Yep.
People think B2B is all business.
It does not work that way at all. You will, and do see money left on the table due to companies dislike of each other and grudges run deep in certain industries!
-
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.
EA statement about Switch from their Q3 investor call
- Thread starter Naga
- Start date
People think B2B is all business.
It does not work that way at all. You will, and do see money left on the table due to companies dislike of each other and grudges run deep in certain industries!
I'm honestly surprised EA's licensors don't force EA's hand here. "Wait, the Switch sold how much last year? And you're not putting Madden/Star Wars on it?"
It's not that EA is more "profit-driven" than the other publishers. Activision and Bethesda and T2 are just as profit-driven and they put Diablo and Doom and NBA 2K on the Switch. It's that they're more risk-averse. But the problem with being risk-averse and only funding safe bets that you have huge expectations for is that you don't ever really have the opportunity to have surprise successes and you don't develop new markets. Maybe The Sims would do gangbusters on Switch, but EA won't ever know unless they try it.
There's a risk to having a lack of diversity in game development investments, just like all investments. EA has made assumptions about the business environment ("most Switch buyers have another console anyway") that might be true now, but the business environment can change. What if, in the future, a growing number of Switch buyers don't have an "HD console" to play EA games on? What if a lot of the growth in the overall gaming market comes from these people buying Switches, while the PS5 and XSX sell to essentially the same people who bought the PS4 and XO? What if adoption of the next-gen "HD consoles" is slower than expected? Those are all scenarios that could have a huge impact on EA's bottom line. They could be reactive and try to reconfigure their product mix, but it would take years for any changes to have an effect – whereas having a diversified product mix now would allow them to benefit no matter which way the wind blew.
It's not that EA is more "profit-driven" than the other publishers. Activision and Bethesda and T2 are just as profit-driven and they put Diablo and Doom and NBA 2K on the Switch. It's that they're more risk-averse. But the problem with being risk-averse and only funding safe bets that you have huge expectations for is that you don't ever really have the opportunity to have surprise successes and you don't develop new markets. Maybe The Sims would do gangbusters on Switch, but EA won't ever know unless they try it.
There's a risk to having a lack of diversity in game development investments, just like all investments. EA has made assumptions about the business environment ("most Switch buyers have another console anyway") that might be true now, but the business environment can change. What if, in the future, a growing number of Switch buyers don't have an "HD console" to play EA games on? What if a lot of the growth in the overall gaming market comes from these people buying Switches, while the PS5 and XSX sell to essentially the same people who bought the PS4 and XO? What if adoption of the next-gen "HD consoles" is slower than expected? Those are all scenarios that could have a huge impact on EA's bottom line. They could be reactive and try to reconfigure their product mix, but it would take years for any changes to have an effect – whereas having a diversified product mix now would allow them to benefit no matter which way the wind blew.
My quote function is all outta wack, sorry your msg is cut off.
Exactly, I mean I am not a CEO or have a business degree, but just looking at the history of the two companies and being in a position where I have been in on sales calls, and working with customers that have left and the effort to get them to come back (even without such a colossal boondongle as the "unprecedented partnership" fiasco) tells me all I need to know. I have also worked with vendors in my line that left extreme bad taste in my mouth, and even if it made sense to try them again, I didn't like how they handled things etc etc and makes me not want to work with them.
Also, the gaming industry is more personal than a lot of other industries I suspect.
This second paragraph is also a great point. I feel (this is just complete hypothetical on my part) that the younger generation is going to keep moving further and further away from the need to have a single devise attached to a TV. Tablets/Switch are going to remain very appealing to a larger and larger amount of people since they now can have comparable looking games. Ignoring this market is idiotic.
I'm wondering which will ever come first: A Mass Effect Trilogy remaster or EA actually having even the most basic competent support for a modern Nintendo system.
...Ha! Jokes on me; EA doesn't seem to care about either.
(let alone a Mass Effect Trilogy on Switch)
...Ha! Jokes on me; EA doesn't seem to care about either.
