much, its been that way since the GC era (a bit during N64) and honestly i can't even think of a way for Nintendo to become the console with the biggest all around support. To me they are the second console you get, a compliment.  Or if you have a gaming PC I guess you can get by with just having a Nintendo system.  So if there is a guy who can only by one console I would never recommend them to get a Nintendo one. So in that regard I agree with you, Nintendo has failed at delivering a console that can be worth owning just alone. 

As for the anger and loyalty issues, I don't get it. If you love games you should love games regardless of who makes them. Say I only have a PS3, just cause I have a PS3 doesn't mean I have to hate what is one 360 or Wii. So i dont think it has anything to do with loyalty, if Nintendo stopped making excellent games tomorrow I will stop buying Nintendo products tomorrow. It has to do with wanting to play the best games from all the genres you care about.    I guess I can separate the hardware maker from the software developer, I have not been a fan of Nintendo's hardware lately but I never had that effect what I feel about their games.

#54 Posted by alexwatchtower (1561 posts) -

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

We are discussing the future of a company so profit for that console is a big part of it. Does that mean what they do is good for the gamer, no, but it puts things in perspective from nintendo's point of view. 

Who is a Nintendo only gamer? i dont understand how that is even possible. Nintendo's games by their very nature encourage you to try out more games. They dont try to trap you in one kind of game year in and year out, offering online to keep you on that one game. And say you are one of these strange Nintendo only gamers, being angry at Nintendo will lead you to do what exactly? Quit gaming forever or try other games? At which point you are no longer a Nintendo only gamer. I understand there is a group of more casual gamers that dont really care about gaming that have a wii, a mario game or two and thats it. Its them that made nintendo billions last gen, losing EA doesnt matter to them, not having the next big idea like the Wiimote and wii sports is what matters.

dvader654

I meant one console owner. As in Wii U only. Most of my life I have only been able to or cared to game on one console at a time. There's a lot of people who can't afford more than one console. Even if I could afford two, I usually sold off one of them when I bought the other. So yeah, for those guys, an unsupported system can really suck, especially when they look over to see what's on the other side and seeing all the games they might be missing out on.

And no if they piss off gamers it's not that they will be angry at Nintendo that's the problem, but they can push them into their competitor's arms basically. Some gamers are loyal forever. But I think that's only a small portion. Most gamers are loyal to a point. Like I said, for me personally, when the games dried up so bad on the N64, I jumped out and imported a Dreamcast even though it cost me way over retail to import it from Japan.

I'm sure most probably don't go to the extremes I went, but I was a very big gamer at the time. But I would assume most gamers that were burnt, or felt disatisfied, might simply end up going with the other manufacturer the next time around. So sometimes there's really no advantage to continuing to drag on a system that's not being properly supported or might have simply been a poor design choice from the get go. Especially if you have enough credibility with the industry, to do a re-boot. Which Nintendo does. 

The way I see it. If you are serious into this hobby, if you really love playing all kinds of games you CANNOT just own a Nintendo console. You miss out too much, its been that way since the GC era (a bit during N64) and honestly i can't even think of a way for Nintendo to become the console with the biggest all around support. To me they are the second console you get, a compliment.  Or if you have a gaming PC I guess you can get by with just having a Nintendo system.  So if there is a guy who can only by one console I would never recommend them to get a Nintendo one. So in that regard I agree with you, Nintendo has failed at delivering a console that can be worth owning just alone. 

As for the anger and loyalty issues, I don't get it. If you love games you should love games regardless of who makes them. Say I only have a PS3, just cause I have a PS3 doesn't mean I have to hate what is one 360 or Wii. So i dont think it has anything to do with loyalty, if Nintendo stopped making excellent games tomorrow I will stop buying Nintendo products tomorrow. It has to do with wanting to play the best games from all the genres you care about.    I guess I can separate the hardware maker from the software developer, I have not been a fan of Nintendo's hardware lately but I never had that effect what I feel about their games.

But not everybody is that serious into this hobby. And they don't have to be. It's ok to miss out on some games. There is a middle ground. Also, nobody is talking about hating someone else's product. You should re-read my post. 

#55 Posted by Zen_Light (1639 posts) -

I dislike EA.

#56 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]Dreamcast 2. We all wanted it didn't we?Black_Knight_00
Woah woah. The dreamcast had loads of great games, like Shenmue and... uh... that other game!

I'd say the only similarity between the Wii U and the DC was that there were big spaces of time between their releases and the deaths of their predecessors. Saturn gamers like me (I was a college student who couldn't afford multiple systems) didn't just stop gaming when Sega decided to kill the system, we looked around at alternatives. I got a PS1 and loved it. When the DC hit, having been burned by Sega too many times (they had gotten into the bad habit of releasing hardware and then quickly dropping it) and thoroughly enjoying my PS1, I said 'Screw it, I'm not getting burned again'.

