Riccitiello: EA should have bet on Wii; PS3 and 360 still 'meaningful'

To be fair, a few try from time to time, and I use the term "try" loosely

Or maybe other developers are more interested in moving technology forward instead of backwards. As far as EA Sports is concerned, there business model is focused on every relevant gaming device under the sun to mass produce games for.

I can understand EA's corporate stance, but not every gaming company exist in order to maintain a stock price.

Thats right DangerMouse, most game companies just want to make you smile.

^OMG NINTENDONALDS!!!!!

"but we've got our eyes squarely on those second and third place consoles."

Thanks Christy. Glad someone at Joystiq isn't afraid to admit the bias.


Go Wii!

@Co

I think he meant that he could care less about the kid & geriatric centric lineup that EA would put on the Wii. I do not think he was saying there is a bias going on about the Wii. The system just does not have the same appeal.

"Shame software doesn't sell crap on Wii"

Shame there are hardly any decent software worthy enough to be purchased on Wii.

...and why do you think that is? Because 'decent' software is not what the 'mainstream' buys, and since the Wii is most certainly 'mainstream' a decent game won't sell on it. If the 'mainstream' had good taste in entertainment we wouldn't be bombarded with shit movies and shit music on all mainstream outlets... or do you think Britney Spears is 'decent' entertainment?

Fail for the sheer fact that decent can = mainstream.

What, was Galaxy not a decent game?

@Monkeydog

Honestly, I was let down by Galaxy. I really bought the hype that it was a Mario64 sequel, but it felt totally 100% different to me. It felt much more "casual" for several reasons. No, it wasn't a _terrible_ game, but I was disappointed.

@Monkeydog

Actually, MP3 is the only game I've really felt that I got my money's worth from on Wii. I watched my friend play Zelda some (not a fan of it myself), and it seemed pretty good, but I don't think it should count as it was a Gamecube game. :-)

@Phillip: Haha, sometimes I don't think people are ever pleased. "What?! Nintendo is just making another Mario game? God, it's the same old thing...What?! This Mario game is DIFFERENT? What the hell is Nintendo thinking?!"

@ 4MyFriends

Are you serious? Im a picky hardcore gamer who's played games for 23 years and i refuse to buy mini-game compilations and i've managed to find 11 excellent games worth owning. I dont even own Galaxy, Mario Kart, SSBB, Geometry Wars, Battalion Wars or No More Heroes and i still manage to fins 11 excellent games to buy, as well as my 12 downloaded games and 13 GC games. PLENTY of decent games on the Wii, people just dont give it a chance.

"Just because the Wii is leading the market doesn't mean it's the best system to develop for"

Of course it does. All these big corporations care about is money, and betting on the Wii initially would had enabled them to make more of it.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right, Riccitiello doesn't likely know anything about business.

Sure there are a lot of folks who have typically never gamed much buying a Wii console. Generalizing works sometimes, sure, so here's some more:

"On the other hand, people who buy the PS3 are actually buying it for the [bluray player]"

Everything I've seen says it has a better attach rate than the PS3

All I'm saying is, just because the SYSTEM is raping piggy-banks everywhere, doesn't mean the GAMES are. Therefore, is it really that wise to move more assets towards making games for the Wii?

Not the weakest by far. It's ahead of the PS3 by about .5, and behind 360 by only about 1.5

But how much of that attach rate was achieved by all the shovelware being bought by casuals compared to the few actual decent titles?

Actually, it is the weakest if you discount Wii Sports and the one that comes with the controller.

It's not really fair to include those since they skew what an attach rate is there to determine: how well is the console selling software.

This whole attach-rate argument is bullshit, where did it come from? Nobody cared about attach-rate a few years ago.

When you rely on attach-rates for your argument you're grasping at straws.

Nobody ever has any proof, and if Nintendo dose have a higher attach-rate then that will be dismissed for some bullshit reason like bundles (only nintendo bundles) dont count, or games with mario or zelda in the title dont count.

Do peopel really take attach-rates seriously?

The attach rate argument is part of the broad campaign (i am not paranoid enough to call it conspiracy) that has occurred on many fronts to try to discredit the Wii, and to try to remove its laurels

Which isn't to say Attach Rate isn't important. But i do not recall, in all the years i've followed gaming, those words ever coming to light before 2007

even if the attach rate is lower, the wii still sells a lot of software. ex. 10wii games on 100wiis. 10% attach rate. 5 games on 30 ps3s is 60% attach rate, but less games sold.

so attach rate on wii fails, but the gamemaker makes more money on it.

Attach rate is NOT important. At least not unless you get down into the nuts and bolts of it.
Who gives a shit if the average 360 owner has 7 games and the Wii owner has 5.5 games? Your cooking sim isn't going to sell on the 360 no matter how God damn high that mythical number is. You would instead ask yourself, "My game is a shooter...of those 7 360 games, how many are shooters?"
I guarantee you that Capcom or Konami isn't looking at the system's overall attach ratio because it's absolutely meaningless.

What matters is SOFTWARE SALES. Right now, the Wii is, I believe, leading in that department.
In Hypothetical land, say there are only 100 Wii's and 10 360s on the market...and your game is estimated to sell to 50% of the 360's audience and only 25% of the Wii's...guess where you're going to make more money?

