Support NeoGAF

[StevieP]

It's Nintendo's responsibility to create a conducive environment for third party software to succeed. In the event they don't they shouldn't expect and won't receive said software support. If they have no interest in garnering said support that's also their prerogative I suppose.

The onus is on Nintendo as in these relationships third parties have leverage - they have viable alternatives.

This may involve activities their competitors already engage in such as co-marketing deals and the production of games intended to attract similar target audiences.

By your estimates, how many million should Nintendo have spent to market EA's full price late port, and would that have led to madden 14? (Hint: no)

As you probably already know, during the launch period Nintendo were willing to do stuff like reduce fees and match marketing dollars for ports, which is why the system got any in the first place. This title fell past launch.

 

[mclem]

Did we ever get a straight answer as to why it released later, anyway?

 

[linkboy]

Did we ever get a straight answer as to why it released later, anyway?

EA's never going to give us one, but it basically boils down to this.

They never gave a shit about the game since they had already decided to drop Wii U support.

The only reason they released it at all was because it was finished and they couldn't cancel it.

 

[Shiggy]

Did we ever get a straight answer as to why it released later, anyway?

It probably had a low priority. And maybe this also played into the delay: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=750296

 

[shinra-bansho]

By your estimates, how many million should Nintendo have spent to market EA's full price late port, and would that have led to madden 14? (Hint: no)

As you probably already know, during the launch period Nintendo were willing to do stuff like reduce fees and match marketing dollars for ports, which is why the system got any in the first place. This title fell past launch.

I'm not sure why you took a very general statement on the role of Nintendo as a platform holder as indicating that Nintendo should have spent millions in this specific instance (I've already said earlier in the thread I can see both sides of the argument as to whether there would have been any merit to it in this instance).

And I'm not sure whether to take this as you disputing that general statement.

While the thread is ostensibly about Ward, NFS and EA; the discussion at hand has turned more broad than that.

As a generality, if Nintendo values the continued support of any given third party publisher who has other (more fruitful) avenues to release their titles, if they view that said continued support is vital to their own continued success and it is thus in their own best interests to secure that support, then they should do whatever is needed and within their ability to secure that support.

I know that likely irks some. It may seem innately "unfair." The idea of Nintendo "bowing down," amongst other colourful language in this thread, to the likes of EA and Activision may seem inherently "wrong." But it's simply the reality they find themselves in.

 

[The Adder]

In all honestly..what would be the point in Nintendo marketing a game that released months after the other versions ...which was also double or triple the price of the other versions when it launched ?

Not forgetting that it was pretty clear 5 months prior to the Wii U launching that EA had decided to dump it as a plstform.

Repeating this as it bares repeating. The only thing pushing a Wii U version of that game would do is sell more copies of the cheaper version that had been out for months to PS3/360 owners.

I'm not sure why you took a very general statement on the role of Nintendo as a platform holder as indicating that Nintendo should have spent millions in this specific instance (I've already said earlier in the thread I can see both sides of the argument as to whether there would have been any merit to it in this instance).

And I'm not sure whether to take this as you disputing that general statement.

While the thread is ostensibly about Ward, NFS and EA; the discussion at hand has turned more broad than that.

As a generality, if Nintendo values the continued support of any given third party publisher who has other (more fruitful) avenues to release their titles, if they view that said continued support is vital to their own continued success and it is thus in their own best interests to secure that support, then they should do whatever is needed and within their ability to secure that support.

I know that likely irks some. It may seem innately "unfair." The idea of Nintendo "bowing down," amongst other colourful language in this thread, to the likes of EA and Activision may seem inherently "wrong." But it's simply the reality they find themselves in.

My bet is that they are of the opinion, as I am, that it would cost them more to make these concessions than it would gain them in the short or long term. And, having benefitted from these concessions, the companies in question would still be entirely free to just fuck right off again when they felt like it.

