EA: Nintendo is too kiddy for us. We don't make kiddy games

  • 176 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by -Damien- (5086 posts) -

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/446277/blog/nintendo-must-reinvent-itself/

"It became a kids IP platform and we don't really make games for kids. That was pretty true across the other labels too. Even the Mass Effect title on Wii U, which was a solid effort, could never do big business, and EA like Activision is only focused on games that can be big franchises".

wow they can't be more blunt than that

#2 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6534 posts) -

Yeah, EA sucks.

#3 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (1763 posts) -

@-Damien- said:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/446277/blog/nintendo-must-reinvent-itself/

"It became a kids IP platform and we don't really make games for kids. That was pretty true across the other labels too. Even the Mass Effect title on Wii U, which was a solid effort, could never do big business, and EA like Activision is only focused on games that can be big franchises".

wow they can't be more blunt than that

Yes. Even Call of Duty Ghost sold only 0.33% on Wii U while 99% on Xbox One, PS4 and PC

So yeah, every shooter, hardcore or great multiplatform game flops on Wii U. So why make games on Wii U when Nintendo fanboys only care about Mario And Zelda and buys nothing else?

Nobody make game on platform that gives you loss.

#4 Edited by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

@-Damien- said:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/446277/blog/nintendo-must-reinvent-itself/

"It became a kids IP platform and we don't really make games for kids. That was pretty true across the other labels too. Even the Mass Effect title on Wii U, which was a solid effort, could never do big business, and EA like Activision is only focused on games that can be big franchises".

wow they can't be more blunt than that

By that logic EA, you shouldn't have thrown a game out for 3DS and Wii either, you hypocrites.

#5 Posted by Heil68 (42443 posts) -

lol, that was rather blunt.

#6 Posted by freedomfreak (37947 posts) -

Ouch. That was a bit too direct.

#7 Posted by locopatho (20032 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

lol, that was rather blunt.

I know right? Harsh but somewhat refreshing that they are being honest.

#8 Edited by DocSanchez (1360 posts) -

At the end of the day it's a business decision and you can't blame them. Pretty blunt but the truth is better than a coddling lie.

#9 Posted by Heil68 (42443 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

lol, that was rather blunt.

I know right? Harsh but somewhat refreshing that they are being honest.

I think we're going to do a podcast on this subject this Thursday...you free and want to join?

#10 Edited by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@Heil68 said:

lol, that was rather blunt.

I know right? Harsh but somewhat refreshing that they are being honest.

How? They call the Wii U a "kids console" and yet somehow, someway, the 3DS and Wii (which they did recently release a game for) are not? This isn't honesty, this is hypocrisy.

@DocSanchez said:

At the end of the day it's a business decision and you can't blame them. Pretty blunt but the truth is better than a coddling lie.

Then why did they still release a Wii and 3DS game?

#11 Edited by super600 (29841 posts) -

The WiiU version of Mass Effect 3 was not a solid effort. EA destroyed Mass effect 3's sale potential on the WiiU when they announced that trilogy complation for the 360,PS3,PC.And the game was kinda expensive.Also NFS Most Wanted U failed to because it was not a solid effort either even though it was the closest to one. EA also has produced kids games in the past couple of years.Also the article is pretty good even though that quote from an EA source was the worst part of the article. I agree with almost everything the article said.Nintendo does have the potential to modernize their company into something that fits the current video game market, but with their own idenitity.

#12 Posted by g0ddyX (3864 posts) -

EA speak the truth.
They have made some of the best games last gen and will continue to do so next gen.

Suddenly, some people are hating EA now lol.

#13 Posted by lundy86_4 (42537 posts) -
  1. Don't make kiddy games.
  2. They've made a number of kid friendly games. Granted, not as much anymore.
#14 Posted by Desmonic (12327 posts) -

EA should just be honest and admit they don't want to put in the effort simply because it won't sell. Using this crappy "kiddy" excuse is just dumb.

#15 Posted by Seabas989 (9924 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

EA should just be honest and admit they don't want to put in the effort simply because it won't sell. Using this crappy "kiddy" excuse is just dumb.

^This and I can't blame them because it wouldn't sell.

#16 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6534 posts) -

@g0ddyX said:

EA speak the truth.

They have made some of the best games last gen and will continue to do so next gen.

Suddenly, some people are hating EA now lol.

EA's last good game was Dragon Age Origins.

#17 Posted by DocSanchez (1360 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: Why did they still release 3DS games and wii games? Probably because they hadn't learned the lesson yet with wii. I think the handheld market is entirely different and I have no idea whether their games sell on 3DS but if they don't I suspect, like with everything else, they will weigh up the cost of porting a game over against the likely sales.

