News Article

Talking Point: Nintendo Should Make EA Co-operation a Priority

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

Whether we like it or not

Let's say something right off the bat — we expect a number of readers will have read that headline and scoffed audibly, confidently saying that this article is deranged and already wrong. EA isn't exactly flavour of the month, and is at the time of writing a semi-final candidate to once again be crowned as the "worst company in America", the headline grabbing poll by — the developer/publisher won the accolade in 2012 after a quarter of a million votes were cast.

In reality, that poll arguably gets more attention than it deserves — it was widely reported in the mainstream gaming media last year — as it's not exactly a reasoned, sensible result. Yes, it's a public vote, but online votes are often hijacked by tech-savvy, social network-connected groups with various agendas keen to make some kind of point; any serious analysis of the "worst" companies in the U.S. in terms of moral and ethical failures wouldn't be led by a video game company. The title that it dishes out has little basis in the real world.

That said, EA continues to anger the gaming community in various ways; as one of the biggest publishers in the world it's under a lot of scrutiny with every move, and some of its actions have undoubtedly represented greed and cack-handed strategic missteps. PC gamers were frustrated by the disastrous launch days of the always-online SimCity, where servers were barely functional for days and a free game was given as appeasement. The company's Origin platform is unpopular with many — particularly in cases where registration is needed to enjoy a game properly — while its attitudes to DRM (digital rights management) and DLC (downloadable content) can sometimes be regarded bluntly as cynical cash-grabs. Then there's the list of small developers arguably ruined or shutdown by EA takeovers, or acquired franchises that dive off in new directions, disappointing fans in the process.

A large number of these gamer grievances are entirely relevant and fair, and EA has paid the price with bad PR and disappointing financial results. EA isn't exactly unique in this, either, with other publishing behemoths like Ubisoft and Activision also being open to accusations of cynical practices or a disrespect for gamers. Big companies strive to make big money, and they often play dirty to do just that.

A key difference with Ubisoft and Activision, from a Nintendo perspective, is that they are still relatively active on the Wii U; Ubisoft is bringing multi-platform blockbusters such as Watch_Dogs and Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag to the system, while Activision is yet to visibly back away (admittedly with some games not brought to Australia), though the reveal of its latest Call of Duty title will be telling. Both are the keepers of some of gaming's biggest selling franchises, and have so far followed up launch day support with additional titles, despite sharing their disappointment at Wii U's sales performance so far.

EA, in a number of respects, have been making different noises. The now-former CEO John Riccitello said the following at the start of February.

Having said that, I wouldn't say that we see a correlation between the results that Nintendo has shown with their console début of the Wii U and what we see coming. We see a pretty sharp distinction, and unfortunately I'm unable to go any further than that.

Ours is an industry where a lot of devices come in and represent themselves as the next generation, or the next generation after that. In many ways we would argue that the what we're describing as "gen 4" is yet to come. It's that that we're excited about, and that's what we're investing in. And frankly, we've been quite consistent with that for some time, while recognizing the frustration our inability to articulate precisely why causes for you.

In more recent times, Chief Operating Officer Peter Moore outlined the company's home console development priorities, with his word-choice leading some to believe that Wii U is almost entirely off the table.

The console business is still a core part of our business; it's the majority of our business. The demise of console gaming is very premature as far as we're concerned.

We still have thousands of people focused on developing current-generation Xbox 360 and PS3 games, as well as people focused now on the next generation when that finally arrives. And so, people still want core games. People want to sit back in their living rooms, take advantage of their HD TVs, and and play fully immersive games like [Battlefield 4].

Of course, Battlefield 4 isn't coming to Wii U, and we're yet to see whether the next entries in major franchises such as FIFA and Madden will come to the system; both seem likely based on past history, and yet pre-orders for Madden 25 are currently only open for Xbox 360 and PS3. Combine the Wii U absence with the comments coming from the very highest level within EA, and these are worrying signs. The concern is that Criterion's Need for Speed Most Wanted U could be the extent of major post-launch EA support for the platform.

Of course, we should acknowledge that the company has often given Nintendo gamers the short end of the stick; FIFA 13 on Wii U was more like FIFA 12.5, and the less said about the shameful yearly FIFA clones on Wii the better. But if EA does back away from Wii U in a comprehensive way, Nintendo loses market share of some of the industry's highest grossing products. Below are the top 10 selling games in the UK and US for 2012, sourced from and The Guardian respectively; those from EA are in bold.

US top 10 sellers of 2012:

1. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Wii U)
2. Madden NFL 13 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Vita, Wii U)
3. Halo 4 (Xbox 360)
4. Assassin's Creed 3 (Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Wii U)
5. Just Dance 4 (Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PS3)
6. NBA 2K13 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PSP, Wii U, PC)
7. Borderlands 2 (Xbox 360, PS3, PC)
8. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PC)
9. Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes (Wii, Xbox 360, NDS, PS3, 3DS, Vita, PC)
10. FIFA 13 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Vita, 3DS, Wii U, PSP)

UK top 10 sellers of 2012:

1 Call Of Duty: Black Ops II (Activision)
2 FIFA 13 (Electronic Arts)
3 Assassin’s Creed III (Ubisoft)
4 Halo 4 (Microsoft)
5 Hitman: Absolution (Square Enix)
6 Just Dance 4 (Ubisoft)
7 Far Cry 3 (Ubisoft)
8 FIFA 12 (Electronic Arts)
9 The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda)
10 Borderlands 2 (2K Games)

In fact, if you go down to the top 20 in the UK, EA has a further four titles in 11th, 13th, 14th and 17th places. EA isn't the dominant force that it once was, as this analysis of "generation" sales by Gamasutra demonstrates, but it's undeniably still a significant power in the industry. Even with its questionable behaviours, mistakes and actions to irritate a lot of gaming enthusiasts, it's performing strongly with its key franchises in the mainstream market.

We're unlikely to ever know how relations deteriorated from EA appearing on Nintendo's stage at E3 2011 and promising an "unprecedented partnership", to the current scenario where it appears to be walking away from Wii U entirely. Whatever the reasons, we suggest that it's important for Nintendo to explore its options to ensure, as a minimum, that the biggest selling EA franchises arrive on Wii U in some form. That also applies to other big players such as Activision, Ubisoft and Square Enix.

We've argued on this site that the Wii U's greatest strength may be in attracting and encouraging innovative, unique content from the indie-community up to medium-sized publishers, especially as it faces a tough challenge attracting gamers to play major third-party blockbusters on the system. It does have a fight on its hands in that area, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't compete, with a big test coming with the Wii U performance of aforementioned titles such as Watch_Dogs.

Nintendo's system has plenty going for it and it's anticipated that big first-party games could give it the major boost in momentum it needs, but casually dismissing the loss of titles from the likes of EA would be a mistake. A lot of us love playing the latest Zelda epic or something entirely different from the eShop, but perhaps a number of gamers will also want the chance to play decent Wii U versions of FIFA, Madden and other EA franchises that routinely sell millions of copies around the world. Their loss wouldn't be anyone's gain.

From the web

User Comments (163)



DePapier said:

I'll rant first, I'll read after.

HELL NO. F*** NO. We don't be no h*** at Nintendo, anybody willing to crawl at EA's feet can do so on their own and should not encourage Nintendo fans to do the same.

That was my honest and humble opinion. Feel free to edit it.



ThomasBW84 said:

@DePapier May I humbly suggest the reverse approach, read then rant? I do acknowledge and emphasize some of the many reasons why many dislike EA, but I also look at a broader picture



SkywardLink98 said:

Whether we (you) like it or not, EA games sell and because of that Nintendo will need their support if they plan on coming out on top this generation.



Squiggle55 said:

I would prefer that Nintendo encourage companies to release original games on their system, especially indie devs. Sony has the right idea now with indie dev relations and they're getting a lot of good games and publicity because of it. I honestly see no reason for Nintendo to get on their knees begging for a inevitably watered down port of Madden or Call of Duty.



TheRegginator said:

How about EA just disappear from gaming entirely? As a PC gamer and a Nintendo gamer I hate them with a passion and don't care if the sales of either platforms are affected by the lack of the company's support.



Bigmac1910 said:

The faster EA disappears from the face of the earth the better for us gamers. No more buying out good companies just to ruin them and shut them down. No more exclusive deal with Porsche, fifa etc. so I had more choice of games from other companies. No more F2P play only on mobiles etc.The list is almost endless why they are not needed.

The last game I bought from them was ME3 haven't bought one since then, and probably won't for a very long time. Unless the new CEO will make some drastic changes they are not needed anymore, not only on Wii U, but on ANY console*.

*EDIT: Meant to say any platform instead of console.



C7_ said:

Fifa, Madden, and any other franchise are available on every other console in near-identical versions. They would sell some copies on WiiU, sure, but they would not be system sellers in any regard. They don't need straight up ports for all consoles, they need unique titles, which is not something EA does.

On the other side, EA's quickly becoming the greatest example of what not to do with DRM, and somehow claim that SimCity's online components are not in any way DRM despite them being the textbook definition of it. They're happily embracing the exact wrong form of microtransactions every step of the way, and they honestly don't care about there consumer base unless they need to win some press, in which case they do as little as possible to win some back.