 

[Colombo]

The game was always reasonably hard to find but most retailers that did are out of stock at least in PAL countries. This can only be blamed on EA but considering how well the port turned out and the plight of the Wii U, Nintendo could have done more. Considering that Nintendo and EA basically parted ways after it's release on Wii U, Criterion really did release a game that neither company cared if it succeeded or not!

 

[Calamari41]

I fear for the future of an indie company headed up by someone who doesn't understand what a sunk cost is or how to deal with one and goes on to make emotional business decisions based on that.

 

[Freezie KO]

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/library/events/131031/03.html
Reading that it feels as if that was some parody. But he really must have thought it would do well. Yes, even as of October 2013 he believed that.

So much of that is just the same failed message that they repeated in their latest Investor's Presentation. It's like they've learned nothing.

Deep sigh. So Iwata survived the beginning of this year. When's the next hope that we can get someone to turn this company around? January 2017 if the QoL fails?

--

I fear for the future of an indie company headed up by someone who doesn't understand what a sunk cost is or how to deal with one and goes on to make emotional business decisions based on that.

There's a company which you should fear for their future, but Alex Ward isn't the one running it.

 

[Here For The Free Feed]

There's a company which you should fear for their future, but Alex Ward isn't the one running it.

the company you are referring too will be around longer than alex ward will

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

I know people do not actually believe Nintendo should have marketed EA's game? This is not the case is it? It just sounds so silly even typing what I read.

 

[narton]

I visited a friend and liked what I saw of the Xbox One version of NFS: Rivals. I really liked the open world highway racing. And I've been looking for something similar to Cruis'n USA that is like a cross country experience.

I have a Wii U and this game looks good at a good price. Is this what I'd be looking for? I haven't really played any racers except mario kart and sonic all-stars. I also have a PS3 though.

 

[Broken Hope]

I know people do not actually believe Nintendo should have marketed EA's game? This is not the case is it? It just sounds so silly even typing what I read.

Why shouldn't they? Sony are advertising Thief and Destiny in the UK alongside Second Son.

If a game is on your platform why shouldn't the platform owner advertise it?

 

[DrWong]

Repeating this as it bares repeating. The only thing pushing a Wii U version of that game would do is sell more copies of the cheaper version that had been out for months to PS3/360 owners.



My bet is that they are of the opinion, as I am, that it would cost them more to make these concessions than it would gain them in the short or long term. And, having benefitted from these concessions, the companies in question would still be entirely free to just fuck right off again when they felt like it.

Yep, clearly. See Rayman Legend...

 

[-MB-]

Why shouldn't they? Sony are advertising Thief and Destiny in the UK alongside Second Son.

If a game is on your platform why shouldn't the platform owner advertise it?

And why shouldn't the actual publisher?

 

[Zalman]

Yep, clearly. See Rayman Legend...

And Sonic Racing Transformed.

 

[Broken Hope]

And why shouldn't the actual publisher?

I didn't say they shouldn't, I'm just not understanding why people thinking that Nintendo marketing a third party game on their system is so insane?

 

[Calamari41]

There's a company which you should fear for their future, but Alex Ward isn't the one running it.

Nintendo is in a more precarious position than a brand new company whose founder's life savings are on the line and who has yet to barely start working on their first game?

Classic Freezie.

I'm worried about Nintendo big-time but they aren't going anywhere. One flop and this guy is finished.

 

[atr0cious]

I didn't say they shouldn't, I'm just not understanding why people thinking that Nintendo marketing a third party game on their system is so insane?

Because this particular third party just spent a month telling the world that Nintendo was a joke. So I guess kissing the rings wasn't on the cards.

 

[Buddha Beam]

Why shouldn't they? Sony are advertising Thief and Destiny in the UK alongside Second Son.

If a game is on your platform why shouldn't the platform owner advertise it?

Those are brand new games, though. NFS was a year old port on the Wii U. Why on earth would Nintendo be expected to market that game? We all know late or old ports aren't ever going to sell on any platform, save maybe Steam when it's some niche or obscure title.
If it were a brand new game, sure. But it makes no sense to expect the platform holder to say, "hey kids, we've got this game you played last year!" That's just trumpeting mediocrity.

