EA's on-off relationship with Nintendo over the past decade has been so eventual it's a wonder it hasn't been turned into a 10-part docuseries on Netflix by now. Back in the Wii era, EA was happy to throw resources at Nintendo's system thanks to its impressive install base, and we were gifted with no less than 78 different titles from the publisher, including the likes of Boom Blox, MySims, EA Playground and Dead Space: Extraction – all bespoke games created to properly leverage the unique functions of the best-selling motion-controlled home console.
The Wii U was a commercial disaster for Nintendo and it's unlikely that any amount of third-party software support was going to change that
Like any good relationship, it benefitted both parties – so much so that EA announced the infamous 'unprecedented partnership' with Nintendo prior to the release of the Wii U. EA's then-CEO John Riccitiello even joined Satoru Iwata and Reggie Fils-Aime on stage for his first-ever appearance at a Nintendo conference, all but confirming that two of the biggest names in video games were about to get even closer with the Wii U.
Of course, we all know how that particular episode ended. While EA was initially keen, bringing titles like Mass Effect 3 and FIFA 13 to the system, it notably held back Madden – one of its crown jewels – and as the console struggled to find its audience, EA's enthusiasm waned. Even titles like Need for Speed: Most Wanted U – which should have made a real splash on the system – were pushed to market with little effort, leading Criterion founder Alex Ward to lament that "neither Nintendo or EA gave a s*** about it". The previously rosy partnership was coming to an ignominious end.
In the cold light of day, who could blame EA for this outcome? The Wii U was a commercial disaster for Nintendo and it's unlikely that any amount of third-party software support was going to change that; the marketing for the machine was clumsy and the hook of having a second screen was underused, even by Nintendo. As EA's CFO Blake Jorgensen bluntly said in 2015, "We don't make games anymore for the Wii or the Wii U because the market is not big enough... it's all about the size of the market."
However, the concept of the Wii U arguably led to the development of the Switch, and prior to Nintendo officially unveiling its new console in 2016, there were rumblings that EA was ready to rekindle the flame. Indeed, early in 2017, EA's executive vice president Patrick Söderlund took to the stage during the Nintendo Switch Presentation in Tokyo to confirm that a custom-made FIFA would be coming to the new system, later adding: "We've been with Nintendo for a very long time. I'm a Nintendo fanboy since I grew up. Nintendo is the reason I got into gaming." So, game on again, right?
Before we appear to be ungrateful, getting to play titles like Burnout Paradise and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit on the go is great, and the fact that Apex Legends is Switch-bound is cause for celebration
Not quite. While EA has certainly been active on the Switch, it appears to have fallen into its old ways again. FIFA has now lapsed into 'Legacy' territory, with EA basically updating the kits and stats but keeping the game engine in stasis – a practice which it formerly reserved for last-gen systems. Elsewhere, the company has decided against creating unique experiences solely for Switch, and instead chooses to port-over older titles – presumably because it continues to believe that Switch owners only buy Nintendo games. Just yesterday, it was reported that many of the "multiple titles" EA plans to bring to Switch this year are ports.
Now, before we appear to be ungrateful, getting to play titles like Burnout Paradise and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit on the go is great, and the fact that Apex Legends is Switch-bound is cause for celebration – it's one of EA's most recent hits, after all. And it's worth noting that the process of bringing these games to Nintendo's console isn't akin to simply flicking a switch (pardon the pun); they will need optimising for the platform, and that costs money.
However, there's no escaping the fact that some of these big-name releases are games which have already been developed and will have presumably recouped their initial production cost many times over on older systems (Hot Pursuit, lest we forget, was a PS4/Xbox One launch title). Releasing them on Switch might not be 'money for old rope', but it's pretty darn close. Surely there is room for EA to create unique content solely for Nintendo's console?
EA isn't alone in this approach, of course. 2K has recently released a slew of ports to the console, and not a month seems to pass without another PS3 or Xbox 360 titles getting a new lease of life on Switch. It's also worth noting that EA isn't really creating 'bespoke' games for other consoles, either; its titles are primarily cross-platform, so they launch on both PS4 and Xbox One at the same time. While it would be nice to expect that the likes of Star Wars: Jedi: Fallen Order and Battlefield V on Switch, it's clear that not every game can be successfully scaled down to the hybrid system successfully. Should EA be creating unique games exclusively for the Switch, then? That's a risky business, as you don't have the safety net of multi-platform sales to cover the development costs, so it's unlikely that the company would return to the days of the Wii, when it was pumping out platform exclusives designed to take advantage of the console's unique interface (and audience).
You could argue that the company is doing the best it can, given the power deficit between Nintendo's system and the PS4 and Xbox One
So where does that leave EA and Switch? You could argue that the company is doing the best it can, given the power deficit between Nintendo's system and the PS4 and Xbox One. Sure, titles like DOOM and The Witcher 3 prove that Switch is capable of hosting current-gen experiences when the development talent is there, but the console is clearly weaker than Sony and Microsoft's platforms, which is why it makes more sense – purely from a business perspective – to leverage that massive audience with titles from the previous generation. Titles which, it should be remembered, are making their Nintendo debuts on Switch. This is an untapped selection of players that EA is unlocking with these ports. If the sales are there, maybe the company will be even keener to support the platform?
There are still elements of this approach that rankle, of course. Asking full price for Burnout Paradise on Switch was pretty cheeky, given that it was cheaper at launch on other systems back in 2018 and is often on sale elsewhere (the Switch Tax is alive and well, it seems). And why hasn't The Sims 4 been confirmed? Surely that most casual of all EA licences would be absolutely perfect for Switch – a console which already has a world-beating life sim in the form of Animal Crossing: New Horizons. Sims on Switch sounds like a no-brainer to us, given the audience, so why is EA sleeping on it?
Still, EA isn't the only third-party publisher to be caught napping by Switch's incredible success, nor is it the only one which uses Sony and Microsoft's formats as its main source of income. However, it could well be the case that by ignoring Nintendo's growing audience for so long, the company will have a hard time convincing them its efforts are heartfelt and sincere; ports are a good start, but the company needs to put in some real effort if it seeks to completely rekindle that oft-derided partnership.
Comments (151)
Laziness. Simple as that, the Switch is a huge market and they’re doing it a disservice.
