-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Does EA actually "hate" Nintendo?
- Thread starter Soapbox Killer
- Start date
The Switch has a large audience. I am a part of that audience. However, would I buy a watered down version of something like Jedi Fallen Order? Absolutely not. I would much rather play that on the PS4. I own a Switch to play the excellent first party games and the odd exclusive third party game. There is a reason EA isn't releasing their games on the Switch and it is because they remain unconvinced that their games would sell well enough to justify the effort.
There could be a magnitude of reasons they don't put their games on the Switch, but I don't think hate is one of them.
Example 1.) Maybe EA doesn't think Nintendo's online presence is good enough for their (predatory) micro-transaction based business model
Example 2.) Maybe EA doesn't (or possibly can't) upgrade the Frostbite engine to convert something that runs x86 code to an ARM based CPU
Example 3.) Maybe EA thinks that with the 'sunsetting' of this generation and the power gulf between the next generation, that down-porting a game might be too much work
Example 4.) Maybe EA doesn't think that the Switch's overall presence in North America has surpassed that of the Xbox One
Example 5.) Maybe EA doesn't have an IP that it sees worthwhile making on the Switch
Example 6.) Long stretch, maybe EA doesn't have the actual workforce to split into more divisions to focus on the switch
Example 7.) Maybe EA actually believes in the "Switch Owners probably have a X1/PS4/PC anyways" and thinks they are getting the sale anyways
Example 8.) Maybe EA fears Nintendo's first party games might cannibalize their game sales (***very long shot***)
Who knows?
Example 1.) Maybe EA doesn't think Nintendo's online presence is good enough for their (predatory) micro-transaction based business model
Example 2.) Maybe EA doesn't (or possibly can't) upgrade the Frostbite engine to convert something that runs x86 code to an ARM based CPU
Example 3.) Maybe EA thinks that with the 'sunsetting' of this generation and the power gulf between the next generation, that down-porting a game might be too much work
Example 4.) Maybe EA doesn't think that the Switch's overall presence in North America has surpassed that of the Xbox One
Example 5.) Maybe EA doesn't have an IP that it sees worthwhile making on the Switch
Example 6.) Long stretch, maybe EA doesn't have the actual workforce to split into more divisions to focus on the switch
Example 7.) Maybe EA actually believes in the "Switch Owners probably have a X1/PS4/PC anyways" and thinks they are getting the sale anyways
Example 8.) Maybe EA fears Nintendo's first party games might cannibalize their game sales (***very long shot***)
Who knows?
It's harder for them to exploit people with their live service bullshit on the switch so they ignore it
Origins, according to the rumor. Basically the eShop would be Origins storefront, with EA also taking a cut from sales. Back then it was what started the whole "unprecedented partnership". Then by next E3, Nintendo already had different plans and EA was relegated to a quick trailer of Mass Effect 3 which even Reggie pointed out that the mention "would make EA happy".
How much of that if any is truth, nooone says. Like with Amazon during the 3DS were Amazon started sending new units back to Nintendo as faulty just to get a full credit because the 3DS wasn't selling...nothing official has ever been said about it.
I get the impression EA cares more about loot boxes and MtX than they do box sales. There must not be as many whales to hunt on the Switch?
Still give us a fucking NHL game please.
Still give us a fucking NHL game please.
I'm not speaking for EA, and I don't actually know the numbers, but I think it's important to define "sold well" and measure that against what "well" might look like for EA.
For example, you can have a simple JRPG sell 50k units, and that might look quite well for someone like Idea Factory or NIS, but can you imagine if Madden sold numbers like that?
Okay YOU own a Switch just for 1st party games, but what I'm saying is the audience has already proven that they desire 3rd party games very similar to EA's offerings on Switch, and that they would choose the Switch versions over, or in addition to the other versions. Likely because of the flexibility of having a handheld mode. This isn't in question at this point, there is a healthy audience for core 3rd party games on Switch. EA doesn't have to go after that if they don't want to, but there's enough data to prove that effort put into the system could prove lucrative.
Rival companies can hate each other.
This isn't that type of situation but it's not as peculiar as you perceive it to be.
What type of 3rd party game? The kind of game that EA makes? How certain are you that there is a lucrative market for them on the Switch? Especially when you consider the effort it would take to pare these games down, yet still keep them palatable, for the Switch. I remain somewhat doubtful...
Thank you for coming into this thread and sharing your insight. I totally get what you are saying about defining success. My follow-up is: Are there people at EA who think a Madden game would sell only 50k on Switch? If so that might be the problem.
