• EA changes their story on why they are not making Games for the Wii U: 'online engagement too small,
    76 replies, posted
[quote="Game industry Interview"] "We were there with four games for them [at launch]. It's been a disappointment when you look at sell-through and, as a company, we have to be very judicious where we deploy our resources. [B]The lack of online engagement that we see on Wii U [is troubling]. It's so integral to what we do. They're so small it's hardly worth running the servers. It seems like a box that's out of sync with the future of EA - which is one that gives a real social feel to our games. The Wii U feels like an offline experience right now."[/B][/quote] [url="http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-07-08-does-nintendo-stand-a-chance-this-holiday"]Source[/url]. The article mainly discusses the current situation with the 3rd party relationship with Nintendo, but they do interview Peter Moore for this, and gives us a new reason why EA isn't making games for the Wii U. What ever his true motivations are, changing his story doesn't help the rumors.
Breaking news: companies don't want to support devices that aren't profitable.
Shut the fuck up, EA. You've done offline games in the past, so I don't see why you can't continue to make them.
What's wrong with offline games?
EA needs to stop changing their stance on the Wii U and if they are/aren't developing games for it. They've changed their story about five times already.
[QUOTE=Ezhik;41362338]Breaking news: companies don't want to support devices that aren't profitable.[/QUOTE] If they really feel that way they should go outright and say that. They keep changing there story so much it isn't funny.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41362360]What's wrong with offline games?[/QUOTE] Fuck if I know, ask EA, they're the people who calls out crap like this. "Future of EA" my ass, if EA want a future (at least on PC), it would have to be offline, but as far as I know EA it will most likely be given through paid DLC.
You know, EA, not everything has to have a multiplayer experience
there's that fucking experience buzzword again
Like Reggie said, maybe companies should try to make better games. Here's looking at you, EA.
We had amazing games in the past when online wasn't even a thing Jeeze
I really fucking hate this SOCIAL MULTIPLAYER ONLINE bullshit that they're adding to every single fucking game nowadays. I, and with me many others, don't give a single fuck about online/social bollocks. We just want to play a game.
Nothing is wrong with offline, EA just focuses online play, and there's nothing wrong with that just as much as there's nothing wrong with offline play. If they don't want to make games for the Wii-U for a completely valid reason, then good, the Wii-U can die for all I care anyway, move out of the way for the major consoles. [editline]8th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BuffaloBill;41362490]I really fucking hate this SOCIAL MULTIPLAYER ONLINE bullshit that they're adding to every single fucking game nowadays. I, and with me many others, don't give a single fuck about online/social bollocks. We just want to play a game.[/QUOTE] This makes no sense at all, there's nothing inherently wrong with social/multiplayer/online play, and if all you want to do is "play a game", then you shouldn't be buying games that have features that you somehow have managed to hate without even trying them just because of their connectivity.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;41362490]I really fucking hate this SOCIAL MULTIPLAYER ONLINE bullshit that they're adding to every single fucking game nowadays. I, and with me many others, don't give a single fuck about online/social bollocks. We just want to play a game.[/QUOTE] Are you surprised? With the backlash against blocking of secondary sales, an online component is the surest way for a company to encourage people to hang on to their game rather than play it once and immediately sell it to someone else.
Nintendo consoles have never really been about the "online experiences" to begin with. Sure the Wii had online capabilities and from what I can remember it wasn't all that great, yet EA kept making games for it. I don't see why now they're suddenly concerned about a console not being 100% online oriented.
[QUOTE=Makol;41362620]Nintendo consoles have never really been about the "online experiences" to begin with. Sure the Wii had online capabilities and from what I can remember it wasn't all that great, yet EA kept making games for it. I don't see why now they're suddenly concerned about a console not being 100% online oriented.[/QUOTE] Because it has been some time, and internet connectivity has become MUCH more important not just in video games, but in every single way that the internet could POSSIBLY be implemented.
Here's an idea. If the online community feels dead, do something about it rather than ignore it.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41362563]This makes no sense at all, there's nothing inherently wrong with social/multiplayer/online play, and if all you want to do is "play a game", then you shouldn't be buying games that have features that you somehow have managed to hate without even trying them just because of their connectivity.[/QUOTE] What kind of dumb statement are you trying to make? He says he dislikes it, yeah, should he be forced to stop his hobby because the dominating, sheep-crowd-focused companies force this SOCIAL MULTIPLAYER ONLINE thing for every game? It's really obvious where he's coming from anyway.
their story :eng101:
[QUOTE=Makol;41362620]Nintendo consoles have never really been about the "online experiences" to begin with. Sure the Wii had online capabilities and from what I can remember it wasn't all that great, yet EA kept making games for it. I don't see why now they're suddenly concerned about a console not being 100% online oriented.[/QUOTE] The thing is that the Wii U does have good groundwork at the moment, but not enough people are using it because of a low adoption rate.
[QUOTE=g1real;41362725]What kind of dumb statement are you trying to make? He says he dislikes it, yeah, should he be forced to stop his hobby because the dominating, sheep-crowd-focused companies force this SOCIAL MULTIPLAYER ONLINE thing for every game? It's really obvious where he's coming from anyway.[/QUOTE] I guess there is nothing that can be done if someone has convinced themselves that something is bad, even if it isn't. Change isn't always a bad thing, but unfortunately, people seem to operate as if it's always the worst thing ever. The only problem we have is the implementation may be lacking, but even as far as implementation goes I think it's pretty good.