Make no mistake about it: If EA thinks they can make tons of money by investing in Wii U, they invest in Wii U. There are more diplomatic ways of telling people that, but its a truth nonetheless. Their games sell atrociously on Nintendo main consoles.

#18 Edited by lundy86_4 (42537 posts) -

@g0ddyX said:

EA speak the truth.

They have made some of the best games last gen and will continue to do so next gen.

Suddenly, some people are hating EA now lol.

Suddenly?

Suddenly?

#19 Posted by FreedomFreeLife (1763 posts) -

Wii U

Sniper Elite V2 - 10 000 copies

Deus Ex: Human Revolution - 40 000 copies

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist - 50 000 copies

Madden NFL 13 - 70 000 copies

Resident Evil: Revelations - 80 000 copies

Mass Effect 3 - 110 000 copies

Call of Duty: Ghosts - 120 000 copies

Batman: Arkham Origins - 140 000 copies

So yeah, all those games flopped on Wii U.

No point to make big games on Wii U when nobody buys and making you loss

#20 Edited by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: Why did they still release 3DS games and wii games? Probably because they hadn't learned the lesson yet with wii. I think the handheld market is entirely different and I have no idea whether their games sell on 3DS but if they don't I suspect, like with everything else, they will weigh up the cost of porting a game over against the likely sales.

Make no mistake about it: If EA thinks they can make tons of money by investing in Wii U, they invest in Wii U. There are more diplomatic ways of telling people that, but its a truth nonetheless. Their games sell atrociously on Nintendo main consoles.

I don't blame EA if they feel their products won't sell. What I do blame them for is picking a statement that makes them look like hypocritical morons, and recently throwing a 3DS and Wii (two consoles that are seen as "kiddy" as any other Nintendo system) version of one of their sports titles justifies it.

Using a statement like that isn't the truth. If they would really tell the truth, they would just say "we don't see any Nintendo system as a profitable platform" and leave it at that.

#21 Posted by Sword-Demon (6843 posts) -

I hate when companies blame the market when their ports/spinoffs don't sell.

The reason ME3 didn't sell was because everyone already bought it, not because Wii U owners only like kiddy games.

Capcom pulled the same s*** on the Wii. They "tested the waters" by releasing a crappy RE rail shooter, then claimed a real RE game wouldn't sell when no one wanted it.

I swear some devs/pubs are retarded - they're the ones who decide who the system appeals to, not the console maker. If they want it to appeal to core gamers, then they should be putting core games on it. Instead, they've already made up their minds about what it is and refuse to make it any more appealing to their audience.

#22 Edited by DocSanchez (1360 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: They're a business. What does it matter if they release wii games at this stage? They obviously see a profit in it that isnt there for wii u. That's a none issue.

#23 Edited by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

Wii U

Deus Ex: Human Revolution - 40 000 copies

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist - 50 000 copies

So yeah, all those games flopped on Wii U.

No point to make big games on Wii U when nobody buys and making you loss

That was Square Enix and Ubisoft's fault. Square Enix charged $50 for the Wii U version of Human Revolution for no good reason, especially since all the content of that version was on the other systems (which were cheaper on the PS3 and 360) anyway.

Splinter Cell was released at an awful time and bombed on ALL consoles, not just the Wii U. Why? That, and Rayman released around the same time as GTA V.

#24 Posted by MFDOOM1983 (8453 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@Heil68 said:

lol, that was rather blunt.

I know right? Harsh but somewhat refreshing that they are being honest.

How? They call the Wii U a "kids console" and yet somehow, someway, the 3DS and Wii (which they did recently release a game for) are not? This isn't honesty, this is hypocrisy.

@DocSanchez said:

At the end of the day it's a business decision and you can't blame them. Pretty blunt but the truth is better than a coddling lie.

Then why did they still release a Wii and 3DS game?

Games were already in the pipeline, minimal costs to develop/publish and higher potential sales. Wii-U games don't sell and cost more to produce.

I think this post from Neogaf sums it up nicely.

People who dismiss specs with the "Graphics don't matter"-argument miss the point. Developers already moved their development processes and tools from current-gen to next-gen (and probably mobile). Long-term support for another current-gen system like the Wii U would disrupt this organizational situation and introduce unproportional costs. Entire games had to be redesigned from scratch to be implementable on the Wii U, since even core gameplay of next-gen games will rely on the processing power and memory capacity of those systems. Why would any developer do that?

#25 Edited by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

@nintendoboy16: They're a business. What does it matter if they release wii games at this stage? They obviously see a profit in it that isnt there for wii u. That's a none issue.