If the Wii U were getting a major game like Destiny or Thief, it'd be not unreasonable to ask that question. But you're comparing apples to oranges in this scenario.

 

[Calamari41]

Nintendo refusing to do whatever it takes to get a game like, say, GTA V at launch is a travesty and worthy of investigation. Choosing not to take over advertising for a late and double-priced port of a game like Need for Speed is not.

NFSMWU selling a couple hundred thousand would not have resulted in EA reconsidering their abandonment of the system.

 

[sörine]

Why shouldn't they? Sony are advertising Thief and Destiny in the UK alongside Second Son.

If a game is on your platform why shouldn't the platform owner advertise it?

Nintendo does promote 3rd party games. Early examples around this time would be ZombiU, Ninja Gaiden 3RE, Monster Hunter 3U, Scribblenauts Unlimited or Dragon Quest X. And to a degree they even promoted NFSMWU with Direct coverage and prime eShop visibility.

As an aside, I'm curious but how much promotion did Sony or Microsoft put into their versions of NFSMW or NFSR?

 

[Freezie KO]

Nintendo is in a more precarious position than a brand new company whose founder's life savings are on the line and who has yet to barely start working on their first game?

I didn't say that Nintendo was in a more precarious position. I said you should worry more about Nintendo. You're a fan. I'm a fan. Their position in the market and their creativity are both plummeting.

 

[Calamari41]

I didn't say that Nintendo was in a more precarious position. I said you should worry more about Nintendo. You're a fan. I'm a fan. Their position in the market and their creativity are both plummeting.

Right. As I said, I am very worried about Nintendo. More worried than I am about Ward, because chances are I'll never be a fan or be interested in whatever game he's making. But it's possible to be worried about more than one thing at a time.

Anyway, my "worry" was more sarcastic, and meant as an insult toward the guy. I should have said that if I were a family member or employee of his I would be worried.

 

[Agent X]

Those are brand new games, though. NFS was a year old port on the Wii U. Why on earth would Nintendo be expected to market that game? We all know late or old ports aren't ever going to sell on any platform, save maybe Steam when it's some niche or obscure title.
If it were a brand new game, sure. But it makes no sense to expect the platform holder to say, "hey kids, we've got this game you played last year!" That's just trumpeting mediocrity.

If the Wii U were getting a major game like Destiny or Thief, it'd be not unreasonable to ask that question. But you're comparing apples to oranges in this scenario.

As I said earlier, they had to play the cards that they were dealt. They didn't have Destiny or Thief. They also didn't have Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2, or Grand Theft Auto V. Why didn't they have those games? Good question. They had this one, though. A the very least, they could help their third parties market the few really good games that the system was getting, rather than cry and sulk and lament because they weren't getting Grand Theft Auto V.

No, they don't have to do it. But Sony and Microsoft do these types of deals all of the time. They run co-branded commercials on TV, promote the release on blogs and social media outlets, and more. Nintendo isn't required to lend a helping hand to third parties, but if their two chief competitors are going to play the game, then it's reasonable to hope that Nintendo might want to play along as well.

As an aside, I'm curious but how much promotion did Sony or Microsoft put into their versions of NFSMW or NFSR?

I don't know the full extent, but with regard to NFS:MW on Sony systems, I was able to pull up PlayStation.Blog posts here, here, here, and here. I don't think they did any co-branded ads, but the situation wasn't the same with their systems (or Microsoft's) as it was with the Wii U version of NFS:MW. There are several differences with the Wii U game, its development, and its release circumstances--some favorable and some unfavorable. In the context of the Wii U's market condition, it would have been good for Nintendo to perhaps do at least a little more.

 

[sörine]

I don't know the full extent, but with regard to NFS:MW on Sony systems, I was able to pull up PlayStation.Blog posts here, here, here, and here. I don't think they did any co-branded ads, but the situation wasn't the same with their systems (or Microsoft's) as it was with the Wii U version of NFS:MW. There are several differences with the Wii U game, its development, and its release circumstances--some favorable and some unfavorable. In the context of the Wii U's market condition, it would have been good for Nintendo to perhaps do at least a little more.