I’d have liked some last gen collections if no new games were coming. Mass effect and dead space in particular.
I’m not a hater, not in the slightest, but there’s definitely an element of laziness involved, arrogance, and of course many decisions are made with business in mind.
If it was so easy developing for the switch we would have taken, soul caliber, call of duty, RE7. There's a reason were not getting the games and it isn't the audience. It's the hardware.
You already spelled it out. Sony and microsoft is EAs main source of income. Anything out of nintendo is just a bonus. Why would they risk when they dont have to?
EA are and have been poor for over a decade. Even FIFA and Madden for PS4 and XB1 are the same games every year. I don’t think anyone would miss them.
It makes some sense but is so late and half hearted they might as well wait for the next machine or streaming service.
Common sense would have been EA with games on day 1 of Switch's launch, even the Wii U had that courtesy. And no I refuse to count FIFA as support. As it stands they've made minimal money from Switch sales by waiting 3 years to bother. This should be the year Switch gets exclusives, not the year people decide to port.
EA aren't worried about the Switch not being a big enough market, or Switch gamers not supporting 3rd party games. Neither of this is true. The issue for EA is that Nintendo platforms aren't as big of a ROI as the xbox and PS.
So this isn't even laziness. This is EA looking at their money pot and going "where would this money bring back the most money?". So even if they released HD ports and Switch ports of modern games, and those games would easily be profitable, EA is just allocating more money elsewhere as that is a bigger money maker.
@sixrings What do you think is hard about Switch development?
Single core CPU performance is equal to X1X
GPU feature level is equal to X1X and PS5
RAM is unified
OpenGL and Vulkan are supported
Like the only two possible issues are no DirectX (PS4 has this too though) and low RAM capacity
I don’t play EA, so I don’t really care either way.
I wonder how the 2K collections have sold on the Switch? That might catch EA's attention, in relation to Mass Effect and Dead Space.
EA don’t want to port their old Contained single player games because there isn’t the money in them like the online live services like FIFA, Battlefield, and Battlefront. And Nintendo’s customer base traditionally isn’t so used to shelling out for pointless add ons after they‘be already paid once, and even if they did the Switch isn’t ideal to play online games on.
I think we have to be realistic we’re always going to be an afterthought to EA because we don’t fit well in their business model. What frustrates me is we’ll never get a really good American Football or Ice Hockey game because of EA’s stranglehold on licensing, and are holding out hope that Nintendo will give us Mario Strikers so we can play Football on the Switch.
It feels like it's a bit of both. Any support is a good sign, but the games they picked are odd choices. I assume they must of been the most cost effective move for EA.
Lazy...? Uhmmm no, I´d rather say dumb lol.
If they released games like The Sims, Mass Effect, Dead Space, Dragon Age, Plants vs Zombies, etc., on Switch, they´d get a lot of money, and it wouldn´t cost them much, as they´re all old or little ambitious games.
Releasing FIFA Legacy year after year IS laziness (although they still sell well), the rest is just dumbness XD
Not at all common sense imo. They are very late and with very few games.
@Richnj
"EA aren't worried about the Switch not being a big enough market, or Switch gamers not supporting 3rd party games. Neither of this is true. The issue for EA is that Nintendo platforms aren't as big of a ROI as the xbox and PS."
Actually, this isn't really the case anymore (depending on the game). At least in relation to Xbox. When Switch had half the install base of the Xbox One, it was a different story. Just look at Amazon top 100 sales charts.
Yeah they are not going to make games exclusively for the Switch. I hear this idea thrown around by many Nintendo fans regarding third parties and it just isn't going to happen (outside of some obscure Anime-esk games from Japanese developers). Nintendo fans aren't going to get special treatment just because they gravitate to games with a certain look.
Also I don't see the value in EA making Nintendo-lite games. Nintendo fans may not like the games EA is bringing, and that's fine, but it brings some variety to the table.
The title of laziness belongs to Sega/Atlus.
Element of making a quick buck comes to mind, a few quick ports as the Switch install base is simply too large to now ignore...
However, from the words said by the people working on Apex Legends it sounds more promising, effort and time seems to be high for the port here. Fifa 21 Legacy is very lazy but Need For Speed Hot Pursuit certainly has promise...
Overall it's a mixture, for me the games I don't like I will simply ignore, those which interest me I could pick up...
At the end of the day it gives you more choice, which is never a bad thing...
Only buy what benefits you, ignore the rest and move on, it's quite simple really...
@Richnj the thing is it could be or at least a worthwhile endeavour if they put the effort in. Quick ports while some might appeal, aren’t going to cut it on there own. They need something to win over the players who have a negative view of them. Then they could flood the switch with ports and people won’t take the stance of refusing to not buy EA games.
@sixrings I'd like to agree but if you look at the stupid arse "blur" and depth of field effects in Resi 7 and Soul Cal 6, then yes, Switch can look like a blurry mess too. No problems with hardware there .
I'm not sure it's laziness. I fear it's more a holistic nature of being a multi plat company. I doubt they will make a Dead Space port for Switch without it featuring in their plans for a PS4 / Xbox release too. And unfortunately, those plans are well along a road map that they have been driving on without the Switch. Which leaves us to ponder their choice of games...
...which are fine I guess (outside of another disappointing Fifa release.) We know what we are buying into with Apex. So no harm, no foul. I'm sure Hot Pursuit will be complete on cart and be as well considered as Burnout Paradise was (honestly, chuffed to bits with that release.) Plants Vs Zombies, although disappointing it's not the original, is good to put that IP on the system. And the other indie titles are nice that they align with the other systems.
So if we all want mass effect and dead space, then let's hope PS4 and Xbox owners want remasters too. I'm sure it would be much easier to have Switch in mind under these condions, than hoping in vain they make a game specifically for Switch.
At least EA brings their indie games and select AAA stuff to the Switch. They could have easily skipped the Switch altogether after the disappointment that was the Wii U.
Haven’t taken EA seriously as a third party since the GC/PS2/XBOX era.
Its lazy, but no longer nonexistent.
I can understand when hardware intensive Frostbite engine games like Battlefield and Battlefront don't get Switch ports, but there is no reason why The Sims 4, non-Legacy Edition FIFA/Madden/NHL games, and PS3/360 ports shouldnt be ported to Switch.
