FIFA Is EA's Only Switch Game Until "The Platform Launches and Takes Off"

EA is supporting the Switch, but further development isn't happening until the Switch is a success.

[Overload]

https://j.gifs.com/RgXxy0.g...

[QUIMICOMORTAL]

of course!

[Canidae]

My thoughts exactly.

[PapaBop]

LOL! Not exactly true though, the fact EA are even testing the waters with Fifa should be encouraging and after the Wii U, it's about as good as Nintendo could hope for at this stage. EA are the easiest gaming company to predict though, if the Switch takes off and Fifa brings in the $$$, they'll almost certainly follow it up with more games based on it's reception.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Electronic Arts didn't need to test the waters on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One..........

Buddy you should be alarmed that any publisher is even saying something like this to a platform.

R.I.P Nintendos hardware

[zaherdab]

I would assume most gamers who bought the WII U will also wait to see if the system takes off with enough game to warrant a purchase ... if consumers and developers are both waiting for the system to take off... not sure it will

[XanderZane]

Not surprising. I think Nintendo should have said they have 50 potential developers who want to make Switch games. I'm sure most of those 50 developers don't have anything to show and is just waiting for the launch to see how well the system is received. EA did this same thing with the Wii U. They said they would make games for it and after they saw sales dropping like a rock, they pulled the plug on Wii U development.

[_-EDMIX-_]

😂😂😂

[rainslacker]

Translation:

FIFA is EA's only switch game.

[Neonridr]

No surprise there.. it is EA after all.

[Nitrowolf2]

It wont be just EA. Many eill follow if it doesnt take off, itll be the Wii U all over again, in fact we saw much more 3rd party titles at the wii u launch i believe.

Even gear box said they wont do a switch game, meaning its missing out on yet another big title (borderlands 3)

@Neonridr

How did Watch Dogs for Wii U Turn Out?

They dropped support after two years, sure they supported the console but you can't honestly say those ports/games were all that good. The Wii U was an afterthought for Ubisoft in the end. This is all Nintendo, devs won't support a console that doesn't appeal to the masses. Have we even seen real gameplay of either Steep or For Honor or has it just been glimpse of it in trailers? You know your talking about a company (Ubisoft) that is notorious for putting higher quality footage of their game in promotional videos

Like I said in past comments, look at all the third party games releasing in March that aren't on the Switch, and even going forward from there. Nintendo has had plenty of time to get developer support

[Neonridr]

Ubisoft is all in (although they usually are). I like when devs take an all in approach. They can actually help sales of the machine and not put it squarely on Nintendo's shoulders.

[rdgneoz3]

@Neonridr Ubi was very supportive at the beginning of the WiiU as well. But we haven't seen any AC, Division, or For Honor (soon to launch on the PS4 and xbone) for the WiiU. If you look at the list of devs that were listed as developing games for the WiiU before it launched and compare it to the list that was shown for the Switch, they'll be very similar. But when a platform doesn't sell or doesn't have the power for the games, devs abandon it.

[Neonridr]

@rdgneoz3 - the Wii U couldn't handle Unreal or Frostbite. We know Switch can do Unreal Engine 4 at least (not sure about some of the other engines out there) so it gives devs more options at least.

For Honor is coming for Switch. As is Steep.

I get that devs want to make money, so if the system doesn't sell they abandon it. But a lot of devs didn't even give the Wii U a chance. They released one or maybe two lazy ports with no DLC or missing features and then girped when they didn't sell. Not exactly putting your best foot forward. Ubisoft at least tried. And appear to be doing so again with the Switch.

[Omnislashver36]

@Neonridr
Just because Switch can handle UE4 doesn't mean most devs are going to make their games for it. Switch is still far weaker than the other two's base models which means it'll take more to optimize for the system. Most aren't even going to bother.

[Neonridr]

@OmnislashVer36 - you would be surprised at how much performance you can save by turning the games resolution down to 720p (handheld mode). With a smaller screen you can forgo a lot of crazy aliasing techniques because stuff in the distance will be too small to notice. Unreal Engine is extremely scalable, mobile phones can run stuff on it. If the devs take the time, a lot can be accomplished. But most devs just want to go the copy + paste route so they can maximize returns while minimizing work.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@neo- Ubisoft was all in? Where is the division where is Watch Dogs 2 where is the last two latest Assassin's Creed games on the Wii U?

Ubisoft actually only "all in"on PlayStation 4 Xbox One and PC at the moment buddy.

Mind you this is the same publisher that openly stated that they were no longer going to release M rated games on Nintendo Hardware.

[Neonridr]

@EDMIX - seriously if you can't bother to read my statements I cannot help you my little friend.