Sure, once the WiiU gets some games out and becomes a force among the consoles then EA can develop all they please. Personally I can do without ever seeing the inevitable Origin app/integration with the game on the WiiU menu should EA decide to give it more attention..



Freelance said:

SimCity IS a good game, despite what some people say. I don't find it productive to hate any game company. EA has made several games that I really like. Even my favourite companies have made mistakes, but I don't hate them when they have done lots of good things too. Nobody's perfect. No, I am not an 'EA shill.'



Luffy said:

screw EA....their sports games are good but I dont play them anymore since snes NHL



strongest_link said:

To get EA, not to mention other third party publishers, to support the Wii U, Nintendo needs to first drive sales and establish a large install base for the console with first party content, then somehow demonstrate that third party content will sell to Wii U owners. Easier said than done perhaps, but the Wii U's fortunes won't improve until that first party content finally arrives.



SCAR said:

I for one, don't get upset that easily, so I don't really have anything against any of companies. They can do whatever they want, whether I think it's wrong or not.
There's a difference between not liking them and pointing out mistakes. I thought EA was going to be close with Nintendo back during that announcement pictured, but that fell through, so why are we still saying this should happen when it's already over?
It already had a chance, and EA backed out.
I'd say Ubisoft is a better company in comparison. Sure they delayed Rayman, but it's seriously not that big of a deal. Just be happy they are releasing anything unlike EA for the most part.
Even Madden and Fifa, arguably their best franchises were poor on Wii U. How was Ubisoft able to port a way more complicated title without such a big mistake(AC3)?
Everyone said the Mass Effect 3 game would be the worst port from EA, but it was actually better because they out sourced it.



Nintenjoe64 said:

I really like many of EA's games and thought that they've consistently been better than most of the other big publishers when it comes to actually using Nintendo controllers. Tiger Woods (motion plus versions), Grand Slam Tennis and Godfather on Wii were fantastic so I was a bit sad that EA have more or less pulled the plug on Wii U support.

Having said that, I really don't think Nintendo should bend over just because EA want them to. If you spend your whole time bending over for people you're gonna get f'ed in the a. Additionally, EA don't seem to be as good as they were for non sports games in the last gen so I'll only miss Fifa and Tiger.

Something that worries me for 3rd party support is that MH3U is selling out and grabbing the odd headline and I bet EA and friends all start thinking that is the direction they need to go to get Wii U sales, rather than come up with their own stuff!



GazPlant said:

I've always said Nintendo need EA's support, if only for the annual sports games. I for one am a massive fan of FIFA, and getting shafted year on year on Nintendo platforms with mediocre efforts is taking it's toll. It was one of my main reasons for buying another platform last gen. That and Mass Effect. Wii U needs that sort of game.
So for me, Nintendo really need to get EA back on board



RevolverLink said:

Getting EA to go all in for their cause would probably be better for Nintendo's shareholders, but as a gamer, I'd (much) rather see Nintendo work hard to encourage more indie developers to support the Wii U.



WaxxyOne said:

Would having EA's full support help bring money to the console? Of course. Is EA the devil incarnate? Absolutely. Are all of EA's huge sellers the same mindless sports title rehashed year after year? Duh.

If the answer to Nintendo's long-term success is to pander to companies which keep pumping out mindless games for the intellectual sheep of the gaming industry, I worry what that would do to the unique and original quality gaming Nintendo has been able to push over the years... and what Microsoft and Sony would be expected to rip off afterwards.



SneakyStyle said:

I think nintendo shouldn't worry about companys like EA which will just bring out the same old sports games with a updated roster every year, almost identical to it's previous version. This type of half-assed developing and expecting gamers to pay in full for the edited last year game is insane.

They need to stop messing around and just get more of Japans style games here, i'm sick of all these same old same old games. If I see another first person shooter come out before a decent japanese rpg or action game i'll bust a nut. Priorities so wrong.



Peach64 said:

EA are not all bad. The example I always use is FIFA and Need for Speed. Back in early 2000, games from both those series were pretty bad, inferior to similar games from other publishers, but the EA ones still outsold the others by the truckload. They could have just continued, raking in the cash, but they wanted their games to be the best available as well as the best sellers. They got new teams in for both games, and really turned them around, and now they're some of the best games released each year.



darkgamer001 said:

Although I disagree with the headline, this article presents some very valid points. As such, I feel compelled to present mine in order to argue from a different perspective.
Let's make it clear. Working to mend things with EA might be important, but I don't feel it should be a priority. EA needs Nintendo more than the other way round, and this is demonstrated by EA's disastrous financials and the destruction of their reputation amongst gamers (although this was also due to issues beyond the EA-Nintendo feud).
As for EA's IPs, the importance of these IPs will be reduced if rival companies are offering experiences in the same genre on the Wii U. For example, Nintendo can work to get Konami's PES on board for the Wii U annually like on other platforms. Same goes for Activision's CoD. I'm personally not a fan of either series, but they would help the Wii U, and force EA to reconsider if they see these franchises making money, especially in the absence of their IPs.
EA have also arguably massacred the reputation of series like Mass Effect, Sim City, and Dead Space, meaning the lack of their franchises isn't as damaging as it would have been in the past.

tl;dr - EA is important for Nintendo, but NOT a priority. Plenty of other companies can take advantage of their absence, whilst EA continues to suffer financial losses and having to cope with distrust amongst gamers as a result of their negative attitude. Any attempts at reconciliation should start from EA themselves.



C-Olimar said:

I'm pretty sure EA wamted their crappy Origin as the only online service on Wii U, which is why they're now in a strop with Nintendo.



AbeVigoda said:

EA doesn't need Nintendo to be successful, and Nintendo doesn't really need EA either, so whats supposed to bring these companies back together?

Most people (correctly) view Nintendo as a secondary console now, one that compliments either a PS or Xbox quite nicely*. Sony and Microsoft consoles have already established themselves as the home for EA Sports games, due almost entirely to their large competitive online communities, something a Nintendo console has never had.

If around 60-70% of Nintendo console owners also own one of these other systems (just a guess, no numbers to back this up but it seems about right), and with most of those owners likely to choose the Sony or Microsoft EA Sports offering for the larger online community, why should EA chose to make Nintendo versions of these titles when they won't sell as well?

*or the PS/Xbox systems compliment your Nintendo



shinokami said:

If they really want to bring EA back they should do stuff like in the Game Cube era were they would put Nintendo elements on their games for the system



SCAR said:

You can't really say Wii was looked at(correctly) as a secondary console. I knew way more people with Wii consoles that didn't even usually play video games, along with regular game people. I personally think it was ideal to have a Wii, then get an Xbox, because it's motion controller wasn't a complete rip off of Wii remote.
Alot of aspects defining last gen are no longer relevant to Nintendo. As far as I'm concerned, a new generation is wiping the slate clean.



EverythingAmiibo said:

Nintendo doesn't need EA, Nintendo makes consoles AND games! They've got Ubi, Activision and all the best selling franchises of yesteryear, EXCLUSIVE! Just make Zelda, Smash Bros. etc in the charts then watch EA fail along with the PS4 and its 2 exclusives!



cornishlee said:

I've maintained from day one that third party support is essential for Wii U to be the success that Nintendo want it to be,

From a selfish point of view, it's important to me too. I can't afford more than one console but I bought a Wii U not only to play my existing library of Wii games but due to Iwata's pronouncements of wanting to attract 'core gamers' and recognising the need of third party support. E3 2011 and the EA buddy act was not the only thing that seemed to back this up - a close partnership with Platinum and securing of Bayonetta 2 as an exclusive and the thrid-party heavy launch line-up both pointed to Nintendo backing up words with action.

It's still relatively early days and even if there have been more downs than ups the last few months I have to hope that Nintendo is persevering with this. They've done nothing publicly to suggest otherwise (and that 'third party focused' Wii U Direct can't come soon enough). So, in sum, I agree with this even if none of EA's franchises appeal to me personally.



SCAR said:

Ya, you edited your comment with the *, unless I missed it, but that is actually the correct way to view things.



Jack_Package said:


I would buy Madden on Wii U, instead of PS360, because of the GamePad features.

Although I won't be buying any EA Sports titles because the servers get cut off too soon, for my liking.



Tasuki said:

I am not to big on EA's sports games I buy one FIFA every game generation and that's it I dont buy one every year just to have an updated roster. However with that said I know that there are fans out there of the Madden series and others that quite honestly it would be stupid not to make those games for the Wii U for those fans, after all their money is as good as everyone else.

But when it comes to the Wii U some publishers dont look at it like next gen and quite honestly I can see why. Its almost like Nintendo should have just skipped the Wii and made the Wii U so many years ago to compete with MS and Sony. But that's a different discussion for another day.



CrissCross87 said:

@shinokami oh yessss. I bought Nba Street & SSX solely for that. Highly considered Fight Night just for Super Punch Out since I've never played it, but never got around to it.



