liger05 Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 To accuse EA of screwing over Nintendo is very harsh. The terms of the contract being changed wouldn't really matter if the Wii U was a viable platform to release Fifa on. If there was money to be made EA would release a Wii U version, however as with Madden these sport titles don't do well on Nintendo home consoles.
Mr-Paul Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 FIFA 15 is releasing on the original Wii, though. If that is still a relevant console, how is the Wii U not a relevant console? (Yes I know that it's a shitty legacy version on Wii, but how hard is it really to give the Wii U the PS3/360 version?)
khilafah Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 FIFA 15 is releasing on the original Wii, though. If that is still a relevant console, how is the Wii U not a relevant console? (Yes I know that it's a shitty legacy version on Wii, but how hard is it really to give the Wii U the PS3/360 version?) Wii just like the Vita and 3DS versions are cheap and EA probably hits the estimated low targets. Why has Konami ignored Wii U even though they would have the whole market to Themselves?
Wii Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Konami have completely ignored the Wii U. Is there even 1 Wii U title, not counting VC? They made up their mind before the console launched that they wouldn't support it.
liger05 Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Konami have completely ignored the Wii U. Is there even 1 Wii U title, not counting VC? They made up their mind before the console launched that they wouldn't support it. Your right they have ignored it but again do we really believe publishers are happy to keep money on the table simply because for whatever reason they don't like Nintendo or the Wii U? If Konami thought Pro Evo would be a success on the Wii U it would be getting released, no doubt about it.
Phube Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Wii U is not a relevant platform due to bad Hardware and software sales. You see this is what I don't understand. The Wii U has sold more (2,000,000 more to be precise) than the XBOne... and is currently selling at similar rates. And yet has sold badly?
Pestneb Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 You see this is what I don't understand. The Wii U has sold more (2,000,000 more to be precise) than the XBOne... and is currently selling at similar rates. And yet has sold badly? There is the fact that the Wii U has been out longer, so EA could argue it is likely to have a successor that much sooner, hence reduced potential sales... They could also bring out sales comparisons across all 3 platform holders, which may show Nintendo home consoles have a lower % of owners picking up EA titles. Finally, as the Wii U is backwards compatible with the Wii, if you only own a Wii U and feel you must have an up to date Fifa game... buy the Wii version and play it on your Wii U. That's not an available option for the PS4/X1, so I guess EA can argue that it IS available for Wii U exclusive owners.
Rummy Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 Depends on whether or not old agreements like that would still apply under a change in ownership. It might require a contract renewal... That's how EA managed to screw Nintendo out of getting Fifa games on Wii U. Until recently, EA were contractually obliged by their licenser (Fifa) to develop football games for all platforms - which is why they continued to make games for the Wii up until the very end. But a couple of years ago, their contract had to be renewed and the contractual agreement conveniently changed just enough for them to only have to develop games for "relevant" platforms... ... Just in time for them to be able to screw Nintendo out of any future Fifa games... My hope/sensible business thinking would be that given the amount they're sort of 'put in' to the unity angle/aspect that these contracts will have already been written on a sensible long term basis, covering at least a reasonable expecation of the life of a console.
Wii Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 (edited) [TWEET]511965957657358336[/TWEET] Way to go all out for the Wii U version, eh!? Take a bow Disney! Don't be modest now, you deserve it. Edit: I'm sorry I should say this is for Disney Infinity 2.0 and that it runs at a lower resolution than the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Xbox One and PlayStation 4 versions. Edited September 17, 2014 by Wii
Josh64 Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Thats really weird actually, considering Disney Infinity, along with Just Dance, is one of the few third-party games where I'd actually expect them to put more, or at least the same amount of effort into the Wii U version.
Serebii Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Thats really weird actually, considering Disney Infinity, along with Just Dance, is one of the few third-party games where I'd actually expect them to put more, or at least the same amount of effort into the Wii U version. Especially since these games, like Lego games, have actual precedence of selling better on the Wii U than the x86 twins
Goron_3 Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 It makes sense that the Wii U version runs worse than the others simply because the engine used for it is based around 360/PS3 and therefore it can be transferred across the next gen consoles easily too. Unfortunately the Wii U struggles to run most last gen and next gen engines well, if at all. That said, will the audience for that game care? I don't think so.
Dcubed Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 What about my statement is inaccurate? They should be called the x64 twins
Serebii Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 They should be called the x64 twins Technically it's x86-64
Ashley Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 What about my statement is inaccurate? Nothing, but it's snide, childish and one of the many reasons you're impossible to actually have a discussion with.
Serebii Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 Nothing, but it's snide, childish and one of the many reasons you're impossible to actually have a discussion with. It wasn't snide or childish. It was a quick description of the other two based upon their hardware architecture. It's actually quite a common term used around the Internet. It appears you are the one who has issue with it and thus are seeing things that aren't there.
Jonnas Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 I also fail to see what the problem is. That sounds like a generic technical term, the sort that would only be offensive if inaccurate (and I have no idea if it is or not, I don't really care about that stuff). Or is it because he called them "twins"? Because I've been calling them the "HD twins" or "HD consoles" for the longest time. Easier than PS360, which is just weird. Both consoles are incredibly similar, and share a large part of their game library, anyway. (We are talking about the PS3 and X360, right? I do think that the XBone and PS4 are more distinct than this.)
Ashley Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 It wasn't snide or childish. It was a quick description of the other two based upon their hardware architecture. It's actually quite a common term used around the Internet. It appears you are the one who has issue with it and thus are seeing things that aren't there. Yes others do it, so it must be fine. That's faultless logic. "It's not me, it's you", another great argument approach. How many times do you say "don't put words in my mouth" when people have a debate with you and what are you doing here? Putting words in my mouth.
Cube Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 (We are talking about the PS3 and X360, right? I do think that the XBone and PS4 are more distinct than this.) Off-topic, but the XB1 and PS4 are actually closer in terms of hardware than the PS3 and 360.
Jonnas Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 @Ashley: Why, exactly, is Serebii's choice of word snide and childish (as you put it)? I am seriously confused by this. Off-topic, but the XB1 and PS4 are actually closer in terms of hardware than the PS3 and 360. Yeah, I can believe that. Though I usually think in terms of game library, target demographic, position on the market, etc. when talking about consoles, and so, from that sort of perspective, the PS4 and XBone are already more distinct than their predecessors were (though they're also in their first year, still early).
Clownferret Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 i don't know what x86 is, I assumed it's reference to a processor or chip or something that the consoles both use, in which case what's wrong with that? Is X86 a derogatory comment used to describe Sony and Microsoft consoles?
Kav Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 ...How many times do you say "don't put words in my mouth" when people have a debate with you and what are you doing here? Putting words in my mouth. It wasn't snide or childish. It was a quick description of the other two based upon their hardware architecture. It's actually quite a common term used around the Internet. It appears you are the one who has issue with it and thus are seeing things that aren't there. Serebii did nothing of the sort, it's actually you Ashley that's put words in the other's mouth. He's simply said what it looks like to him. Not that it's what you're actually saying. Yet you're saying he's actually said that when he hasn't. The only post that was snide and childish was your own.
Recommended Posts