I clearly said that Ubisoft is all in (for the Switch) and even went as far to mention in my next comment that Ubisoft was there from day one. They released 2 Assassin's Creed games, Watch Dogs, Rayman Legends, Zombi U, Countless Just Dance titles and more for the Wii U. Sales eventually forced them to rethink that.

Maybe before you hit replay and spam me with insults you actually take the time to read my stuff thoroughly first.

[OrangePowerz]

WiiU could run UE3 and that didn't help much. Sure you need less power displaying stuff on a small screen, but it's not just a handheld. If you look at the Mario footage the lack of anti aliasing is dreadful (I know it only launches in Fall). Even if you look at Zelda you see that the texture filtering isn't great.

If I recall correct the WiiU version for Black Ops 2 looked better on WiiU than on PS3 so that wasn't a horrible port and you could find nobody online at launch.

[QUIMICOMORTAL]

Aaanndd the rest as well

[gangsta_red]

Not even a Madden for us State side though?

That doesn't seem like EA at all.

[bf000777966]

I wondered what version this FIFA is.

[_-EDMIX-_]

You might as well add Ubisoft Activision and a list of other publishers because to my understanding they all did the exact same thing with Nintendo's previous platforms.

Because I don't remember Destiny hitting the Wii U and I damn well don't remember the latest Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed or Watch Dogs coming to the Wii U,....Sooooo yea.

Even Japanese developers when did Final Fantasy 15 hit the Wii U? Final Fantasy 15 wasn't even announced for the switch lol Resident Evil 7 isn't coming to the Wii U or the switch in fact Resident Evil 2002 Resident Evil 0 remasters and Resident Evil Revelations 2 didn't even come to the Wii U despite coming to the 360 and Playstation 3 LMFAO!

Sooooo yea, you might as well add a boatload of Publishers to that list buddy.

So yea, it's EA......and Sega and Ubisoft and Capcom and Square Enix and etc

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

This is not how you build an install base that wants your games, EA.
You've learned nothing from your failures on the Wii U, much as Nintendo hasn't learned they can't copy Sony and Microsoft's subscription plans using rented classics and phone apps.

[Nitrowolf2]

The install base that wants their games are already on other consoles. Heavy Fifa players jumped on that train when the x1 and ps4 launched.
They have learned from the failure of the Wii U, dont jump in investing money in a failed product thinking itll be the next Wii

No, the lack of mass effect IMO is gonna hurt more but it shows their third party stance. They wont be the only ones either, the first year will be fine but if the console doesnt take off itll drop like a rock like it did for the wii u, which sucked because i loved my wii u

@Below

It's EA, their main income is off of Multiplat titles. When was the last time they did an real exclusive for another company? The Lack of Power is why ME collection sucked balls on the Wii U, and it'll probably end up being the same here. Bad ports are due to Nintendo Lack of understanding that devs want more power and in the end they'll develop for what meets their needs.
Why should third party like EA/Ubisoft/Activsion/ Ect make exclusive games for a console that failed them last gen? They're games are designed to hit every platform of all markets.

Why burn all that money going into making a new IP specifically for one system when the pay off in the past hasn't paid off.

Sony had a huge issue last gen with the PS3 when it came to third party support. Yes it was there but third party devs hated developing for a system that wasn't friendly and meeting their needs. It's why nearly all last gen games looked better and ran better on the 360. And what did Sony learn from this? Well they made a PS4, meet with countless developers to figure out what they wanted, and made a system that was on par with the xbox one in terms of ease of development.

Are we hearing that with Nintendo?
Lets put it like this, EA or any other third party Studio/publishers don't need Nintendo to survive, but Nintendo needs them.

@below again

You can spout that as much as you'd like but at the end of the day everyone can see how the Wii U ended and that speaks louder. Like i said, its not just EA, its a whole bunch of third party devs.

If this trend continues, eventually Nintendo will be pushed out of the hardware market.the switch has its own unique gimmicks, but at the same time its very old gen when it comes to everything else.

Its funny the system not even out yet we have multiple developers already stating their stance on their support, or lack of. Do you see this with the xbox or playstation? Even when microsoft was getting flak for the whole drm issues and pricing and underpower to its competition it still had that thirdparty support because the system still appealed to developers.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

No, they haven't.
Third parties sell loads on 3DS, and if EA would pull their heads out of their butts by offering appealing content, instead of a single roster-updated sports game, maybe they'd see bigger sales than they are used to on Nintendo systems.
You can't keep excusing this bs; third parties have to wipe their own asses when it comes to their games.
It's not the job of Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo to make third party games that fit the moment and the crowd they're selling to.
They have NOT learned from their failure with the Wii U; releasing games no one cares about getting on Nintendo consoles, late and with less content.
Next they are going to whine that no one bought FIFA on Switch when they know that's not what Nintendo AND none-Nintendo gamers will buy a Switch for, and use it as an excuse to avoid developing games that WOULD sell on it.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

If Nintendo really needed EA, they would have exited home consoles after the Gamecube flopped.
The lack of power was not an excuse for ME collection never arriving on the Wii U; those were last gen games and they would have fit onto it fine.