(let alone a Mass Effect Trilogy on Switch)
I mean, the story of the last few decades of technology has been all about "just good enough" mobile technology, dismissed by established players, going on to have disruptive effects.
Judging by this pattern, I think publishers ignore the Switch at their own peril, even if it's "just" HD and not 4K. I mean, I have a big TV, I have a PS4, and I play cross-platform games on my Switch all the time just because it's more convenient. I can envision a world where I don't even have a traditional television, and I'm a huge movie buff. That wasn't the case just a few years ago.
Doesn't matter if I believe it or not....EA believe it and if they think that there is not enough money for them...then that's it.
There is no reason to be an apologist...EA is not doing anything wrong, in the same way that many Dev do they're just prioritizing the platform that generate more money for them.
Microtransactions are such a fundamental part of EA's business now that I would be surprised if they weren't at least part of the explaination. It's gotten to the point where making a profit off game sales is presumably a secondary consideration to the potential for further monitisation. Maybe someone more versed in this stuff that me knows if there are any fundamental differences with how Nintendo treats third party microtransactions on their system as opposed to Sony & Microsoft? Even if they handle it exactly the same, I wouldn't be suprised if there is some underlying assumption on the publisher's part that microtranscations have much less potential to be profitable on Nintendo systems (due to demographics etc).
Okay you want to go there? Fine let's go there. I WAS kind. You honestly can defend EA's actions? Let's just get some of the highlights. (My intent is not to further demonize this company; they are good at doing that themselves as they always end up on the worst companies of the year lists....my intent is continue to discuss my disappointment in EA's philosophy for our industry, how they treat developers, the lack of creativity, putting profits over people, and the lack of creativity they nurture within their studios for the industry).
So ya...those highlights I spoke of.....
- No new "Street" series games
- No new EA BIG games
- No new development of Burnout IP (It's not NFS underground; it's not open world)
- No new development of Dead Space IP (It's not a co-op game; that's not scary)
- No new development of Wing Commander
- No remaster/remake of Simpsons Hit and Run
- No new development of Skate
- No new development of "Black"
- No new development of Road Rash
- No new development of Sim City
- No new development of SSX IP (It's about awesome tunes, crazy courses, insane air/tricks, and over the top characters, not realism)
- No support for Switch (largest portable gaming platform on the planet that isn't centered around lootbox/microtrans)
- A multiple studio closure graveyard that spans a decade (some honorable mentions; Pandemic, Black Box, Westwood, Visceral, and more...)
- The cannibalization of studios that used to create unique industry defining IP like Pandemic, Visceral, and Criterion that now only support their larger Brand IP's (obviously not the one's that have since been closed).
- EA's IP's have become stale, uninspired and developed around the mindset to only value the ability to monetize over entertain.
- Sitting on a TON of classic games that could be easily ported to Switch by third parties yet are not worth their time cause the math is chump change compared to jersey skins for madden or battlefield....etc.
- Cancelling the Star Wars game from Amy Henning and Visceral.
- Purchase of Respawn; a studio that made original content, developed their own IP with Titanfall, and has now handed them Star Wars (sure maybe they wanted to work on it...but now; will they ever get opportunity to create something that isn't Star Wars? Probably not).
- The Anthem disaster - no more needs to be said.
- The Battlefront lootbox disaster.
- The death of Mass Effect.
So um....ya I called them morons. It was kind, I easily could have called them worse with that wrap sheet.
You seem to be somewhat angry and full of negativity. Have you tried going out for a bit of fresh air? :)
Well of course they don't think there is ENOUGH money for them to forget about their past history with Nintendo and the bad blood that formed there. But it is also clear that there is a lot of money to be made.
The biggest issue is with their BS "reasons" they state. If they just came out and said something along the lines of "our current business philosophy and history with Nintendo does not allow us to believe there is a good business relationship to be formed at this time" then people would just move on with their lives. Or even "We do not feel there is a conducive business relationship to be created with Nintendo at this time due to internal reasons".
Its the BS reasoning they give that creates huge threads about it.