I think there's a good argument the "unfavorable" strongly outweighed the reverse circumstances with the Wii U port. As noted earlier EA had already made their decision on the platform by this point and better sales for a full-priced half year late port wouldn't have changed anything. The only potential upside for Nintendo here really would've been in fostering a better relationship with Ward's team directly and really I think that's something they could still accomplish anyway with the right outreach. Hopefully Dan Adelman's been watching all this unfold and currently planning to do just that.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I know people do not actually believe Nintendo should have marketed EA's game? This is not the case is it? It just sounds so silly even typing what I read.

I think it's important to understand the nuance involved in the conversation. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that if Nintendo were a good platform-holder, they'd have cut Ward a blank check to maximize Most Wanted's potential. But some have suggested that it might have been a nice good-will gesture to give the title some support given that the platform is already struggling for third-party support, and also the developer of the title came hat in hand to ask for support for what was undeniably a strong (if late) port to showcase the hardware.

Now, again, it's easy to look at the situation and conclude why this may have been a bad investment. I don't think anyone here is wondering what could have been and thinking Most Wanted may have been a hit, or that it would have opened the floodwaters of great third party support. But there's also this weird backlash against the mere idea of a first party providing support for a third party title, and I don't understand.

Yes, it's fair to suggest that it's primarily the publisher's job to promote a title. And yes, it's fair to point out EA and Nontendo's strained relationship. But having said that, it's certainly not absurd to think that a platform-holder might see strategic value in promoting that certain titles exist on their platform, particularly if that platform is struggling and already lacking in third party support.

Now, I'm going to redundantly stress again that I understand the reason against supporting this particular title from this particular publisher. One can easily argue that it'd just be throwing good money after bad and would accomplish little. That's fair. But I vehemently disagree with the idea that a platform-holder should never be expected to promote the existence of third party titles, as that's solely the responsibility of the third-party publisher.

 

[The Adder]

I think it's important to understand the nuance involved in the conversation. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that if Nintendo were a good platform-holder, they'd have cut Ward a blank check to maximize Most Wanted's potential. But some have suggested that it might have been a nice good-will gesture to give the title some support given that the platform is already struggling for third-party support, and also the developer of the title came hat in hand to ask for support for what was undeniably a strong (if late) port to showcase the hardware.

Now, again, it's easy to look at the situation and conclude why this may have been a bad investment. I don't think anyone here is wondering what could have been and thinking Most Wanted may have been a hit, or that it would have opened the floodwaters of great third party support. But there's also this weird backlash against the mere idea of a first party providing support for a third party title, and I don't understand.

Yes, it's fair to suggest that it's primarily the publisher's job to promote a title. And yes, it's fair to point out EA and Nontendo's strained relationship. But having said that, it's certainly not absurd to think that a platform-holder might see strategic value in promoting that certain titles exist on their platform, particularly if that platform is struggling and already lacking in third party support.

Now, I'm going to redundantly stress again that I understand the reason against supporting this particular title from this particular publisher. One can easily argue that it'd just be throwing good money after bad and would accomplish little. That's fair. But I vehemently disagree with the idea that a platform-holder should never be expected to promote the existence of third party titles, as that's solely the responsibility of the third-party publisher.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that. People are saying it would have made 0 sense in this particular case.

The only benefit would have been, as you said, fostering good will with Ward, but why would they want to? At the time he worked for EA who was done with Nintendo's console.

The other argument from this ide of the line is that Nintendo has no reason to go above and beyond in their support of 3rd parties what the other console manufacturers do. Mainly because it will attract no one OR the 3rd party will take advantage of this support and then fuck right off back to the competition. Rayman, Sonic Racers, and NG:RE prove this point.