You just need to face the fact that EA fucked up last gen by being half-assed and lazy with their Wii U efforts, and that Nintendo could not have changed that regardless of the level of power in the system.

[bouzebbal]

EA is a company that wants to make profits, and Nintendo consoles (maybe except Wii) aren't known for being a good bet for 3rd party publishers.
For me, I buy Nintendo machines for 1st party games. If console sales don't take off (mostly due to 3rd party support), 1st party support takes a hit as well.

EDIT: I am joining what Goldby says and i will add that Nintendo have more pressure because they have chosen a less powerful device architecture, meaning that publishers need to dedicate ressources especially for switch ports, and that extra investment only makes sense if they have a guarantee to sell "enough".

[Goldby]

its not their failures Wonferful, its Nintendos. if they are not creating the device which plays the games people want to play, there wont be support for it.

It's already beginning, Downgrades, lack of support.

#HailMary-o

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

No.
Nintendo didn't release ME3 on Wii U when a series collection came out elsewhere.
Nintendo didn't cut out multiplayer content.
Nintendo did not blame the fans for the game not selling when it was clearly a deficient port that had no excuse not to be better than it was.

You cannot blame Nintendo for those mistakes, because it was not Nintendo that developed that game.

Quit justifying bad ports and sloppy efforts on the parts of third parties; third parties make plenty of money off of 3DS, which proves they CAN be successful on Nintendo hardware when they do things right.

[Goldby]

Yes. 3rd party support is great for nintendo handhelds. Not consoles. And even though the switch is a handheld. It is being marketed as a home console. And when 4 older consoles are more powerful than this one is, and when the gamers want dem 4k graphics. The switch is on the back burner, not their main focus becausr they already know that people wont buy those games for the switch, mainly due to lack of power and graphic ability.

And as for nintendo not cutting out content. Ever consider EA had to do that stuff to get the game working on an underpowered console?

Heck Halo 5 had to cut local split screen because of lack of power of the x1 so its not hard to believe companies having to cut alot out to make a game run on the nintenso consoles of yesteryear.

But hey, keepholding everyone else at fault instead of the company holding back the developers

[freshslicepizza]

@Goldby

why did you not mention guerilla cut out splitscreen on killzone shadow fall because the ps4 lacked power too?

[Goldby]

@Moldy

Because i haven't played that game and didn't know they cut it.
The halo 5 wasn't a jab or insult towards xbox or xbox gamers, more just the reality of times we live in, things get cut from games for multiple reasons, budget constraints, power, artistic direction. it could be any number of reasons.

[freshslicepizza]

the blame lies solely with nintendo, ea just wants to make money like all publishers. when you have a company who cant even get the messaging about how the online works it speaks volumes about how archaic this company truly is. plus we have seen time and again how nintendo markets its games and will promote their own way ahead of everyone else.

then you have games like skyrim that are how old and this is nintendo telling the world they have 3rd party support? its not even the newly remastered version either which goes to show how far behind they continue to be on a power level so its no wonder these publishers are apprehensive.

everything i have seen so far suggests nintendo wants to promote games playing with others close by (local co-op, splitscreen, not online) and working much closer with japenese publishers than western ones. meanwhile the opposite seems to be true in the western world where online gaming is much more prominent and technical power is needed to house games like the new mass effect and red dead redemption 2.

nintendo is hurting itself by charging for online play because most people who buy the system will be using it as a secondary platform. if games like mario kart now need a subscription i think many will be apprehensive to pay to play. why pay for a subscription model if you do most of your online gaming on the xbox or playstation only to have to pay again for the few games on switch you want to play online? nobody is going to be buying this system to play call of duty online or battlefield. so that right there takes away part of the value to pay for nintendos online services.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

I remember watching a lot of YouTube videos back in 2013 with developers talking about how SONY and MICROSOFT was always reaching out them (3rd party developers) to help them to give them support and help with their upcoming consoles PS4 and XBOX1. When it came to NINTENDO and WIU, they said they barely reached out to them.

[Legion21]

Nintendo needs 3rd party support much more than EA needs their games on the Switch. It's Nintendo's job to make an attractive console that draws third party studios. After the failure that was the Wii U publishers/devs are smart to be cautious.