This is actually one of the most interesting inside stories that could be gotten by a reporter/journalist in the gaming sphere at this time.
What would be more interesting to read, the story behind the fallout between Nintendo and EA, or Retro not having anything to release for 6+ years.
What would be more interesting to read, the story behind the fallout between Nintendo and EA, or Retro not having anything to release for 6+ years.
This is to me always seem like something dreamed up by fans. There's no coincidence Sony and Microsoft have really similar consoles now and the future because 3rd parties can easily make games for both platforms. The moment Nintendo decides to go into a different direction that's when 3rd parties and they start to diverge. Nintendo is successful with the Switch regardless so it's not a bad decision, but their fans should stop blaming 3rd parties because Nintendo clearly chooses to go in a different direction.
Fellow developers can lash out at other developers, I don't feel that I did...just being honest.
EDIT: Im a fan of gaming in general. Its pretty easy looking at the history to see it no longer has anything to do with them going in a "different direction" since many other devs/publishers have had good/great success with traditional games on the system.
Im not blaming EA, Im not blaming Nintendo. No one needs to be at fault to say there is bad blood and bad history between the two companies that keep them from wanting to work together.
This rumor always gets brought up whenever the topic of EA and Nintendo comes up. It was never confirmed by anyone in the know, but it is probably false on simple account of EA never having the infrastructure needed to host a console's online. Third-party publishers do not want to deal with that type of stuff, it's why they're third-party publishers and not platform holders.
I'm actually a really nice guy, but I don't suffer fools Gladly, I have the utmost respect for Dice and it's developers. I DO take issue with CEO's that close development studios, lay off my friends, and give themselves million dollar bonuses in the process.
If that comes off as bitter/negative we will have to agree to disagree. Activision blew up our studio last year even though our relatively small team had made them millions. Instead of re-investing, they sent me and my friends to the dirt. Publishers should be held accountable for their poor business practices, and the standards they set for the industry. It's a cutthroat, what have you done for me lately, profits over people mindset that frankly should not be supported.
(edit for spelling)
Last edited:
off course no one knows for sure what happened, but SOMETHING went down between when the "partnership" was announced to the launch of the system. Something serious that has completely soured the relationship. It doesn't matter what it was (although the online thing is the only thing that has been rumored that makes sense), just that something did indeed go down.
NHL doesn't run on Frostbite does it? Would love to have that on Switch but I guess they feel it wouldn't sell enough.
I'm pretty sure 1995 wasn't the "dawn of time". NES and SNES were the go to machines for 3rd party content in their day.
I think EA published over 150 games between the Wii and the DS, so its not like they've always tried to starve them out, if thats what you mean? But what you say about personal feelings is true. People who run these companies are humans afterall, so feelings can play a role in the decisions there like with anyone else. The thing about EA and Nintendo though, is that there is no proof offered showing that theres any "bad blood" between EA and Nintendo. The closest thing is the rumor about that EA was supposedly set to run WiiU's online capabilities, and Nintendo refused that offer, but there is no confirmation about that. Even if that was the case, getting a proposal refused doesnt necessarily have to lead to grudges or anything like that. That said, its fair that people ask questions why EA isnt supporting the Switch more of course. Theres a reason for that whatever it might be, but it doesnt necessarily have to be about some bad relationship or grudge holding. EA said that they believe most people who own a Switch also own a PS4 or Xbox One for example, so that could be a reason why they think that adding a Switch version wont result in much more copies sold of a game.
it definitely doesn't HAVE to be about that, but it seems pretty indictive and compelling when that is when the support pretty much 100% dried up. SOMETHING went down between having an "unprecedented partnership" and then after that is was the ME3 boondongle. After that what else did they release? A late port of need for speed? Since then there has only been FIFA?
If they are using ME3 and a late port as their "research".... well that's all that needs to be said. I don't think they are that obtuse, everything around the saga just makes it look like something went down, and the two companies have zero interest in working together anymore. And I don't feel that reason is about potential sales, but something deeper and more personal.
EDIT: I would LOVE a "behind the scenes" article about the fallout between the relationship. I am surprised it has taken this long and still nothing conclusive.