They are doing the bare minimum. They feel pressure from shareholders who wonder why they aren't putting games on a console with 60 million users, so EA is pulling some easy games to port. However, where is Mass Effect Trilogy? Sims? Madden? NHL? No reason these aren't being ported over.
"Now, before we appear to be ungrateful"
Translation: We still want free review copies, daddy EA.
EA's efforts on Nintendo platforms have been GARBAGE for the last decade, and you guys damn well know that.
@sixrings No you are wrong, as a developer the switch is as easy to develop as PC.
@Damo "Hot Pursuit, lest we forget, was a PS4/Xbox One launch title".
Probably best we do forget that, due to the fact that it wasn't. It was a 2010 PS3/360/Wii game. It was never even ported to PS4/XBO, let alone a launch title for them. You're thinking of Need For Speed: Rivals.
@VenomousAlbino which is actually worse than HP.
@ncb1397 There's a couple of factors here that muddle that list. The biggest of course being all the children sat at home driving parents crazy. Even then, a lot of those Switch games are 1st party titles, and when checking the top selling Switch games, the "adult" games appear on the bottom half of the list. All of which just re-enforces the "Nintendo gamers only buy Nintendo or childish games".
To be clear. I'm not saying that Switch games don't sell, just that the games EA makes sell more on a platform like the PS4, and then it's an cheap and easy port to xbox given the power similarities.
@elpardo1984 It would be, I agree, but EA is the company that cancelled a franchise that was selling 5 million copies because that wasn't enough units for them. EA is pure greed. If they aren't making stupid money on each and every release, then it's not worth their money as far as they are concerned.
I was disappointed by EAs offerings on Switch. Then I looked for EA IPs I’d want on Switch and I think I’m just disappointed in EA.
Other than old BioWare stuff like KOTOR and the Sims, what do they even have that I want to play?
@westman98
"I can understand when hardware intensive Frostbite engine games like Battlefield and Battlefront don't get Switch ports"
Battlefield and Battlefront aren't really that demanding though. They usually run at pretty stable 60 fps on the lowly Xbox One. Minecraft Dungeons is more demanding. They just look demanding due to techniques like photogrammetry.
I’d rather see them port Need for Speed Heat. Hot Pursuit is ancient.
Of course it’s lazy. They’re greedy b*stards who couldn’t even bother registering Burnout Paradise with The My Nintendo program.
EA is all about games as a service, micro transactions, season passes and generally continually monitising releases. The Switch needs a massively improved, far slicker online infrastructure in order to make it worthwhile for EA to bother releasing games on it.
They had a chance to do it the right way... But then again, its EA.
It's lazy and minimal effort to still get a slice of the pie. All those games are the type that could be ported to iOS and Android.
Are the Nintendo WiiU ports lazy or brilliant strategy?
@ncb1397
Just because a game runs at 60FPS on XBO doesnt mean it isn't a demanding game.
@koekiemonster
The best-selling Switch game is also the best-selling Wii U game, so I'd say it's a pretty brilliant strategy lol
Lazy..... porting games to the less selling Xbox one, but not to the switch that has sold millions more.... lazy... They could port older games from the 360 or ps3. Why not something like Battlefield 1942, need for speed underground, deadspace or mass effect.... it's just lazy. FIFA legacy version... realy EA?
Ea can barely optimize their normal console ports, much less make a game work on switch. Burnout paradise is proof of that much. They just lack the talent to go into the market with any sort of confidence and thus can't sell their execs on the idea.
switch dont need them they dont actually make any games any more just gambling sorry suprise mechanics money grabs
It's absolutely lazy. EA refuses to put resources into their Switch games, vastly overprices them then cries foul, blaming Nintendo's own domination of the Switch market. 2K at least has a shred of consistency and provides serviceable ports, for all their cartridge shenanigans.
I wish they would just port their PS3/360 games as classics at affordable pricing. Those games have already recouped their original costs long ago.
There's nothing lazy about it. They don't make games for PS4 and XB1 because they like those machines, but because they make money. Switch, like any Nintendo console will always have a couple of big drawbacks for 3rd parties, and that's the fanbase's tendency to not really buy 3rd party games in big numbers, but also the work involved in porting. They can create a game that runs on PS4 and XB1 with minimal changes needed, so one project can sell to a huge userbase over 150 million strong. Making something work on Switch takes a lot more work, which costs a lot more money.
“Hot Pursuit, lest we forget, was a PS4/Xbox One launch title.” - I don’t think this is factually correct. NEED FOR SPEED: HOT PURSUIT was 360/PS3 and even got an inferior port to the original Wii.
Most importantly, Hot Pursuit was bloody brilliant back in 2010 and I’ve even sunk 20hrs plus into the game again on PS3 this year alone. Pre-owned copies can be had for less than £5. The online servers are still up although suspect this remaster will sound the death knell to that.
Either way, delighted this Criterion racer is coming to Switch and am enjoying the recent BURNOUT PARADISE: REMASTERED on Switch too.
Would’ve loved to see the original PLANTS VS. ZOMBIES come over along with DEAD SPACE, DANTE’S INFERNO and MASS EFFECT. Hopefully, in 2021/22.
To all the people who claim laziness, go work in games development and ask yourself if it’s still lazy.
I boycotted EA years ago for several reasons, but the biggest one is that I do not support CRUNCH. EA is notorious for putting their teams through insane levels of crunch during development, so if you still want to call that laziness, I think you don’t understand games development very much.
@JSDude1 What region you in? If I recall correctly, I did get gold coins back off the UK physical cart release. Not that, that scheme is even worth it. Like 45p back for a £45 spend. One notch above meaningless in terms of reward scheme value.
@Bl4ckb100d then you have a whole list of lazy developers. Capcom, Activision, Namco, codemasters deserve your distaste too.
@Leo2Kirby Limited RAM is definitely one issue but memory bandwidth is probably the biggest one. It’s way too slow and causes far too much of a bottleneck that makes some ports very difficult.
Remember, hardware is only as fast as its slowest moving part.
@Pojos98 so what if it is ancient. It's the best NFS game and a remaster will be great. Heat is nowhere near as good!
