HoloDust said:
One way or the other: "By way of explanation, DICE technical director Johan Andersson claimed via Twitter that "FB3 has never been running on Wii U. We did some tests with not too promising results with FB2 and chose not to go down that path." Would EA now have the same technical problems with Frostbite on Wii U had the console been selling like hot cakes? Or was EA simply eyeing a less-than-spectacular return on Wii U releases? "It's both," Patrick Bach, executive producer of Battlefield at DICE told Eurogamer." "If the Wii U was immensely popular we would probably put more focus into seeing how we could mitigate this, because it is a technical problem," Bach said. "It is a technical problem at its core because the Frostbite engine is not designed to run on that hardware, and the hardware is quite different from the next-gen consoles and the previous gen consoles."
But the Wii U is at least as powerful as current generation consoles and Frostbite 3 is designed to be scalable - we'll see current-gen versions of Battlefield 4, for example. With Frostbite 2 appearing to work on Wii U fine, does the argument about having technical difficulties really still stand up?
"From our perspective it's not as powerful as it should be to be able to run a Battlefield game," Bach responded. "Straight out of the box, as in Frostbite 3, it doesn't run that well on the Wii U, which means it takes a lot of time and energy from us that would then take from something else.
"So, we made the decision to say, no, let's not take away the focus from the PlayStations and the Xboxes and the PCs to do this. At the end of the day it's about focus and priorities. If we could press a button to move it over to Wii U, of course we could make a Wii U SKU, but it would take some substantial time to do it. I know some fans get very upset when we say that, but it's true. There's a reason why not all games are on the Wii U platform." This pretty nicely explains dev's viewpoint of whole situation - WiiU is just in that terrible spot where it's not powerful enough for them to make ports easily, no matter the user base, AND it has small user base. If any of those two were absent, there would be much less problems in 3rd party support. Some (maybe most) people here see me as Sony fan, but in all honesty, I was actually really bummed when it turned out that those old rumours of 4850 level GPU inside WiiU were not true - it would actually made WiiU 1/2x XOne and 1/3x PS4,and that would make porting next-gen titles alot easier. I need to get WiiU eventually for Zelda and MK8, but I would be way more happier if it had better innards, allowing for better 3rd party support (3rd parties are, no matter the platform, something I care most about). |
I think it common sense thats it a 160sp, just look at how many devs have said, its on par with currentgen, look at how many ports have struggled, a 320 sp gpu on pc can run most current gen games with better framerate and at 1080p, yet the majority of wiiu MP games are infereior, even resident evil revelations runs worst and i expect assain creed 4 and watch dogs to also run worst to further prove my point, more importantly fourth storm, richard from DF and many tech heads at neogaf and most of beyond3d think its 160 sp.