Hyperstar96 said:

Cooperation with EA would be good, but it simply won't happen. The only way EA would "forgive" Nintendo is if they completely shut down the eShop and replaced it with Origin; EA is just too stubborn to accept anything less.



ajcismo said:

After reading the headline, anyone else get up and go make themselves a bowl of popcorn knowing the comments were going to get extra entertaining?



Burning_Spear said:

I don't think Nintendo needs EA, but I agree that Nintendo would benefit greatly by having EA's titles on Wii U. That said, I trust Nintendo will decide if that benefit is worth whatever EA is asking. My guess is they've decided no.



AbeVigoda said:


Its a new "generation" between the PS4, 720 and Wii-U, but you can't disregard what happend in the last one. Since 2006, Xbox and Sony established themselves as the "go to" systems for sports games, especially the EA ones. This same mentality among consumers will carry forward to these new systems as well, meaning that the Wii-U won't be the system you will buy if you want to play realistic sports sims that have competitive online communities. Nothing Nintendo can do at this point will ever change consumers minds on this.




Personaly, I think nintendo should seek out more unknown developers and get exclusive games.

Coz lets be honest, although EA games sell well, I wonder how many of those sales are actually on nintendo consoles.

Imagine if the wii u had its own football game that took advantage of the consoles streths, and was better than fifa.



DePapier said:

@ThomasBW84 I appreciate your response. Whether it's EA or Activision or Ubisoft isn't actually quite of a concern for me. I just sincerely believe that Nintendo should not court third-parties, Western third-parties. Nintendo just doesn't know at that time how to court them: as an example, it has already backfired with EA. It is therefore best that Nintendo focus their assets on making their own games and working with Japanese third-party developers, which they are already doing. When it comes to Western third-parties, they can only rely on the few hopeful developers such as Criterion Games and Eidos Montreal, and wait for the big guys to seriously consider the Wii U once the console has picked up in sales and they see an interest in it.

Nintendo doesn't NEED EA or any third-party per se. They'll just come when they'll see an interest in the Wii U, thanks to Nintendo's first-party titles and Nintendo-financed third-party exclusives.



SCAR said:

It's a different subject altogether on whether we get EA sports games or not. They completely ruined the sports games on Nintendo consoles for no reason. That's not the consumers' fault. I don't even want EA games based on what they have done so far for Wii U. The only game from EA that's respectable is NFS:MWU.
I would have bought Madden for Wii U, but that game was horrible in comparison to the other console versions because of EA, and not the Wii U or fanbase. They released a crappy game before anyone could have known Wii U wouldn't sell that well at first.



andrea987 said:

Both will benefit from the collaboration. Once Wii U start having a stronger user base, hopefully by the end of the year, I think EA will come round.



Jack_Package said:


That happened once with ISS64. It was the number 1 football game in the late 90s. Im sure a lot of people on here would have good things to say about it.

It doesn't feature in any top selling N64 game list



bwellington said:

So if Nintendo wants the Wii U to be successful, they need to cater to the bro gamer demographic? There was a time when we had gamers, and we had (American) football players. The two did not mix well. And now that they have their FPSs and sports games, the true "core" gamers are being overlooked. I say let EA do what they want. I prefer offbeat, unique efforts, so third party titles have always defined platforms for me, but I tend to shy away from powerhouse AAA titles that seem to only offer the same experience time after time. And I could care less about Watch_Dogs; the "hack into to everything with a smart device" genre just doesn't appeal to me.



SanderEvers said:

Nintendo doesn't need EA, nobody needs EA. Nintendo needs good games, like Lego City Undercover, Monster Hunter 3. Not the garbage that EA makes.



JactheRipper said:

I need my fifa Nintendo!!!! I need my FIFA!!!!! not gunna lie ea makes decent games idk if i should go to pez tho?



Ben_Rage_V2 said:

I do not like EA any better than any of you, but I completely agree with this article. Wii U needs support and sadly, EA has enough franchises to fill in a much needed gap in current third party offerings. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, all of the sports titles, maybe a new Spore (I loved the original), Dead Space, Bulletstorm etc. With EA on board and between Ubisoft, Capcom, Activision and Nintendo's legendary 1st party games, I might only need one system this gen. If only.



Dpullam said:

I realize that EA has made some pretty bad mistakes in the past but their games have sold quite well over the years. Sure, I don't own very many EA games as of late due to the bad reputation they have garnered, but having their games on the Wii U would obviously boost sales and give some gamers more video games to choose from during the year. I am not going to be on the hate bandwagon nor will I ignore what they have done in the past. Nintendo also shouldn't have to kiss their feet just to get them to release games on the Wii U. The Wii U can succeed without EA's help but no matter how you look at it, games sell systems and no matter what your view on EA has become their games sell. Period. I guess time will tell if EA and any other third party companies decide to take the Wii U seriously like they obviously should.



SanderEvers said:

I haven't bought a non-maxis EA game for years (I do still play The Sims, and am even going to stop buy Maxis' games because of SimCity)

There are enough games of every other publisher for me.

I hope someday Nintendo will get a deal with Valve and bring Portal 2, Half-Life to the Wii U



Realgamer4life said:

Hmnnnnn if Nintendo wants to solve the EA problem they need to have a better than you attitude.
They need to go out and acquire a 3rd party studio that can do good FPS then add the Nintendo quality and bam you solved that issue. They need camelot studios to do a great mario golf game that uses the game pad and wii remote like we saw in the sizzle reel. also they need Ipad or android like apps on the game pad so that it can have tablet like features.



OL_G said:

I don't think they need them but others should fill the void.
No BF4 make sure they have full COD
No Fifa make sure they have PES
Kinda that idea if the right company steps up EA is gonna wish they never dropped initial support for wii u



Doma said:

I have little use for a 'secondary home console', the idea of having/needing a complementary one is just silly imo. You'd be more invested in one or the other, no? One will inevitably gather dust and waste space while you focus your time on the other that caters to your tastes better/provides steady releases with third-party support.

As things are, either the Wii U or the PS4 will be bought by me early next year (my PS3 will easily last me until then, great games are still coming), i won't have the time for both. Whichever fails to impress enough by then will be rejected until the end of the generation, when i can then pick up that console/missed must-haves for dirt-cheap ('s getting pretty likely that the Wii U will suffer this fate). This is the smarter course of action, wouldn't you agree?

I will regret nothing by doing so.



Realgamer4life said:

@SanderEvers That's what I was getting at. To me Nintendo plays the good guy roll to much. I think they need to start putting people on notice. I have ever used origin but I like the Nintendo network the way it is.

But if you are a company like nintendo and your fans are looking for games that EA offers but won't make for you you need to get on your grind and sign these developers that don't have the financial backing of a big company. Give them guidance and produce some hits.



Giygas_95 said:

Meh. Most of EA's games these days are boring to me. Don't really care, but if they support the Wii U that can't hurt the console.



Realgamer4life said:

@Doma I believe that the games for the WiiU will be cheaper but not the system. If the past week is an indicator of market trends. Nintendo learned that software can make or break you. I think if Nintendo wants to catch a tiger by the tail at E3 they need to not be boring.

At E3 come out and say we know we have made our faithful suffer but guess what we got you. Hit us with the 3ds first, then hit us with the Wii U games, Then hit us with 3ds Wii U cross platform games.



SCAR said:

Just go PES. Konami is backing that, and they don't release BS like EA.
Same thing with Madden. Just get Tecmo to make a modern Tecmo Bowl using real teams and make it use the consoles network, instead of trying to push Origin on people that don't want to take an extra unnecessary step. That makes things more annoying.
EA hasn't released anything good since Dead Space 1 and Mirror's Edge, IMO.



AJWolfTill said:

Ea owns Bioware, that is why I care.
I do completely agree that their support is essential if Nintendo want to prosper this generation.
As long as we have Ubi and other great 3rd party dev's I personally will be ok.



BakaKnight said:

Honestly I don't see why Nintendo should have such priority at all ^_^;

The only good point I read was at the end of the article about the fact it would help the WiiU having decent titles from EA instead than few half baked ports, BUT if EA works bad on a Nintendo console why "should" Nintendo go and beg them to give us more titles and well ported?

Nintendo already offered to help all developpers who wants to work on its consoles, what else should it do? @o@
If we add to all this that recently EA got around here only negative articles we quite get to the point that there is NO priority to talk about...

Noone say Nintendo must avoid EA or anything like that and no doubt FIFA sell well, but personally I see a better/deeper cooperation of the two only like a possibility to consider, not a "priority" that should get over any other matter.



SkywardCrowbar said:

Unfortunately, the Wii U needs all the support it can get at this point. EA makes blockbuster games. Seems pretty logical to me that Nintendo should try to partner with them.



OldBoy said:

I can see the point the article makes but for me EA is no great loss.Not bought one of their games since they ruined burnout.I do get FIFA but always secondhand . They have ruined too many great ip's dead space being the latest. Very arrogant company they can go to hell for all i care.



PAppleyard said:

Have been around in gaming for as long as EA, never liked them never will.