Let this be a lesson to every gamer out there: EA and most big companies are full of s***. EA screamed for years regarding Nintendo; "GROW THE INSTALL BASE FIRST!!!!!"
Enter Switch. Nintendo does just that.
Reaction: Ports, last gen ports, continued indifference, and some more ports.
Really don't care because EA sucks and their games have been disappointing me for over a decade now.
I haven’t purchased a game from them since 2007, so their support or lack of support has no effect on me.
I thought this was gping to be a poll, but it's just lazy. Same for a lot of third parties, like Square Enix. EA is definitely still the worst.
It's baffling The Sims series doesn't get onto the Switch. Heck even re-make MySims as that'd surely sell well
Laziness & a bit of business ignorance with regard to the Switch imo.
I don't think EA's approach to Switch is lazy. I think EA's approach to product development is lazy, full stop.
They have mastered the philosophy of spending as little as possible and charging as much as possible, for greatest quarterly returns, and their audience has proven that approach works.
That being, said, this year's EA presentation was very very different from most years, and it almost seems as though they're trying to re-enter the real gaming market, perhaps seeing some writing on the wall that the model they've been following so far is showing cracks and recognizing the need to return to the table with some new product.
I don't have a problem with "ports" in that, I can't imagine any large 3rd party studio making platform specific games, really, ever again. Odd PS or Nintendo loyalty in some Japanese studios, aside. The cost is too high, and the return too low to focus on something that isn't portable between systems, and modern technology means there's no longer a need to lock a product to just one architecture or market unless you're the platform holder or under contract with them. EA's not wrong in bringing ports, but their choice of ports is often questionable, focusing on tired franchises, out of date iterations, or games that are so long in the tooth I wonder who the market might actually be for them. Apex is a step in the right direction though.
For EA in particular their two big problems this gen with Nintendo is their core model revolves around always-online and monetization which doesn't work ideally with Switch's portable nature, and the fact that they committed everything to Frostbite years ago, which is supposedly a very badly mangled codebase, antiquated, and hard to port outside the PC architecture, meaning they really can't port most of their flagship content to anything that isn't x86 based. Even if they saw huge market potential on Switch, their past errors have kind of tied their hands from being able to do much with it. The cost to port that monstrosity would be very prohibitive and still probably not worth the cost with how it might perform in the end. I don't think EA can support Switch (or any non-x86 platform) properly until they move on from Frostbite, which may not be likely since they bought DICE largely to get Frostbite. It's like buying a decked out sports car just to get the copper rims, only to find out they're painted plastic.
I'd also argue EA's output in the Wii years wasn't very commendable as content tailored to the Wii. It was, more specifically, cheap, easy to produce software, tailored to an unsophisticated new market. A market they've moved over to mobile games to continue following.
I think EA in general has been unexciting to core gamers for many years. No matter what platform you're on, unless you're a fan of the few franchises they crank out, and they've been resting on their Star Wars contract too heavily. Which is a shame, because they do have a great talent pool and when they do put out a high quality production, it really is high quality. But they have so far chosen to do so very rarely, even outside Switch. I prefer their real content, rare as it is, to Activisions few, messy, releases outside Crash/Spyro. EA's less evil than they once were, but their past evil will haunt them for some time without a real stable of products to fall back onto. I'm hoping this year's presentation is an indication they're starting to remember who they once were and what kind of products they used to be able to produce. Once upon a time, an EA game was kind of a stamp of quality and uniqueness.
(Forum mandated splitting the post)
@sixrings actually in Japan you gat get a version of RE7 for the Switch.
you know its bad when bethesda has way more support for the switch than ea has.
tbh idc anyways, i dont buy any EA game anymore on any platform, havnt done so for years, and they havnt rly given me a reason to do so tbh.
launching mass effect 3 for full price to later release a complete trilogy same price on other consoles? gee i wonder why EA doesnt get nintendo fan support
@Lroy The American version, and when I tried it said that I could not register this cart. At first I thought maybe I’d just received the wrong region’s cart, but it didn’t even give the usually warning from import games I get that I can’t register said cart in my region.
EA and Nintendo have had a messy relationship for decades now. It started back in the 80s when Nintendo was courting North American game developers for the NES. When they met up with Trip Hawkins, he took them to task about their one-sided licensing terms and told them to go fly a kite. There was no way he was curtailing his production of high quality PC games to dedicate only resources to the less powerful NES. EA did support the Super Nintendo, but it definitely gave more focus to the Genesis, which had games like General Chaos, Mutant League Football and Road Rash, which never came over to the Super Nintendo. Their support for other Nintendo platforms, from the N64 to the Wii, was mixed. However, they did agree to work closely with Nintendo on the Wii U, and for a while they delivered on that promise, but the horrible sales left a bad taste in their mouth and once again they distanced themselves from Nintendo. Now they are coming back because of the huge sales of the Switch and shareholder pressure to put games on the console. We'll see what happens, but this still isn't the EA from the 80s and 90 that made some of the highest quality titles in the land.
I don't necessarily think it's lazy. It's certainly a lot better than what I was expecting prior to the Switch's release. It's just unfortunate they aren't really experimenting with getting engines like Frostbite to run on the console because most of EA's really popular titles would benefit from having an additional playerbase of Switch users. I'm also surprised they didn't even attempt to get UE4 games like Jedi: Fallen Order or Titanfall to run on the system.
It made sense for a while that they were putting all their money on more successful platforms like PS4, Xbox One and PC as opposed to Wii U, but the Switch is a hugely successful platform and it certainly has a playerbase for these kinds of games beyond the expected like FIFA and Madden.
I was really hoping to see Madden or NHL arrive on the switch, but that probably won't ever happen.
Why is Nintendo not stepping in with a sports division of their own? It's a joke Nintendo has put out to pasture Ken Griffey baseball, NBA Courtside, etc.
I'm definitely looking into the new PS5 and Xbox series X when it comes to sports.
@TheMadPolarBear Drop the resolution, use less dynamic lighting, make better use of caches, there's a lot of ways to address limited memory bandwidth
Yes, a 64-bit bus is narrow and not ideal, but it can be worked around, see X1S
Give us NHL 21 on Switch Please! I need my portable Hockey!