Charlie Brown Football Kick

Sega's DC did sell quite well (unlike the Wii U), selling 10,000,000 systems in a year's time (most of them in the first several months of the system's existence) which set a record at the time (it sold faster than the PS1), was as many systems as the PS2 would sell in its first year and more than the X360 and PS3 sold their first years. However, Sega was in such bad financial shape when they shipped the DC that kind of like Squenix and Tomb Raider, a number that any sane person would have counted a success wasn't enough.

#57 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]I just never understood why to some people, as gamers, that is important or it makes up for the evident problems with the system. It's not all about money. The fact they can make good profit doesn't make your gaming experience any better. Especially since they hardly share that with you or give back. Clearly.RandoIphF
Exactly. I used to ask people last gen with the Wii about the problems it has, and their response would be to post charts about Nintendo's profits, and I would wonder, can you insert these charts into the system? Are they fun games? Nintendo could have taken some of these profits and actually done something with them this time around, maybe invest in some seriously advanced hardware. Instead they put too much focus on the idiotic and useless tablet controller gimmick, and keeping the system itself at a set size, even reducing the power of it's innards to make sure it worked out to be the exact size they wanted. They have their priorities all mixed up, and they got too eccentric for their own good after the fad success of the Wii.

That's what amazed me. Nintendo was making record profits and they should have been buying up talent to broaden the appeal of their system, but instead they just pocketed the money. So Nintendo in the Wii era released a narrower range of games than Nintendo in the much less profitable SNES and N64 eras (including but not limited to Western games, which are now a huge chunk of the market). But most Nintendo fans didn't seem to be bothered, they'd just post Nintendo profits as if that settled the issue.

WiiPrintsMoney.gif

As I've said before, I think Nintendo's console core is a lot narrower than it used to be. In the NES/SNES/N64 days Nintendo competed for the wider audience, but in the majority of the GC era (their efforts to compete to a broader audience ended after the commercial disappointment of Pikmin and Eternal Darkness) and all of the Wii and Wii U era, Nintendo has limited itself to preaching to the Mario/Zelda faithful.

#58 Posted by burgeg (3599 posts) -

 When the DC hit, having been burned by Sega too many times (they had gotten into the bad habit of releasing hardware and then quickly dropping it) and thoroughly enjoying my PS1, I said 'Screw it, I'm not getting burned again'.

 

CarnageHeart

What? The only one that was the case for was the Saturn. One system. They hardly burned you too many times if they dropped one system that was flopping. They supported the Mega Drive for years. They supported the Master System for years(in Europe at least since it was actually a successful system there. God I loved the master System). And if you're talking about the add-ons for the Mega Drive(CD and 32X), quite frankly it's your own fault if you expected Sega to support those anywhere near as much as their main consoles. They were add ons. Nothing more. You should have just waited for Sega's actual next generation hardware. The only main console they're guilty of dropping quickly was the Saturn, and considering how bad it was doing you can't blame them.

Also I'd just like to take this time to say Sega were awesome when they made consoles. If there was any justice in this world Sega would still be around and it would have been Nintendo that went third party.

#59 Posted by alexwatchtower (1561 posts) -

What? The only one that was the case for was the Saturn. One system. They hardly burned you too many times if they dropped one system that was flopping. They supported the Mega Drive for years. They supported the Master System for years(in Europe at least since it was actually a successful system there. God I loved the master System). And if you're talking about the add-ons for the Mega Drive(CD and 32X), quite frankly it's your own fault if you expected Sega to support those anywhere near as much as their main consoles. They were add ons. Nothing more. You should have just waited for Sega's actual next generation hardware. The only main console they're guilty of dropping quickly was the Saturn, and considering how bad it was doing you can't blame them.

burgeg

I don't know if I would blame a gamer for the 32x/Sega CD fiasco. Sega CD wasn't so bad, because at least you got CD based hardware and games like Lunar and Sonic CD were very good, but the 32X should have never happened. They really put out too much hardware, didn't properly support it and then were totally unprepared to meet Sony and the PSX head on with a less capable, more expensive Saturn. I'm glad I dodged those bullets. 

But yeah, definitely bet on the wrong horse with Saturn over DC.

I think the DC is one of, if not the only console I can think of that was dragged down by a company, rather than the other way around. There was really not a freaking thing wrong with it as a viable platform. Even as far as sales, it started off great. Got a jump technologically on the generation, came out cheap, offered online gaming, and an amazing selection of titles in such a short span beginning with 3 massive hits with NFL2k, Soul Calibur and Sonic Adventure at launch. Heck for a long time it stayed ahead of the PS2 in terms of image quality and textures. Pretty much the perfect console for its time.