I keep saying it, but fanboys just ignore it. Attach ratio is an irrelevant number that Microsoft put out there for PR purposes, and it has, tragically, been a huge success.

lol samfish made the same comment as me exactly 1 minute later. Yea, do u comment readers get it now?!

The games that sell best on the Wii are from Nintendo. PERIOD. People buy the Wii for Nintendo games. EA can certainly make some coin off developing for the Wii and at a much cheaper price point than developing for the PS360. You will see more games from EA on the Wii and they will for the most part be geared towards the target audience of the Wii. That target audience being children, soccer moms and grandparents.

If I were EA I would milk the hell out of the Wii with crappy mini game after crappy mini game. If this is what all you Nintendo bitches are craving then have at it. I will settle for the better EA games mentioned in this blog post.

@Mr.Khan

I do not think people want to devalue the success of the Wii like you say they do. However, you have to admit counting Wii Sports and Wii Play will heavily skew the attach rate since almost all Wii owners have both games because one was bundled and one came with a Wii mote.

I think a rational person would pretty much accept that if a Wii owner had 5 games more than likely 4 of them would be Nintendo games if not all 5. I have about 8 Wii games and 6 are Nintendo games. The head honcho of EA is really saying that they should have cashed in on the Wii casual crowd and cut our net loss by another 50 million. You can expect more Wii games from EA in the next 12-16 months but I would not expect them to be big time efforts like they have with Dead Space and left4dead (among others). The PS360 crowd really does not buy the same type of games that sell on the WIi. If it doesn't say Nintendo on the front box more than likely it will not sell great. However, if you have a compilation of some less than stellar Wii games that half 1/8th of the budget as one of the PS360 titles it does not have to sell well.

My point is that you shouldn't expect to see the same type of games EA has been making for the PS360. If you want that type of shelf clutter than be my guest. Do not act like that is a good thing. There are more good multiplatform games released in 6 months on the PS360 than the lifetime games of the Wii has had thus far since launch. The WIi had a handful of gems in a sea of casual garbage.

I am of the opinion that the Wii will not stand the test of time. I do not mean the test of time in terms of total consoles sold. I am referring to the test of time in terms of how big of an impact the system actually had. The PS360 architecture and games are actually pushing the industry forward in terms of what developers are able to do on consoles. The Wii is just not doing the same thing and it is not trying to do that. It is pretty much a budget friendly video game console that relies more on gimmick based motion gestures than changing the standard of gaming.

The Gamecube was actually the best system last generation in terms of pure spec (other than the mini dvd's) ... The Wii is just the opposite and the only thing it has given the industry is gimmick based motion controls. Every Wii game I have controls better with the classic controller (IMO obviously). I have yet to play a single game that the IR pointer and waggle stick made me feel more immersion. Just to be honest I also feel six axis is a gimmick and I have never cared for Rumble. I guess I just prefer a regular controller.

"The games that sell best on the Wii are from Nintendo. PERIOD. People buy the Wii for Nintendo games. "

And Resident Evil games.
And Sonic games.

Or maybe it's just games that are advertised/have name recognition...y'know...like the games on that one console. I forget it's name.

Oh, right.
EVERY OTHER CONSOLE EVER TO EXIST.

Also, Wii Sports ISN'T included in the attach rate, except in Japan.

I have 26 Wii games, 12 from nintendo, 14 from anyone else.

The great thing about the Wii is the game doesn't even have to be good to sell or make a profit. Just make a cheap ass game with some sort of hook for the casual crowd (e.g. Carnival Games) and after you've sold 1000 copies you're in the black. It's Wiitastic!

Yeah, except not really amirite?!

I don't know about you, but I consider those two different products, just like Crysis coming to the Game Boy Color. Same brand name, different game, different developer, different everything. Rock Band on Wii may appear to be like Rock Band on 360/PS3 but without DLC it's not even close to me.

But i thought Rock Band 2 for Wii was going to have DLC

I mean, they wouldn't want to be shown up by Activision, of all people

LOLZ!11!!!!!11!!11

That would have been all sorts of high-technical schweet. I don't need super ungodly amazing graphics to enjoy games at all, but gee it sure is nice sometimes.

They also would had to price the system near the 360/PS3 price range, and lose out on the one thing that enabled them to take market share leader back, Price. Truth be told, if they had emulated PS3 and 360 this gen, they would be in last place just like the last 2 gens.

At this point it would yield more titles, since PS360 combined still outnumbers Wii alone

But when that is no longer true, i wonder where the third parties will turn

It's not the graphics that makes the Wii suck, it's the lack of an XBL/PSN type service.

Nintendo took a bet that Microsoft and Sony overshot the market. If Nintendo is still in the lead by the end of this generation then they made the right bet.. If the ps3 or xbox somehow passes the wii and takes the lead then its a different story.

Curmeo 2.0

You know I have wondered what you mean by Nintendonalds and it finally dawned on me!! The deal Nintendo and McDonalds had to offer free Wi FI play in the mcdonalds hamburger joints ... very funny ... especially considering that venture was recently terminated ... Anyway, I finally get it ...


Add me next time you are on the PSN

Oh god, McPoop! Nintendonalds funny?