EA's model for years has been to purchase exclusive licenses to extremely popular things (NFL, FIFA, NHL, Lord of the Rings, etc.) and purchase smaller developers of popular franchises. For example, everyone forgets that Mass Effect 1 didn't belong to EA originally, but was created by BioWare and published by Microsoft.
So why would it surprise you that they are unable to produce original content for a unique console? They couldn't figure out that games like Sim City would work wonderfully with a gamepad or that people would be insulted by a $60 Mass Effect 3 on Wii U that competed with a $60 Mass Effect Trilogy on other consoles. Likewise they (and others) still don't understand that announcing that one version of the game will be missing features/content but still be sold at the same price (or higher) will rub a majority of the customer base the wrong way.
@Cyberbotv2 I hear ya on the sports games. This console has been disappointing when it comes to sports selections. NBA 2K has been a good series, and FIFA is available (but still the legacy version). I'm also happy that PGA 2K is coming to the console, as well as MLB The Show.
NFL football is going to be tricky if EA refuses to port Madden over to the Switch. EA has the exclusive license to NFL simulation games, so if they don't put the game on the console, no one else can put an NFL simulation on the console. I think it would print money if they did. A portable football game? Weird how the NFL isn't putting pressure on them to do so.
The Switch could always get an arcade style NFL game similar to NFL Blitz, but not sure if that will ever happen. I'm happy Tecmo Bowl is on NS Online, but I'd love a modern game to play.
And yes, we do also need something with the NHL.
Is this article laziness or common sense because it's click bait.
@sixrings Could you please explain what aspect of the headline is clickbait? I'm genuinely interested.
As much as I don’t like EA as stated in my earlier comment - we can’t have it all ways. Switch was always going to get ports and even if we do get a new Switch - we have to at som point - the scenario isn’t going to change- either accept it for what it is and always will be or don’t have a Switch. Switch is brilliant - we can and will continue to get games on the go that were never before possible.
It is what it is - brilliant but if you expect more you are going to be forever disappointed.
It's fascinating how Electronic Arts released over 70 games for the GameCube, and just as many for the Wii.
And then somehow, after originally announcing an "unprecedented" partnership for the Wii U, everything fell apart between them.
Similarly, Activision had about forty games on GameCube, and almost ONE HUNDRED on Wii. Now, they have published all of THREE games on Switch.
Nintendo must have done SOMETHING to annoy the big boys. Or, maybe they just don't do anything to flatter them.
@Damo because in general most Nintendo fans despise EA. We could have predicted the comments in here which makes the whole exercise a waste of time. Also where is the poll which I assume many clicked on here for. But I do like the site so congrats
@Pod yeah, it almost seems like this is a combination of resentment and risk. With the large install base, the risk is mitigated somewhat. It looks like they are testing the waters a bit.
@Leo2Kirby "Single core CPU performance is equal to X1X
GPU feature level is equal to X1X and PS5"
And where exactly is your source for that? I don't recall any developer saying such a thing about the Switch hardware. In fact many developers have said the Switch hardware has much more in common with an xbox 360 than anything else.
Let's also not forget the Switch memory bandwidth is so slow it bottlenecks the whole console. And we are already seeing ports bottlenecked by the tegra x1 as a whole.
I'm curious who said such a thing about the Switch
The truth is, it's getting harder and harder for major publishers to ignore the success of the Switch. 2K dipped their toe in the water in May with their game releases and from what I've heard they've been successful. Now EA is doing the same thing.
@kingbk yet publishers like capcom want nothing to do with the Switch. Where's that proper follow up to monster hunter game on Switch? Ah, right, its on everything but the Switch 🤷🏻♂️
@Pod They got burned by the failure of the Wii U. Most developers I don't think believed the Switch was going to be the success that it is. Now that's it's around 60 million users, they will more and more consider pushing titles over to the console.
@Casual_Gamer95 I wouldn't say they want nothing to do with the Switch, but the way they are releasing games for it (older titles at a markup) is quite frustrating. They are supposedly coming out with a Switch only game later this year, so perhaps that will be a Monster Hunter Switch only game?
The main reason has to be the switches hardware, I mean witcher 3 isn't a graphically challenging game and it still looks bad and blury on the switch.
Now if they made games from scratch with the switch on mind then yes we could get some really good third party games on the switch.
BUT these third party developers develop games with the ps4 and xbox one in mind which means the switch won't be able to hand a straight port, the only way is to spend more money and resources and try to downgrade the game for the switch which obviously most companies don't want to do
@sixrings Who are you speaking on behalf of? Sweeping generalistion much? I see a lot of people asking for EA franchises on here. I wouldn't say it's hate it's more confusion as to why EA are being so slack. I'm indifferent towards them but that's just me. It's not dissimilar to your "Nintendo fans don't care about graphics" posts that you make every couple of weeks.
Still odd that they’re not bringing more sports games across but they’re a Lazy Company generally. Look at the good start they made with FIFA Switch only to give up.
We were never going to get more than Ports out of EA anyway (or in fact more Third-Parties) but they’re making some odd choices about what to bring across.
It is not Just EA. It is a lazy fest on Switch from tons of publisher.
Nintendo needs to hire someone to lead the 3rd Party Relations office that AAA studio heads actually care about. Just get Madden.
@TheLightSpirit Do you know what a boycott is?
I still feel the biggest issue for third parties is competing against Nintendo's first party offerings, no matter how good the port it's just so tough to sell decent numbers.
@Pod Nintendo doesn't pay to play is one. Nintendo is an equally big publisher that competes against them. Imagine if Activision had to make games for a Ubisoft produced console? That wouldn't go well. Sure Sony's a big publisher, too, but even Sony can't touch Pokemon sales numbers alone, so as a raw competitor, and especially within Nintendo's ecosystem, Nintendo is a much more direct competitor to third party publishers than is SCE as a percentage of total sales on the platform.
But more than that, those past consoles got more support because the consoles had mostly power parity and architectural parity. Porting didn't cost that much, and new games allowed re-use of existing technologies. Sure Switch supports UE4, but that explains largely why the mega publishers that use their own in-house engines have a harder time supporting it than do third parties that use UE and other commonly used non-proprietary engines.
