Alright Gustavsson, you just made "the list".

In other words: "We are too lazy to learn how to develop for a new system".

They're an EA company, right? Why don't they get some lessons in Wii U development from some of the cats from Criterion?

Its because EA is mad at Nintendo. EA wants Nintendo to kill their online sercice, and replace it with EAs service.

...that will be obsolete in a year by the new systems from Sony and Microsoft.  Learning a new system takes development time which costs money.  That is only worth it to the developer if they're supporting the new system in the longterm.  It doesn't look like the Wii U will fit in with multiplatform development for those new systems.  It works for PS360 multiplatform development that is being phased out.  The money in learning the new system is not worth it for the one multiplatform Wii U game that can be developed in time.

It's the money. It would be nice if they said it's because of the money. Just once again as hinted by why Crysis 3 didn't have a Wii U version.


While I would only play a Battlefield game on a PC, the console versions of BF3 are alright from what I gather. A missed opportunity to have the commander view on a the GamePad.

Actually, it's been shown that the Wii U isn't even a good platform for PS360 games. They ran on hardware intended for higher CPU power, and the Wii U has a higher GPU power. Every developer has to actually do work when porting to the Wii U, so they won't do it. So they feel like the extra work isn't worth what they predicted to not be great sales.


Guess what? They're probably right.

I doubt releasing the game on PS4/720 would be very "safe" either.

It hasn't been confirmed for those systems, yet, has it? As far as I knew it was confirmed for PS3, 360, and PC.

News articles says there is a Playstation 4 version in the works. I'd imagine there is a Xbox Durango version in the works as well. Makes sense since DICE wants to push their shiny, new tech. I'll give that to them: it is impressively shiny.

Why does this not surprise me.

:(

This could be a boon for a small developer or some like Ubisoft/Activision come in.

considering everything i think EA would be happy to see Nintendo burn,

we're looking at the system that had Crysis 3 running and canned it because EA wouldn't give them a publishing liscence on the system,

this is the company that released Mass Effect 3 alongside a #$@%?& trilogy, collection on the other systems,

EA's basically trying to make Nintendo look bad and even though they're just acting like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum because they can't get a candybar at the #$@%?& grocery store they're succeeding.

I will play it safe and keep my money to be spent on Call of Duty. Atleast Activision has the common cutesy to port their games onto Nintendo systems. If EA is too good for Nintendo systems then my money is not good enough for their games.

Once again (I think I have told you this before), this isn't Activision's doing. They don't give a shit either way. It's all Treyarch's doing. Don't expect Modern Warfare 4 to be released by Infinity Ward, but probably a port by Treyarch since they have the experience with the Wii U and seem to like Nintendo.

If Activision did not want CoD on a Nintendo system then they could easily tell Treyarch to avoid their systems.  The fact that those games do sell on Nintendo systems is the reason why they get them when they come out. As for the Battlefield series, I will stick with Call of Duty for now.

As far as third parties go, Activision has one of the most solid support for Nintendo systems.

Of course it's not because they care about you or nintendo or whatever. They go where money go.

Also helps that several of their studios like Vicarious Visions and Treyarch are very much willing to work on Nintendo systems.

And I said they don't give a shit either way. I did not say Activision didn't want their games on Nintendo systems. They leave it up to the developer. Treyarch will always be the one to send it over to a Nintendo console.

Nor should it. It's probably EA's biggest game for the year, and EA's on extremely poor terms with Nintendo right now.  We've known this for months.  No one should be expecting an EA game to be announced for a Nintendo console at this point, nor should you be surprised when they don't come.  Expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised if you get anything.

As for Battlefield 4: "meh...whatever". I didn't play Battlefield 3 or the last Medal of Honor, and we've probably already seen the release of the best FPS of the year in Bioshock Infinite. I think I can get through the rest of the year without yet another military FPS, let alone one that probably pays even less attention to the SP campaign than the Infinity Ward Call of Duties.

I really can't blame EA on this, though: until the Wii U proves itself in console sales and brings that install base up, it's hard for 3rd parties to justify the expense of making Wii U versions of their games.  Last year's apparent lackluster sales of Black Ops 2 Wii U probably had a lot to do with this decision.  Could being the big fish in the extremely small puddle generate enough sales to make such a port profitable? Maybe, but as we saw at last year's launch, that can also go badly.

Isn't that part of the problem? They want Wii U to prove itself in sales without their games. If it doesn't, they claim their games won't sell. If it does, they claim users only buy Nintendo games and their games won't sell. It's a rigged game. Would PS3 have proven itself in sales without third party support?

The numbers mean what they want them to mean. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, and all that. If they wanted to make games for Wii U they'd spin it in a way that it made sense. They don't like Nintendo and don't want to go out of their way to support the system, so they spin it this way. The numbers are the justification, not the actual reason.

It doesn't matter to EA one way or another if the Wii U is successful.  If it proves itself in sales without their games then EA can just hop in and take advantage.  If the Wii U crashes and burns without them, well it didn't drag EA down with it and EA already is successful with the other systems and doesn't need Nintendo to help them make a buck.  They lose nothing if it fails and can always hop on the bandwagon if it doesn't.  EA doesn't need all the console makers to succed for their business model to work, just some of them.  Right now they've got two consoles and the PC market to release their games on.

Plus if their "boycott" of the Wii U causes the system to fail it gives them incredible clout.  Other console makers will not want to anger EA for fear of losing their support and will be more willing to accomodate EA's demands.  EA may be trying to make an example of Nintendo.

PS4 development is more GPU based programming as well, so they may be taking their time until there's more reason to adapt; but I agree with what people have said about EA's... basically attitude. If that is really what they're doing, I hope it bites them in the ass. Nintendo isn't going anywhere, no matter what. It might be wise, especially in such a volatile industry, to be friendly with the guy that will always be there.

Honestly, I probably wouldnt have got this even if it did come for the Wii U. I'm more interested in Deus Ex, Resident Evil Revelations and Watch Dogs, even before they were announced for Wii U.

Nope, pretty sure their biggest game each year is FIFA based on sales.