[Dragonscale]

@wonder, it won't be just ea tbh. Apparently only 3% of developers so far have said they'll make games for switch. Seems like the usual story tbh.

[ShottyatLaw]

EAs "failures" on the Wii U were much more detrimental to Nintendo than to itself. Neither consumers nor Nintendo can expect 3rd parties to take substantial risks, especially when so much is in doubt.

If Nintendo was serious about 3rd party support, than they should have been using the last few years to ensure that past problems weren't repeated. They are not in a good negotiating position. Frankly, everyone can recognize that they need 3rd parties more than the EAs and Ubis need Nintendo. So, they really needed to just bite the bullet and make the investment with these 3rd parties for substantial support.

The rewards arent there for 3rd parties to take the risk Nintendo needs them to take. It will take a fair amount of resources to port their multiplats to a new system with different (lower) specs, different dev tools, different online systems, etc.

Go to EA and ask what will it take to get Switch versions of all of their multiplats day and date with the other consoles. Then get out the checkbook.

I'm just not sure what else Nintendo can do at this point. Their goal of having a mainstream device is achievable, but not when we need to go with their competitors in order to play all of the mainstream games.

I intend to use my Switch as an offline Nintendo-game machine. I'm not the audience Nintendo needs to attract, though.

[pcz]

i think you should be satisfied that EA are willing to give the switch even one game at this point. it reveals something though- EA dont have much faith in the switch. they are gambling, but not putting all their chips on the table.

the problem is, i can predict that it wont be much of a success, neither commercially or critically, because like always, they will produce a gimped version of their flagship fifa ps4/x1 titles for nintendo.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I'm sorry but numerous users on this site have told you so many times it's not even funny.

The responsibilities of the hardware actually selling is actually solely up to Nintendo not Electronic Arts they do not have a job to sell Hardware their job is to Simply sell software.

If Nintendo wants that software on their platform they clearly need to work with third parties to ensure they have a platform powerful enough that supports 3rd party needs.

If they don't create Hardware that is powerful enough that should not expect the support because it doesn't make sense.

You're basically asking Electronic Arts in a bunch of Publishers to work harder to make a more downgraded game on your platform despite your platform not meeting the needs to support those games in the first place.

Yea......no

That's like owning a retail store that doesn't have any freezers and you keep begging and ice cream vendor to work with you.

If you won't put in a freezer in your store why should I support your store when your store doesn't even support my product?

You've been told this over and over and over and over again to the point where it you refuse to acknowledge that this is actually a very simple stable relationship in business.

Sony and Microsoft are able to do this exactly why that Nintendo the stupid slow one that can not understand this?

Electronic Arts is breaking records on the other platforms they actually don't need Nintendo.

it is Nintendo that technically needs to third-party support or they run the risk of never creating Hardware again.

[TheColbertinator]

EA is so pathetic often

[Movefasta1993]

the switch's specs and method to play online is even more so.

[PaulKersey]

You can't fault EA for not wanting to back an obviously losing horse in the console race.

[ZorinInc]

They're a business.

[Herbalistic]

This may become a trend with western publishers unless Nintendo fans support the releases

[Moonman]

Not only Nintendo fans, gamers in general. And I don't think the majority of gamers interested In Mass Effect would buy a Nintendo console to play it if a Sony console plays it as well. This is why Nintendo chooses the road less traveled.

[superchiller]

That "road less traveled" hasn't been working too well for them, for quite some time now.

[Omnislashver36]

Wrong, if Nintendo would just make a system that was as powerful as the other two and didn't arrive half a gen in, they'd have a huge casual fanbase of casuals who only play Cod, BF, Sports games, etc from 3rd party mainly, and they might even make it their main console because everybody loves Nintendo games.

Nintendo could battle Sony for the crown if they'd get their head out of their ass. No gaming icon in history has as much firepower as Mario, so those CoD, BF, sports-game casuals who play 3rd party mainly would snatch up Nintendo like hotcakes if they could have both on the same system. Ninty might even overtake Sony in that scenario.

[objdadon]

The switch as a mobile would actually have some appeal to me if it was powerful enough to play mass effect. That would be a hell of a selling point.

[Allsystemgamer]

The road less travelled gets fewer tolls paid. More paths blocked and lost to time itself.

In other words. They're lost.

Please explain to me why a weak ass tablet is supposed to be impressive

[slate91]

I feel them. Nintendo took 2 generations off imo. Yes the wii made a lot of money, but those days are gone. Now its what have you done for me lately?
Switch has a lot to prove.