That's the big thing. If you're on PS2 and GCN, and XBox, you're pretty much porting between similar architectures, with similar performance, and it's no big deal. If you're porting to Switch and you're a B-publisher using a licensed engine, it's no big deal. If you're porting from PC and the PC twins to Switch and you're using your own in-house engine designed only for x86....you have to basically rewrite the whole system just to add Switch, only so you can try to go up against the owner of freakin' Pokemon head-on in their own world. The cost/benefit on that can't possibly work out favorably very often.
EA is just lazy, which is why stockholders are getting frustrated and more frequently bothering the CEO with questions about the switch
@WiltonRoots well then I'd like to see a poll. I genuinely think the majority on this site talk down to EA. Maybe because I'm expecting those comments that they are a self fulfilling prophecy but I'd like to see a poll. Although that would mean a fourth EA post in the last week alone.
What a stupid question, of course it’s lazy, but it’s more stupid than lazy though, same thing when it comes to SEGA.
Common sense would be for EA to bring games people want on the Switch, like Sims, Dead Space, Mass Effect and Star Wars.
And SEGA should bring Persona, Sakura Wars, Yakuza and remaster Skies of Arcadia to the Switch and give us some damn SMT5 info already.
@progx IMO EA (and most of the majors) would be too lazy to do anything outside PC/mobile in general. If PS/XBox weren't basically just PCs anyway, they probably wouldn't even bother with those anymore, and they are the reason PS ultimately went the x86 route, at publisher request. All publishers are just PC publishers that will copy and past PC games to consoles. Which isn't entirely a bad thing, but it does put Nintendo in the "other" camp, with being mobile architecture, but being a platform the "mobile" ecosystem doesn't work or exist on.
Also, EA was a direct competitor of Steam with Origin, thus their prior lack of Steam support. Now, however with Epic store throwing bribery into the pool, EA's playing nice with Steam to fight the common Epic threat, much like how MS is playing cozy with Nintendo against Sony/Google.
When we talk about "big publisher laziness" let's also not rule out that Sony's "big opener" to unveiling the entire PS5 was.....GTAV. A 7 year old game from the PS3 from 2k.
We are no longer alone.
@locky-mavo,
I know this all sounds so simple, but are these games really what people outside of the core Switch owners actually want?, I mean on a personal level I would take all the franchises you listed, but are there enough potential sales to make it viable for EA to release these games for the Switch, as surely the biggest market for these games will not only own a Switch console.
EA is Wicked Step Mother.
EA want to keep portray Nintendo (Cinderella) as servant girl that always be a console who never deserve as primary machine.
Edit:
I realized something.
If one franchise cannot come to Nintendo Switch, don't cry or fret.
Just buy the other machine version and it saves your day.
Having multiple consoles to complement each other are my solution.
Appalling article! Grow some balls Nintendo Life writers ffs! EA are and have always been money grabbers, end of...
@NEStalgia
Power parity explains the GameCube.
But not so much the Wii, which has even more titles from big publishers. However, that was a system where EVERYONE knew that EVERYONE had or wanted one. The same hasn't exactly been the case with the Switch.
You can't throw any bizarre concept out there on the Switch, using yesteryears tech, and assume somebody's mom will bite. Not when said mom already has an iPad. And not when Switch owners are seemingly in-the-know gamers, who already spent much of their dosh on Mario & Co.
The market is somewhat different, and I suppose neither EA nor Activision believed that the Switch would take off the way it has. And you are of course right that the competition from Nintendo themselves might seem even steeper than ever before to publishers like them.
Why should Nintendo get 30% of their revenue in this day and age, where both of them rule publishing platforms of their own? They are likely to have made demands that they pay a lower royalty than smaller publishers, to which Nintendo are likely to have replied "We don't need you."
Yeah I’m having a hard time getting riled up about this. As I mentioned in a previous thread, if I really wanted to play EA games that badly, I would buy a PS or whatever to do so. Not being able to play Their games on the Go isn’t giving me sleepless nights lol.
Do think that Sims on Switch makes a whole lot of sense given the success of a pretty similar game that’s been selling like hot cakes globally and because that type of genre fits well with the user base. But I wouldn’t by Sims myself either so no big deal for me personally
@NEStalgia ,
So true, the Grand theft auto announcement so early in the PS5 reveal surprised me too, I suppose it was Sony's way of suggesting they had a good relationship with the developer more than anything else.
@Sszx09,
Nintendo are victims of their own success with the Switch, one the one hand they have created a popular console that sells a lot more units of their own software, even more so when you consider the ratio to Switch owners, just look at the ratio on the Wii and you will see a massive difference, which of course can be chalked down to the more casual Wii user base, but still Nintendo have got their first party titles selling amazing numbers that just keep growing, yet awesome ports like Doom and the Witcher can't even crack a million sales, must be a tough situation for any potential Switch third party developer.
Too little, too late.
EA knows what Nintendo fans want and it isn't lazy cash grabs. Give us something new or stay away.
Another issue with all this is it's tough to judge the potential sales of third party titles on the Switch when in effect all we are getting are older ports, I mean there can't be many people that wanted to play the Witcher that have not already played it on the platforms, no matter how good the port is, so the developer releases said game, it then goes on to sell low numbers, then they use this as an excuse to not bring other games to the console.
Doom eternal had the potential to reverse this trend, but what did the developer do?, they delayed it and released it on the other platforms, so nothing will basically change.
This isn't about EA, unfortunately.
EA.... Capcom... Konami... They have their reasons.
Konami wants to use the Switch for games that were supposed to be on 3DS.
Capcom and EA are similar: Switch as an experiment for cash grabs, with no risks.
And that's exactly why I think that after the success of Animal Crossing, a port of Sims would be a minimal risk... It's almost obvious... it has a PC version, perfect for a port with the lowest settings...
That's not a problem.
The problem is to read EA claiming "Oh FiFa 21 DiDn'T sEll wEll oN SwiTch BecAusE NinTenDO plAyers DOn'T bUy FiFa"
I don’t need games specifically designed for Switch and I don’t need scaled down current gen games. Just give me Mass Effect Trilogy already!!!!
It not lazy or common sense. It basically just kind of dumb. If they be lazy then all the yearly releases would be coming an not just fifa for example.
Bummer that we haven’t gotten Battlefront II yet.