I know I would buy a new Madden to play in portable. And it would compete with nothing. There are zero American football games on the platform. I have a hard time thinking that a Madden port (even a Legacy Edition type) would sell well enough it be worth doing. Then again, how much would a Madden game need to sell to make it worth doing?
I know you probably can't say too much. But again thank you for you input.
Their games post-GC era looked purposefully messed-up in order to get an excuse to get out, and even if you look at games like FIFA 16 or the Switch versions, these are minimal effort and quite honestly looked put together by people who just wanted to go back to do microtransactions and shitty dlc.
Maybe no hate, but they do not seem to be able to nickle-and-dime the user base as easily, so they balk out.
Maybe no hate, but they do not seem to be able to nickle-and-dime the user base as easily, so they balk out.
OP
OP
I didnt take it person at all, I was just curious since the Switch seems to be more of a success than the Xbox One currently and there are other same gen ports. Also, Capcom have many more games on Switch.
Did you miss the quotation marks around hate?
I'm doing my research, it called ResetEra. A community of knowledgeable gamers and thinkers that may have the answer to questions that google my lack the subtleties resolve.
Who knows. If you examine the differences between them you can see a lot of circumstantial stuff that would explain why EA wouldn't bother to put its games on Switch. Personally I think it at least makes sense to put Madden on Switch as well as FIFA, if only because a lot of people could see the appeal of portable FIFA and Madden.
I personally find the rumor that EA wanted Origin to basically control Nintendo's online service a pretty big reach, but EA has a history of getting what it wants with platform holders. This goes at least as far back as SEGA agreeing to let EA manufacturer its own Genesis/Mega Drive cartridges, or Microsoft letting EA run its online games on Xbox Live through their own servers, then you had what happened with EA games on Steam. EA really likes having as much control over its own games as possible compared to how other third parties deal with platform holders. I could imagine a mentality like that repeatedly butting heads with a Kyoto company like Nintendo. So maybe something did happen between them in regards to the Switch, but I still don't believe anything as drastic as EA wanting to basically build Nintendo's online infrastructure for them.
It might be that the Switch's platform isn't as conducive to service games with microtransactions, but then again you've got games like Fortnite and Overwatch on Switch.
For everything outside EA Sports games though, tech pretty much explains it. It's probably the same reason Capcom isn't really on the Switch -- Capcom kinda stumbled into this console generation until now where it's gained a good footing on some successful releases running on RE engine, which isn't a good fit for the Switch.
I think more generally though, Nintendo and EA are just diametrically opposed in terms of where gaming should go. EA is all about service games with massive budgets, and profits over most else. Nintendo is more about making toy-like experiences with relatively modest budgets and somewhat efficient development most of the time, and seems to have some kind of moral core that is at least different from EA's.
I personally find the rumor that EA wanted Origin to basically control Nintendo's online service a pretty big reach, but EA has a history of getting what it wants with platform holders. This goes at least as far back as SEGA agreeing to let EA manufacturer its own Genesis/Mega Drive cartridges, or Microsoft letting EA run its online games on Xbox Live through their own servers, then you had what happened with EA games on Steam. EA really likes having as much control over its own games as possible compared to how other third parties deal with platform holders. I could imagine a mentality like that repeatedly butting heads with a Kyoto company like Nintendo. So maybe something did happen between them in regards to the Switch, but I still don't believe anything as drastic as EA wanting to basically build Nintendo's online infrastructure for them.
It might be that the Switch's platform isn't as conducive to service games with microtransactions, but then again you've got games like Fortnite and Overwatch on Switch.
For everything outside EA Sports games though, tech pretty much explains it. It's probably the same reason Capcom isn't really on the Switch -- Capcom kinda stumbled into this console generation until now where it's gained a good footing on some successful releases running on RE engine, which isn't a good fit for the Switch.
I think more generally though, Nintendo and EA are just diametrically opposed in terms of where gaming should go. EA is all about service games with massive budgets, and profits over most else. Nintendo is more about making toy-like experiences with relatively modest budgets and somewhat efficient development most of the time, and seems to have some kind of moral core that is at least different from EA's.
Because it's insulting for 42 million Switch owners to be considered non gaming audience. Power has nothing to do with it, majority of Switch owners aren't even big Nintendo fans. They're there to play some console quality gaming on the go as the Switch is the only portable system right now. It's a system that can run every PS360 gen HD game portably, it's natural to for Switch owners to expect to try the best franchises that gen got on a portable system.
