By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Battlefield 4 skipping Wii U

Kresnik on 27 March 2013

Well, for all the deflection and "well, I wasn't going to buy this anyway" attitude in here, I'm sorry to hear this for Wii-U owners who were hoping to get this, and just for the console in general. Sure, it wouldn't have been a major coup to get it, but it's just one of those things that would've made perception of the console a little better... maybe convinced a few people to get it now rather than wait for the Nintendo games they like.

If we take out tinfoil hats off for a minute (even though there's clearly something going on - or not, in this case - between Nintendo & EA), the sales of Blops 2 on Wii-U would've been a big red flag to this project.

I wonder what difference a new man at the helm of EA will make. Probably none, I suppose.



Read my Vita reviews here

Famitsu Japan Digital Sales Archive
Vita Media Create physical sales database
Vita vs. COMG Japan Sales Comparison

Around the Network
bananaking21 on 27 March 2013
F0X said:
bananaking21 said:
F0X said:
Is this a DICE decision or is it an EA decision? I need to know who I should criticize.


Nintendo


So Nintendo didn't want Battlefield 4 on Wii U?
I have no evidence to substantiate this claim, but oh well. Down with Nintendo!

yes it is nintendo's fault. battlefield is a game that sells to adults, an audience and market nintendo completely neglects and fails to cater to. The way they market the console it targeted towards family friendly consumers and kids. the extreme integration of the annoying "Mii's" is hardly something that would make an adult buy a system, its actually something that would make them pull away from it. The types of games nintendo focuses on and makes and the other types of games (more adult games) that they flat out refuse to make. the complete and flat out refusal to make story driven games which happens to be something a lot of adults like. add to that a worse online network than PSN, Xbox live and steam. and the fact that they made an underpowered console makes the system really, really not attractive to adutls, again a market that most Battlefield customers are. 

now tell me, who's fault is it? why would EA even bother with a WiiU port?



cunger on 27 March 2013
kupomogli said:

Here's the real reason that Battlefield 4 isn't going to be on the Wii U, and it's not that EA just doesn't want to support the Wii U, even though the game was in development after the Wii U was announced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDciDLweCso

This. 

The PS3 version had a mandatory install which more than likely included all the high res textures and little else.  The 360 could run using low res textures, but they included the ability to download the high res textures so they could stream from the harddrive.  Most Wii U consoles come without any sort of decent sized hard drive.  With potentially half of the current Wii owners having no space available due to the 8GB standard model, these people would be forced to run the SD version.   

Most Wii U owners would rage at EA if Battlefield 4 was released.  They go out and buy Battlefield 4 expecting it to look as good as the PS360 versions.  Sure they could also install the texture pack, but this means that not only do Wii U gamers have to purchase Battlefield 4, those who don't have an external hard drive would have to also go out and purchase one.  So you're spending $100+ for one game.  I'm sure EA figures, as I would as well, that once everyone catches wind of this, then it would quickly hit the bargain bin and almost no one would purchase the game.  They'd do nothing more than waste their money by porting it over to the Wii U.

I don't think EA should take the blame at all.  I think Nintendo should take the blame for not including a hard drive.  We're in an age where  digital is such a big thing, where the Next Box is rumored to fully install all games to the harddrive to be played from there, etc.  Nintendo could have still passed the cost of the harddrive onto the consumer, but they wanted to take the cheap way out with a much cheaper looking priced console.  It would have been better if Nintendo included a harddrive because they would have been able to make a deal to get the harddrives in bulk, so instead of customers paying $50, Nintendo may have got them for around $20-30 per console.

I still think that people who own Nintendo consoles don't purchase third party games is also another part of the reason, but this is as well.  If you add both low third party support and this factor in, then Battlefield 4 would sell far less than the average third party title.


How large is this texture pack?  The Skyrim Texture pack for example would have been small enough to fit on all wii u's including the less popular white version.



wfz on 27 March 2013

The issue here is that Nintendo doesn't care to focus heavily on the "core gamer." Third parties who make these "core" games will put them on the platforms where those types of gamers thrive. Yes, third parties are doing nearly nothing to try to grow that sort of gamer base on the Wii U, but if they have numerous other platforms they can develop successfully on, why would they? The gamers who want these games already own other platforms to have access to these games.

Ultimately it's Nintendo's "job" to grow a core base (through game releases, hardware structure, and marketing) on their console. And they don't put enough effort into doing that. So why should third parties?