[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;41362691]Because it has been some time, and internet connectivity has become MUCH more important not just in video games, but in every single way that the internet could POSSIBLY be implemented.[/QUOTE] Ok. But we're talking about consoles here, not how the internet is important in everything else. The Wii U has online capabilities and Nintendo this time around is taking advantage of that compared to the Wii where it seemed to be more of an after thought. While EA is saying it's an offline experience because the community is small then they are right, but using that as a reason to not develop games is silly. If they just say they're holding off and waiting for sales to increase then that would make more sense but they aren't saying that. Instead they are constantly changing their story for not developing games while at times saying they are making games. EA needs to make up their minds. Ubisoft was at least honest about their stance on the Wii U and is holding off on making other exclusive games like Zombi U 2 which was apparently in the early alpha stages earlier this year, but will keep making non-exclusives for the console like Assassin's Creed 4 and Watch Dogs. Nintendo and their partners who are making exclusives, Platinum Games for example, will drive up sales later this year and next year. If all goes well then the Wii U will have a much larger community and then maybe EA will finally decide what they're actually going to do with the console and their games. In the end the Wii U is not a dead console, and it's definitely not the next Dreamcast like people like to say it is. It was just a console with a poorly timed release and a weak launch, but with the right support things will indeed pick up. [QUOTE=catbarf;41362599]Are you surprised? With the backlash against blocking of secondary sales, an online component is the surest way for a company to encourage people to hang on to their game rather than play it once and immediately sell it to someone else.[/QUOTE] Or they could make a game good enough that people wouldn't want to trade in. Ever wonder why most of the time Nintendo games always have higher prices for their used games compared to other first party titles on other consoles? Today I picked up Killzone 3 for $11 used while Mario Galaxy 2, which is only a year older and strictly single player with a weak coop mode, is going for $45 used. People hardly ever trade in Nintendo games since they keep replaying them because they're well made and some how make players hold on to them for years.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41362360]What's wrong with offline games?[/QUOTE] - more obvious if you put DRM on it - can't sell it as an ~expanding experience~/put a strong emphasis on DLC or microtransactions for MP player progression systems - can't make it look like part of a bigger lineup (like the Origin store) - don't have as much direct control and feedback over user behavior, tho I doubt they actually shut down servers to get people to finally move to the sequel ^all maybes, I'm not even sure myself. I mean I can see how MP is rather tasty from a business perspective - give people a fuckton of grind and they'll play the same 4 maps for hours and maybe buy some boosts or cosmetics on the way - but I don't see how the WiiU gets in the way of it. Actually haven't bought an EA game in ages, are they more strongly tied to Origin or something? I could see for example how Valve would be pissed if their games would have to run without the overlay that silently invites people into the Steam's other features that can lead to the store or friends learning of possible purchases because of what their friends are playing. He mentions Sports games in particular, never touched those, can someone else take a guess? [quote] "We must find a way to ensure the creativity of those games could have a big enough audience" - [b]UbiSoft[/b] "It's been a disappointment when you look at sell-through" - [b]EA[/b] "[b]Activision[/b], also, was a notable launch partner for the Wii U, but like Ubisoft, the results haven't been strong enough to justify a notable further investment in the system." "Because there's no software that's simple and obvious for people as 'Wii Sports' for [demonstrating] the Wii, potential consumers do not even feel like trying to touch the Wii U." - [b]Nintendo[/b][/quote] These make much more sense. Nintendo doesn't know what the WiiU's for, customers don't, thing doesn't sell, publishers get off the sinking ship.
i think they're just worried godzilla might attack them over crappy games now, it makes about as much sense as all their other excuses
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;41362914] These make much more sense. Nintendo doesn't know what the WiiU's for, customers don't, thing doesn't sell, publishers get off the sinking ship.[/QUOTE] Except both Activision and Ubisoft are still making games for the console but as many as they for the PS4 and Xbox One. Which is funny since EA said the same thing not too long ago but now they changed their story once again.
[QUOTE=Makol;41362967]Except both Activision and Ubisoft are still making games for the console but as many as they for the PS4 and Xbox One. Which is funny since EA said the same thing not too long ago but now they changed their story once again.[/QUOTE] Alright, scratch the last part then that was my conclusion anyway. Makes much more sense that the one quote on MP to me.
[QUOTE=Sableye;41362945]I think they're just worried godzilla might attack them over crappy games now, it makes about as much sense as all their other excuses.[/QUOTE] Funny thing is that most of the recent games they have published are crappy because they are online or include microtransactions in paid games.
[quote]The lack of online engagement that we see on Wii U [is troubling]. It's so integral to what we do. They're so small it's hardly worth running the servers. It seems like a box that's out of sync with the future of EA - which is one that gives a real social feel to our games.[/quote] This is bullshit. Anyone who owns a Wii U knows that the online experience found within Wii U is not just integral, but borderline necessary towards truly experiencing the Wii U. The moment you log into your console, you're greeted with hundreds of Miis telling you what they're saying and drawing in the Miiverse. And the community there is thriving like crazy. The Miiverse is so incredibly popular, Nintendo is actually giving users more advanced drawing features in order to further refine their work. What EA is really saying is that they don't see a future in a console that doesn't want to do Origin. That's the bottom-line. EA is trying to pressure Nintendo into using Origin, and Nintendo is flat-out refusing. No wonder why EA is pissed off.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41362360]What's wrong with offline games?[/QUOTE] The Kinect sports sales have a projected profit margin of 3 cents more per unit. The WiiU is an unprofitable platform and we will not stride to ever make a game for it until we get our 3 cents back with a marginal profit of a cent. Then we shall conclude that the Kinect is an unprofitable platform. In short, money happened.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;41362914] - can't sell it as an ~expanding experience~/put a strong emphasis on DLC or microtransactions for MP player progression systems [/QUOTE] DLC already exists in the eShop.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.