@sixrings there are multiple games out right now that say that isn’t so. But I guess we can keep on with the not power or modern enough
@diwdiws putting a madden game on the Switch is not a risk at all
I think EA is a very risk adverse company. They aren't so much a game developer as they are a company that invests in game development.
They aren't lazy so much as they are scared of taking a risk.
It's neither laziness or common sense, it is greed.
When money is your highest value all other priorities fall by the wayside.
@TheMadPolarBear EA put Fifa on Switch ok where's Madden? wheres NHL?
I would buy Dragon Age: Origins if it was ported to the Switch.
@Blac-Link Games may look 'easy to run' but if they're running advanced effects, pushing higher LOD's and more behind the scenes, it will still be more taxing on the console.
What EA decides to put out is up to them but if it requires significant investment like Battlefield or Frostbite Engine games, they will probably not do it. Games like Madden also use Frostbite so it would probably need to be made into a 'Legacy' version like Fifa is on the Switch and use a different/older game engine. To reiterate, Fifa on Switch is using a completely different game engine that originates on the PS3/360 version of FIFA 18, which is a very old engine. It lacks the enhancements of the Frostbite engine.
The point I was making is some ports that aren't feasible is purely down to bandwidth limitations on the Switch. Thanks to overclocking via mods, we've been able to pretty much confirm that to be the main bottleneck (the biggest cause of lower performance on the Switch ports in some titles e.g. Wolfenstein).
@Leo2Kirby Those are options yes but the Switch still has less than half the memory bandwidth of the Xbox One S. There's limitations to what it can do but we all know that. It's not necessarily a bad thing but it depends on how you view the Switch.
I used to look at it as a successor to the Wii U as a home console and felt disappointed by its inability to play modern games at at least 720p resolution but when I looked at it as a successor to the 3DS - a handheld that connects to a TV, I began to appreciate it more.
If Nintendo can release a 'New Nintendo Switch' like they did with the 3DS that improves the memory bandwidth and helps it get more consistent performance from third party titles, then it will be the perfect hybrid to me. But I don't speak for everyone, that's for sure!
Last FIFA I bought was 18, I’ll probably only get FIFA 22. Only if PES released on the switch I would have gotten that in a hart beat
I think FIFA should have been sold at full price on FIFA 18, then the rest of them should have been treated as dlc with cheaper prices when it comes to switch.
EA is being a corporate disease that needs to be eradicated. They are no longer nimble enough to be in this industry and simply have lost their way in the march to ROI
@Pod pretty much that exactly. Those Wii games were numerous by count, but in reality they were REALLY cheap and fast to make games even moreso than today's mobile games. They didn't really support Wii. The spent minimal and got big returns due to the Wiis new (now mobile) audience.
@johnvboy Yeah, they did pretty explicitly state it was a reinforcement of their relationship. But it was still strange to see the opening piece of a new generation reveal presentation to be a last gen, not even current gen, game. As though the world was somehow wondering if Rockstar was boycotting Sony?
As has been pointed out, they didn't support the Wii. They churned out quick garbage as quick as they could to take advantage of a runaway console.
That's all they're doing now. The word 'support' shouldn't be used at all. EA isn't the only one guilty of it, but there have been third party actually supporting Switch and helping build its install base. Some with new games and others via ports only. EA and a few others are just taking advantage of everyone elses actual support. There's no reason they couldn't have at least ported some older stuff over.
Between stuff like this and their garbage micro-transaction gambling that preys on kids, it's no wonder they have the reputation they do.
EA gives Nintendo inferior products and then when those inferior versions do not sell as well as other versions, EA blames the fans and ends even their half-hearted support.
@Y2JayRome I know wtf Konami...
I've simmered in my older age so I'm not too upset by their choice of games. I vote with my wallet now. I have purchased two EA games in the past 3 or 4 years. NHL 19 used and the recent Star Wars Jedi game. I haven't been satisfied with EA games for a long time so I don't buy them. It's highly unlikely I would buy any of their games on Switch so I understand their concern. EA doesn't really make games that appeal to me anymore so It's not a big loss to me personally. Now, if someone like Square Enix or Capcom talked like this I would be un in arms! haha
I was really let down by their list of games. You would think MADDEN would be a no brainer for the NA market. After the price gouging of BURNOUT: PARADISE I have lost all interest in EA. They could have at least thrown us BAD COMPANY 2.
EA has not been a great partner for Nintendo. I remember the early says of Wii U where they would release Mass Effect 3 at full price and release the Trilogy on other systems at a reduced price...and then complain why Nintendo sales weren't very good. Maybe they can turn things around some day but they clearly have been on sour terms since Nintendo rejected their EA network for Wii U.
I don't really trust EA after buying Star Wars Battlefront and finding that they wanted me to pay more again to have more than a threadbare experience. If I had to hazard a guess, i'd say Nintendo customers are not as keen to pay for lootboxes.
Definitely "lazy"(as much as I don't like using that word when it comes to gaming). I understand porting costs money and us Nintendo people may not be the largest group to buy the big 'AAA' western games, the Switch audience has proven to support these games.
Granted, them giving us seven games over the course of the next year or so isn't terrible, there's no reason why FIFA should be the legacy edition. There's no reason Madden and NHL should be non existent on Switch, when the Switch's biggest audience is in North America.
Obviously the Switch won't be able to run the larger games on PS4 and XB1, but they could also make do, kinda like what 2K is doing. Bring over the Mass Effect trilogy, the Dead Space trilogy etc.
@Blac-Link the article isnt talking about madden, its talking about a more significant support like exclusives and/or AAA titles. Those games are risks, why should they risk when they can easily release cash grab games cheaply on a nintendo market which isnt even their main source of revenue
I'd say EA's efforts now are okay, but probably would've been more appreciative if they were done a year ago. Having some newer, smaller titles that can better make the transition to Switch on top of these would probably have been a good idea as well.
The problem is that EA is still dragging their feet regarding Switch support (why, I don't know), and with the PS5 and Xbox X expected to come out at the end of the year, that's unlikely to improve all that much going forward.
EA has dissed the Switch so much and now it's the platform to go they are crawling back with garbage to think gamers would forget.
Neither, just nonsensical and obstinate.