Now that I think about it, with Sega already releasing the 32X, with them already so good at 3D in the arcades, WTF were they thinking with the Saturn? How could they screw up the Saturn's 3D capabilities so bad, when they already had so much experience with it, and knew exactly where we were going as an industry?

I'll never understand who made those decisions at Sega at that time.

#60 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

When the DC hit, having been burned by Sega too many times (they had gotten into the bad habit of releasing hardware and then quickly dropping it) and thoroughly enjoying my PS1, I said 'Screw it, I'm not getting burned again'.

burgeg

What? The only one that was the case for was the Saturn. One system. They hardly burned you too many times if they dropped one system that was flopping. They supported the Mega Drive for years. They supported the Master System for years(in Europe at least since it was actually a successful system there. God I loved the master System). And if you're talking about the add-ons for the Mega Drive(CD and 32X), quite frankly it's your own fault if you expected Sega to support those anywhere near as much as their main consoles. They were add ons. Nothing more. You should have just waited for Sega's actual next generation hardware. The only main console they're guilty of dropping quickly was the Saturn, and considering how bad it was doing you can't blame them.

Also I'd just like to take this time to say Sega were awesome when they made consoles. If there was any justice in this world Sega would still be around and it would have been Nintendo that went third party.

The Sega CD (and the TG-CD) actually got decent support. It was the 32X that was really problematic (that list of 100 developers they once circulated was clearly bogus). Also, the Saturn was no bigger a failure than the SMS, but where Sega supported the SMS for years, they sabotaged the Saturn (declining to bring over games from Japan in numbers or to allow anyone else to do so) long before the DC hit the shelves. Sega was a great game maker back then, but they deserved to fail in the hardware arena.

#61 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19119 posts) -

WiiPrintsMoney.gifCarnageHeart

iwata.jpg

#62 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="burgeg"]

What? The only one that was the case for was the Saturn. One system. They hardly burned you too many times if they dropped one system that was flopping. They supported the Mega Drive for years. They supported the Master System for years(in Europe at least since it was actually a successful system there. God I loved the master System). And if you're talking about the add-ons for the Mega Drive(CD and 32X), quite frankly it's your own fault if you expected Sega to support those anywhere near as much as their main consoles. They were add ons. Nothing more. You should have just waited for Sega's actual next generation hardware. The only main console they're guilty of dropping quickly was the Saturn, and considering how bad it was doing you can't blame them.

alexwatchtower

I don't know if I would blame a gamer for the 32x/Sega CD fiasco. Sega CD wasn't so bad, because at least you got CD based hardware and games like Lunar and Sonic CD were very good, but the 32X should have never happened. They really put out too much hardware, didn't properly support it and then were totally unprepared to meet Sony and the PSX head on with a less capable, more expensive Saturn. I'm glad I dodged those bullets.

But yeah, definitely bet on the wrong horse with Saturn over DC.

I think the DC is one of, if not the only console I can think of that was dragged down by a company, rather than the other way around. There was really not a freaking thing wrong with it as a viable platform. Even as far as sales, it started off great. Got a jump technologically on the generation, came out cheap, offered online gaming, and an amazing selection of titles in such a short span beginning with 3 massive hits with NFL2k, Soul Calibur and Sonic Adventure at launch. Heck for a long time it stayed ahead of the PS2 in terms of image quality and textures. Pretty much the perfect console for its time.

Now that I think about it, with Sega already releasing the 32X, with them already so good at 3D in the arcades, WTF were they thinking with the Saturn? How could they screw up the Saturn's 3D capabilities so bad, when they already had so much experience with it, and knew exactly where we were going as an industry?

I'll never understand who made those decisions at Sega at that time.

Yeah, Sega's 'Virtua' games were part of the handful of games which demonstrated the versatility of the polygon, so you'd think Sega would have built the Saturn with the polygon in mind, but they didn't and the rest is history.

#63 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -

Guys, guys, don't you see it's all part of Nintendo's grand plan?  The less systems they sell, the less money they lose on them.  And once the cost to manufacture the system isn't losing them money anymore...  BAM!  They'll hit back with all that software of theirs  ;)

Seriously though, it's a big thing that EA is just saying 'screw you WiiU'.  I've heard rumblings about failed online deals as well, but if this was the case, wouldn't EA just stop supporting the 3DS as well?

#64 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -
We are discussing the future of a company so profit for that console is a big part of it. Does that mean what they do is good for the gamer, no, but it puts things in perspective from nintendo's point of view. 

