Topic: EA against Wii U

I agree. There's no way any one of us can accurately assess what really happened between Nintendo and EA. We weren't there and can only try to imagine what went on behind closed doors. It's all conjecture. To accuse Nintendo of lying is simply an emotional opinion and nothing more.

To back EA up a bit, you have to admit, you can't blame them for not planning a bunch of games for a system that has a low install base. Yes, software drives hardware sales, but I believe that the hardware makers bears most of the burden in developing their install base. Each console maker has 1st party and 2nd party developers - those studios should have incredibly strong showings at a console's debut to build their install base. Nintendo missed that with the Wii U, and now you really can't blame 3rd parties for steering clear until things look a bit better. If I'm in the business of selling some of my own items in stores and need to make a certain amount of money per month to stay afloat, I'm going to sell at the stores that I know people visit and I know I can make money. I might take a few chances here and there, but not in an economy like this one. EA is doing the same.

Can you imagine 70 or 80 dollar games with additional dlc on top of that? Whew! I remember buying N64 games for 65 or 70 bucks. Didn't matter to me because the games were amazingly worth it, and I only bought a few games a year anyway. Folks that buy multiple games monthly might be screwed pretty good though.

Fact: Wii didn't have half of those and did just fine
Fact: EA is slowly falling into a quicksand situation with its consumers
Fact: EA's CEO resigned a midst all of this
Fact: EA released a half-donkeyed port of FIFA 12 as FIFA 13 on Nintendo's console alone...for some stupid reason
Fact: EA released Mass Effect 3 instead of the trilogy on Wii U and were disappointed in its sales
Fact: EA put little effort in its Wii games and blamed the Wii for bad sales (despite other 3rd parties succeeding)

Do we REALLY need them?

There is a way such a thing could work, though. People already buy season passes for various games.
EA wants to charge more for their games, and that could be fine as long as they show more support by means of monthly DLC that are treated as regular updates.
I would buy a $70 game if I don't have to buy DLC for the game ever. The difference is that they're getting the extra $10 right off the bat to use.
It's interest. You give EA $10 now, you get $15-20 worth of DLC later.
That's one way it could work.

EDIT: As for EA's attitude as of late, I don't care if they support Wii U or not. I'll buy their games if they aren't trash. Until then, get it together EA.

And that's exactly how EA is going to transition and "train" us for 80-dollar games. Mark my words. They will release Battlefield 4 this year in two ways: the "regular" game that includes all multiplayer maps and modes on day 1 for 70 bucks, and a "gimped" version that doesn't include anywhere near the full amount of multiplayer maps/modes/items/etc. for 60 bucks. Most people will look at the two copies and say "meh, might as well just pay an extra 10 bucks to get everything I need," and EA will have "proven" that the market is ready for 70-dollar games again.

I already paid $90 for a NFS:MW download anyway... EA can go and shove their games up a shiz pipe for all I care

Do we need EA?

Ok, i can do fine without EA

Where are those titles:
Bioshock Infinite
Witcher 3
New Elder scrolls title
Grand Theft Auto V
Wolfenstein New Order
next XCom TBS game

right now only Nintendo and Ubisoft are making games for wii u and thats disaster

One guy said Wii U where "U" means Ubisoft lol.

Dude your talking to a brick wall. For most of these guys even if they're one console owners Nintendo games token third party support is all they need.

They 'aint training me. What is the deal with these games like Battlefield and Call of Duty? How long before you shoot your mind away. I have such difficulty playing these games. The only shooters I ever dug were Perfect Dark, and Timesplitters. There's something about simulating army combat that disturbs me. I mean, if you want to shoot people that much and plan out extensive battle plans, why not join the army? Sorry about ranting on this, but I have an unemployed neighbor that has a couple of loose screws constantly playing Battlefield and COD, and whenever I see him, he can't seem to transition to reality.

no you're not talking to a brick wall, you people are just ignoring the last 15 years of Nintendo history. The are certain rules you have to accept when you buy a Nintendo machine. Besides, if you could get all the Nintendo games plus all the big third party games on WiiU, who would buy the other consoles?!