EA not supporting Switch means it's impossible to experience Mass Effect, NFS, NFL and The Sims (not F2P thing) on the go. That's a big miss.
It's going to be weird when the upcoming remasters skip Switch and it's odd Madden skips it, but otherwise, I'm not surprised.
I don't work in analytics or anything, so I wouldn't have any info to share even if I could. Bu we do have lots of people who do look into things like numbers or opportunity assessments or this type of thing.
I'm just saying that what another company considers sold well might not be what EA would consider sold well.
It's fine, I can't really think of anything I would want from EA anyway. Maybe port the original Mirrors Edge.
I read that 80% of software sold on switch are Nintendo first party games.
Add to the fact that EA has lots of GAAS games where they want you to be online all the time and spending money, so they probably don't see it as a good use of their manpower and time.
So because you don't play multiplat games on the Switch companies shouldn't release them?-
As a bit of an outsider looking in (I don't happen to care for or really play any of their games for whatever reason) but an avid gamer, it's hard not to see that EA as a company really struggles to create strong, technically proficient software engineering teams. Is that a fair statement?
As far as I can tell their most technically impressive games-- Battlefield and Battlefront-- are all built by DICE. The rest of their portfolio has never come across as even solid technically, has it?
This is the company that just, for the fourth time in a decade, failed to even ship an NBA game on their preferred platforms. Knowing that, I could see leadership saying 'sure it'd be great to put Madden on Switch' but then realizing that they'd have an extremely hard time building out a solid engineering team that could deliver high quality on Switch. And they've already admitted that they can't seem to get Frostbite running on Switch, which is pretty embarrassing given the technical marvels that other developers have shipped on Switch (DOOM, The Witcher 3, etc etc).
Based upon that, I think there's a chance that they are self-aware enough to know that they can't bring their top titles to Switch at high quality, and don't want to risk putting out poorly-reviewed versions of their top titles. It would seem kind of defeatist, but perhaps a bit of an honest assessment by leadership of their capabilities.
As far as I can tell their most technically impressive games-- Battlefield and Battlefront-- are all built by DICE. The rest of their portfolio has never come across as even solid technically, has it?
This is the company that just, for the fourth time in a decade, failed to even ship an NBA game on their preferred platforms. Knowing that, I could see leadership saying 'sure it'd be great to put Madden on Switch' but then realizing that they'd have an extremely hard time building out a solid engineering team that could deliver high quality on Switch. And they've already admitted that they can't seem to get Frostbite running on Switch, which is pretty embarrassing given the technical marvels that other developers have shipped on Switch (DOOM, The Witcher 3, etc etc).
Based upon that, I think there's a chance that they are self-aware enough to know that they can't bring their top titles to Switch at high quality, and don't want to risk putting out poorly-reviewed versions of their top titles. It would seem kind of defeatist, but perhaps a bit of an honest assessment by leadership of their capabilities.
Yes. That is exactly what I said. You aren't disingenuously distorting my argument, you interpreted it accurately and reasonably. I am the entire Switch market and I have spoken.
To me it feels like leaving money on the table. Games like the Sims surely have an audience on Switch. Plants vs Zombies? Shit EA could even copy what Disney just did with Aladdin/Lion King and port Theme Park/Theme Hospital and they would make bank.
If they don't have the resources to port some of their more popular games, we now have a slew of port factories like Panic Button and Saber Interactive who are making a name for themselves by getting games many would think impossible to run on Switch performing to acceptable standards. Surely the ROI would be there to chuck some of their sports titles or Star Wars games their way.
Speaking of Star Wars, it feels like a missed opportunity not to release a Star Wars game on a Nintendo system when in days gone by Nintendo used to be the home of Star Wars. Rogue Squadron anyone?
I understand EA thinks they are making an astute business decision in avoiding the Switch and if anything it's a small risk for a company that is showing itself to be risk averse, but for me it's leaving money on the table.
If they don't have the resources to port some of their more popular games, we now have a slew of port factories like Panic Button and Saber Interactive who are making a name for themselves by getting games many would think impossible to run on Switch performing to acceptable standards. Surely the ROI would be there to chuck some of their sports titles or Star Wars games their way.
Speaking of Star Wars, it feels like a missed opportunity not to release a Star Wars game on a Nintendo system when in days gone by Nintendo used to be the home of Star Wars. Rogue Squadron anyone?
I understand EA thinks they are making an astute business decision in avoiding the Switch and if anything it's a small risk for a company that is showing itself to be risk averse, but for me it's leaving money on the table.