Who is a Nintendo only gamer? i dont understand how that is even possible. Nintendo's games by their very nature encourage you to try out more games. They dont try to trap you in one kind of game year in and year out, offering online to keep you on that one game. And say you are one of these strange Nintendo only gamers, being angry at Nintendo will lead you to do what exactly? Quit gaming forever or try other games? At which point you are no longer a Nintendo only gamer. I understand there is a group of more casual gamers that dont really care about gaming that have a wii, a mario game or two and thats it. Its them that made nintendo billions last gen, losing EA doesnt matter to them, not having the next big idea like the Wiimote and wii sports is what matters.

dvader654
Dvader, I've been gaming on Nintendo consoles only for the biggest part of 25 years. Only since little over a year do I game on Steam (a bit), and I'm currently awaiting the arrivel of a PS3 I ordered online. I wouldn't say I'm not a big gamer. I wouldn't say I don't give MS or Sony the light of day. I wouldn't say I'm not knowledgeable of the industry (to a certain, sane extent). But I also wouldn't say that I am missing out on much. I don't care for shooters. I don't care for open world games, for games with a lot of violence or online multiplayer heavy experiences. I like the kind of games Nintendo usually makes, and small, quirky games. Games that offer me something unique. MS offers very little of those. Sony offers some, but not up till now did I feel that what I was missing was of such value to me that it justified buying their system. And I only bought one now since I found a good deal online. Did I sometimes feel like I was missing out on some good games? Well yes, but not enough to warrant buying another system and having to split my gaming time over multiple systems. It's not because someone can't muster the time or will to play every big game this industry throws at us, that you can't have an informed opinion on the state of it. I agree that there probably are some 16 year old fanboys who are so blindly loyal to one party that they can't see the value in what the others have to offer. I was 16 when I first started posting here, but just because I only owned Nintendo hardware didn't mean that I belong in the category I just described.
#65 Posted by MirkoS77 (8394 posts) -
EA and Nintendo must have had a big falling out for them not to put any games on the Wii U.Rattlesnake_8
Origin. While I think there are other factors at play, obviously something big went down for them to pull all support.
#66 Posted by burgeg (3599 posts) -

[QUOTE="burgeg"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

When the DC hit, having been burned by Sega too many times (they had gotten into the bad habit of releasing hardware and then quickly dropping it) and thoroughly enjoying my PS1, I said 'Screw it, I'm not getting burned again'.

 

CarnageHeart

What? The only one that was the case for was the Saturn. One system. They hardly burned you too many times if they dropped one system that was flopping. They supported the Mega Drive for years. They supported the Master System for years(in Europe at least since it was actually a successful system there. God I loved the master System). And if you're talking about the add-ons for the Mega Drive(CD and 32X), quite frankly it's your own fault if you expected Sega to support those anywhere near as much as their main consoles. They were add ons. Nothing more. You should have just waited for Sega's actual next generation hardware. The only main console they're guilty of dropping quickly was the Saturn, and considering how bad it was doing you can't blame them.

Also I'd just like to take this time to say Sega were awesome when they made consoles. If there was any justice in this world Sega would still be around and it would have been Nintendo that went third party.

The Sega CD (and the TG-CD) actually got decent support. It was the 32X that was really problematic (that list of 100 developers they once circulated was clearly bogus). Also, the Saturn was no bigger a failure than the SMS, but where Sega supported the SMS for years, they sabotaged the Saturn (declining to bring over games from Japan in numbers or to allow anyone else to do so) long before the DC hit the shelves. Sega was a great game maker back then, but they deserved to fail in the hardware arena.

The Saturn was no bigger a failure than the Master System....in the US. The US is not the world. In Europe the Master System was a VERY successful console. In fact it outsold the NES. As far as I'm aware the Saturn never had that kind of success in any region. Though I think it did better in Japan than the rest of the world. And no, Sega did not deserve to fail in the hardware arena. Not even close. Did the Saturn deserve to fail? Sure. But the Dreamcast? Get the hell out of here. They did very little wrong with the Dreamcast. But with the mega hype of the PS2 combined with Sega's financial troubles they couldn't sustain the system. But the system was very good and deserved to succeed. Yeah there wasn't a lot Sega did right with the Saturn, but they made two amazing console before that and another amazing console after it. If Sega were simply a more financially stable company at the time of the Dreamcast maybe they would still be here.

#67 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="burgeg"]What? The only one that was the case for was the Saturn. One system. They hardly burned you too many times if they dropped one system that was flopping. They supported the Mega Drive for years. They supported the Master System for years(in Europe at least since it was actually a successful system there. God I loved the master System). And if you're talking about the add-ons for the Mega Drive(CD and 32X), quite frankly it's your own fault if you expected Sega to support those anywhere near as much as their main consoles. They were add ons. Nothing more. You should have just waited for Sega's actual next generation hardware. The only main console they're guilty of dropping quickly was the Saturn, and considering how bad it was doing you can't blame them.