They have always been the Borg of gaming!



biglittlejake said:

I think we should. It would be nice to play a new Madden, NBA, NHL, NCAA Football, and MLB every year. The actual Wii game I played the most was NCAA Football. I think I had 200 hours or more. Why I say actual Wii game, this would be because I usually just played classics.



duskao said:

I certainly get the points you are successfully making, however I rarely purchase an EA game and the reason is that they don't really have many attractive franchises or new IP's. Mass effect 3 for the Wii U was my last purchase and only because I got it used for 25 bucks. Beyond that I think it was an NHL game, 2009 I think. They haven't done much of anything with their largest franchises in ages (EA sports) other then update rosters. The fact they still make the top ten's just shows how commited sports fans are to their respective sports. Oh, I also purchased The Old Republic for PC. Considering I have purchased about 20 games in the last year 1 fell into that list and only because of my undying commitment to Star Wars. Mass Effect only because it was so cheap, I would not have considered purchasing it for full price as my PC experiences with the first one weren't very good because of all the bugs and the patch/dlc to be able to play the game. In order for me to care that much of what EA does they will have to come up with more that interests gamers and not just sports fans as those sales are starting to dimish as well because people are realizing they are spending 60 bucks on a game that should be a roster update probably for free or at most ten bucks.



Mahe said:

EA is crap and they make crappy games. It's better to compete with them than to co-operate with them.



TimoteiWest said:

I don't know about EA really, I'd sooner see them try to capture the games makers who don't churn out sports. EA have some undeniably decent titles but I think of them as being more for the folks who grab an Xbox/PS3 then disregard them when people aren't over playing a shooter/sports game as a group.

I'd sooner see Konami or Squeenix chased, the harder-core titles released on Wii U alongside the Nintendo games creating a console full of traditional gaming titles, with the PS4/720 keeping the 'casual' crowd of sports/shooter gamers happy.

To date, casual to me still reflects the occasional gamer who picks up the heavily advertised sports and shooter titles. I am aware the industry has redefined this since, but I'm already old in my mind and frankly do not respond well to change.



Nintenjoe64 said:

I doubt EA will continue to be silent on Wii U once sales get to a certain point. To put things in perspective, there was no Tiger or FIFA available at launch on Wii. We got a few PS2 ports shortly after launch but it was a while before anyone believed the Wii could maintain any momentum. It's not as though Nintendo really need them at the moment, EA rarely make killer apps for consoles. Nintendo need Mario Kart and a marketing campaign. If golf games were that important, wouldn't the 3DO (or was it the CDi?) have been the winner of that gen?

The last few months has only made me wish that is was Xmas again so we could actually see the performances of PS4 and Xbox3, both technically and sales wise. The fanboy rage unleashed when a certain console doesn't perform or loses an exclusive is going to be both hilarious and irritating.



Squiggle55 said:

Once Nintendo releases more first party games and sales inevitably pick up, EA will begin supporting the console with their watered down ports again. I don't see why anyone cares about whether or not that happens.



McGruber said:

In short it costs $$$$ for a company to put a game on WiiU, and so if they know the game is likely not going to turn a profit, they aren't going to bother. That is business and this problem is not EAs, it's Nintendo's. Companies don't hate Nintendo or it's fans, they just want to make a profit. They got burned with the Wii, and with the market being what it is, I don't blame them for not taking too many risks.



Slapshot said:

@DePapier You obviously have no idea how the gaming industry actually functions and your rants show it. Eidos Montreal is nothing on it own, it can't fully fund triple-A games, which is why its games are published by Square Enix. Criterion is the exact same, a game developer, who is funded by EA to develop its triple-A games. You take away Square Enix and EA and you lose both of these studios, unless another publisher buys them.

And no, Nintendo cannot compete in today's gaming industry without the likes of EA, Activision and Ubisoft, regardless if you like them or not. The licensing fees and royalties from these companies' games bring in tremendous amounts of revenue for Nintendo, at absolutely zero cost to it.

Nintendo doesn't have enough developers to keep its consoles as viable products in the industry without third party support. If Nintendo was to lose complete third party support, its only option would be to become a third party developer or to be acquired by a larger parent company (e.g. Apple, Samsung).

@Lionsgate You're exactly right mate. It's nice to see someone else here who understands how these publishers' function.



SCAR said:

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees Nintendo needs 3rd party support, but EA has been pretty lackluster as of late. They ruined Dead Space, their sports games haven't had any real improvements, they go to a conference and say their body is ready just to back the heck out, and their online Origin thing is atrocious.
I don't think EA is specifically the company to be looking at for inspiration right now, much less ask for help.



SCAR said:

Who's to say EA isn't the one dying out anyway? Everyone always point fingers at Nintendo first and foremost. As far as I'm concerned, they haven't been doing that great for a while on ANY console, not just Nintendo.
We want good games, not 2012=2013 you just bought last year's game and it's your fault.



timp29 said:

A lot of hate here. Irrational hate even. Who cares what EA does. No one is making you buy their games.



C-Olimar said:

"10. FIFA 13 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Vita, 3DS, Wii U, PSP)"

I thought Americans hated football? Or do they just buy any old crap EA puts in front of them, like us PALs?



Chrono_Cross said:

I agree Slap.

If Nintendo wants to create successful and healthy offerings, it needs to have consistent, reliable third party support.



Ren said:

nice article and good points. Nintendo should be working overtime right now to court ALL the big name 3rd parties (Ubisoft, EA, Activision, etc.). It doesn't matter what they do and how much gamers don't love them, they produce big, expensive games that sell like hotcakes on ALL the consoles. There are fans of these sports games and big action franchises that will only buy consoles that incude these big releases. To loose any of them entirely on WiiU could be detrimental to the already dire looking situation. Sure it's not over yet but if it starts looking like a console that only plays Nintendo games and some indie games, I won't even look in that direction anymore. You can be all principled and say "humph, we didn't want those dumb games anyway" but if you want a WiiU to exist at all besides in Thrift stores like the Dreamcast it NEEDS basic 3rd party support in those big franchises.

Personally I'd be just fine with playing Nintendo as software-only on other machines; Games is why they exist. It's not a computer company, and their hardware relevance is starting to look rough, besides portables of course. Bring back the "gameboy" name and leave it at that.



TwilightV said:

Won't be supporting EA just yet. They failed to provide anything worth my purchase last year. Mass Effect 3 came close, but then they made the poor decision to release the entire trilogy at the same time on the other consoles. Look at it however you want to, but that's just bad business.



SCAR said:

Well, I for one don't like EA, so why would I ever want Nintendo to invest in something I don't care about? That process of finding priorities and avoiding dead ends is completely rational. That's what the article is all about: Talking Point. We're talking about direct collaboration of Nintendo and EA here, not 3rd party support in general.



Ren said:

What about a "talking point" about "what would you think about a Nintendo as software only?". Seems like a beautiful hypothetical. nobody could F*%@! with Nintendo as a games-only company. Pure profit and all over all kinds of machines, 'next-gen', mobile, PC. How long would pride get in the way of just giving up the stressful hardware fight and focusing on what they do best? Ok fine, Sega isn't doing great because of poor marketing and Nintendo's marketing isn't much better but that could be fixed. Am I out of line even mentioning this idea?



SCAR said:

Ya, but Nintendo does have good hardware. The argument is how it should get games on its console, not whether it should just go software only. I honestly think EA would benefit more by collaborating with Nintendo than Nintendo would.
It wouldn't make sense to go software only when they can do both.



SethNintendo said:

RIP Bullfrog, Westwood Studios and Origin Systems. Screw EA and I will keep my almost 15 year boycott of a company that is best known for sequels and ruining IPs of bought developers.

2K makes better sports games. When was the last time you saw NBA Live? Been awhile because they usually can't compete unless they pay for exclusive rights for a league (Madden). The video game industry would be better off without EA.

I love how this article ends with some of us want decent Wii U versions of Madden, FIFA, etc... Cracks me up! You know what would make them decent versions? If EA allowed the developer more than 6 months to make the Wii U version.



Slapshot said:

@SCAR392 It's simple, if you don't like what EA is doing, then don't buy its games. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just putting it out there just like it is.

Yes. There are things that I don't like in EA's games. I'm a big fan of the Dead Space franchise, but even I had had enough of Dead Space 3 after about 8 hours of it. I also don't like how the Origin implementation slows down Tiger Woods PGA Tour 14 either, but the exceptional Country Club offerings keep me playing it over and again, not to mention the excellent new control scheme that was further refined off of last year's game.

EA is trying new things. It is trying to find new ways to pull in the needed revenue to make larger risk in a shaky business going forward. No. I do not like everything that EA does, but I cannot deny that it makes fantastic games that are desired my by millions of gamers each and every year.

If EA thinks the Wii U isn't a viable platform to make a profit with any of its games, that's not EA's problem - it is Nintendo's.



ninja89 said:

Support for EA would do more good than harm for Nintendo, but what can you do when pushing the graphical envelope to its limits is all that matters with most of the industry? Clearly, Nintendo has other priorities and although they finally joined HD civilization, graphics and power is not one of their priorities. I think that's a good thing, but obviously not everyone is willing to sacrifice powerful hardware for great gameplay..

