Nintendo’s Shallow EA Relationship Is A Bad Omen

Alex from WGTC writes "EA’s decision to only put forward FIFA screams play-it-safe. Third party publishers are interested in making money, and if there was money to be made on Switch, they’d be there in droves. But, in only putting forward its most popular IP – rumor has it, a last-generation version of FIFA 17 – EA is essentially admitting it doesn’t see dollar signs in bringing other IPs to the system."

[TheHip14]

Nintendo hasn't been handling the Switch perfectly, I'll admit that, but it also doesn't deserve all this hate.

[basilboxer]

Well, is it hateful to observe and think critically? Nintendo needed to come out swinging and they didn't.

[freshslicepizza]

It's not hate, it's business. This is what happens when you live within a bubble. Just look at their online solution over the years and it's embarrassing how they refuse to offer a standard system.

If the system lacks power then why should companies like EA have to scale games like Mass Effect so much? Local co op and portable games will flourish on the system. I don't see demanding games or online focused games doing well.

Nintendo continues to make systems that will never be a dedicated game console that gamers will migrate to as their main platform. Instead it will be another supplementary system mainly for Nintendo games and now for portable gamers.

[richyque]

The best thing you ever wrote here, bro.

[CrimsonPheonix]

I've noticed how this works a lot of these sites watch "Kindafunnygames" "Easy Allies" or they just read neogaf than steal ideas for articles based on what people said on those shows/website.

I've noticed this happen multiple times.

[DashArrivals]

Bull crap. Kindafunny are just normal guys ok. I had the same feelings and thoughts when I watched the live-stream. IN FACT, when they first revealed the Switch in that commercial and everyone was hyped, I was convinced it would flop. You know many people can come up their own thoughts that just happen to be nearly the same as many others. Steal? Don't make me laugh fanboy.

[gamerpop]

I couldn't believe EA only had FIFA to talk about. At least give us a highlight reel of all the other sports games coming to the console. It was one of a number of bizarre instances in that conference tbh.

[michaelpb]

Yeah, it didn't really instil much confidence into the Switch.

[Deadpooled]

Plus it is likely to be a version without the main stuff like Ultimate Team. I know how us guys like to detest microtransactions and such services which are basically 'pay 2 win' but the truth about FIFA is Ultimate Team is a major attraction to fans and casuals, if the Switch version has no Ultimate Team then the version would be dead on arrival.

[Sylpheed]

Interesting read. We'll see if the Switch can sidestep the issues that plagued the Wii U.

[zcmilano]

That section of the conference was weird. When you think how many big IPs EA has, to only talk about FIFA, and to not even hint at nonsports games coming across was concerning. It's similar to Bethesda with Skyrim - cool and all, but it's a 6 year old game! What about Fallout 4 or a collection of some description, or even a new IP? It all looks rushed to me.

[Paytaa]

Bad relationship with EA helped seal Sega's fate.

[Summons75]

EA from 15-20 years ago was a completely different company from the one told...they actually released good games. FIFA and Battlefield 1 is all they got now, and I'm not a big sports person but they kill all their studios that could make good games with zero creative freedom.

[Paytaa]

Regardless of their reputation and position in the market, their games sell. Battlefield, Mass Effect, Madden, FIFA, NHL, Need for Speed, Dragon Age, etc.

I'm not saying the Switch will suffer the same fate as the Dreamcast, but it is definitely a significant blow from a major third-party publisher . Same thing if it doesn't get Call of Duty and Destiny from Activision.

[Summons75]

Just because games sell doesn't mean they are good and need another system to be played on when the fanbase of those games already has their mind made up on where they are going to play them before they are even announced. Sure, games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age (only the first games since EA again killed Bioware with lack of creative freedom) would be fun as hell to take on the go and obviously, the sports games will get put on there because there is always a market for those but Battlefield much like Call of Duty wouldn't sell well on the system simply because the fanbase for those games already knows their preferred systems, though you could argue that with the gyro controls in the controllers would make FPS games better (as people liked the COD games on Wii and Splatoon's preferred way to play is with the gyro/motion aiming but you aren't going to convince the PC battlefield player that it's worth a try.

[jmc8888]

To be fair, nothing is set in stone. People play these games on PS4/XB1/PC, because those are what people have chosen are the platforms that play those games well. There is no doubt that a PS4/XB1/PC will get access to those games. There IS with Nintendo, and they know any version will be a compromised version.

Nintendo once had amazing 3rd party support. They CAN have it again. Things change. They can change again.

Many people felt the successor of the Xbox 360 was going to be the champ, but Microsoft screwed up, and people went Sony. At one point Sega was big. At one point Atari.

We should never think a particular platform has everyone forever.

The games AAA 3rd party devs make need a decent amount of power to run. Nintendo doesn't provide that. If they did, they'd see much more support. The state Nintendo finds itself in with 3rd party devs and the people who love to play those games is SOLELY because NINTENDO decided not to cater to them hardware wise.

Nintendo doesn't offer much besides being a NIntendo box. Because they have weak power, everyone knows that other platforms give them a superior traditional experience.

