EA Interview "Challenge Everything"
- Thread starter TheChefO
- Start date
Powderkeg said:
Yes he also said it could be 33% even. Point is Wii is a huge wildcard. They could be 15% but they could also lead this gen if enough people buy it as their "second system" and they take enough of the Japanese market. His expectations and EA's general expectation is 40/40/20 as he spelled out quite clearly.
Point is Wii has great potential and EA is behind it along with a lot of other 3rd party devs who see it's potential. Best thing for them is the dev costs are so low they can afford to be more creative with their game concepts without worrying about breaking the bank. I look forward to Wii being a hotbed for innovative ideas which push the industry forward.
TheChefO said:
He could have said it was possible for pigs to fly. That doesn't mean he believes it will happen.
No, what he spelled out quite clearly was IF Nintendo got to 20% of the market, that would be a "momentus occasion" which very much implies it would be unexpected. His expectations are that it will do worse than that, and he only allows for better sales as an outside possiblity, but not likely.
To use an analogy here (And this is NOT meant as an actual insult) if I said you being able to tell the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground would be a momentus occassion, would you think that was a good thing? An optimistic comment?
Last edited by a moderator:
Powderkeg said:
When you read the interview it's clear where he and others are positioned wrt Wii. He is optimistic about it but obviously EA will go where the market goes. At this point in time, he feels 40/40/20 is where the market is headed. Not optimistic cheerleading as EA could care less what the actual numbers amount to. How far Wii goes is anyones guess but I would say it is the most difficult to guage at this point and in my opinion has the widest margin of possibility this gen. Could it fall to 10%? Yes it could but then anything is possible and they could end up leading too. I think with the way this market is shaping up, the likely scenario is 20%-33% for Wii.
He also said this.
"“Everybody’s saying that the Nintendo Wii is so unique that it’s going to be the second system people buy, meaning if you own a 360 or a PS3, you’ll probably also buy a Nintendo Wii. The funny thing is, some people say that discursively, like it’s some sort of dig at Nintendo - and what they don’t get is that if you’re second on everybody’s system, you’re first overall.”
“One of the things that we noticed after E3 is we thought, you know, we’re going to support Nintendo, they’ve got an extraordinarily loyal base of consumers all over the world, and we had a number of games we planned to make for Nintendo Wii. That said, we were very surprised by the level of enthusiasm we saw at E3 and subsequently for the Wii.”
Seemingly in contrast to his 20% remark so don't read too much into things.
"“Everybody’s saying that the Nintendo Wii is so unique that it’s going to be the second system people buy, meaning if you own a 360 or a PS3, you’ll probably also buy a Nintendo Wii. The funny thing is, some people say that discursively, like it’s some sort of dig at Nintendo - and what they don’t get is that if you’re second on everybody’s system, you’re first overall.”
“One of the things that we noticed after E3 is we thought, you know, we’re going to support Nintendo, they’ve got an extraordinarily loyal base of consumers all over the world, and we had a number of games we planned to make for Nintendo Wii. That said, we were very surprised by the level of enthusiasm we saw at E3 and subsequently for the Wii.”
Seemingly in contrast to his 20% remark so don't read too much into things.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
ninzel said:
Wow, talk about spin. He made those comments before he made the 40/40/20 comments. Meaning the E3 enthusiasm was the basis for the expectation that N could get as much as 20%.
However, before THAT, he stated flat out that EA isn't going to develop equally for all platforms.
If he thought it was going to be 33/33/33, then his answer to the very first question would have been 'YES'.
He made the above comments AFTER he made his pie in the sky 'the wii could be #1 comments'. Really seems like he believes in that possibility doesn't it? Oh.. no, it doesn't.
The 20% comments go unchallenged, they are specifically clear:
There's no intrepretation needed for those comments. He clearly states if the wii gets up to 20% worldwide, it's a momentous event. Period. All this other talk is giberish.
Furthermore, he goes to talk exclusively about the PS3 and the 360 having large enough install bases from their own IPs that their market size allows EA to move great number of their sequels.
In Brown's opinion, it's clear he thinks the 360 and PS3 are going to be fighting over market dominance with the wii rather far behind. All he does is mention the remote possibility that the wii might become the #1 console if a large amount of people buy one as their secondary console.
The big story, IMO, is that EA (or at least Jeff Brown) see MS's 'complete and utter failure that was the Xbox' as having actually been successful enough to position the 360 so that they can compete for the market lead this generation. Which is something that certainly wasn't expected.
It's not spin it's speculation just like the 40/40/20 remark.What we are doing is spinning,what he was doing was speculating and a greater degree of specficity does not make a speculation more or less valid. A guess it still a guess.
My interpretaion is that they are planning for 40/40/20 but he feels the Wii could be number one.
There's actually a few contradictions to his speculation which is often the case when people are playing with multiple possible scenarios in their head. Nothing to see really ,move along folk's.
My interpretaion is that they are planning for 40/40/20 but he feels the Wii could be number one.
There's actually a few contradictions to his speculation which is often the case when people are playing with multiple possible scenarios in their head. Nothing to see really ,move along folk's.
Last edited by a moderator:
quest55720
Regular
If he is talking us and europe that could be very well right that is where ea sells their games anyways. I am sure EA does not really care about the far east market anyway.
quest55720
Regular
ninzel said:
Soon as we start to see ea games consistantly in the top 10 in japan we can talk.
quest55720
Regular
ninzel said:
I am sure they care but is not their primary focus. When he is talking 40 40 20 split he oviously means NA and europe unless he is high and thinks ms can turn it around in japan. It is NA and europe where EA makes all their money. I can see nothing besides buying either square sega or nintendo MS could do to improve in japan. They have done almost everything possible in japan but still have failed. IMO the first western company to do well in japan will be the first in the gaming industry.