Personally, the only thing I care about concerning EA is Bioware and the next Mass Effect title. It's disappointing that Frostbite 3 will most likely not support Wii U, but it's just one franchise I have to live without even though I was pretty invested since the first game came out in 2007.



Magnet_Man018 said:

@Rawk_Hawk And Square Enix! They need to bring back Final Fantasy and get Kingdom Hearts from Sony too. I know that would benefit Nintendo more than EA.



Dpishere said:

@Dpullam Agreed, people need to put their hate for the company aside and focus on what is best for the Wii U, and that is selling systems. While I am not fond of EA either I do not think they are nearly as bad as some of the people on this site try to convince you otherwise. Their games sell, that can only help the Wii U, not hurt it, the only thing it will hurt is the hater's feelings, and that is not relevant.



ThreadShadow said:

I disagree with the article. Nintendo doesn't need EA. It's the nature of the Nintendo beast. Nintendo doesn't need anyone to survive, and third-parties need to deal with it.

SquareSoft aggressively ditched Nintendo during the N64 days and Nintendo still survived through N64, to GC, and eventually thrived on Wii. All this while Square was arguably going through a post 16bit golden age.

With Nintendo surviving the loss of a huge Japanese developer I think they can survive and thrive through the loss of "EA".



LztheQuack said:

@Everyone: EA is one of the biggest third parties out there. Even with questionable practices, they still have a duck-ton of resources and franchises. With their support, Nintendo can succeed much better than they are now



CaPPa said:

I hope that Most Wanted U sells well and makes EA take notice that games with some effort put into them will sell on Wii U while lazy ports (FIFA, Madden) won't.

I don't think that Nintendo should roll over for EA though. Just give other devs/publishers a chance, as they'll probably produce something more inventive than EA's efforts (like Konami's PES on the Wii). Then when Wii U games show some strong sales (there is sure to be a boost from big 1st party titles) EA will jump straight back onboard as they'll want to cash in.



Meaty-cheeky said:

I don't like EA either but the writing is on the well, there are thousands of sport fans / gamers and EA will help Nintendo bridge that market a bit. Also I know that audience of bro douche bag gamers would rather get their EA sport games on a Sony or Xbox consoles anyway, but most likely the Wii U will be the budget console starting this new generation and Nintendo needs that variety of games on its system so people will be more compelled in buying the Wii U.



SCAR said:

I already don't buy EA games.
My point was that if EA wants to make a good game on Wii U, they shouldn't need more convincing than any other 3rd party publisher out there. Nintendo will seek out help on their own if they need it.
3rd party support is great, but Nintendo shouldn't have to try and cater to another company for their support. How are they even supposed to do that exactly? By handing EA cash for exclusive titles?
Seperate companies, seperate goals and strategies.



marck13 said:

I want EA back. Not because I like them - and their "online"-gaming style they put up lately-, but because I believe it would be healthy for the WiiU.
Personally I NEED NHLxy! And preferably in a quality that's paying respect to the possibilities the WiiU offers. So yes I do hope the relationship between EA and Nintendo is going to be better and that they can agree on bilaterally beneficial terms.
On another topic I personally would welcome if Nintendo could win Rockstar Games for future titels on the WiiU! Imagine the next GTA will be coming to the WiiU and it comes with better graphics and features than for the PS360 ! NOW THAT announcement would (probably) be a great system seller/booster!
I don't care how Nintendo does them or what ever.. I think that would be a great move. I'd be glad to read your opinions on this matter.



BATRA said:

we don't need ea i heard that pc games are coming to the wii u like starcraft or star wars mmo game that i heard from sega and square and that what we no right now there might be more coming to the wii u so we do not need ea



Razalom said:

Any extra games is good for the Wii U, doesnt mean you have to buy them if you dont like EA but more high profile games can not hurt the console.



Jamester0722 said:

I think not having EA's support is a big issue. For people that only buy one system, WiiU wouldn't be the choice. People love their FIFA, Madden, and Tiger Woods. I have a feeling that WiiU will be just like the Wii; someone's "second system".



gusmento01 said:

I really wish EA to bring back the Road Rash franchise or release the 16 bit versions on Virtual Console.



VeeFlamesNL said:

Well, the soccer games have to be on the system.
I understand that EA is bad, but their games like Mass Effect and Battlefield can boost sales.
Yeah, Ninty and Rockstar should meet. Make exclusive things for their systems, like GTA collection for Wii U only!
Nintendo will always make hardware and that is a big plus to me, because Ninty games feel at home on the consoles, powered or underpowered.



Sakura said:

I consider myself a medium level gamer - I play something nearly every day, but I'm not good. I don't own and do not wish to own any of the games listed in the US or UK top ten. I still bought more than 40 games last year and not the cheap ones either. I like what Nintendo do to include gamers who don't just want to shoot at people and I'm not sure I get the point of playing sports games on a console - you could do the real thing. Not having EA on board may harm sales perhaps, but there's still enough for me to enjoy. I wouldn't like the type of games I play to be limited to mass market appeal stuff. Not every gamer is a little boy who wants to pretend to be a soldier or a football star. For those who do, and it's a valid thing after all I have to admit, there are systems available. There will always be games that aren't on your favourite system. Retro gaming is great if you can't afford it first time round



SCAR said:

Honestly, I haven't been really liking EA's games at all, but if Nintendo can buy out EA and set them straight, they'd have Bioware and lots of good games, too. There's lots of potential for all these companies, I just don't like how EA is handling things. That would be crazy if EA became second party though...



GiftedGimp said:

Years ago on the Original Xbox EA wanted to charge for EA server services on Online games. Microsoft told them no, and EA quickly ceased publishing on Xbox.
NFL Fever replaced Madden, PES replaced Fifa, on so on and so on.
It did very little harm to the xbox not having EA's support. Eventually after a year or two EA changef thier mind and suddenly EA games appeared on Xbox, with full online functionality and no charges.
Fast forward to 2011, EA saying they are partnering with Nintendo, saying the next gen will not be decided by the console specs, but by innovation which with the gamepad nintendo is bringing, blah, blah, blah.
2012, EA want to run Nintendo Network via Origin. Nintendo say No (deja-vu), As the year progressed Ps4 is 'THE' console to lead the next gen.. according to EA.
Now into 2013, EA have got a excitingbnew Partnership with Microsoft, EA suddenly promoting the Kinectbox as 'THE' console of 'Next-gen' (probably due to blocking used games) as For WiiU We 'Currently' have no plans says EA.

Point is this is how EA operate, they switch sides at a flip of a coin if they think they will benifit.
But as when the refused to support Xbox, down the line they will support WiiU, Its obvious that they will at some point.
Moore in the interview said currently no plans for Wiiu, not perminatly. At this moment in time EA are maximizing thier partnership with MS, while trying to get a foothold on PS4, aswell as making sure they keep the massive userbase (and MS/Sony) that is on ps3/360 happy by supporting those platforms.

Do Nintendo need EA? no, as long as alternatives are provided for missing games either 1st or 3rd party (e.g PES for FiFA).
Do EA need Nintendo? Not at the moment.
Will EA Need Nintendo? More than likely, rising development costs, more gaming device options, Android consoles etc, will effect userbase numbers for all consoles, thus potential sales/profits made from each console.



Slapshot said:

@SCAR392 Okay, you're on the right track here, but let me get you locked on. Think of it this way, Nintendo is bringing a new Smash Bros. to the Wii U, and it is and has been funding the entire project since day one, and will continue to do so all the way up until it launches. It's paying salaries, insurance and retirement for employees, rent (and accommodations) for the buildings they work in, not to mention the high-end computers and equipment to build the game on. When the game releases and starts selling, it doesn't make one cent until the millions of dollars that it cost to produce the games is covered.

But, let's say Tiger Woods PGA Tour 14 did just release on the Wii U, Nintendo would have charged EA both licensing and royalty fees to put its game on the Wii U. This is a lot of money - and it would have came at no risk or financial output to Nintendo. In short, Nintendo just lost millions of dollars, because Tiger Woods PGA Tour 14 didn't release on the Wii U.

What is happening right now, is that EA seems to not think that it will make money once it pays these fees - plus recovering the cost to develop/port these titles to the Wii U on top of them. EA will pay these expensive fees - it doesn't have a console of its own - but it has to recover a lot more than a first party developer, making a console with a low install base an extremely high risk of taking a significant loss on.

Nintendo does indeed need these licensing and royalty fees, because this is how it recovers the huge amounts of capital it sinks into developing its hardware. Hardware sales only bring in pennies to the overall cost to develop and produce these consoles. When Nintendo developed the Wii U, it actually invested into itself, by spending tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to produce the system - it's return (or profit) if found in these licensing fees and royalties that come from the third parties.

Where the card falls into Nintendo's hand, is that it has to give these big publishers a reason that they should put their games on its system that it has spent so much money to produce. Nintendo isn't going to pay anyone to get third party games on the Wii U - that would defeat the purpose - but it could partner in advertising campaigns or special media related events to make these games get a lot of additional exposure prior to released. There are things that can be done, that are profitable to both parties and I'm sure these things are happening behind the scenes.