Also I'd just like to take this time to say Sega were awesome when they made consoles. If there was any justice in this world Sega would still be around and it would have been Nintendo that went third party.

burgeg

The Sega CD (and the TG-CD) actually got decent support. It was the 32X that was really problematic (that list of 100 developers they once circulated was clearly bogus). Also, the Saturn was no bigger a failure than the SMS, but where Sega supported the SMS for years, they sabotaged the Saturn (declining to bring over games from Japan in numbers or to allow anyone else to do so) long before the DC hit the shelves. Sega was a great game maker back then, but they deserved to fail in the hardware arena.

The Saturn was no bigger a failure than the Master System....in the US. The US is not the world. In Europe the Master System was a VERY successful console. In fact it outsold the NES. As far as I'm aware the Saturn never had that kind of success in any region. Though I think it did better in Japan than the rest of the world. And no, Sega did not deserve to fail in the hardware arena. Not even close. Did the Saturn deserve to fail? Sure. But the Dreamcast? Get the hell out of here. They did very little wrong with the Dreamcast. But with the mega hype of the PS2 combined with Sega's financial troubles they couldn't sustain the system. But the system was very good and deserved to succeed. Yeah there wasn't a lot Sega did right with the Saturn, but they made two amazing console before that and another amazing console after it. If Sega were simply a more financially stable company at the time of the Dreamcast maybe they would still be here.

Both the Saturn and the Master System had lifetime sales in the ballpark of 10 million. The SMS did extremely well in Europe, the Saturn did extremely well in Japan. Sega choose to burn Saturn owners and I'm perfectly fine with them being forced out of the hardware arena.

#68 Posted by burgeg (3599 posts) -

[QUOTE="burgeg"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

The Sega CD (and the TG-CD) actually got decent support. It was the 32X that was really problematic (that list of 100 developers they once circulated was clearly bogus). Also, the Saturn was no bigger a failure than the SMS, but where Sega supported the SMS for years, they sabotaged the Saturn (declining to bring over games from Japan in numbers or to allow anyone else to do so) long before the DC hit the shelves. Sega was a great game maker back then, but they deserved to fail in the hardware arena.

CarnageHeart

The Saturn was no bigger a failure than the Master System....in the US. The US is not the world. In Europe the Master System was a VERY successful console. In fact it outsold the NES. As far as I'm aware the Saturn never had that kind of success in any region. Though I think it did better in Japan than the rest of the world. And no, Sega did not deserve to fail in the hardware arena. Not even close. Did the Saturn deserve to fail? Sure. But the Dreamcast? Get the hell out of here. They did very little wrong with the Dreamcast. But with the mega hype of the PS2 combined with Sega's financial troubles they couldn't sustain the system. But the system was very good and deserved to succeed. Yeah there wasn't a lot Sega did right with the Saturn, but they made two amazing console before that and another amazing console after it. If Sega were simply a more financially stable company at the time of the Dreamcast maybe they would still be here.

Both the Saturn and the Master System had lifetime sales in the ballpark of 10 million. The SMS did extremely well in Europe, the Saturn did extremely well in Japan. Sega choose to burn Saturn owners and I'm perfectly fine with them being forced out of the hardware arena.

Sounds to me like you were never much of a Sega fan to begin with. For those of us that were, it was a huge loss. As far as I'm concerned it should have been Nintendo to go. As Nintendo have proven over the last decade with their awful consoles. Saturn is the only Sega console that I didn't absolutely adore. Hell, I even loved the Game Gear. Mostly because I could play Master System games on it, but still. Better than the Game Boy for me.

#69 Posted by shellcase86 (2077 posts) -

Money talks. They felt there is not much opportunity to make money on the platform, which it is hard to blame them for feeling so.

#70 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="burgeg"]The Saturn was no bigger a failure than the Master System....in the US. The US is not the world. In Europe the Master System was a VERY successful console. In fact it outsold the NES. As far as I'm aware the Saturn never had that kind of success in any region. Though I think it did better in Japan than the rest of the world. And no, Sega did not deserve to fail in the hardware arena. Not even close. Did the Saturn deserve to fail? Sure. But the Dreamcast? Get the hell out of here. They did very little wrong with the Dreamcast. But with the mega hype of the PS2 combined with Sega's financial troubles they couldn't sustain the system. But the system was very good and deserved to succeed. Yeah there wasn't a lot Sega did right with the Saturn, but they made two amazing console before that and another amazing console after it. If Sega were simply a more financially stable company at the time of the Dreamcast maybe they would still be here.

burgeg

Both the Saturn and the Master System had lifetime sales in the ballpark of 10 million. The SMS did extremely well in Europe, the Saturn did extremely well in Japan. Sega choose to burn Saturn owners and I'm perfectly fine with them being forced out of the hardware arena.

Sounds to me like you were never much of a Sega fan to begin with. For those of us that were, it was a huge loss. As far as I'm concerned it should have been Nintendo to go. As Nintendo have proven over the last decade with their awful consoles. Saturn is the only Sega console that I didn't absolutely adore. Hell, I even loved the Game Gear. Mostly because I could play Master System games on it, but still. Better than the Game Boy for me.