I am a 360 owner I also own a gamecube psp NDS 2 PS2 and an xbox. Those are the working systems. My dreamcast recently died
.I am a fan of gaming I want to see what is best for the industry. I have been gaming since pong my first system was the 2600. I have seen the ups and downs of the industry. The biggest thing I have learned is the industry is the best for the gamer when the top dog gets knocked off. I think sony dominating yet another generation would be terrible for most gamers.
Last edited by a moderator:
quest55720 said:I am sure they care but is not their primary focus. When he is talking 40 40 20 split he oviously means NA and europe unless he is high and thinks ms can turn it around in japan. It is NA and europe where EA makes all their money. I can see nothing besides buying either square sega or nintendo MS could do to improve in japan. They have done almost everything possible in japan but still have failed. IMO the first western company to do well in japan will be the first in the gaming industry.
I am a 360 owner I also own a gamecube psp NDS 2 PS2 and an xbox. Those are the working systems. My dreamcast recently died
I am a fan of gaming I want to see what is best for the industry. I have been gaming since pong my first system was the 2600. I have seen the ups and downs of the industry. The biggest thing I have learned is the industry is the best for the gamer when the top dog gets knocked off. I think sony dominating yet another generation would be terrible for most gamers.
Well Sony dominating hasn't been bad for gaming as it's made for compeition trying harder.
Oh god I hope MS doesn't become the winner or the standard. The variety is so lacking in MS titles,I'm very bored with my 360. I really don't care about Sony as I'm a Nintendo fan,but I would rather see the greater variety of games from them if I had to choose.
quest55720
Regular
ninzel said:
Yes it has 500 - 600 dollars for a console is terrible. It because sony was so dominate this generation there was way to much shoval ware crap for the other 2 consoles. Since sony was so dominate they did not have to bother with online gaming like ms trying to sell consoles. Online gaming on consoles was set back years because of sony's dominance. The winner will always have the greatest variety of games. If ms or nintedo become #1 developers wil jump on board and make plenty of games.
What did you expect the first 6 months of a new console outside the dreamcast are terrible for content. It is not untill around the 1 year mark a console starts to hit is stride. The 360 will be hitting its stride this fall dead rising, saints row, forza2, gears of war ect ect.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
ninzel said:
WHAT in the WORLD are you talking about? You CLEARLY took his statements OUT of ORDER on purpose.
Anybody who actually spends the time to READ the interview can clearly see that he thinks that the wii getting 20% market share would be 'monumental' and anything BEYOND that (such as the wii becoming the #1 console because wii fans, plus PS3 fans plus 360 fans will all buy the console as their second console) is a complete and utter pipe dream.
He clearly stated that EA will provide the most support to the console with the highest user base, and he went on to make REPEATED statements about how he feels the PS3 and 360 are going to be even and the most viable targets for their products... although the wii might be a 'wild card'.
That's ALL he said.
His expectations were that at MOST the Wii would get 20% of the market.
GREAT. You do realize that is a far LESSER accomplishment than than the 360 EQUALING the PS3 sales, don't you?
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
ninzel said:
UHHH.. WHAT? Sony dominating HAS been bad for gaming because they turned SEGA from a Hardware manufacturer into a software manufacture and thus lessened the consumers right to choose.
Oh my Lord! No, say it isn't so? A Nintendo fan who reads these comments and believes that when a developer says that 20% of the market would be MONUMENTAL and that maybe if pigs can learn how to fly, N might be the market leader, and interprets that to mean that the developer believes this is a likely scenario?
He went to GREAT PAINS to say that N getting 20% of the market is EXTREMELY unlikely. He then posited the idea that 'wouldn't it be weird if the Wii ends up #1 because it's EVERBODY'S second console?' and then proceeded to use EVERY OTHER EXAMPLE showing that he firmly believes that the 360 and the PS3 will be equals, with the Wii FAR FAR BEHIND.
Only a Nintendo ****** could read that interview and believe that EA thinks the Wii is going to become dominate.
He spelled it out extremely clearly... IF the wii gets 20% of the market, with both the PS3 and the 360 getting 40% it would be STUNNING. And even then, he clearly states that EA is going to develope for the PS3 and the 360 INSTEAD OF the Wii because of their larger market share.
Onine gaming was 'set back' because no-one really cared. Where's the business sense in pushing for online gaming when 90% of gamers had no interest in it? Why spend effort developing fantastic online services when they're mostly not going to be used? The XB was the best version of online anyone, and attracted as much as 20% of users. Of the PS2 owners, I don't think even 10% cared to buy a network adaptor, while the numbers apparently haven't jumped with the slim PS2's inbuilt network features either. This next-gen, there's more reason to get people online, and that's to sell them downloads. Without that incentive, online just for the sake of gaming isn't anything worth bothering about from a business perspective. The solutions in place were 'adequate' for those hardcore enough to care to give online a go, IMO.quest55720 said:
That there is perhaps an illustration of where the software is lacking. Another Racer, another shooter, and a couple of games in a similar gritty-aggresive style. Where's the cutesy platformer, the fantasy RPG, the fighter, the flight sim, the turn-based J-RPGs, the singing game, the artsy adventures, the brand new ideas? It's those games that add diversity. It's things like Blue Dragon and Pinata that people disinterested in XB360 software are wanting to see more of.
Not to niggle, but Sega was immediately replaced with Microsoft, their software became more "right to choose" between any of the platforms they chose to bring it out on instead of being 100% proprietary, and the Xbox likely brought different types of games and gamers to the console fold than Sega was going to. (Granted, it was from the PC side.RancidLunchmeat said:
And, of course, with more concentration on western developers.)Similar threads
- Poll