Where 'gamers' make a difference, is in how they spend their money. Time and again, we see that gamers who own Nintendo's home console simply don't want to buy third party games, even when the install base for the consoles is extremely high. When you have around 70 million Wii units sold worldwide and Madden 11 only sell .7 million copies on the system - it isn't hard to see that these console owners aren't interested in these games on Nintendo's systems.

The majority of these gamers own multiple systems and they are buying EA's games on their other systems. So what you have now is the Nintendo loyal that only own the Wii U simply isn't enough to support these games.

And that's pretty much the sum of it, really. I hope that helps clarify things a bit more for you.



SCAR said:

I still don't get what they're gonna do. How is Nintendo supposed to get EA on their side? Advertising doesn't always do the best job of getting a message across, at least from my perspective. What would make it different this time?
So if Nintendo just says, 'Hey, we'll let you put the game on Wii U for free', they might not even put the game on any other console(since it's free) since they can potentially lock in every sports fan that would have to buy a Wii U.
Is that what you were saying?



SCAR said:

So if Nintendo just ditched Wii Sports and all those types of games to have EA do that for them, would that be a good deal?



arrmixer said:

Agreed honestly at least in the us most of my friends who only have a system for madden or FIFA are definitely not interested in Nintendo ... They are just sports heads... Honestly If its not for me they have no clue about the wii u...



GiftedGimp said:

As for why Nintendo fans don't buy 3rd party games (in general) for thier Nintendo console when its available on other platforms.

This statement is true, to a point, there was a number of reasons why this was so on Wii. No proper online infrastructure, usually no voice comms, graphically massive difference, to name but a few.

Nintendo are still behind MS/Sony online services, but over the course of time this gap will lessen but now there is a proper online infrastructure, Now you do have voice comms, (maybe the odd exception), Graphically,is still largly debatible, obviously will be better than current gen but vs next gen size of the gap is still unknown, however the gamepad could be something that adds something more than what graphics alone achieve.
All this means is, If 3rd party developers offer something different/better than whats on the other platforms then Nintendo fans would buy WiiU versions of a game available on other platforms. Developers offering the exact same experience found on other platforms with no benifits will find WiiU owners opt for alternative platforms due to the size of the community that has built up over the past 7/8 years.
Ps4/Nextbox will have a low community by comparison for a few years too, with no (or no proper) backwards compatibility you will also find some people will keep thier 360/ps3 and opt to buy the Ps3 version of a Ps4 game or 360 version of a Kinectbox game, just to play thier buddys online who yet to 'upgrade'

NFSMW, is a game I own on Ps3, but I brought the WiiU version as criterion added better visuals, off screen play, and a co-driver mode plus a few other tweaks here n there.
Deux Ex, fully intergrated dlc, gamepad features, re-balanced gameplay, off screen play, improved visuals is another 3rd party title that nintendo fans will probably buy.
Both are examples of when a 3rd party developers makes it worth while, chances are Nintendo fans will buy thier games.



arrmixer said:

I personally think your argument like this article will be irrelevant once the wii U sales pick up this holiday season... EA will then get on board once it makes sense

Personally I think EA is getting to big for its own good... We will see how EA performs in the near future.



twistedbee said:

Nintendo doesn't need EA. They have enough of their own franchises that missing a few from EA's catalog won't affect them. So, ya know, whatever.



JSuede said:

I read the article, and wholly disagree with it.

An "unprecedented partnership" indeed. There was no precedent set for what EA has done. They claimed that the Wii U was the first next generation console coming to market, claimed they were really excited to develop for it, then COMPLETELY changed their stance in less than a year. It's not like one of the biggest 3rd party publishers suddenly got dev kits from the other 2 of the big 3 and thought "Well, that's that. Never mind about Nintendo". They had those dev kits when they got on stage and supported the Wii U.

It doesn't matter if the rumors about them wanting Origin to control the Wii U's online are true or not, they pulled an cannibalized support for seemingly no reason. This coupled with their anti-consumer practices and repeated hypocrisy disgusts me as a consumer. This article is particularly damning:

If the Origin rumor isn't true, it would likely become the price for getting full EA co-operation. If EA is going to focus their 3rd party efforts elsewhere, so should Nintendo. EA sales have been on the downturn lately. Dead Space 3 and Crysis 3 have both sold barely over a million, even though they had considerable hype behind them. EA can't be happy with those numbers. If this trend continues, EA support will hardly matter to Nintendo, MS, Sony, or customers, it will just just be filler for the next big game. Especially if they keep pulling crap like they did with SimCity. Even the mighty Madden has seen a slight decline in sales recently.

Putting their games on Nintendo platforms would at least help sales a little bit. As @GiftedGimp said, does Nintendo need EA? Not at all. Will EA need Nintendo? Yes, especially if their sales continue to slump.

For instance, Battlefield 3 sold quite well....but how much of that was due to the shock of how good it looked? With Battlefield looks great visually, but it doesn't have the same, "WHAT? WOW." factor 3 did, even though it was presented in 3k. This statement by Riccitello is likely where EA is heading, and might implement something close in Battlefield 4. Even though he "resigned", it could very well be the official position of EA and the board.

Nintendo needs to show them that they made a mistake in pulling support and cannibalizing sales. Nintendo needs to get every other 3rd party on board that they can whether Japanese or Western. I'm guessing they have far more support than they let on, a large majority of third party developers have just put out games so naturally they won't have announced games for a system.

Off of the top of my head, we have CD Projekt Red, EA and Eidos with confirmed games that are not coming to Wii U. Big whoop. I'm not counting Bungie here because nothing has been said one way or another on the subject, same goes for Call of Duty, but Activision throws that onto every console possible and Wii U install base will be too large to ignore by then. Especially if it will be next-gen only.

Criterion is bringing all future NFS games to Wii U day and date with other versions, Crytek has a game in the pipeline (I am positive the game they talked about wasn't Crysis 3 since that would have been the main division), Sega does as well, Ubisoft is giving full support and Activision will continue support with Skylanders (whether you like it or not). Platinum, Capcom, Atlus, and Namco Bandai all have good relations with Nintendo so I fully expect them to bring games in the future. Then you get the large swell of indie devs that are now infatuated with Nintendo's eShop practices.

FIFA and Madden may be large franchises, but they will not make or break Nintendo one way or the other. EA is the last company they need to worry about.



DarkNinja9 said:

heres the thing they already sell the same games on all other platforms so in the end does it rly matter if they sell their games on wii u? not rly sure it would boost some sells abit but thats about it no one is going to be running to the store to get that new super awesome game come on -_- not to mention how the company acted...

now if we talking about actual third party that would get ppl to buy good games then yes nintendo needs to step it up this company just isnt it



Henmii said:

"Nintendo Should Make EA Co-operation a Priority"

In terms of mass appeal: Yes
In terms of games I actually want: No

Nintendo should make a priority of ALL good third-party games also appearing on Wii u (or as exclusives)! As it stands so far most third-party's are ignoring Wii u, and I have already lost hope that it will change! Looks like third-party's and Nintendo won't be friends for a long time (with the exception of third-party's that make downloadable games)!



SCAR said:

Well, if Nintendo just ditched Wii Sports and other sports games by themselves, and replaced them with EA sports games under an exclusive deal, Nintendo could potentially(and legally)monopolize the entire sports genre to an extent for Wii U.
That would be a big deal kinda. With Nintendo helping EA and vice versa, that would buy alot more time and funds to bring more to the Wii U.
Did anyone ever see the jeans that Nike and Levi's made? That was like the biggest collaboration in clothing history. The same could hapoen here.
All these companies only enjoy helping each other out if it's a for sure thing, and if they are the on same team, if EA fails, Nintendo fails(if they join forces, that is)




I mean seriously EA just GET OVER IT!! All this just because Nintendo turned down your crappy Origin service!? Some people say oh the Origin thing that can't be the reason. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!! How do you go up on stage at the end of Nintendo's 2011 E3 conference it front of a huge crowd of people and say your gonna give Wii U unrelenting support and now we have less support then we've ever had!!

I always tryed to give EA the benefit of the doubt but after Battlefield 4 was announced to be coming out for literally EVERYTHING except Wii U that's when I knew enough is enough!!

Me and my friend called EA ourselves you can see it on my youtube and we're gonna keep blowing up their twitter, youtube, battlelog forms BECAUSE Wii DESERVE RESPECT and are not just gonna lay down and let some arrogant piece of s*** company tell us we are garbage. That's why they do this crap because if this was 360, PS3, PC there would have been a HUGE uproar!! Now it's gonna be like that for Wii U if we all just ban together!!



MitchVogel said:

I honestly don't find that many of their games appealing. Those that I do, I buy used.



JSuede said:

@SCAR392 That would be giving EA exactly what they wanted for the Dreamcast, an unchallenged sports monopoly. EA wouldn't allow Mario Golf, Tennis, Soccer, 2k sports, Mii Sports...none of it. EA would want the license to Nintendo's first party characters in order to put them in the game....but would probably try to abuse that partnership. It's how EA operates.

