EA Forms Wii-Centric Studio

Despite analyst assurances that there would no longer be many console exclusives, EA is forming an entire studio for Wii titles. Larry Probst revealed this tidbit in a very interesting interview with Newsweek's N'Gai Croal. They've since acquired Headgate studios, rebranding it EA Salt Lake. From the article: "I don't think the Wii is going to be any different than all the other Nintendo platforms. Nintendo is going to have a very significant market share, and all the third party companies are going to have market shares that are single-digit or low double-digits. We think that we can be very competitive in that environment. We don't have any expectations that we're going to have a 30 percent market share, as we have had on Xbox 360, on PlayStation 2, or what we're targeting on PlayStation 3. But I think we can have a meaningful market share on the Wii platform, and be in the number two position behind Nintendo."

Comments

EA Has A Million Little Studios

[Anonymous Coward]

EA has a million little studios all over the world. Even if you already know that EA is a big company, the number of little studios the company continuously is buying or setting up is staggering. So this is a pretty meaningless 'development'. It is pretty much the equivalent of a smaller company hiring or making one employee their 'Wii guy'.

There has been some friction inside EA with the Wii, most people want to focus on the PS3 and think the Wii is a distraction. So letting a small group focus on Wii specific stuff is a good option and lets the people at RS and the other main campuses focus on their PS3 titles.

Re:my how things change

[Pojut]

you know, at first I was mad (like so many others) about the shift from the "revolution" name. Then the more I read the various reasons behind the name change, the more I not only understood it but embraced it.

Revolution, it seems, was used to incite one. Wii, it seems, is used to describe such a revolution. Think about it. As silly as it may seem to some, part of the reason for the name (the "ii" representing people playing together) is actually smart. Small, insignificant, but smart. Look at what Nintendo has pushed with this. The system is not what was the Revolution. The social networking and community that the platform will (hopefully) develop (as it already is starting to) will trump any other social network for any other console in history.

I don't mean because multiplayer will be amazing or anything like that, I mean because the system encourages people to play together. It encourages FAMILIES, not just the kids, to play video games. It provides a way for a family to interact with one another. It provides a way for grandma to get in on the fun.

Like I said, at first I thought the name was pure marketing bullshit. Upon further inspection, however, I understand and applaud their efforts. I consider myself a fanboi of ALL consoles, mainly because I see the good and bad in all of them...it is very rare for me to NOT like a console.

That being said, the Revolution was just the beginning. The Wii is the free world that forms after the revolution.

Also, this frees up Nintendo to use the name in something that truely is revolutionary. As amazing and fun as the Wii is, I can assure you that there are places the technology can go that Nintendo is just beginning to discover.

Re:I thought...

[Phisbut]

I was originally going to say that I thought Ubisoft was aiming for number two, but that was meant as number two behind EA.

Ubisoft wants to be number 2 globally, which is for the Wii, PS3, Xbox360 and PC combined. In that combined market, EA is first. However, on the Wii (or GameCube, or NDS, or GBA, or just any console made by Nintendo), Nintendo is by far and beyond the first developer, and I truly doubt anybody will ever catch up to them. Even EA can't make something as successful as Zelda, Squeenix either.

Even if there is extensive 3rd party support for the Wii, 4 Nintendo franchises will sell more than 50% of all software : Mario, Zelda, Metroid and Pokemon. Final Fantasy and Madden can't even dream to get that big a market share.

Re:Hmmm

[Yvan256]

Porting to the Wii a game that was designed with the other two big consoles in mind presents two challenges:
1) The Wii has less graphics horsepower.
2) The controller is completely different.

1. The Wii has less graphic "horsepower" (we're measuring graphics in kinetic energy now?), but since the other two consoles "have to" render in HD, they need to be four times as powerful as the Wii. So, once you take the resolution into account, I'm pretty sure all 3 consoles are as powerful as the other (except maybe the Xbox 360, which wasn't designed for true HD graphics in the first place - if you get below 30fps that's not powerful enough in my book). And the Wii can do 480p, which is as high as regular DVDs, which many people think is "good enough" unless they have HD displays.

2. The controller is completely different, yet it's still the same. Think of the Wiimote+nunchuck as a "gamepad analog stick+mouse" combo. Some games will actually play better on the Wii (if coded properly) than on the Xbox 360 or PS3. CoD3 is a good example - I don't want to play such games with a stupid analog stick to aim. It just doesn't work. That's like trying to play Super Mario Bros with a mouse. And, worst case scenario, the Wiimote can be held like a NES gamepad with rotation just like a PS3 "Sixaxis" controller, Gamecube controllers can be used, and there's also the "Classic gamepad" option. So really, the Wii isn't some "special beast that can't do what the others can't" in the controls department. In fact, aside from the number of buttons (which, frankly, was getting ridiculous in the last generation), the Wii can do more than the other two.