I owned a Zaxxon mini-arcade, then an SMS, then a Genesis, then a Sega CD, then a 32X, then a Saturn, but I did come to believe that Sega had no business in the hardware business (which wasn't its strength and which often cost it money), so if that means I'm not a real fan, then I'm not a real fan.

Sega leaving the hardware arena wasn't a problem for me. The problem was that they were in such bad shape when they left that they lost a lot of talent and weren't in the sort of shape they'd have been in if they had called it quits with the Saturn.

However, there have been some amazing Sega games post DC including but not limited to Otogi 1 and 2, Valkyria Chronicles, Panzer Dragoon Orta and Virtua Fighters 4 (Evo is perhaps the best fighter in terms of SP content the world will ever see) and 5. If I still had my X360 at the time of its release, I might name Bayonetta as a great game.

#71 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
I just want to point out that I am the biggest Sega fan on these boards. Carry on.
#72 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (19119 posts) -
I just want to point out that I am the biggest Sega fan on these boards. Carry on.dvader654
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.
#73 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]We are discussing the future of a company so profit for that console is a big part of it. Does that mean what they do is good for the gamer, no, but it puts things in perspective from nintendo's point of view. 

Who is a Nintendo only gamer? i dont understand how that is even possible. Nintendo's games by their very nature encourage you to try out more games. They dont try to trap you in one kind of game year in and year out, offering online to keep you on that one game. And say you are one of these strange Nintendo only gamers, being angry at Nintendo will lead you to do what exactly? Quit gaming forever or try other games? At which point you are no longer a Nintendo only gamer. I understand there is a group of more casual gamers that dont really care about gaming that have a wii, a mario game or two and thats it. Its them that made nintendo billions last gen, losing EA doesnt matter to them, not having the next big idea like the Wiimote and wii sports is what matters.

SupremeAC
Dvader, I've been gaming on Nintendo consoles only for the biggest part of 25 years. Only since little over a year do I game on Steam (a bit), and I'm currently awaiting the arrivel of a PS3 I ordered online. I wouldn't say I'm not a big gamer. I wouldn't say I don't give MS or Sony the light of day. I wouldn't say I'm not knowledgeable of the industry (to a certain, sane extent). But I also wouldn't say that I am missing out on much. I don't care for shooters. I don't care for open world games, for games with a lot of violence or online multiplayer heavy experiences. I like the kind of games Nintendo usually makes, and small, quirky games. Games that offer me something unique. MS offers very little of those. Sony offers some, but not up till now did I feel that what I was missing was of such value to me that it justified buying their system. And I only bought one now since I found a good deal online. Did I sometimes feel like I was missing out on some good games? Well yes, but not enough to warrant buying another system and having to split my gaming time over multiple systems. It's not because someone can't muster the time or will to play every big game this industry throws at us, that you can't have an informed opinion on the state of it. I agree that there probably are some 16 year old fanboys who are so blindly loyal to one party that they can't see the value in what the others have to offer. I was 16 when I first started posting here, but just because I only owned Nintendo hardware didn't mean that I belong in the category I just described.

I understand. I guess I was stuck with the biased gamer stereotype. When I had only one console I was that way, with Sega, hated everything else stupidly. Thankfully the PS1 and RE snapped me out of that stupidity. In the end what is most important is that you get the system that has the most games YOU want to play. And if that happend to be the wii, then ok.
#74 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]I just want to point out that I am the biggest Sega fan on these boards. Carry on.Black_Knight_00
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.

:lol:
#75 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="RandoIphF"][QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]I just never understood why to some people, as gamers, that is important or it makes up for the evident problems with the system. It's not all about money. The fact they can make good profit doesn't make your gaming experience any better. Especially since they hardly share that with you or give back. Clearly.CarnageHeart

Exactly. I used to ask people last gen with the Wii about the problems it has, and their response would be to post charts about Nintendo's profits, and I would wonder, can you insert these charts into the system? Are they fun games? Nintendo could have taken some of these profits and actually done something with them this time around, maybe invest in some seriously advanced hardware. Instead they put too much focus on the idiotic and useless tablet controller gimmick, and keeping the system itself at a set size, even reducing the power of it's innards to make sure it worked out to be the exact size they wanted. They have their priorities all mixed up, and they got too eccentric for their own good after the fad success of the Wii.

That's what amazed me. Nintendo was making record profits and they should have been buying up talent to broaden the appeal of their system, but instead they just pocketed the money. So Nintendo in the Wii era released a narrower range of games than Nintendo in the much less profitable SNES and N64 eras (including but not limited to Western games, which are now a huge chunk of the market). But most Nintendo fans didn't seem to be bothered, they'd just post Nintendo profits as if that settled the issue.