[vulsker]

Im sure Mass Effect will hit it eventually. I mean the 3rd was a launch title for the Wii U wasn't it?

[Legion21]

Most likely didn't sell well

[vulsker]

Yeah good point. lol

[AcidDvl]

There is absolutely no way the Switch will run Andromeda without any hiccups.

[jmc8888]

Well the first one was built off Unreal 3, which was the main engine for the 360/PS3 era.

This one is built off of Frostbite 3 engine.

Also, Battlefield 3, the one that was on last gen consoles was on Frostbite 2 engine. Then they had Frostbite 2.5, and now 3.

[Maybay]

It's unfortunate, though it's Nintendo's job to foster a healthy relationship with third parties so their software could prosper on Nintendo platforms. Also, Nintendo platform owners need to buy third party games (stating the obvious fact that they need to buy the well developed third party games).

The Switch will suffer from a lack of third party support, though not to the extent like they did (Nintendo) we the Wii U. Indies have said (quoted by Michael Patcher) "the Switch is the easiest platform to developer for," which both Unreal engine 4 and Unity will play a big role for Switch.

With Pokemon, Zelda, Smash Bros., Fire Emblem, Donkey Kong, Mario (Mario Kart, etc.), Splatoon, Star Fox, Xenoblade, and Metroid (left out a few other Nintendo franchises), Nintendo can sustain themselves. Though it's not to say that don't need third parties, it's just that they (Nintendo) can support their own platform if need be.

[superchiller]

"Nintendo can sustain themselves."

That didn't happen with the Wii U, and it won't happen with the Switch. The games you listed either appeal mainly to diehard Nintendo fans, or are niche titles that simply won't draw a substantial amount of gamers to the new platform. If the Switch ends up being a primarily Nintendo supported system, it will surely fail.

[Uken12]

Pokemon can change that. Probably the only Nintendo game that could.

[trooper_]

There's only so much Pokemon can do before the well runs dry.

[Maybay]

Nintendo now has all their developers delving on one platform (also the 3DS, though, they have third parties supporting that platform more frequently), whereas the Wii U and 3DS stretched them out too thin. The Wii U was Nintendo's first HD console, and they hard issues adapting to their new HD environment (there's articles on how difficult it was for Nintendo making the jump from SD to HD; hence the Wii U's struggles and game delays).

@admiralvic

We'll see, though I guarantee you that the Switch will be heavily supported by indies and Nintendo way more than the Wii U ever was.

[admiralvic]

"Indies have said (quoted by Michael Patcher) "the Switch is the easiest platform to developer for," which both Unreal engine 4 and Unity will play a big role for Switch. "

Regardless of this, the Nintendo eShop has the least visibility of the three, meaning sales will likely be lower. Money talks and no matter how easy it is to develop for, if they can't turn a profit, it won't matter. To put it another way, name three eShop exclusive indie titles and then name three exclusive to the PSN and XBL.

"With Pokemon, Zelda, Smash Bros., Fire Emblem, Donkey Kong, Mario (Mario Kart, etc.), Splatoon, Star Fox, Xenoblade, and Metroid (left out a few other Nintendo franchises), Nintendo can sustain themselves."

A lot of diehard fans seem to be pointing it out and like I said to those people on Reddit, if Mario Kart 8 and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild didn't sell the Wii U, why would Mario Kart 8 and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sell the Switch?

Obviously it's a little difference since Zelda is actually releasing, but at the time we knew Super Smash Bros. was and plenty of these games released and it didn't make the Wii U a success. I wish Nintendo all the best and hope I'm wrong, but history has shown us that these titles didn't make a substantial impact on the Wii U and there is no reason to believe the Switch will be any better.

[LOL_WUT]

Nintendo had plenty of time to think about their next system. It's not EA's fault that Nintendo didn't seem to keep devs in mind when they developed the Switch. Nintendo burned many bridges with the WiiU; it's time for them to their act together. ;)

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Might wanna pull your head out of your negative nancy-land long enough to take a look at reports from third parties.
They've got games like Dark Souls 3 running on it, so it isn't deficient like the Wii U was.

[Goldby]

They also got dragon quest heroes. But look how that looks on it.

Ds3 may run on it. But it wont be running very well

[objdadon]

Lol, dark souls is not a graphical feat bruh

[lellkay]

Don't blame EA. I agree with them on this. Why waste money porting and downgrading stuff, if the profits they on Nintendo machines are never worthwhile.

[ocelot07]

They should of put Battlefield 1 on there as well for a bit of variety. Not everyone likes football games. I think the Switch needs a big FPS game like BF1 or COD.