People now have it ingrained that Nintendo 3rd party games aren't the best version. In fact, now with any AAA Western 3rd party game that is also coming to PC, Scorpio, PS4 Pro, PS4, Xbox One... that any of those five platforms/systems will run it far better then Nintendo will have.

True some people might want a Mass Effect Andromeda or GTA VI on the go. But not many people really care for that. It's niche. Also it's impossible to make the games run and look the same on the go as it does with a console or PC.

So what Nintendo is left with is not many people wanting to buy AAA 3rd party games on Nintendo's hardware.

If you have a Swtich and a PS4, which version are you going to buy? Most will not buy it on Switch. Same goes for XB1/Scorpio/PS4 Pro/PC. A niche would accept lower IQ/framerate/resolution, and may accept some features and gameplay elements or even entire levels ripped out to achieve it. But most won't. Especially when they mostly charge the same price for the Switch version. $60 on Switch... or $50-60 everywhere else?

Most gamers who pay for these games and systems don't want compromises. Nintendo it appears for the 3rd gen in a row only gives the majority an option for a compromised system. This time though, they expect to charge a premium over others for it.

[jmc8888]

Just because Gamecube didn't sell very well, doesn't mean it was because it was a 'powerful' system and thus power doesn't matter. People seem to think that because Gamecube failed it's proof positive until the end of time that power doesn't matter. That's just silly.

Just like it's silly to think that Nintendo can't get 3rd party back. Of course they can. But it starts with making a console that can actually run those game LIKE or BETTER then others. A competent online service would work wonders as well.

There is no guaranteed success. You have to compete. Nintendo competes whether they actually try or not. They aren't. But they should be trying. Power doesn't mean success, but without some revolutionary craze, lack of power pretty much ensures defeat.

For $299, perhaps $349 they could of made a system with a controller, and a hard drive, and that offered better visuals then a PS4 or XB1. Proabably around 3 TFlops. Lower then Pro or Scorpio, but definitely competitive. Anyone with a PS4/XB1 would have those systems for 'exclusives', but gain better performance on a Nintendo with access to Nintendo 1st party games.

I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be a massive success, but Nintendo needs to get back in the game, take some lumps, and be ready to compete going forward with Sony and MS. If gamers could actually know they would be getting a competent device that compares favorably with the competition, more and more gamers would consider getting a Nintendo system. Nintendo has destroyed that with their decisions. They can get it back, but it won't be easy.

But it can happen. Just like all the changes at the top over the past 40 years of console gaming, more will come, and Nintendo CAN come back, but they have to actually TRY.

People haven't made up their mind. They pick and choose. Some will choose Nintendo games 1st (vast minority), and many Nintendo system owners use it as their 2nd or 3rd gaming device. The only thing a few million have done is say they value Nintendo over the alternatives. While many others who use it as a 2nd or 3rd gaming device won't likely buy 3rd party games on it, because they have the alternative to play a more advanced version of it.

People need to stop drawing lines in this way. It's far more of how Nintendo has their systems set up that causes bad 3rd party support, and bad 3rd party game sales.

There is also no reason why Nintendo can't offer gyro controls on a powerful device as an option. There is no reason why Nintendo games can't benefit from greater power. Nintendo makes devices, and most people choose the competition because of the compromises. Everything else is just a downstream effect of Nintendo's decisions.

[ZeekQuattro]

Except it didn't. Sega sealed its own fate after a string of console, add-on and handheld failures. EA likes to take credit for it but Sega alone is the reason for its downward spiral into 3rd party.

[Paytaa]

No I know Sega failed on their own accord, but having EA not support the Dreamcast was another blow to it.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Western devs aren't the end all be all of third party support, much less EA.
The Switch is going to get tons of support from other western devs, but even moreso from Japanese devs and indies.
It's only a bad omen if you think it signals an end to any possibility of support from other sources, which is crazy since it doesn't.

[Ristul]

If Nintendo want Switch to be a success, they better try to get the big publishers on their side, and that comes from someone who doesn't even like EA (in fact, I mostly dislike EA and what they have done to developers such as BioWare). Winning the support of EA will not help Nintendo win over people like you and me, we are already on board, but if they want to reach a wider market they will need as much help as they can get.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

They already HAVE a lot of big publishers on their side.
My point is that people are over-estimating the importance of companies like EA to Nintendo, especially compared to other big names in both Japan and in terms of indies.

Even when the Wii was the top selling console, no amount of numbers got Call of Duty selling well on that console, because both EA and Nintendo didn't bother trying to push the audience towards it.
They both knew that's not where the CoD audience is.

Even if the Switch were equal in power to the PS4 Pro or the upcoming Scorpio, that would not change.

Brand loyalties, tech and graphics obsessions, and buyer habits from fans of those games are too deeply ingrained to make them go Nintendo for those multiplats that they grew up playing on Sony and Microsoft consoles.

