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

by Christopher Grant { Jul 29th 2008 at 4:15PM }

We know Electronic Arts has been kicking itself for underestimating the Wii since the console first came out in November of '06. When John Riccitiello rejoined EA the following February, that decision was already made and he's been turning the boat around ever since, telling the Mercury News, "We typically figured out who the market leader was going to be before the start of the cycle and bet with our development resources on that platform. We made the wrong call there (by betting on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360), which made this transition harder than it would otherwise be." In development for Wii: EA Sports All Play lineup; SimAnimals; MySims Kingdom; Boogie Superstar; Hasbro Family Game Night; Skate It; and more. Let's hope they fare better than the underappreciated Boom Blox.

Of course, increased focus on the Wii doesn't mean that EA is ignoring the 360, PS3, or PC markets. In fact, the company just had what could arguably be called its best E3 showing ever – Spore, Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age: Origins, Left 4 Dead, Rock Band 2 – comprised entirely of games for those platforms. Riccitiello addresses the continued focus on "next-gen" development saying that what's "unusual in this cycle is there's a second and third place that is meaningful, against which we can build a profitable business."

We're sure EA will do fine with Wii and DS, but we've got our eyes squarely on those second and third place consoles. We don't know what it costs to run a big, fancy gaming company but if it helps in your quarterly budgeting, EA, we're planning to buy at least ... twelve of each of those titles.

Tags: EA, Electronic-Arts, John-Riccitiello

Related From Joystiq

EA says Wii software performance weaker than anticipated
19 days ago
EA trims its 2010 lineup, focuses on high-profit games
20 days ago
Report: EA layoffs at four major divisions [update]
21 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

eilegz @ Jul 29th 2008 4:19PM

So its the other third parties...

Too bad most of them just hate nintendo and dont want to make a good "game" for it.

4MyFriends @ Jul 29th 2008 4:29PM

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

DangerMouse @ Jul 29th 2008 4:56PM

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.

TwEE @ Jul 29th 2008 5:25PM

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

DangerMouse @ Jul 29th 2008 5:51PM

^OMG NINTENDONALDS!!!!!

Co @ Jul 29th 2008 6:23PM

"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!

John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ Jul 29th 2008 7:19PM

@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.

the_insider @ Jul 29th 2008 4:19PM

Shame software doesn't sell crap on Wii... Really there best bet would be to make games for the 360 with its software tie in ratio... Once the Wii fad is over they will release a statement saying they should have never doubted the 360 or PS3.

;)

4MyFriends @ Jul 29th 2008 4:28PM

"Shame software doesn't sell crap on Wii"

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

the_insider @ Jul 29th 2008 4:40PM

...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?

Monkeydog @ Jul 29th 2008 4:45PM

Fail for the sheer fact that decent can = mainstream.

What, was Galaxy not a decent game?

Phillip @ Jul 29th 2008 5:21PM

@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.

Phillip @ Jul 29th 2008 5:23PM

@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. :-)

Saria the Cat @ Jul 29th 2008 7:37PM

@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?!"

Foetoid @ Jul 30th 2008 5:35AM

@ 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.

j.howlett @ Jul 29th 2008 4:25PM

now make good games for the wii and don't half ass the ps3 games and your covered

Beatz @ Jul 29th 2008 4:28PM

Just because the Wii is leading the market doesn't mean it's the best system to develop for. After all, it has the weakest attach-rate by far. Alot of Wii owners are just buying the system with Sports and once the novelty wears off, they're done with it. On the other hand, people who buy the 360 and PS3 are actually buying it for the software.

Not that I don't want to see some more good games on the Wii, but from a financial standpoint, it's not the best system to make games for.

4MyFriends @ Jul 29th 2008 4:29PM

"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.

Markez (MKWii 4339-2878-5120) @ Jul 29th 2008 4:34PM

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]"

voodoomage @ Jul 29th 2008 4:35PM

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

Beatz @ Jul 29th 2008 4:38PM

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?

Mr Khan @ Jul 29th 2008 4:38PM

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

tmacairjordan87 @ Jul 29th 2008 4:42PM

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

Joeshie @ Jul 29th 2008 4:46PM

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.

TwEE @ Jul 29th 2008 5:39PM

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?

Mr Khan @ Jul 29th 2008 6:04PM

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

Gun Barrier (Gamer Tag) @ Jul 29th 2008 7:09PM

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.

samfish @ Jul 29th 2008 7:10PM

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.

Gun Barrier (Gamer Tag) @ Jul 29th 2008 7:32PM

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

John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ Jul 29th 2008 7:53PM

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.

samfish @ Jul 29th 2008 8:04PM

"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.

Gun Barrier (Gamer Tag) @ Jul 29th 2008 8:09PM

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

Vidikron (FU) @ Jul 29th 2008 8:33PM

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!

kip @ Jul 29th 2008 4:32PM

Rock Band 2 is not exclusive to PC/PS3/360. It's coming to the Wii too.

Christopher Grant @ Jul 29th 2008 5:53PM

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.

Mr Khan @ Jul 29th 2008 6:05PM

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

Brucie B @ Jul 29th 2008 4:33PM

EA SUCKS

Christopher Grant @ Jul 29th 2008 5:53PM

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

xFenixKnightx @ Jul 29th 2008 4:33PM

Nintendo should have made a system graphically on par with PS360.

Markez (MKWii 4339-2878-5120) @ Jul 29th 2008 4:36PM

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.

4MyFriends @ Jul 29th 2008 4:38PM

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.

Mr Khan @ Jul 29th 2008 4:41PM

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

FSK405K @ Jul 29th 2008 4:48PM

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

TwEE @ Jul 29th 2008 5:44PM

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.

deadjesterx @ Jul 29th 2008 4:38PM

Wii is the market leader by far. However it's become rather clear that the majority of the Wii's user base is the casual crowd.

That doesn't mean that they can't make a great casual game for it. Quite the contrary really. But casual gamers don't spend nearly as much on software. The casual gamers that I know of buy two, maybe three games an entire year and that's it. It's a big difference from, say, the hardcore crowd who tend to buy roughly a game a month, if not possibly more. Damn fall season...I love you for all the great games that come out and hate you because I don't have enough time to play'm all.

Anyway, on the other hand, if EA had allocated more resources early on to the Wii and created more quality hardcore-inspired games, they may have found themselves with quite a large share of profits. Especially since Nintendo first-party are few and far between and the rest of the third-party companies seem to only want to make casual titles with a few exceptions.

Meh, hindsight is a bitch and all that.

Curmeo 2.0 @ Jul 29th 2008 4:40PM

yeah, thats exactly what the Wii needs, more EA crapware...

John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ Jul 29th 2008 7:57PM

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