Yet, that statement somehow signifies that "kiddie games/systems" aren't profitable to them (as the Wii and 3DS are signified under similar reception). Are you pretty much saying that EA's double standards are okay? Because you seem to be brushing that off quite easily.

#26 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (3196 posts) -

EA is dumb.

#27 Posted by Suppaman100 (3507 posts) -

I like their honesty.

And hey, it's true.

Ninty = kiddie crap

Inb4 butthurt sheep

#28 Edited by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

@MFDOOM1983 said:

@nintendoboy16 said:

@locopatho said:

@Heil68 said:

lol, that was rather blunt.

I know right? Harsh but somewhat refreshing that they are being honest.

How? They call the Wii U a "kids console" and yet somehow, someway, the 3DS and Wii (which they did recently release a game for) are not? This isn't honesty, this is hypocrisy.

@DocSanchez said:

At the end of the day it's a business decision and you can't blame them. Pretty blunt but the truth is better than a coddling lie.

Then why did they still release a Wii and 3DS game?

Games were already in the pipeline, minimal costs to develop/publish and higher potential sales. Wii-U games don't sell and cost more to produce.

I think this post from Neogaf sums it up nicely.

People who dismiss specs with the "Graphics don't matter"-argument miss the point. Developers already moved their development processes and tools from current-gen to next-gen (and probably mobile). Long-term support for another current-gen system like the Wii U would disrupt this organizational situation and introduce unproportional costs. Entire games had to be redesigned from scratch to be implementable on the Wii U, since even core gameplay of next-gen games will rely on the processing power and memory capacity of those systems. Why would any developer do that?

"Being in the pipeline" and "costing less on the previous gen platform/current gen handheld" doesn't stop them from being hypocrites for making that statement.

#29 Posted by super600 (29841 posts) -

The article talks about nintendo's future to TC.

#30 Edited by MFDOOM1983 (8453 posts) -

@DocSanchez said:

@nintendoboy16: They're a business. What does it matter if they release wii games at this stage? They obviously see a profit in it that isnt there for wii u. That's a none issue.

Yet, that statement somehow signifies that "kiddie games/systems" aren't profitable to them (as the Wii and 3DS are signified under similar reception). Are you pretty much saying that EA's double standards are okay? Because you seem to be brushing that off quite easily.

You're really grasping at straws here. EA feels that the games that they currently have in development for consoles/PC has limited appeal on Wii-U. This is based on their own software's sales on the platform and every other 3rd party title that has performed horribly. Perhaps this person at EA should have said low-skilled gamers like Iwata implied when he stated that competitors are targeting high skilled players and they weren't this past holiday season with titles such as: Mario, Wii fit and Wii sports. You're getting caught up on the word kiddy, instead of the underlining problem that Wii-u games don't sell and cost too much to make.

#31 Posted by DocSanchez (1360 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: I'm neither brushing it off nor engaging with it. Talks of double standards in this area are for hurt feelings, and they are irrelevant. I'm talking in terms of business, which is what EA is.

I've already said they could be more diplomatic.That doesn't change the cold hard fact that not releasing anything on wii u is a good decision for them. And if they are releasing on wii still, there will be a reason for that.

#32 Posted by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

@DocSanchez said:

@nintendoboy16: They're a business. What does it matter if they release wii games at this stage? They obviously see a profit in it that isnt there for wii u. That's a none issue.

Yet, that statement somehow signifies that "kiddie games/systems" aren't profitable to them (as the Wii and 3DS are signified under similar reception). Are you pretty much saying that EA's double standards are okay? Because you seem to be brushing that off quite easily.

You're really grasping at straws here. EA feels that the games that they currently have in development for consoles/PC has limited appeal on Wii-U. This is based on their own software's sales on the platform and every other 3rd party title that has performed horribly. Perhaps this person at EA should have said low-skilled gamers like Iwata implied when he stated that competitors are targeting high skilled players and they weren't this past holiday season with titles such as: Mario, Wii fit and Wii sports. You're getting caught up on the word kiddy, instead of the underlining problem that Wii-u games don't sell and cost too much to make.

I'm not ignoring the fact that EA and many other third parties are having struggles selling their games on Wii U, but I'm calling EA out for showing their hypocritical stance on the matter, and you seem to be giving them a pass for it.

#33 Posted by Boddicker (2241 posts) -

@g0ddyX said:

EA speak the truth.

They have made some of the best games last gen and will continue to do so next gen.

Suddenly, some people are hating EA now lol.

Suddenly?

Suddenly?

That was neckbeards expressing their disapproval of the ME3 ending lol

#34 Edited by V3rciS (2207 posts) -

EA released only Mass Effect 3 and didn't even bothered to port the first two games... Mass Effect is a game where you have to play the previous installments in order to progress the game story properly and understand what's going on. So were they really expecting it to sell?