WiiPrintsMoney.gif

As I've said before, I think Nintendo's console core is a lot narrower than it used to be. In the NES/SNES/N64 days Nintendo competed for the wider audience, but in the majority of the GC era (their efforts to compete to a broader audience ended after the commercial disappointment of Pikmin and Eternal Darkness) and all of the Wii and Wii U era, Nintendo has limited itself to preaching to the Mario/Zelda faithful.

I am realizing that I really don't care about Nintendo as a whole. Most of guys look at Nintendo and wonder why they are stuck in a rut in certain aspects, I simpy shrug my shoulders cause I don't care. As long as hey give me the games I want I am happy. Wii u could have zero third party multiplatform games and I would still be alright with my purchase. That said I do believe the wii was an excellent idea and I loved that they threw a whole wrench into how we control games and the direction this industry should go in. Did it work, ehhhh not sure, probably not but I am still hopeful.
#76 Posted by scoots9 (3254 posts) -

I dislike EA.

Zen_Light

#77 Posted by burgeg (3599 posts) -

So does anyone else find it ironic that just mere hours after that Sega discussion it turns out the new Sonic is Wii U exclusive? I do, and it pisses me off! I'm probably gonna have to get a Wii U at some point now. God damnit! I'm still waiting for it to get really cheap, but it's pretty much confirmed I have to get a Wii U at some point now. I'm a sucker for Sonic.

#78 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

So does anyone else find it ironic that just mere hours after that Sega discussion it turns out the new Sonic is Wii U exclusive? I do, and it pisses me off! I'm probably gonna have to get a Wii U at some point now. God damnit! I'm still waiting for it to get really cheap, but it's pretty much confirmed I have to get a Wii U at some point now. I'm a sucker for Sonic.

burgeg

I'd be more impressed by Valkyria Chronicles, Panzer Dragoon or a real Phantasy Star game (not a mini-MMO).

#79 Posted by LAN7ERN (352 posts) -
I think that EA will eventually develop games for the Wii U.
#80 Posted by Buckhannah (477 posts) -
That said I do believe the wii was an excellent idea and I loved that they threw a whole wrench into how we control games and the direction this industry should go in. Did it work, ehhhh not sure, probably not but I am still hopeful.dvader654
It didn't. It didn't work. Not at all.
#81 Posted by alexwatchtower (1561 posts) -

So does anyone else find it ironic that just mere hours after that Sega discussion it turns out the new Sonic is Wii U exclusive? I do, and it pisses me off! I'm probably gonna have to get a Wii U at some point now. God damnit! I'm still waiting for it to get really cheap, but it's pretty much confirmed I have to get a Wii U at some point now. I'm a sucker for Sonic.

burgeg

I'm pissed about it too, since I absolutely love Sonic, but I guess I'll have to be strong. I hate what Sega's doing with their franchises since they went third party. Either put your muscle and support one console, or support them all. Just off the top of my head...

PDZ, Shenmue - Xbox

Yakuza, Phantasy Star - PS3

Bayoneta - 360, PS3 version gets screwed

Sonic Colors, Generations- Wii

Sonic 4 - Xbox 360 Arcade, PS3 arcade, etc.

Bayoneta - Wii U

And now...

Sonic - Wii U

Really Sega? WTF?

 

$1200-1500 worth of hardware? You are out of your damn mind Sega! Out of your mind! Why not just freaking start putting all your games exclusively on the Eurocom and call it a day?

Way to rebuild your fan base. Still a bunch of monkeys running the company.

#82 Posted by alexwatchtower (1561 posts) -

The love fest continues...

 

ngjiCSq.png

X9LtDTh.png

 

Meanwhile, the silence from the major media outlets is deafening...

The only thing I get from all this is that Nintendo and EA have the gaming media by the balls. No one wants to touch this story? Really? 

#83 Posted by rragnaar (27023 posts) -

Meanwhile, the silence from the major media outlets is deafening...

The only thing I get from all this is that Nintendo and EA have the gaming media by the balls. No one wants to touch this story? Really? 

alexwatchtower

Gamespot has run stories on both EA pulling support from Nintendo, as well as this guy's twitter comments, so I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at.  Gameindustry.biz is running this story that is particularly damning for the Wii U. 

But EA has pulled out of the Wii U because sales of both hardware and software are dreadful. We're not officially allowed to report sales numbers from Chart Track in the UK but everyone in the publishing business can see them quite clearly. There's no need for pretence. When you can get to number one in the Wii U charts by selling less than 1000 units it's no longer a tragedy, it's an actual farce.

GamesIndustry

The gaming press is paying attention for sure.

#84 Posted by alexwatchtower (1561 posts) -

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]Meanwhile, the silence from the major media outlets is deafening...