It wasn't that uncommon, Street Fighter II was a top seller on the SNES for a long time, Ninja Turtles on the NES, Dragon Quest/Final Fantasy in Japan, etc. etc.
Nintendo's release schedule in 1993 for example for the SNES was Star Fox, Mario All-Stars (a compilation of older games) and like Yoshi's Safari (a Super Scope niche game) and basically that's it.
They used to release far fewer titles and 3rd party content would carry the platform.
What games on ANY system outsell Nintendo's first party output, outside of COD/GTA. Like if they were put on the XB/PS4 would they suddenly stop selling 10+ million? Those games would become the top sellers on any platform, and then would people be like "Oh we cant put this on PS because MK sells 20+ million and we cant beat that!"
EDIT: This point really needs emphasized. The fact they are the number one publisher on the system makes ZERO difference. If MK was multiplat, it would still sell 20+million. And Mario Odyseey would still sell 10+, Splatoon would still be huge. Those would be top sellers on ANY system. So if they were multiplat, would EA just be like "crap, now Nintendo is selling the best on every system, I guess we should just close up shop and close the business cause we just cant compete"
Other companies are still putting targeted resources into Switch. EA isn't, they're just keeping their one contractually obligated annual roster update going and letting indie partners who want to do ports themselves go ahead. That's the key difference.
EA are unlike every other major publisher on Switch. You're fundamentally wrong on this.
Last edited:
The original post I was
But it does make a difference or EA would be making more games for it?
The "unprecedented partnership" was most likely just a commitment from Riccitiello that EA was actually going to provide proper support to Nintendo for a change (given their rocky history). Once he left the company, his replacement saw no reason not to go right back to the status quo.
Or there they have a bad business relationship based on past experiences and aren't interested in trying to repair it, regardless if it makes money for them?
The "unprecedented partnership" might have been more of a "PR-speak" kinda thing, that EA was commited to make many games for the WiiU, like they did for the Wii. The WiiU didnt exactly sell that well almost pretty much from the start, so maybe that alone was an indication why support dried up fast, and this also lead to that EA was more sceptical about the Switch. Of course, its now been almost 3 years since the Switch was released, but if they werent prepared early on, maybe thats a reason why they didnt take the time and resources to port the Frostbite engine over to the Switch. But this is just speculation from me.
What was the ME3 boondongle? You mean that only ME3 was released on WiiU instead of the whole trilogy? If so, that could be due to that theres a lot more work to port three whole games instead of just one, especially when they were aiming for it to be a launch windows title.
But yeah, i agree that it would be great to have behind the scene look of what really went on. And i agree that EA could likely have success on the Switch with some of the titles. And who knows if theres any "bad blood" between EA and Nintendo. I just wanted to say that this doesnt neccesarily have to be the case. EA hardly supported the Vita either eventhough that they supposedly have a very good relationship with Sony for example.
They didn't go back to the Status Quo though. The Wii U and Switch have worse EA support than any other Nintendo system ever. It was that point where the relationship and games pretty much stopped.. There is most surely a story behind all of that.
If we wanna get real why not EA make a Mario sports game, best of both worlds. They had no problems teaming up for NBA Steet v3 on the GameCube, if they gave Nintendo a plan for a new Mario Basketball title I believe Nintendo would be more than happy to help.
Or football.
Or soccer.
Or baseball.
There's no excuse when Nintendo is letting indie devs have a field day with everything from Zelda.
Of course there is always a "might have been" something else. But all evidence points to something happening. EA already dropped the Wii U previous to its launch and the system didn't show signs of noteworthy bad sales until februaryish after it launched. The numbers at launch weren't horrible.
They released ME3 port for $60 when all the other systems were getting all three for the same price. Not a hard reason to see why the sales sucked. The only other thing they released was the NFS port, which was late, and agreeably didn't sell well. But they didn't have anything else announced for the system at that time anyways, and it was obvious something had already happened prior to that.