[Goldby]

Ea needs a reason to port battlefield 1 to the switch. Currently the reasons not to are piling up and overflowing the reasons to do the port

[danny818]

i saw Activision being one of the developers on the Switch 3rd party support. Heres hoping COD comes on the system at the ladder part of this year

[ocelot07]

I wouldn't get any hopes up. They maybe on the list of devs but sadly that does not mean they will be releasing the likes of cod on it (but I hope they do).

Only game I think they have announced so far for the switch is Skylanders.

[objdadon]

Nope, that's for skylanders

[objdadon]

That would be a selling point especially mobility wise if those games were on there. Unfortunately, Nintendo didn't make the damn thing powerful enough to run them🤔

[RosweeSon]

It's catch 22 as I won't buy an EA game until they are good again or not just a yearly churn.

[Tigerblud]

If I was Nintendo I would help fund a Mass Effect port for Switch. It would help show 3rd parties you believe in your product. Not to mention how huge it would be for the Switch if Mass Effect had released on it at the same time.

[ninsigma]

Sounds to me like the start of a vicious cycle.

[Jayszen]

So, can't be bothered until the console is a success. But the console cannot be a success to some extent until huge companies like EA, Ubisoft and Activision support the hardware. There has to be some risk but EA would rather waste money destroying a really good IP like Titanfall through poor marketing and strategy rather than support a console that could actually be a success.

I think Nintendo can do without the likes of EA. 4 to 6 major 1st party releases each year and Nintendo will not need third party support, certainly not from EA. I would be happy with one Nintendo release every quarter and would buy a Switch for just 4 to 6 games - especially when there is no other way to play those games! With Zelda, Splatoon 2, Mario Odyssey, and Fire Emblem: Warriors all due this year as well updated releases like Mario Kart Deluxe, I would be more than happy with just these and I haven't even included Rime and Xenoblade Chronicles 2! Sod off, EA!

[Goldby]

It isnt just up to the developers.

If the developers are barely able to make games now that arent full of bugs and incomplete for one reason or another, how on earth do u expect them to makes games for an underpowered handheld

[jmc8888]

You and only a few million others... that's the point.

Wii U was supported marvelously at launch, the problem was, it was underpowered/overpriced, and didn't sell. Ubisoft had 6 at launch and three more within four months. They did a game from the ground up Zombi U. Assassin's Creed III (only a couple weeks after its launch everywhere else)

Activision/WBGames/EA had about 12 titles at launch... including Mass Effect 3, a built from the ground up Call of Duty Blops 2 WITH marvelous use of the gamepad, Madden, Fifa, Batman Arhkam City, etc.

Switch is supported like crap because 3rd party's have Nintendo's underpowered/overpriced hardware ingrained in their heads due to losses.

It's all about Nintendo, their lack of powerful enough hardware, and the gimmicks that raise the price so a underpowered console costs more then a far more powerful one. The Switch is EXACTLY this, and actually worse then the Wii U.

They see the writing on the wall. They don't want to come out and be so blunt because what if Nintendo wins the lottery... if they do, 3rd parties don't want to burn a bridge.

But Nintendo isn't winning any lottery with the Switch. <400 GFlops docked and <150 GFLOPS undocked is crap. When docked it's 2007 mode, when undocked, like 2005.

Meanwhile developers have stopped making 360/PS3 ports for consoles that still have many more people playing then Switch will have in 2017 at least.

In other words, the power level of what the 3rd parties are abandoning (or already did a year or two ago) is basically what Switch is LAUNCHING at.

So yeah, Nintendo might have made it 'easier' to developer for with better tools and ARM instead of PowerPC architecture.... but the problem is, it's so underpowered, that now THAT is the ultimate problem.

3rd parties have moved so far past what Switch has for their AAA 3rd party games, that it will be very difficult to get THOSE games working on it. Oh yeah, if they feel the need, they can build a different title on it easily, but they won't even do that until it sells enough... and it may not.

Thus they aren't supporting Switch except with old and safe titles.

[Jayszen]

@jmc8888

You make good points, all of them. However, I am beginning to think Nintendo don't really need third party support. Why else would the company continue to bring out consoles that are underpowered when compared to Playstation and Xbox? Clearly, they must realise that third party support depends on producing hardware that at least has parity. Either that or those in charge are really bad at their jobs.

Nintendo is clearly marching to a different drummer. It has enough IPs to keep churning out a first party game very 2 to 3 months and their handheld is a success. Between what you say and this, it appears that Nintendo aren't bothered about third party support but obviously will not just come out and say so.

[King_Lothric]

You cannot use the same strategies and expect different results and that's why I am sure Switch will share the same fate as the Wii U.