No I didn't, but it's the very notion of ascribing feelings to EA, even if it's apathy that the OP is actually implying. Not developing stuff for the switch a purely logical decision for their shareholder value, likely stemming from their ip pipeline, focus on live, and development strengths.
Video gamers are the only group which thinks companies don't hold "grudges" or have issues with other companies. All you hear is "its only business!" Hell some of the greatest stories of the 20th century came from company rivalries and outright hatred of another company. Of course, something happened (probably Origin) and EA has since then decided they don't fuck with Nintendo other than bare bones/contractually obligated stuff.
Just for reference, this is Ford vs GM: "
Ford famously took stabs at GM's government bailout in its advertisements once the automaker got back on its feet following bankruptcy. Ford CEO Mike Farley was also as saying "F— GM. I hate them and their company and what they stand for."
GM Chief Executive Dan Aversion also spoke out about Ford's Lincoln brand in 2011 saying, "They are trying like hell to resurrect Lincoln. Well, I might as well tell you, you might as well sprinkle holy water. It's over."
So yes companies can "hate" other companies.
Just for reference, this is Ford vs GM: "
Ford famously took stabs at GM's government bailout in its advertisements once the automaker got back on its feet following bankruptcy. Ford CEO Mike Farley was also as saying "F— GM. I hate them and their company and what they stand for."
GM Chief Executive Dan Aversion also spoke out about Ford's Lincoln brand in 2011 saying, "They are trying like hell to resurrect Lincoln. Well, I might as well tell you, you might as well sprinkle holy water. It's over."
So yes companies can "hate" other companies.
EA has always been a rather conservative company. If they're happy with the way things are they're not going to budge and they're not going to go out on a limb to support something new and risky.
It's not really specific to Nintendo. Their PSVR support is barely there as well. When Microsoft was trying to pitch Xbox Live back in the day EA was the biggest company who wasn't interested.
Ubisoft is sort of their mainstream opposite in that regard. Ubisoft will usually try to be onboard for anything new or different just in case it takes off.
If Nintendo made a console that fit what EA does at the moment EA would go there. Otherwise they couldn't care less. This is the company who has somehow convinced PopCap to develop Games as a Service multiplayer shooters this generation. That's EA in a nutshell.
It's not really specific to Nintendo. Their PSVR support is barely there as well. When Microsoft was trying to pitch Xbox Live back in the day EA was the biggest company who wasn't interested.
Ubisoft is sort of their mainstream opposite in that regard. Ubisoft will usually try to be onboard for anything new or different just in case it takes off.
If Nintendo made a console that fit what EA does at the moment EA would go there. Otherwise they couldn't care less. This is the company who has somehow convinced PopCap to develop Games as a Service multiplayer shooters this generation. That's EA in a nutshell.
They don't develop an audience on the system, then justify not bringing games because there's no audience on the system.
I honestly don't give a shit as I haven't played an EA game since forever, but I guess that's how they see things.
I honestly don't give a shit as I haven't played an EA game since forever, but I guess that's how they see things.
Madden would sell more than 50k on Switch, that's a really dumb comparison. Would it sell less than PS4/Xbox One versions? Sure, probably. Enough to be worth doing? Also probably.
But companies are run by people, people who do feel emotions like hate and annoyance. Of course, companies can "Hate" others. Hell, i even gave you an example.
They failed to cultivate any audience on nintendo systems for over a decade. They are so poorly diversified portfolio wise and set on such tightly scheduled yearly releases, all on the back of a complicated engine that they doubled in on. It's not that they hate Nintendo, it's that they can barely afford to expand and take risks. They spent the last 2 generations retracting while Ubisoft and Activision grew and grew. They read their business bruises like amputated fingers and can't grow past it.
It's hard for them to break out of that cycle and I doubt even if the switch and Wii/u were more powerful, that would have changed at all. They don't see an audience there, because they never bothered to build one, thus why bother spending the resources and marketing across years to make get it. It's all self fulfilling.
It's hard for them to break out of that cycle and I doubt even if the switch and Wii/u were more powerful, that would have changed at all. They don't see an audience there, because they never bothered to build one, thus why bother spending the resources and marketing across years to make get it. It's all self fulfilling.
Switch is one of my primary platforms, and I'm not interested in virtually anything* from EA, so...well, I guess you can't fault their consumer data here.
* With the possible exception of a few ports of some of their older games. Being able to play, e.g., Mass Effect or Mirror's Edge on the go would be pretty cool
* With the possible exception of a few ports of some of their older games. Being able to play, e.g., Mass Effect or Mirror's Edge on the go would be pretty cool