If Nintendo wants to reach a wide market, they need to invest in the big names that are actually going to put in the effort to draw gamers to the Switch with a wide variety of different games.
Games outside of the mainstream games, that mainstream fans would never abandon Sony and Microsoft consoles to buy on Nintendo's hardware, but that they might consider a Switch for if they can't get said different games elsewhere.
History has shown that companies like EA don't want to go that far for Nintendo's sake, so how can Nintendo rely on them too heavily?

At this point we should be satisfied that EA even bothered with FIFA, and the fact that they said Mass Effect Andromeda is possible later on if sales rise high enough.
While it would be a pleasant surprise if they did something that someone actually gives a damn about on Switch, we shouldn't expect anything.

[Ristul]

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's an healthy attitude for a big company like Nintendo to have, ignoring big publishers will only hurt them in the long run. Hell, with Switch being portable, it could open up a whole new market segment for people who love sports games and would like to take them on the go. Who knows how many people are willing to buy the switch for that possiblity. Nintendo should try their best to make the big publishers port their games for the Switch, this will help them sell more units and in the proccess earn more off of royalties witch in turn can be reinvested into making more games.

[FTLmaster]

Very interesting feature -- I'm excited for the Switch, but can't deny that the release lineup is looking pretty thin, particularly in regards to third party support. Hopefully Ninty can rebuild those third party relationships and sell some units. They'll soon be interested if Nintendo Switch sells well.

[Derceto]

I can't believe I am siding with EA, but on this one, I am. I wouldn't invest f**k all in Switch game development until it was proven either. It simply does NOT inspire confidence.

Nintendo had a chance to make a system that would truly make a difference. Instead, we get....... this. This friggen potato that I would hardly want 2 years ago, much less in 2 months from now.

Nah, no sympathy for Nintendo and their comical level of arrogance, and EA is playing it properly. Someone send Nintendo a memo that it's not 1986 anymore.

[sk8ofmnd]

Why only bring up EA? Why stop there when they are not the only 3rd party partnership from that huge list that ignoring the switch like the plague...

[Xerneas]

How many games did EA release on the 3DS? The Switch can do fine without them.

[Sm3000]

I don't like your attitude

[NotoriousWhiz]

Do you work for EA? Why would you take offense to his statement?

[Sirk7x]

I think the Switch has the potential to outsell the 3DS in Japan in its lifetime. Once there are new iterations, price drops, and Pokemon/Monster Hunter/Dragon Quest/Animal Crossing games for it, everyone's going to want one.

[inStereo]

I don't really give a s**t about EA, so this doesn't affect me one iota.

[Shuckylad]

Not sure it screams play it safe with FIFA, more like let's put out our biggest seller on the switch knowing full well that any fan of FIFA will own a PlayStation or Xbox. I mean there's not a boat load of mario and zelda fans waiting with baited breath to play a PS3 version of FIFA.
If they were smart they would of made an exclusive version of battlefield or a Cool Star Wars game and saw how well that sold.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

My thoughts exactly.
Going with FIFA is a surefire fail mark, if they want to make headway on the Switch.

[PhoenixUp]

The cycle is repeating itself once again for western third party publishers

[Segata]

Eh I dunno. It's also a handheld and Nintendo handhelds never had much EA support and never needed them. Even as a console maker it never needed EA much. SNES era had Madden sure but they sold so much better on Genesis. Wii only had Token support and did fine without the big releases from EA.DS and 3DS were fine. Not that worried.

[DashArrivals]

God Nintendo make me so angry. They will never know how many lapsed fans there are that are trying to will themselves back with Nintendo. They just make it so hard. It's not about money. It's about value. It's about design. It's about not accepting crap. IMO. It's going to end up just like the Wii-U. Most people just wanted a normal console, not a magical piece of dogshit

[Sirk7x]

I'm definitely not most people, but I've wanted a powerful handheld/hybrid console since the Wii U released, and I haven't been disappointed with my Switch at all since I got it on release day. It's a pretty amazing little device.

[Jalapeno]

Boycott EA! Don't buy their games brand new!

[ruefrak]

I think Switch will probably flop because of its lackluster 3rd party support, among a number of reasons. But the 3rd parties really aren't doing themselves any favors here either. They're screwing it up just as much as Nintendo.

Ubisoft is coming to launch a handful of ports of games that have been out for months or even years already. EA is coming with, what will surely be, an inferior port of FIFA. Bethesda is coming with what will also presumably a lesser version of Skyrim, another years old game.

Very few people want these games again, or want the inferior version of them. Very few people will buy any of the Ubisoft games at launch and then their reaction is going to be, "Well, Nintendo customers only buy Nintendo games so we're not going to support it." They're setting themselves up for failure and it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. When a first party Zelda game is only game people seem to really want, then there's definitely a problem.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Thankfully the Japanese devs and indies seem to be covering for the failures of the bigger Western names, and the Switch already has a very healthy lineup of RPG's and action-adventures coming throughout the first year.
And we aren't even at E3 yet, where they're sure to announce new stuff.

[prankster101]

I think they are playing the long game... Getting in early, and then riding the rest of the console cycle with lifetime sales.

Some people may argue that Switch can get by on indie and otaku Japanese support, but that didn't help the Vita. So yeah, whilst some people may care, they're only a niche.