[AizenSosuke]

EA....

[superchiller]

EA what?

[lodossrage]

As bad as EA can be, I don't see how anyone can blame them here.

Just look at the Wii and Wii U. The original Wii had the bigger install base compared to the PS3 and 360, Yet how well did a game sell on the Wii if it wasn't a Nintendo first party game or shovelware? If a developer tried to make a "hardcore" game on the Wii, their efforts were met with poor sales. Which is why eventually devs stopped trying

With the Wii U, Nintendo spoke on how they would get heavy 3rd party support. That support dried up real fast. Ubisoft, Nintendo's biggest third party advocate at the time even game up after a while. Rayman and Zombi U were supposed to be exclusive, yet poor sales got them ported to the other competing systems.

So no, I don't blame EA in THIS particular instance. And yeah, it won't be just EA that has that cautious mentality in regard to the Switch either.

[KakashiHotake]

I give EA credit for not faking the funk. I'm sure that's how all the other devs feel as well but don't have the balls to come out and say it.

[DillyDilly]

Big mistake EA the sports games would work well on a portable like this

[Angeljuice]

That's why they're testing the waters with their biggest sports game in FIFA. If FIFA bombs there will be no point in making the other titles available.

Nobody knows what the demographic of the switch will be other than the obvious Nintendo faithful. It's better to wait and see.

[Relientk77]

Damn.. and the Switch isn't even out yet

Nintendo better hope their 3rd party games sell so they can keep the support

[superchiller]

Unfortunately most diehard Nintendo fans don't buy 3rd party games (despite complaining bitterly when devs don't port them), so they have only themselves to blame for the lack of games on Nintendo consoles.

[The_Sage]

So, no Battlefield. No Battlefront. No Mass Effect. No Madden. Etc...

[conanlifts]

Then in 18 months when the vast majority of mass effect fans have well and truly finished with it in steps EA. They release mass effect on switch, without any of its added content, its rivals were on the game of the year edition 6 months prior. It then sells poorly and they say " see people don't buy ea games on switch". But they fail to realise it is 18 months too late with less contents and features. But of course it's the peoples fault....EA logic.

[Angeljuice]

If it sells like hotcakes, EA will be all over it.
If it sells like the WiiU then why bother doing anything more than you suggested they would?

[conanlifts]

I agree. But my comment was more thinking back to the wii u. Companies put out poor ports with missing content at launch. Then they wondered why sales were worse than anticipated. So if they do jump on board in order to get decent sales they need to not gimp the versions.

[feedthereaper]

So EA have as much faith in the console as every gamer out there....... virtually none....... and so are only offering an inferior port of one of their games that has been released on so many different platforms that adding one more version of the code to the Switch would be incredibly cost-effective.
I think their statement clearly tells what developers REALLY think about the Switches chances..... and its not very positive.

I think the Switch should have been sold as a 3DS replacement rather than a Wii U replacement, and sold for £150, it would sell bucketloads if they had.

[BLKxSEPTEMBER]

I don't blame EA one bit. EA is a business and last time I checked a business stays in business by making move that will generate money. If anybody here is buying a Switch for 3rd party content then you are in for disappointment. I'm buying a Switch for Nintendo games only not multiplats. My Pro And X1 can handle that.

[TenkoTAiLS]

It's really a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. If they do go all in with support and the system itself just doesn't take off for whatever reason, then that's a lot of money, time and assets lost/wasted. But on the flipside if they don't go all in, and only release a smattering of unimpressive titles/ports that are cheaper to move across systems, then they aren't giving consumers, or even other developers a reason to look at the system objectively and in turn can cause lack of interest which will limit and burden sales of the system which in turn causes them to have wasted money/time and resources.

Perhaps what developers should be doing is taking a look at what consumers actually want, and what is the best value for them, rather than the cheapest way for them to make some cash with little effort. The previous Mass Effect blunder from EA was a good example of this. Releasing Mass Effect on the Wii U was a great idea, it's what consumers wanted, where they messed up royal was releasing a stand alone Mass Effect 3 for basically full price when the other systems had a complete collection entering the market at the same time. That changed what would have been excitement, the Wii U getting Mass Effect, into a feeling of being ripped off, why would I buy Mass Effect 3 on Wii U when I can get a complete collection for roughly the same price on another system.

I guess what I'm getting at is, it's not just the amount of support that 3rd party developers give, but the way in which they do it. It's a hard balancing act, but at the same time it doesn't need to be if they actually put some effort and thought into it.