#35 Edited by PhazonBlazer (11343 posts) -

#36 Edited by Boddicker (2241 posts) -

Ouch.

Nintendo really needs to change their image for their next console or it may be their last.

#38 Posted by MFDOOM1983 (8453 posts) -

@nintendoboy16: Yea, because associated costs with developing on a console with historically low software sales has nothing to do with their current support, or lack there of. 3ds and wii games are relatively cheap to make with limited risk. "Became" implies change. Perhaps that change never took place with 3ds and WII, and EA found out the hard way that games that target an older demographic have limited appeal on Wii-U, which is only amplified by the small userbase.

Seems like EA hurt your feelings.

#39 Posted by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

Ouch.

Nintendo really needs to change their image for their next console or it may be their last.

Which won't happen. The only way they can "change their image" is by killing off Mario/Zelda/Pokemon, and even that will start up a s*** storm from their own fandom.

#40 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (6783 posts) -

@-Damien- said:

..."Mass Effect title on Wii U, which was a solid effort, could never do big business".

THAT sentence shows just how out of touch EA is. Lemme get this straight, you release the last entry in a trilogy, which many believe to be the weakest in the series on the Wii U, while in the same month offering the ENTIRE trilogy bundled for other platforms for the same price and announcing that there are no plans to bring future DLC to the Wii U, and you have the audacity to bitch about sales? Would you buy the version of a product that gives you worse value than on other platforms? One that lacks features, DLC, and is sold for a higher price? No? Then why the fuck would anyone else buy it??

The Wii U version of Mass Effect 3 is ridden with bugs and is severely underpatched. Lob that into the pile of reasons why many people didn't buy it. I have it. I've beaten it several times. Wii U specific features are nice, but that was never enough to save it from crappy business decisions on EA's part. The game never had to crash and burn like it did.

#41 Edited by Boddicker (2241 posts) -

@Boddicker said:

Ouch.

Nintendo really needs to change their image for their next console or it may be their last.

Which won't happen. The only way they can "change their image" is by killing off Mario/Zelda/Pokemon, and even that will start up a s*** storm from their own fandom.

You're of course right. It's hard to see what Ninty's next console can offer beside these staples.

#42 Posted by Martin_G_N (1682 posts) -

This is business, it's nothing personal towards Nintendo. If it were MS or Sony that was'nt selling consoles and games, EA would have dropped them aswell.

Nintendo put themself in this position by developing two consoles that are'nt developer friendly, bad third party support due to low processing power, and the kids games image. They were lucky with the Wii in terms of sales, but they can't trick people twice.

It's important that consoles continue to increase in processing power as the technology gets more advanced.Nintendo tries to hold everything back, which is wrong. Developers want to work with new and powerfull tech, and we gamers want new tech that improves games.

#43 Posted by DocSanchez (1360 posts) -

@PhazonBlazer: Haha. That was a classic. All of the problems with the wii u spelled out in one advert. They had learned nothing.

#44 Posted by nintendoboy16 (25697 posts) -

This is business, it's nothing personal towards Nintendo. If it were MS or Sony that was'nt selling consoles and games, EA would have dropped them aswell.

Nintendo put themself in this position by developing two consoles that are'nt developer friendly, bad third party support due to low processing power, and the kids games image. They were lucky with the Wii in terms of sales, but they can't trick people twice.

It's important that consoles continue to increase in processing power as the technology gets more advanced.Nintendo tries to hold everything back, which is wrong. Developers want to work with new and powerfull tech, and we gamers want new tech that improves games.

Sure it isn't personal, considering they also say that "Nintendo is dead to them" before they make that damn statement. Explain how that isn't personal?

#45 Posted by StrongDeadlift (5124 posts) -

"EA SUCKS. We dont even want their shitty games on the Wii U!!!!* "

*or Activision, Square Enix, Eidos, Take Two, Rockstar, Konami, or pretty much EVERY publisher except Ubisoft.

#46 Edited by no-scope-AK47 (2638 posts) -

EA preach on brah can I get a amen.

#47 Posted by treedoor (7478 posts) -
#48 Posted by DocSanchez (1360 posts) -

@StrongDeadlift: I predict you'll be throwing in Ubisoft before long. Every time a developer or publisher says something similar the rhetoric is the same. "we don't need blahsoft they suck!"

#49 Posted by I_can_haz (6370 posts) -

Ouch, TSHBO

#50 Edited by Shinobishyguy (22299 posts) -

This reeks of self fulfilling prophecy bullshit.

"Mass effect was a major effort guys, dumping the game in the wii u at full price with none of the collector edition content was really hard work"