The last company that tried to abuse Nintendo was Sony and they got burned. Cut off entirely without even being told beforehand. They may have created the Playstation because of it, but EA only has software and not enough capital to fulfill a vendetta. Sony barely does anymore.

I would much rather play Mario sports and Mii sports over EA sports games any day. Full on Mii football would be hilarious, as would soccer and hockey. Making "Mii Sports" with all of the typical EA Sports type games would be crushing competition for EA. I feel like "casuals" would love to see 11 on 11 football with Mii's and their bobble heads bouncing around with Nintendo themed stadiums and so forth.

Making a "EA fails, Nintendo fails" situation would be disastrous considering the public's current feelings on EA. I do not agree with that idea at all.

@NINTENBOY you started off strong, but quickly devolved into exactly the worst possible type of Nintendo fan. A simple boycott will suffice, there is no need to harass the company. Speak with your $, it means more to them than anything you could ever say. Berating them only makes them say, "Those Nintendo fans are lunatics. They are abusive and vitriolic and we don't deserve to be treated that way. We aren't going to support that kind of behavior." Boycott, and ignore them.



KLZ said:

EA goes with the one with the money, the only way EA is going to make games for wii u is wii u making more profits.



Caryslan said:

@NodesforNoids Midway and Acclaim going down has nothing to do with EA or what they have done. Midway went out of business due to them never establishing a key franchise outside of Mortal Kombat and the collapse of the arcades in the US. Arcade games were a large portion of Midway's Business, and when it collapsed, they lost a key source of business.

As for Acclaim, they deserve everything that they got. If you think EA was bad, Acclaim was 10 times worse. They happily put out crappy games, loved to ignore their customer, and were a key publisher of crappy licensed games during the 80's and 90's. Outside a few bright spots, Acclaim was a horrible company that deserved to shut down. I am just grateful Acclaim went under years before this generation. Its scary to imagine how they would have operated in an era with DLC, patches, and online.



SCAR said:

Ya, but who's to say that's a bad thing? If EA works exclusively for Wii U, and they start making the sports games with Mario and the Mii sport games. Would it really matter?
I mean, Dreamcast was dead to begin with, regardless of how many people liked it, because that was the only console that truly was behind with the times hardware wise.
They had no form of DVD on their console. Even GCN had mini DVD.
Golf, tennis, basketball, soccer, and football are the same game no matter who makes it. Nintendo no doubt likes having their own characters in their sports games, but look at Sonic and All Stars Raving Transformed. They put Danica Patrick in that game, along with Ralph from that Disney movie.
There's ways to work these things out on an even term. I don't think EA has ever thrown anyone under the bus for financial gain like you say.
EA knows just like anyone else in the industry that Nintendo isn't a force to be under estimated or reckoned with.
I'm sure they could work out a deal. They are respectable businessmen after all, right? It's not like Nintendo would make a deal if it wasn't worth it.
Sony on the other hand, actually had resources to make their own console, so they said, 'Hey wait, we can do this by ourselves w/o Nintendo', and the case is overall different when it comes to hardware.
Really, I'm just a naive child online, and I have no say on what goes down, but if EA is really going to commit to Nintendo and be fair, I don't see why they wouldn't honestly. EA could just add their servers to Nintendo's online service, and the console would already be better.
When it comes right down to it, we'll just have to wait and see.



SpaceApe said:

Both Nintendo and EA need each other. Coming together to make great things happen is how it is supposed to be. Both parties can benefit from one another greatly.



ecco6t9 said:

EA is not needed to make or break a console, secondly myself personally has not bought an EA game since Theme Park DS and Orcs & Elves DS and I believe those came out in 2007. Which is the year Doofus took over EA.



JSuede said:

@SCAR392 The only way it that kind of deal could possibly work is if Nintendo bought EA outright. Full ownership of the company and all properties therein. This would never happen because EA stands to make more money by being a 3rd party, multiplatform publisher. EA couldn't even be trusted to simply help Nintendo create a better online system, so letting them have full control over sports on the Wii U would not turn out well.

According to the rumor (which essentially isn't a rumor considering all that has happened), EA provided R&D support in making low-latency netcode, usernames, social networking etc. Then, they offered to give more support to bring it to things like Facebook,Twitter, tablets, smartphones etc....but they wanted full Origin integration to do so. Origin is already available through all of those services so they could just merge the Nintendo Network in an call it a day, forcing literally every game on the NN to run through Origin.

If Nintendo went on to make an entire Mii Sports franchise with football, soccer etc, they would all have some special thing that separates them from the rest. Super Mario Strikers is not the same as any other soccer game out there for example.

EA throws the consumer under the bus for financial gain. At least, that has been the only time they have been successful at it. I know they didn't single-handedly cause the end of Sega and the Dreamcast, but they definitely attempted to throw them under the bus in lieu of control and finances.

They threw Nintendo and the Wii U under the bus with Mass Effect 3. They bring ME3 to Wii U, offer no DLC for it...ever, and charge $60 for it. Meanwhile, they release the Mass Effect Trilogy for every other format less than 10 days before the launch of the Wii U. 3 games, $60, on every other platform with varying degrees of DLC support. If that isn't throwing Nintendo under the bus, I don't know what is.

Real Racing 3 and their insane microtransactions. Taking Mass Effect and Dragon Age, stripping them of the RPG elements that intimidate the larger audience but were loved by the fans in order to make more money. Holding the "real" endings of games and important story elements hostage as DLC. Dead Space went from Survival Horror/Action to Action shooter/Survival Horror to Action Shooter with microtransactions simply to draw a larger audience. Doesn't matter what the fans of the original liked, screw 'em. EA has thrown the consumer and franchises under the bus simply to earn more money time and time again.

Riccitello suggested charging gamers to RELOAD THEIR WEAPON in a shooter because they aren't in the frame of mind to say "What? No. That's dumb." This was stated in 2011, long before he was fired/resigned whatever. It is likely it is the official stance of EA considering he kept his job for a year and a half after saying it.

I fail to see how adding EA's servers to Nintendo's online would improve anything, assuming you mean merging them. EA games already require Origin just like on every other console.....why can't that be enough? I don't have any problems with Nintendo's online service at all. The day 1 update took a bit, but it wasn't that big of a deal and could have been due to my internet.

There is nothing respectable about EA's businessmen or their practices. So no, a deal couldn't be worked out and I am just fine not spending my money on EA products. There isn't a single franchise they own anymore that would get me to pay them money for, maybe not even buy used without online.



AtomicToaster said:

Different era ea, support is not make or break for a Nintendo console and neither is square. What we need is first party and indies and Nintendo to strengthen third party support with those interested take games on wii.



dragon_rider said:

@CrispyGoomba's Nintendo's fault because they had the balls to release a new console? Nice logic buddy, you must have been the top of your high school debate team.



SCAR said:

Those servers use Origin as the OS for servers. That doesn't mean the actual hardware running them can't be called anything else. Nintendo used Opera as their internet browser for Wii, DSi, and the internet browser paks for DS. They only outsource if they have to, meaning they can't do it themselves.
They can't even really distribute anything digitally without their servers, because it's all in their Origin database. That's probably why we never got Mass Effect 3 digital version or DLC. They apparently haves TONS of resources, and it wouldn't make sense to pay Nintendo for something they can do themselves if Nintendo would let them.
i.e. If you and a friend are planning to go somewhere, wouldn't it make sense to use the same car to save gas for a trip vs. everyone taking their own seperate car?
That's the most understandable analogy I could think of.
Lets just say EA takes control of the online aspect for Nintendo consoles that everyone constantly complains about(they would still complain, but whatever). How is that a bad thing? If EA can double Nintendo's appeal just by joining forces, that sounds pretty good to me. They could even simply just put a logo in the corner that says 'powered by Origin'. That sort of thing isn't uncommon.
Collaborations happen all the time, this is just on a larger scale so it seems off putting, but it's not impossible.
EA is a big company, if Nintendo strikes a deal with them, I'm sure it will be for the better. If not, then so be it.



SCAR said:

BTW, if EA and Nintendo were to become a dual entity working as one, they would have to listen to each other and respect each other's decisions. I'm pretty sure that's all part of the contract.
No ones trying to over power the other or anything. It's called teamwork.



Fafulec said:

Please no. Mainstream will cancer Nintendo. We do not buy Nintendo to play stupid blood splashing FPP shooters. Nintendo will last longer than EA with its healthy good games. Community is big enough to maintain Nintendo without such faulty marriage.



JSuede said:

@SCAR392 I'll say it again: EA games already require Origin just like on every other console. If you put in Mass Effect 3, NFS:MW, FIFA or Madden, you sign in with an Origin account and access the Origin servers. Without the ability to connect to Origin, neither of those would have multiplayer and in NFS:MW's case, the AutoLog.

EA has also said that if NFS:MW sells enough, the most recent DLC will come. So it's not like it is impossible for EA to bring the ME3 DLC over to Wii U, they just aren't going to.

Nintendo rejected EA taking control of the online because it is INHERENTLY a bad thing. Giving one third party complete control over your netcode and interface would be foolish. It would allow EA to set DLC prices however they want without Nintendo being able to do anything about it. They could charge $20 for what really should be $5-10 DLC and that would be that.