Personally even tho they are getting on in years now, a Mass Effect Collection, or a Dragon Age Collection that I could take with me on the go, with minor updates, like the graphical updates they did bringing the original game to PS3, along with offering all the DLC in the sets for once, instead of expecting people to pay more than 4x the price they can pick up the main games for for the extra content, would have been a much more enticing choice than bringing FIFA onto the Switch. Especially with a new Mass Effect just around the corner.

[lizard81288]

I wonder if EA is still sour over no origins for Wiiu. That deal fell through and so did EA's support

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

makes sense~ why invest in something that hasn't made you much money in the past? nintendo hasn't exactly been a huge seller when it comes to third-party stuff.

[PlatinumGX]

Nintendo is the one that has to prove to the third parties that their console is worth supporting. If the Switch fails, they (3rd parties) still have PS, Xbox and PC, so they don't lose anything.

EA released Fifa, Mass Effect 3, and Need for Speed MW on the Wii U. Meanwhile the Switch has only Fifa, not even the port of old games like Need for Speed, Plants vs Zombies 2, or Battlefront. Good luck Nintendo.

[kevnb]

Did ea support the 3ds at all? I'm more curious if the switch can get the Japanese developers on board.

[Jalapeno]

What a joke...if they can have Madden, NBA Live, and FIFA on iOS, they surely can support the Switch.

[RegorL]

It will take some time until Switch has the installed base of iOS... ... ... ... ...

http://www.theverge.com/201...

[jmc8888]

Newsflash (to some), just about every 3rd party is doing the same.

Ubisoft LAUNCHED with 6 titles. Yes, at launch, Ubsioft had SIX titles on the Wii U.

WB/Acitivsion/EA launched with something like 12 titles.

So between JUST those four (and there were others Capcom/THQ/Bandai-Namco/etc) you had about 18 launch titles for Wii U from 3rd party. You had an Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, Zombi U, Madden, Mass Effect 3, Fifa, Batman:Arkham City, etc.

In fact, after Ubisoft had 6 launch titles, they had 3 more launched on the system within 4 months.

Some people were complaining about 6-12 month old games being ported to Wii U, but Switch has to wait six months (or longer) to even get a 6 year old game on it, Skyrim.

[FallenAngel1984]

This is how most western third parties will approach NS. That's why most of their plegdged support consists of mainly ports instead of their upcoming flagship titles

[zb1ftw777]

Dead on arrival

[ChronoJoe]

It's clear that major publishers don't have faith in the platform. These games are risk managed token gestures while they take a 'wait and see approach' in regards to developing new games, or working towards putting a substantial body of titles onto the system.

A port of Skyrim is hardly pushing the boat out. The only major publisher showing real support right now is Ubisoft, Steep, Rayman Legends and Just Dance. Those titles are quite simple to port, but at least its much more substancial than a single game.

[SCW1982]

That's confidence right there folks. Has the Wii U written all over it again. Really hope that Nintendo starts getting awesome IP's on the system soon otherwise its gonna dry up next year.

[InTheZoneAC]

everyone's going to be staring at the next man waiting for it to take off and in the end they're all going to be like, "why don't you put your game on the Switch" then the follow up from everyone else is, "why don't YOU put games on the switch?"...LOL

[Sm3000]

When will we find out if it has the older or newer chip

[Blu3_Berry]

Nice Job EA *Slow Clap*. Being true to yourself.

[Nintenzo]

Its a catch 22

[JunMei]

Sooooo you won't make games unless it does very well? But... consoles do well when there are games. So... if no one makes games until it does well, then it won't do well, because no one will have made any games for it to make it worth buying. I love big developer logic.

[objdadon]

Well if the console was powerful enough then there would be no issues.

[JunMei]

That's still not the issue though. Software volume is, and all developer tools are capable of scaling.

[objdadon]

Oh yeah it's definitely the issue, all i heard were complaints from wii u owners about getting the lesser looking and poor running few 3rd party ports it did get. They used that as as the reason they didn't buy them, hence they didn't sell well, hence 3rd party doesn't care to go through the work to shoehorn their games into this lacking hardware.

[Bismarn]

Oh of course, wait to develop games for a system until after it has an install base. That has worked so well in the past.

[RAM0N]

Just one and gtfo

[captainexplosion]

You think Nintendo would have paid to get third party games like Mass Effect on the Switch.

[Livecustoms]

'Take Off' ? what does that even mean ahahah

[Ferrarius]

FIFA is a popular franchise that sells each year so who knows maybe fans will be thrilled to have a decent version of the game on the go.

[PaulKersey]

Can't wait to see the announcement for Madden 18 say "For PS4 and X1".

[PaulKersey]

The announcements later this year of Madden 18 and Battlefront 2 will tell the whole story. If they don't get a Switch release....