EDIT: They did release a "legacy" version of madden I think too, using the old engine, but there were issues with that also I think I remember. I could be wrong on that one.
It's possible, but I don't think shareholders care about hurt feelings : )
Yeah, its possible that something happened, i just dont think theres enough evidence to say that these things are about some grudge holding. And you're right that the WiiU launch wasnt exactly horrible, but it wasnt exactly great either, from what i remember.
And yeah, i hope that EA didnt expect big sales for the ME3 WiiU release hehe :P And sometimes ports are more expensive than the other system. That happened with Doom for Switch as well (Doom Switch launching for $60 eventho that the game was much cheaper on other platforms at that time, even if its not an official price drop from the publisher). I'm not sure why EA went for a $60 price tag for ME3 WiiU however. $40 might have been more fitting.
Well, its possible that EA had other WiiU projects planned, but that were cancelled after seeing the hardware sales. But its also possible that they didnt have more games planned even before the WiiU launched. Its impossible to say for sure without first hand information.
Shareholders don't run the company. But its also why shareholders are asking WHY nothing is being developed for the switch.. cause they probably feel not making anything for the hottest selling system with a 50+ million install base is a questionable decision.
The evidence is all reading between the lines and making a educated guess. Same way we don't know exactly what went down at Retro, but surely there has been at least one cancelled game.
WiiU launch was good, but not ungodly, but not bad either. And they probably could have gotten away with $60 for ME3, if they didn't launch a bundle of ME1-3 for the other systems at like the same time. Doom I feel sold good cause it was surprising, impressive for a port, and the switch offers something you cant get on the PS4/XB1, portability. A hook that the WiiU didn't have.
This is all theory and hypothetical, I just wish the story finally came out, cause there is something that happened.
EDIT: I would add that EA's constant shifting of the reason they aren't doing it doesn't help it look like its NOT something personal.
Last edited:
This "Nintendo games sell the most on Nintendo system, so we can't compete with them" is an old strawmen wide spread by detractors in order to antagonize and "justify" decisions to ignore third-party support for Nintendo hardware. Ostracizing Nintendo's third-party support is pretty much an upgrade to the old "Nintendo is kiddy" bias, a marketing phrase created by Tom Kalinske, from Sega of America, and later followed by Sony, in the 90s, in order to hit Nintendo's public image and cannibalize it's market.
Nintendo's competitors are very aware they need and depends their whole business on third-party support to move units and don't have a strong enough first-party catalog to move on their own. They need to keep out third-party as far away as possible from Nintendo, because if Nintendo is able to have full third-party, along with their strong first-party offering, it might jeopardize their whole business stand.
It's crucial for Sony, for example, to have the biggest third-parties under their wings. They'll never survive only with their own first-party offering. Actually, not even Nintendo can, we can see how well it turned out for them in Wii U.
Third-party support is actually like a Go match, you need to conquer as much as possible territories to win the match. This is how it works for the gaming biz.
Why people keep saying...."There is a lot of money to make" did anyone have evidence for this or is forum/ console warrior talk?
EA response was pretty damn clear, there is no evidence to talk about bad relationships between both companies or any crazy theory...is just bussines...
I guess that we should think the same of every mobile game company that is not interested in put their games outside IOS/Android ?
EA response was pretty damn clear, there is no evidence to talk about bad relationships between both companies or any crazy theory...is just bussines...
I guess that we should think the same of every mobile game company that is not interested in put their games outside IOS/Android ?
Nobody can really confirm any bad blood expect for speculation. I find it weird how can people say it so definitively.
The evidence is pretty much every other publisher putting games on the system being happy with the sales?
Popcap games and things like PvZ and sims almost surely would sell great.
I think its because it is no small difference. The gap between third party and first party games is abysmal
Well when Nintendo has the biggest selling games in the industry that's to be expected when zelda is over 10mil, pokemon over 15, mk over what 20+ now? If your saying "if I cant sell 10mil + I'm not gonna bother" you have a pretty sad buisness practice.
The evidence would be, well, basically every other major publisher committing comparably much more resources to Switch. And about every minor one and most indies too.