The only thing I get from all this is that Nintendo and EA have the gaming media by the balls. No one wants to touch this story? Really? 

rragnaar

Gamespot has run stories on both EA pulling support from Nintendo, as well as this guy's twitter comments, so I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at.  Gameindustry.biz is running this story that is particularly damning for the Wii U. 

But EA has pulled out of the Wii U because sales of both hardware and software are dreadful. We're not officially allowed to report sales numbers from Chart Track in the UK but everyone in the publishing business can see them quite clearly. There's no need for pretence. When you can get to number one in the Wii U charts by selling less than 1000 units it's no longer a tragedy, it's an actual farce.

GamesIndustry

The gaming press is paying attention for sure.

Meaning I want to know what really happened. Companies have pulled support before. EA did it to DC and Sega. But I don't remember their employees going out of their way to trash it. There's more to this and no one's talking.

Reporting on news that came from official EA pressers or Twitter accounts isn't what I meant. It's clear they had a deal, and the deal went really sour. What was the deal, and why did it get to this point?

#85 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
EA was supposed to create Nintendo's online infrastructure. Obviously tied with Origin. At the last minute Nintendo pulled out. EA was pissed. They still had to release the games they already made for the Wii U, but since then has stopped all production on future titles. Allegedly.
#86 Posted by alexwatchtower (1561 posts) -

EA was supposed to create Nintendo's online infrastructure. Obviously tied with Origin. At the last minute Nintendo pulled out. EA was pissed. They still had to release the games they already made for the Wii U, but since then has stopped all production on future titles. Allegedly.dvader654

That seems more plausible because what EA is doign now is pouring salt in a wound. They know their annoucnement doesn't look good on Nintendo, so to follow it up with public outlashing...they must have really gotten burnt.

Did EA actually invest a significant amount of money into developing Origin for the WIi U?

 

You know I just realized something...Nintendo Direct conference and the EA deal are related.

Without piecing it from the beginning.

EA wasn't happy and rumors started coming up about their lack of support, Frostbite, etc.

Early NPD estimates usually come out about a week in advance.

EA lets Nintendo know they are pulling support and will make it official on NPD day.

Nintendo scrambles and cuts a deal with Sega to prepare for damage control. Or perhaps it was already in the making, but this forced them to do it early.

Nintendo makes surprize announcement about Nintendo Direct press conference.

NPD comes out, sales are bad and EA makes their statement.

The following day Nintendo announce Sonic exclusives.

 

Hmm....cat and mouse.

#87 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="alexwatchtower"]Meanwhile, the silence from the major media outlets is deafening...

The only thing I get from all this is that Nintendo and EA have the gaming media by the balls. No one wants to touch this story? Really?

rragnaar

Gamespot has run stories on both EA pulling support from Nintendo, as well as this guy's twitter comments, so I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at. Gameindustry.biz is running this story that is particularly damning for the Wii U.

But EA has pulled out of the Wii U because sales of both hardware and software are dreadful. We're not officially allowed to report sales numbers from Chart Track in the UK but everyone in the publishing business can see them quite clearly. There's no need for pretence. When you can get to number one in the Wii U charts by selling less than 1000 units it's no longer a tragedy, it's an actual farce.

GamesIndustry

The gaming press is paying attention for sure.

The guy's tweets remind me of the two Gamecubes ducted together comment. I'm sure its a widely held sentiment, but I'm equally sure EA didn't want him shooting his mouth off. Companies sometimes don't cross bridges, but they almost never burn them.

#88 Posted by BranKetra (49891 posts) -
Nintendo needs games for the Wii U in order to sell consoles. Also, the Nintendo Wii U could be doing better if Nintendo would improve marketing for the console.
#89 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6958 posts) -

Wii U isn't very good to be honest.

#90 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

i can't say i'd be disappointed if EA didn't put its sports games on any system, but they are part of a growing list of developers that don't think much of the system at a time when nintendo thought it would be at its strongest as far as support goes. i mean, this is the time when the wii u would have competitive hardware among consoles. it's hard to imagine developers really falling in love with the system once they start on ps4/infinity/pc multiplats.

oh, well. another nintendo console that only plays nintendo games. surprise.

#91 Posted by RandoIphF (271 posts) -
i mean, this is the time when the wii u would have competitive hardware among consoles.LoG-Sacrament
Yeah, they blew it. This period of time between the arrival of Wii U and PS4/Infinity was pretty much their prime opportunity to showcase that their system is a leap forward. Or a step forward. Or even an inch forward. By the time a game which actually showcases the fact that the Wii U hardware is technically more capable than PS3 and X360, no one will really care anymore. Especially since after this E3 PS3 and X360 are likely to be cheaper, and the gap between them and Wii U small enough to make Wii U look pretty much like exactly how it looks now, an overpriced piece of junk.