Every single game would have to go through Origin's servers. While it wouldn't be too bad for 1st party games (other than Origin's spotty service as it is), 3rd parties would run for the hills. Example: Call of Duty would have to go through Origin before connecting to Activision's servers. EA has Battlefield as a direct competitor to CoD. EA could intentionally throttle the bandwidth available for CoD to make Battlefield seem like a more stable, and therefore better game. No third party would want to risk that happening, even if it never did.

Hell, EA wasn't prepared for SimCity's release and their servers crashed HARD. Just think what would happen the day something higher profile like Smash Bros is released. There would be riots. Not to mention Origin's shady data mining that violates personal privacy laws in Germany.

To keep with your car analogy; yes you and your friend would take the same car, but he would make you pay for gas AND drive the whole way. Meanwhile, he eats 90% of the snacks, leaving you only crumbs in each chip bag. He also licks his fingers frequently.

The only way EA and Nintendo become a "dual entity" would be by way of a buyout. Nintendo has 10x (minimum) the amount of money EA does, so a merger would just be silly....especially since EA is a western company and Japan could give a rip about them. In a buyout, there is no teamwork.

Rarely is there in a merger either. Square Enix might seem like a good example of "teamwork" but even there, 80% of employees were Square and the President was from Square as well.

EA takes a "bear-hug" approach to acquiring studios. They buy it, envelop it, control it, and quite often....shut it down. They don't do "teamwork."

Partnering with EA would be a massive mistake for Nintendo, and seeing as they [likely] already have turned that down, it isn't going to change. I doubt it would "double their appeal" either, people REALLY don't like EA at the moment.



DePapier said:

@Slapshot Sure. We'll see about that once Nintendo releases their games and you among other people will finally buy a Wii U. So far we're just down to speculation.



Schprocket said:

EA have never been the same since they put on a tie and donned a corporate hair-style... This was the Electronic Arts that I knew...



RIP the "ARTS" part.....




Definately NOT aprioirty for Nintendo.However, it is "important" even though EA are a capitalist extremist company.



WiiLovePeace said:

I hope Nintendo can keep EA on their good side, if only to see more of Criterion's games & the Mass Effect series.



kdognumba1 said:

Read the article, I'll go ahead and say now, I really couldn't care less about EA or any other companies yearly titles. Imo, I'm sick of playing those games and I'm sick of hearing about them. Burning IP in the ground for the sake of getting sales is a horrible business strategy and in a day and age where companies can update and do DLC, it makes little to no sense to have "new titles" that use the same engine and are little more then a roster change (whether the roster be players on a field or weapons in your loadout).

I personally feel the Battlefield series is becoming the next CoD with the Publisher smearing the integrity of the IP and prepairing for the release of the next main series Battlefield which is way too early. They could easily just come out with an expansion as very little is changing graphically, look or gameplay wise.

As for Nintendo, I think they should be courting the other western devs and publishers, you know, the ones that don't run there series's into the ground and over the course of this previous generation have been taking away a lot of light from most the major publishers. Publishers and Devs such as Bethesda, 2K and Valve would greatly help Nintendo's reach for the gamer and would definitely help ease investor concerns. Also Nintendo's push for smaller devs and indies also is a great idea and imo something I think they're doing right.



XCWarrior said:

I read the entire article before posting. That's why I'm late to the party.

You made maybe 2 good points as to why Nintendo needs to fix things with EA. They have games that sell, and they are a major 3rd party.

But the fact is they make crap games now. Those of us who want to play Madden own a version of the game - and they don't do anything besides slap a roster update on the series now. Same with the other sports titles.

Battlefield is the poor man's COD - and COD is rubbish. So you want poor man's rubbish? Really? and not like Battlefield 3 sold well. That series is about to die.

So what else are we missing? What? Mass Effect is done with, so no worries there. Oh boy, we don't get their movie licensed games. OH NO?!?!?!

EA is 2-3 years from bankruptcy. They don't need to be on the Wii U or 3DS. I own 70 Wii games, I think 2 are EA. More than 40 DS games, maybe 1 is EA... but I'd have to double check that.

EA makes garbage games and they are a horribly run company. They deserve the title they won. Don't defend them.



LavaTwilight said:


That's the EA I remember too, with classics like Desert Strike! Any business partnership Nintendo make can't be a bad thing as long as Nintendo remain in control. That's probably where the 'partnership' failed. EA are too stubborn to allow any other company tell them what to do and that kind of attitude won't work with Nintendo because, for as long as EA have been going, Nintendo have been going longer and have undeniably far more experience than EA do.



sonicfan1373 said:

The developers behind many EA games are fantastic and creative individuals, I can easily say that EA hold some of the best studios in the industry. The people who operate EA as a publishing company are vile and terrible. There are many problems with EA's publishing business, which I will go over:

1. EA purchases smaller companies and IPs that might compete with their own software, they do not use the IPs nor do they sell them back to the original developers so that they can be used again; also often in these situations they lay-off the entire studio that worked on the IPs. There are countless sports IPs which EA has bought and no longer allows the use of (nor do they use it themselves) in order to protect their EA Sports games.

2. They have monopolistic practices. For example, when Sega launched the Dreamcast, EA refused to support them because they wanted Sega to make EA's sports games the only sports games available on the platform (Sega of America's then President refused to do so). In this case, they are refusing to support Nintendo because Nintendo did not give them rights to control the Wii U's digital eShop.

3. EA does not treat their developers properly, and they often take over creative control of the game. EA has been named the worst company to work for, and over the past few years (I remember from 2008) they have been close to top of the chart in terms of worst companies to work for.

4. They plan on increasing video game prices through micro-transactions and generally increasing the price of boxed retail titles by another $10 (this was stated by one of their executives), this is despite the fact that video games costs have not increased since 2006 (and in many cases they have even decreased due to developers now knowing how to program for shader based graphics systems). This practice can make console gaming very unsustainable especially if other developers follow through.

I think that Nintendo should try to have a dialogue with EA in order to patch up the relationship, but based on EA's track record I do not believe that they will listen or change their mind (they might do so when the Wii U has a higher install base, but even then I doubt they will bring over many of their important titles). Thus, it might be better for Nintendo to work with other third-parties and internal studios to close the rift that a lack of EA games will cause.



DarkKirby said:

I don't necessarily have anything against all the developers under EA, but seriously, screw EA the company. They are BY FAR the worst most anti customer video game company right now, far ahead of Activision and Capcom. EA even wanted a takeover of Nintendo's entire online system through Origin, which is just a garbage DRM extreme version of Steam owned by EA. Screw EA.

Yes, EA is a profitable company that has developers under it that make popular games, but Nintendo begging for EA's help is far from what needs to happen, nor will it increase Wii U sales by a significant amount. If Nintendo wants to increase Wii U sales they needs an exclusive Wii U title like a Zelda game (nothing moves consoles like Zelda, except Pokemon). I really want 3rd party support for the Wii U which it is severely lacking, but at this point it looks like most people will just buy 3rd party games for other consoles than buy a Wii U for it. Nintendo knows this I'm sure, but the games simply aren't ready.



Unit_DTH said:

It's interesting that you say 3rd party titles won't drive sales, since the release of Monster Hunter 3 U and Lego City Undercover in UK and in the US the sales of Wii U have tripled(In the UK I believe that is do in no small part to a large retailer cutting the Wii U price by more than 50%). So, I think that 3rd party support could cause systems to sell... the games just have to be good! EA is notorious for making sloppy games and for being biggots when it comes to Nintendo and the Wii U especially(except for their plethora of lies during E3 2011), but the console seems to be doing just fine without Origin... Now if we could only get some DLC from Activision for the console then all would be well;)



GraveLordXD said:

@Davidiam007 yeah I've seen those on Wal-Marts website two weeks ago and was excited to see zelda 2 rpg. I wish we had some release dates

On subject... I think I'll just keep my opinions about EA to myself from now on, we all know it isn't good.



KLZ said:


Nah I didn't mean it in a bad way, it's just the way it is and people are spinnin the issue too much when it's just that simple.



UnseatingKDawg said:

After reading the article, I could see EA as a... necessary evil, of sorts. But I will say that EA needs to get over themselves and be equal to all consoles - that is, make the graphics and gameplay the same. If they really don't think they could come up with SOMETHING unique for that Game Pad to do, they could just make Off-TV play a standard with their products, or, in the case of sports titles, have the Game Pad's screen display statistics or something.



GoombaSlayer said:

The lack of EA support on the Dreamcast was one of the reasons that the platform died early on. However i believe that as long as EA Sports is somewhat there that same thing wont happen again (of course that was just one of the reasons Dreamcast passed away which doesnt apply to Nintendo), since you cant really say that EA was all there for the first Wii either. And that went quite well anyway.

However i do enjoy some EA games. They produce blockblusters and even though Ubisoft is giving a lot of that support right now - more is not less, people. Would love to see Dragon Age 3, Mass Effect Trilogy, Fuse for Wii U.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...