EA not developing any games for the Wii U

Major video game publisher Electronic Arts (EA) has said today that it is not currently developing any games for the Nintendo Wii U.

Spokesperson Jeff Brown told Kotaku today that "we have no games in development for the Wii U currently."

The company had hinted last week that its upcoming blockbuster Star Wars games would not be headed to the Wii U, but it seems there are no games headed to the struggling console.

In 2011, the companies announced their "unprecedented" partnership for the Wii U but Brown says the company has fulfilled their obligations and no longer have to develop for the system.

Whether or not EA stops developing for the Wii U for good, this news is certainly not good given that the Xbox Infinity and PS4 are right around the corner.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 16 May 2013 22:11

bobiroc

Sounds like EA still has their feelings hurt that Nintendo didn't bow down to their Origin demands. Funny thing is I have read that Disney still wants to bring it's Star Wars franchise games to Nintendo so how is that going to work out for EA??

I understand that Nintendo has made some mistakes with this launch and is not completely innocent in the EA/Nintendo relationship but given EA's past of lying and deceiving customers it is plain to see where the real problem is. I guess EA wants to take the crown for the worst company next year too.

https://securecdn.disqus.com/uploads/me...09/original.jpg

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

16.5.2013 23:17 #1

Menion

Cant think of a single EA title I like or would buy.. So Who cares?

17.5.2013 00:27 #2

doowop72

Think EA is maybe steering away due to the WiiKey hack.

17.5.2013 09:28 #3

bobiroc

Originally posted by doowop72: Think EA is maybe steering away due to the WiiKey hack. Very doubtful.... Other consoles are just as hackable and modded and it doesn't stop EA or other game companies there. If they were truly worried about games being pirated they would not even make games for PC based on your logic

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

17.5.2013 09:33 #4

Jemborg

Originally posted by bobiroc: Originally posted by doowop72: Think EA is maybe steering away due to the WiiKey hack. Very doubtful.... Other consoles are just as hackable and modded and it doesn't stop EA or other game companies there. If they were truly worried about games being pirated they would not even make games for PC based on your logic Good point. They certainly aren't worried enough to stop doing it... take a look at the movie industry, they still keep pumping money into it.

Its a lot easier being righteous than right.

17.5.2013 10:45 #5

Qliphah

It was obvious this was going to happen. I'm just surprised they didn't drop Nintendo with the first Wii. It had released with sub-par hardware, limited online ability, and a control scheme that forced every game to change their controls to match the Wii. Then the WiiU takes it even further and releases a full year before any of the competition had even hinted at their hardware specs.

Nintendo is either oblivious to the market or they are trying to form a new niche.

17.5.2013 13:31 #6

SProdigy

Originally posted by Qliphah: I'm just surprised they didn't drop Nintendo with the first Wii. It had released with sub-par hardware, limited online ability, and a control scheme that forced every game to change their controls to match the Wii. I'm so tired of hearing the same old crap slung at the original Wii. It had innovation, but it was backwards compatible with the Gamecube and it's controllers.

Sub-par hardware: argument can be made, but when I purchased the Wii during launch, I didn't own an HDTV yet. When I got my first HDTV 6 months later, my cable provider had exactly 13 channels available in HD: 4-5 of those were local networks I could get for FREE over the air. HD had hardly penetrated the mainstream yet. Likewise the Xbox 360 didn't release an HDMI version of the console until a year or two later. It may have done 720p and 1080i over component cables, but it wasn't pure digital signal. Sony went for broke and is still in last place with an expensive piece of hardware.

The control scheme isn't forced. As noted, GC controllers or classic controllers were available and many games utilized them. (Including 007, produced by EA.) Motion controls were an added gimmick, but weren't 100% necessary in every game produced. I actually prefered the split controller setup, since most controllers are too small for my large hands, and cramp my style after an hour or so of use.

Online support was placed with the devs, and they dropped the ball badly... which hurt Nintendo, who didn't have a Live or PSN in place. BTW, PSN wasn't quite mature at the PS3's launch either.

Every console has it's faults.

17.5.2013 16:05 #7

bobiroc

Originally posted by SProdigy: Originally posted by Qliphah: I'm just surprised they didn't drop Nintendo with the first Wii. It had released with sub-par hardware, limited online ability, and a control scheme that forced every game to change their controls to match the Wii. I'm so tired of hearing the same old crap slung at the original Wii. It had innovation, but it was backwards compatible with the Gamecube and it's controllers.