 

[Buddha Beam]

As I said earlier, they had to play the cards that they were dealt. They didn't have Destiny or Thief. They also didn't have Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, Borderlands 2, or Grand Theft Auto V. Why didn't they have those games? Good question. They had this one, though. A the very least, they could help their third parties market the few really good games that the system was getting, rather than cry and sulk and lament because they weren't getting Grand Theft Auto V.

No, they don't have to do it. But Sony and Microsoft do these types of deals all of the time. They run co-branded commercials on TV, promote the release on blogs and social media outlets, and more. Nintendo isn't required to lend a helping hand to third parties, but if their two chief competitors are going to play the game, then it's reasonable to hope that Nintendo might want to play along as well.

Nintendo does play that game though and they have for years. The thing is, platform holders typically only play that game when the game is question is a major title. Need for Speed most assuredly doesn't qualify as that. It would have been a matter of Nintendo just throwing their money in an oil drum and lighting it on fire.
If Sony or MS were in Nintendo's position, I'm quite confident that they would have done the same thing Nintendo did. These guys aren't charities.

Since Nintendo had to play the hand they were dealt, the smart move was to fold... which they obviously did.
Nintendo deserves a lot of, even most of, the blame for the situation they're in right now... but this isn't one of those cases. This seems to me more like Ward taking something personally that stemmed from a messy, ugly business and politics relationship.

 

[Catchpenny]

A lot of people taking Alex Ward at his word.

Which is fine, you know, but it's also just one part of the story. EA has their reasons for what happened. Nintendo has their reasons for what happened. They may be good or bad reasons. Publishers and platform owners should make decisions based on money and what is good for their companies. How passionate Alex Ward and the Criterion gang were, or how much overtime they worked, or even how good the game is, do not play a role.

Personally, I think the relationship between Nintendo and EA had a lot to do with the Wii U version getting the shaft. However, I also think spending money marketing the game would have been throwing money down the drain.

EA and Nintendo aren't the only ones making financially motivated decisions. I have little doubt Alex Ward would overlook the incident with Most Wanted Wii U if the console were selling on par with the PS4 or XB1. It is always easier to take risks with someone else's money than with your own.

 

[Tripon]

I think it's important to understand the nuance involved in the conversation. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that if Nintendo were a good platform-holder, they'd have cut Ward a blank check to maximize Most Wanted's potential. But some have suggested that it might have been a nice good-will gesture to give the title some support given that the platform is already struggling for third-party support, and also the developer of the title came hat in hand to ask for support for what was undeniably a strong (if late) port to showcase the hardware.

Now, again, it's easy to look at the situation and conclude why this may have been a bad investment. I don't think anyone here is wondering what could have been and thinking Most Wanted may have been a hit, or that it would have opened the floodwaters of great third party support. But there's also this weird backlash against the mere idea of a first party providing support for a third party title, and I don't understand.

Yes, it's fair to suggest that it's primarily the publisher's job to promote a title. And yes, it's fair to point out EA and Nontendo's strained relationship. But having said that, it's certainly not absurd to think that a platform-holder might see strategic value in promoting that certain titles exist on their platform, particularly if that platform is struggling and already lacking in third party support.

Now, I'm going to redundantly stress again that I understand the reason against supporting this particular title from this particular publisher. One can easily argue that it'd just be throwing good money after bad and would accomplish little. That's fair. But I vehemently disagree with the idea that a platform-holder should never be expected to promote the existence of third party titles, as that's solely the responsibility of the third-party publisher.

I think what some people discussing this topic might be overlooking that EA and Nintendo did have an agreement to do cross-marketing and a dollar for dollar match at launch for a variety of titles, which I am assuming is at least Mass Effect 3: Special Edition, Madden, FIFA, etc. And that was probably done at fairly high level meeting with Nintendo and EA execs.

But Alex Ward was looking for a special exemption, or deal for Most Wanted, outside of that deal that Nintendo and EA already had. I just don't think that was realistic, especially for Most Wanted. If I had to guess, somebody at EA needed to convince Nintendo to help out, and that wasn't going to happen, especially by March 2013 when Most Wanted U came out.