I wonder what the future holds for EA's support on Switch, since they seem to be focusing now on PS5/Xbox Series. With those two remasters and PvZ, they seem to have the impression of Switch being a portable powerhouse for running Apex Legends on the go, and probably will be the only mobile platform for it for a long while.
I am interested in who are porting Apex Legends and Plants vs. Zombies: Battle for Neighborville, hopefully with a lot of effort of getting the same experience of the other consoles there.
And yeah, I would love to see their Star Wars and Battlefield games on Switch too... but since those are online-focused, it would require a lot of work, but I guess the same can be said for Apex Legends, right?
@Casual_Gamer95 It's very simple, Switch's ARM A57 CPU has far superior IPC vs X1X's Jag Evolved. This is offset by X1X's higher clock speed, resulting in the two consoles having roughly similar single core CPU perf
The GPU feature level of Switch, X1X and PS5 are all 12_1
@jarvismp Since the PS3/360 era, I’ve been wondering why people go nuts over the yearly EA games. I’m thinking, am I missing something since I’m on the outside looking in? I haven’t played Madden since the Sega Genesis, so...🤷🏾♂️😂
I really wish EA would port NBA street vol 1 & 2 with updated rosters.
Need for speed carbon would be awesome.
This is a long shot but madden 07 with updated rosters would be awesome to play the career.
@Richnj On the other hand, why would Bethesda port Skyrim to Switch? Shouldn't the opportunity cost have gone in favour of Fallout 76 (haha) or later work?
One could say that this conscious decision on EA's part means a loss of exposure to a certain audience. Not sheer laziness, perhaps; quite possibly a sober business decision. But a striking one.
@Joker1234 i would so love a port or remake of snowboarding kids 1 from the n64. Those were the days from atlus. Also anyone no who made mischief makers? Would love to see that game again also
Hot pursuit aint garbage. Its quite good. Having criterion onboard is a massive win for nintendo. Paradise is my go to game at the moment on switch. Acouple are new games that look very good. I can see plants vs zombies being a big hit on switch. I really dont understand that hate. These are quality games im glad to see coming and some common sense wouldnt go astray. Burnout 3 farcry 3 and one of the GTA games and the switch would be a gold mine
I miss the "old" days - where there was a superiour Dreamcast version and a "bad" playstation version of the same game.
or in the early 90s ... one game - 4 different versions. one for master system, one for nes, one for mega drive and one for snes.
back in these days, companys brought their games to every plattform, no matter how weak those systems where. today - only remakes, because no one wants to do an "extra" version for a weaker system :/
EA mostly did that only on sony systems - where there was always a specific burnout or need for speed version for playstation portable or vita. nintendo .... yes there were also DS/3DS titles - but THOSE GAMES always were horrible! EA & Nintendo .... oh my. never a good relationship hahaha
@sixrings I've seen some truly insightful comments here, such as those from @NEStalgia or @kingbk, among others. There has been a persistent anti-EA theme on this site, sure, but I am glad I read this article and the comments. All your cynical comments - is cynicism for its own sake better than clickbait?
Nintendolife seem to be obsessed with EA lately... I wonder if there is money exchanging hands there
@Richnj this is 100% on the money.
I've been saying that for years.
It's not that 3rd party games don't sell on Nintendo hardware, they do sell and they do turn profits.
But those resources make more profit when allocated elsewhere.
@Leo2Kirby sorry but that doesn't make any sense. again, where is your source? what developper said this?
@graysoncharles that leo dude is just trying to invent how the switch is powerful. can't even back up his claims with sources.
@graysoncharles exactly, the tegra x1 in its current form is actually difficult to work with and is the main reason why so many games never come to the switch. couple that with the overly slow memory bandwith... the switch is not far away from a last gen console performance wise.
i said it already, if the tegra was 64bit instead of arm, the switch would have got way more current gen ports.
I don't think any of this is a question of laziness. I think there are two separate issues at play here: the first is that EA has been burned in past with the Wii U and they waited to make sure they are not associating their products with failure. The second, and more interesting, issue is the backroom dealing they have done in the past. Both them and Nintendo know people want most of EA's catalog on Switch. They know that so well that EA is likely leveraging that to their advantage. Remember why EA never released any sports titles on Dreamcast? Remember what it took to get Madden on the Xbox? The same thing is probably happening here, except the success of the Switch and their love of money is forcing EA's hand.
To that point, they're likely releasing Legacy editions of FIFA to honor a prior commitment to release something, but won't release a full edition until they get something they want out of Nintendo or they can't ignore the money lost from releasing inferior versions.
When Nintendo are on form they don't need EA. Even when they're not they can mostly get by on their own games for a generation.
Your move, EA.
@Seananigans Agreed, but as much as I'd love to see a Mass Effect port on Switch, that hasn't happened on ps4/xbox one yet and I don't see a scenario where switch would get the port and the other consoles wouldn't.
As far as I am concerned we are lucky we are getting this out of EA.
EA has always been bad on Nintendo hardware. Sales wise, and game wise. The best EA game on Nintendo hardware I can remember are the Harry Potter games on GameCube. And those were decent at best. Their Wii games were laughable, non-existent on the Wii U, and their PS3 version of Fifa we have on the Switch... well, it's just BAD.
@sixrings Dude seriously stop trolling. No system gets every game. Switch has Neptunia, Steins Gate, Dragon Quest, Senran Kagura, Trials of Mana. Then it has later installments of Blazblue and Xbox One has none of those.
It even has DOAX3 which is a series which started on Xbox.
You pick a system to play and you get what you are given. If you sided with something which does not fully match the tastes you are into that is your own fault. But do not sit there and act like third party support is bad on Switch because you could not be more wrong.
@nessisonett unfortunately, this was the line toted back in the Wii era, and the same fact remains true today. That being "presumably because it continues to believe that Switch owners only buy Nintendo games".
People buy Nintendo consoles to play Nintendo games. Especially not AAA 3rd party games.
I’m not a big fan of EA games (or practices) so I doubt I’ll be buying any of their upcoming releases on Switch anyway. That said, should they make another MySims, I’d probably buy it - I loved the two games they released on the Wii, I spent an insane amount of hours on them when I was a kid!
Tap here to load 151 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...