Sub-par hardware: argument can be made, but when I purchased the Wii during launch, I didn't own an HDTV yet. When I got my first HDTV 6 months later, my cable provider had exactly 13 channels available in HD: 4-5 of those were local networks I could get for FREE over the air. HD had hardly penetrated the mainstream yet. Likewise the Xbox 360 didn't release an HDMI version of the console until a year or two later. It may have done 720p and 1080i over component cables, but it wasn't pure digital signal. Sony went for broke and is still in last place with an expensive piece of hardware.

The control scheme isn't forced. As noted, GC controllers or classic controllers were available and many games utilized them. (Including 007, produced by EA.) Motion controls were an added gimmick, but weren't 100% necessary in every game produced. I actually prefered the split controller setup, since most controllers are too small for my large hands, and cramp my style after an hour or so of use.

Online support was placed with the devs, and they dropped the ball badly... which hurt Nintendo, who didn't have a Live or PSN in place. BTW, PSN wasn't quite mature at the PS3's launch either.

Every console has it's faults. I agree... So many people focus on the hardware specs of the console but to me that is not that important in the grand scheme of things. What I mean by that is you can bet the farm and make an expensive yet visually impressive console and get all the people that care about bragging rights or make one that can do the job but still looks nice and is fun to play and remains affordable.

I think Sony and Microsoft will do this again where they are charging $500+ for a game console and that is ridiculous IMO.

The main failure of the Wii was it's poorly executed online presence. It also had some crap games come from mainly 3rd party companies but it was and still is a fun console to play. Same with the Wii U. It may not be the top dog in power but it is a well built and affordable console. Graphics are good and will get better over time as developers tweak just as it did for the 360 and PS3.

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

17.5.2013 16:16 #8

SProdigy

Originally posted by bobiroc: I think Sony and Microsoft will do this again where they are charging $500+ for a game console and that is ridiculous IMO. Which is why Valve is making a steambox and getting it to work with Linux so they can avoid licensing fees to Microsoft. They recognize that a fairly decent PC can play a majority of games out there. (And I'm talking about the more casual stuff like WoW or Sims, obviously a high resolution, high framerate shooter need not apply.)

Originally posted by bobiroc: The main failure of the Wii was it's poorly executed online presence. It also had some crap games come from mainly 3rd party companies but it was and still is a fun console to play. All consoles have 3rd party shovelware, but the Wii took the cake. I hate that part of the argument, because most partons of this site are smart enough to avoid those titles.

The first party stuff from Nintendo almost never fails. There were a few outliers that took advantage of the controls as well. Some titles, even at 480p, still looked really great!

I got a 3DS for only Mario Bros. and Mario Kart, and neither disappointed (though it can be more of the same sometimes, but I'm a sucker for sequels.)

17.5.2013 16:54 #9

Qliphah

Originally posted by SProdigy: Originally posted by Qliphah: I'm just surprised they didn't drop Nintendo with the first Wii. It had released with sub-par hardware, limited online ability, and a control scheme that forced every game to change their controls to match the Wii. I'm so tired of hearing the same old crap slung at the original Wii. It had innovation, but it was backwards compatible with the Gamecube and it's controllers.

Sub-par hardware: argument can be made, but when I purchased the Wii during launch, I didn't own an HDTV yet. When I got my first HDTV 6 months later, my cable provider had exactly 13 channels available in HD: 4-5 of those were local networks I could get for FREE over the air. HD had hardly penetrated the mainstream yet. Likewise the Xbox 360 didn't release an HDMI version of the console until a year or two later. It may have done 720p and 1080i over component cables, but it wasn't pure digital signal. Sony went for broke and is still in last place with an expensive piece of hardware.

The control scheme isn't forced. As noted, GC controllers or classic controllers were available and many games utilized them. (Including 007, produced by EA.) Motion controls were an added gimmick, but weren't 100% necessary in every game produced. I actually prefered the split controller setup, since most controllers are too small for my large hands, and cramp my style after an hour or so of use.

Online support was placed with the devs, and they dropped the ball badly... which hurt Nintendo, who didn't have a Live or PSN in place. BTW, PSN wasn't quite mature at the PS3's launch either.

Every console has it's faults. Yes it was backwards compatible, as was the xbox and PS3. However not all games worked and Nintendo was the worst offender for not updating and adding more compatible games. Not to mention the disc system for the gamecube was completely different, which surely cost them unneeded hardware. My gripe about Nintendo is they claim to be for gamers but what their hardware and marketing shows is they want to be a kids toy. However games aren't just for kids as it was in the 90's when Nintendo was the big boy in town.

