For what it's worth, their perspective does make sense. Next-gen usually means that you have to utilize new specs in order to make games work. You don't really need to do that when it comes to the Wii U, since many already-existing engines work on it and are fairly utilizing its power.

However, why should we care?

It doesn't really matter anyway, they'll be porting all their sports games regardless. If they want to leave the FPS market on the system to Activision and COD then that's their problem.

Other than missing a possible Mirror's Edge 2 (which I would then just get for the PC), there isn't much EA is putting out that I want.

I.. I dont think "We don't consider it a next gen console" means "We won't support it anymore because it sucks"... But that's just me.

It doesn't.

It does however mean that EA's planning on investing in "next gen" development that excludes the Wii U. Which means that EA games will either be feature-stripped ports, or the company will skip porting some games entirely.

So, just like the Wii. Potentially.

However, why should we care?

Contrary to popular belief (well, amongst Nintendo peeps, anyway) EA doesn't actually suck. It makes good sports games, and it owns Bioware. It also publishes some excellent games from third parties (Kingdoms of Amalur, for instance).

People seem to care when tiny indies selling a couple of thousand games a year at best sing the praises of the Wii U. I would have thought what the second biggest publisher in America has to say about the Wii U would be relevant.

I'm glad WaltzElf continues to show how much better he is than the rest of gaming journalism by spending his time with obvious flamebait threads.

ZZZZZZZZZ

Which means our lives won't change in any way in that regard, I guess.
That bit wasn't directed at you though. Just in case.

Pretty sure that belief is popular outside this particular fanbase too.

The reason the Internet threw a massive entitled tantrum over Mass Effect 3 was because the Internet was in love with the franchise like it was a private Miranda Kerr show.

Same goes for Dragon Age II, actually.

And FIFA sells like a billion copies each year now.

People either don't genuinely hate EA, don't realise they're buying EA or are hypocrites.

Except on Nintendo platforms. All credit to Nintendo peeps for actually sticking to what they believe in, EA games really don't sell well on Nintendo consoles.

Eh, people that are going to be interested in those products are going to own system(s) that EA puts their games on (like me. I don't really care about the crappy stuff they do if it's not really a hinderence on my gaming experiences). As you said yourself, Nintendo peeps just don't seem to care about EA's games. So I don't see why we should care. I was pretty sure it was going to be this way from the start. It's amazing to me that EA is even bothering to put out the newest Need for Speed game on the system, to be honest.

I'm sorry EA feels that way.

And the Wii U sells three million units in the first two months. Looks like they're on target

Maybe we should summarize EA's strategy with the Wii. Why don't you do the honors Waltz? Perhaps you can give us some examples of EA's great attempts at cashing in on the Wii and why they failed

It definitely isn't a good publisher if that is the case. Most of its sports games have changed almost nothing about themselves from iteration to iteration (with one literally not changing a thing), it has standardized putting a $10 online pass in every game it puts out (even in games that have no online components), and it has almost ludicrously high sales expectations for its current games which will most likely not be achieved (example; Dead Space 3). And let's not forget EA is now adding microtransactions to Dead Space 3, a game that already costs $60 get access to.

EDIT: EA may put out good games, but EA is not responsible for the quality of those games. From what I see, EA doesn't actually care whether or not those games are good but rather if they sell.

What I read is that you can get more content by buying the game new (where did you get $10 from?). I don't think that's a bad thing, just an incentive to buy the game new instead of used

1) EA has been doing a lot with the FIFA series in recent years including an entirely new physics model. Just because the Wii U port was minimal (not worth doing much more than that with such a low install base, frankly) doesn't mean the series itself is stagnant
2) The Amalur Online Pass was for DLC quests etc. I'm certain that EA's not the only one doing DLC.
3) I'm also not sure how escalating production costs are EA's fault. Call of Duty needs to sell bucketloads to generate a return on investment, too. Throwing in optional microtransactions/ DLC makes a lot of sense to me, since EA surely knows that Dead Space 3 isn't going to make a fortune solely on retail sales.

I think EA gets unwarranted hate, but they have done stupid things in the past that I find difficult to forgive. I think I'm the only one who still remembers they used to heavily overwork their employees to meet unreasonable deadlines, only to put out buggy games that had to be patched later anyways, because they're employees were too tired to code correctly. And that's just one example. I get the feeling that's becoming the norm, too...

I'd say something more on-topic, but Moomoo already said everything worth saying.

All good points and another reason why I hope 2k unleashes a NFL football game this year . I enjoy some of EA's franchise but def not a deal breaker imo. Is a shame that they are speaking publicly if they feel this way.

You know what would be a great ideal....... how about Nintendo inking a deal with Valve and that Steam Box ? Could you imagine Zelda and Mario on Steam and Big Picture mode Wii

Crunches are very common, if not unavoidable, in any white collar profession. I've done 36-hour work sessions too.

It's generally the difference between shift work and deadline-based work. The flipside of the coin that is rarely mentioned is that when there are no deadlines looming people tend to have a pretty easy time of it.

The deal with the online pass is that every new copy of an EA game comes with a brand new code that can be used to play that game online. However, once that code is used, that code is gone forever. If the first buyer sells their game and another gamer buys that copy of the game second-hand, that second purchaser has to pay EA $10 to get another online code so that they can play that copy of the game online.

And the problem is?

Does this mean no console before the PS1 and N64 existed? o_o