I don't feel trained. I wait till the game goes on sale like smart people. lol

If you're not patient enough to do so, that's fine, but then you can't really complain about the cost. Its not like you're unsure if the game will ever drop in price.

According to this logic, PS3 and 360 sales should be a lot more lopsided.

Considering there are still great differences and the other platforms have their own exclusives (sometimes more), plenty of people would still buy other consoles.

Fact. Not many third partys did very well on the Wii, the Wii was a success for Nintendo and just and carnivale games and not all that much else, Wii wasn't a viable platform for many third party games. It's a fact that Nintendo won't get the same casual crowd to buy a Wii U this time. Saying the Wii survived without a third-party company and bringing it up with the Wii U is invalid because the Wii had extremely lucky conditions for Nintendo.

But this time they are looking for support from gamers who want to play GAMES unlike Mom's who only care about Wii Fit.
No more fancy Wii Remote controls. I don't want to play Nintendo and 3rd party games with Wii Mote ever.

I've heard that Pikmin 3 in Japan sold (by now) 22k Wii U's unlike 8k Before Pikmin 3 (i don't know for what period they are talking about)
There may be hope for sales... and maybe support from 3rd party developers.

That's nice. But a large portion of 15 million Battlefield 3 copies sold will probably say otherwise about the majority of video game consumers. As I said. Just wait and see. For the most part, the people posting on this forum are NOT the target audience for CoD and Battlefield. Many of us actually dislike the games.

And you can always complain about the cost. That's your right as a consumer. Prices will of course, drop. I know that just as well as you. But to ignore initial prices rising would be folly.

If a large portion of consumers buy the product irregardless of price, the price is not a problem. Your logic is the same used by people saying Apple products are overpriced. If the price needs to fall, it will, and has in the case of certain Apple products.

That's the great thing about a free market. The market decides what price is right. If EA sells games just fine at a higher price, that's not an issue. Don't buy the game if you don't like it.

People always feel as if products should be priced according to what they can afford. Sorry, but gaming is an expensive hobby and if prices are too high for you, either wait for a sale or entertain another hobby.

To be honest some EA games are really worth $$$. My brother has played hundreds, maybe even more than thousand of online matches of FIFA 13, spent maybe few hundreds of hours online... divide that with 80$ and ask yourself is it worth..... of course some of them are!!

@AlexSays
If everyone had that attitude about game sales, a game would never go on sale for the right reasons. Games get sales because they've already sold enough copies, or can't sell enough.
People have to buy games in order for them to go on sale. If a game doesn't sell, it goes on sale for the wrong reasons. They're selling themselves short.

As for 3rd party support, I really do want some of them, but it's not really my decision obviously. The stereotypes are pretty disappointing to hear, because I know plenty of people who bought the Wii for only the hardcore games.
Basically everyone I knew had Zelda, Mario(Kart), MadWorld, Sonic, Zack and Wiki, RedSteel, etc.
Also, everyone I knew had like 2 Xbox 360 consoles laying around, a Wii, and everyone got PS3 systems the latest in the generation.

No kid in the world could afford a PS3 when it came out. The only real option for plenty of people was a Wii(if they could find one), or a $200 Xbox 360 arcade or whatever.

Oh I completely agree

If you love Battlefield and plan on playing it for hundreds of hours, what is another 20 bucks? Not bad at all. Same goes for their sports games like Madden. Those games have endless replayability.

Scar, I can't even do this with you. lol

The market determines the price of games and nearly every other product. If the price is too high, it will be lowered or the product will suffer. If you have trouble understanding how a free market economy works on a more complex level, you'll have to find someone with a little more patience to explain it to you.

Edit: I think the problem lies within your neglect of the difference between lowering a price and putting something on sale. Unless you're referring to my personal view of usually not purchasing games until they go on sale, in which case, I don't care whether or not they go on sale for 'the right reasons'. If its a good game, it'll most likely receive sufficient sales. Its not my responsibility to purchase games at full price due to some moral obligation.