17.5.2013 16:58 #10

SProdigy

Originally posted by Qliphah: Originally posted by SProdigy: Originally posted by Qliphah: I'm just surprised they didn't drop Nintendo with the first Wii. It had released with sub-par hardware, limited online ability, and a control scheme that forced every game to change their controls to match the Wii. I'm so tired of hearing the same old crap slung at the original Wii. It had innovation, but it was backwards compatible with the Gamecube and it's controllers.

Sub-par hardware: argument can be made, but when I purchased the Wii during launch, I didn't own an HDTV yet. When I got my first HDTV 6 months later, my cable provider had exactly 13 channels available in HD: 4-5 of those were local networks I could get for FREE over the air. HD had hardly penetrated the mainstream yet. Likewise the Xbox 360 didn't release an HDMI version of the console until a year or two later. It may have done 720p and 1080i over component cables, but it wasn't pure digital signal. Sony went for broke and is still in last place with an expensive piece of hardware.

The control scheme isn't forced. As noted, GC controllers or classic controllers were available and many games utilized them. (Including 007, produced by EA.) Motion controls were an added gimmick, but weren't 100% necessary in every game produced. I actually prefered the split controller setup, since most controllers are too small for my large hands, and cramp my style after an hour or so of use.

Online support was placed with the devs, and they dropped the ball badly... which hurt Nintendo, who didn't have a Live or PSN in place. BTW, PSN wasn't quite mature at the PS3's launch either.

Every console has it's faults. Yes it was backwards compatible, as was the xbox and PS3. However not all games worked and Nintendo was the worst offender for not updating and adding more compatible games. Not to mention the disc system for the gamecube was completely different, which surely cost them unneeded hardware. My gripe about Nintendo is they claim to be for gamers but what their hardware and marketing shows is they want to be a kids toy. However games aren't just for kids as it was in the 90's when Nintendo was the big boy in town. Who cares? HBO is for adults and Nickelodeon is for kids. You can serve a niche market and still make money. No product has to be an "end all, be all." Most times they flop when they are.

17.5.2013 17:15 #11

bobiroc

Originally posted by Qliphah: Yes it was backwards compatible, as was the xbox and PS3. However not all games worked and Nintendo was the worst offender for not updating and adding more compatible games. Uh... The Wii was fully compatible with Gamecube games. If you have evidence that is not the case please show me the proof. The 360 had a handful of games compatible and so did Sony PS3 with the PS2 which they dropped that support later with a firmware update.

Originally posted by Qliphah: Not to mention the disc system for the gamecube was completely different, which surely cost them unneeded hardware.

The Gamecube used 1.5GB Mini DVDs and the Wii used 4.7GB full DVDs.. The system was the same but the discs were encrypted and written in a certain way. No different than any other console.

Originally posted by Qliphah: My gripe about Nintendo is they claim to be for gamers but what their hardware and marketing shows is they want to be a kids toy. However games aren't just for kids as it was in the 90's when Nintendo was the big boy in town. Well when it comes to games to each is own but the whole label of a kiddy system comes from self proclaimed "hardcore" gamers who only think that a game is only worth playing if it is rated M. Usually these people are 13 or immature adults to be honest. Games are for everyone and Nintendo makes games for everyone which is why an adult can have fun playing Mario Kart with their child, niece/nephew, cousins or even their parents. Of course you may like to put a headset on and play online with friends and strangers and while that can be fun it is anti-social. Have some friends over and play a game instead of the same old war game rehashed over and over.

Nintendo still is a big boy in town which is evident on why they more often than not have top ratings in their software sales and ratings. A typical Mario Game or Zelda Game will outsell many other titles on other systems from other publishers. Nintendo innovates while others copy. Sony tried with the PS Move and XBox has the kinect... The difference is Microsoft tried to do something a little different which I will give them credit for.

So lets end all the game labels of hardcore and casual and kiddie and lets just be gamers. Gamers play games of all types on all types of platforms for the fun of the game.

AMD Phenom II 965 @ 3.67Ghz, 8GB DDR3, ATI Radeon 5770HD, 256GB OCZ Vertex 4, 2TB Additional HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate.

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

17.5.2013 19:33 #12

blueboy09

Originally posted by Menion: Cant think of a single EA title I like or would buy.. So Who cares? Ditto. I mean really who gives a flying crap anymore. EA hasn't done quality games since the mid '90s when games were truly games.

Chance prepares the favored mind. Look up once in a while and you might learn something. - BLUEBOY

17.5.2013 22:42 #13

molsen

EA thinks they are bigger than they really are. I too cannot think of an EA title I would want to play.

If specs are everything, why do a lot of people still like playing some games on old systems. I for one am guilty as charged. I still play Donkey Kong ( an Nintendo game) on coleco vision.

18.5.2013 20:06 #14

AfterDawn: News