It's unfortunate but true. I'm a Wii U owner and I'm not complaining. I own other platforms (namely PC) to play those games on.



kupomogli on 27 March 2013
F0X said:
kupomogli said:

Here's the real reason that Battlefield 4 isn't going to be on the Wii U, and it's not that EA just doesn't want to support the Wii U, even though the game was in development after the Wii U was announced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDciDLweCso

This. 

The PS3 version had a mandatory install which more than likely included all the high res textures and little else.  The 360 could run using low res textures, but they included the ability to download the high res textures so they could stream from the harddrive.  Most Wii U consoles come without any sort of decent sized hard drive.  With potentially half of the current Wii owners having no space available due to the 8GB standard model, these people would be forced to run the SD version.   

Most Wii U owners would rage at EA if Battlefield 4 was released.  They go out and buy Battlefield 4 expecting it to look as good as the PS360 versions.  Sure they could also install the texture pack, but this means that not only do Wii U gamers have to purchase Battlefield 4, those who don't have an external hard drive would have to also go out and purchase one.  So you're spending $100+ for one game.  I'm sure EA figures, as I would as well, that once everyone catches wind of this, then it would quickly hit the bargain bin and almost no one would purchase the game.  They'd do nothing more than waste their money by porting it over to the Wii U.

I don't think EA should take the blame at all.  I think Nintendo should take the blame for not including a hard drive.  We're in an age where  digital is such a big thing, where the Next Box is rumored to fully install all games to the harddrive to be played from there, etc.  Nintendo could have still passed the cost of the harddrive onto the consumer, but they wanted to take the cheap way out with a much cheaper looking priced console.  It would have been better if Nintendo included a harddrive because they would have been able to make a deal to get the harddrives in bulk, so instead of customers paying $50, Nintendo may have got them for around $20-30 per console.

I still think that people who own Nintendo consoles don't purchase third party games is also another part of the reason, but this is as well.  If you add both low third party support and this factor in, then Battlefield 4 would sell far less than the average third party title.


This only supports my "DICE is not a good console developer" theory.

Battlefield 3 is one of the best looking games on consoles and runs at a solid 30fps.  It's considered open world yet it still pushes those kindis of graphics.  Finally, the only major difference between the console versions of this game in comparison to the PC version running at Ultra settings is the framerate.  There are minor differences that even in a side by side comparison, most people but the hardcore graphics enthusiast won't end up noticing.  Framerate and screen tearing are major differences and those are noticeable on the console side, where as the console version has 30fps, which is easy to notice compared to the silky smooth 60+fps on the PC, and only the consoles have screen tearing, which mostly is below the overscan so most people won't notice it at all.  Ultra on PC does sport better lighting and particle effects, but the difference is so marginal that most people won't ever notice.

So considering they can keep a good stable framerate in an open world game with very little pop in(or none) and some of the best graphics on consoles, your theory that DICE is not a good console developer sucks.  As an open world game, even the 360 version without the texture pack installed is both looks and runs better than a lot of games released this gen.

Here's a PS3 vs Ultra settings comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ41dOMd-GU

Here's another PS3 vs PC comparison.  I'm sure you guys know what one I'm talking about.  Best joke comparison ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGbo50Ar420



Around the Network
bananaking21 on 27 March 2013
TheLastStarFighter said:

It may sound childish, but it's naive to think it's not true.  Trip Hawkins felt that Nintendo had too much control, and he credited EA's succes with ignoring Nintendo and focusing on Genesis:

http://mynintendonews.com/2011/07/14/nintendo-trip-hawkins-believes-nintendo-will-eventually-lose-out-to-the-web-browser/

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/nintendo-development-system-called-feudal-by-trip-hawkins/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-03-08-hawkins-apple-and-nintendo-changed-business-for-worse

EA has always had a view that developers should be in control. They rejected Nintendo, and have long shown support for competing systems, ones they can control. Trip brags about forcing Sega to do what they want, because Sega needed EA where Nintendo didn't.

EA has said in the past the ideal world for them will be one box, perhaps a cloud type box where developer have free reign and the console maker is irrelevant. Nintendo is the company that is furthest from their ideal model.  They want Nintendo to fail.  In the opinion of EA it is in their best interest.  They may be right. Larry Probst has stated his goals of 35%+ market share for EA software. They want world domination, and they view Nintendo - as the worlds biggest games software maker - as competition, not an ally.

Sony and MS are primarily hardware makers, as such they are a better fit for EA.

 


out of all the nintendo fans and people i talked to saying , claiming and coming up with theories about how EA hates nintendo you are the only one to ever back it up with a legitimate reason. but here is the thing, even if EA doesnt like nintendo it still released games on their consoles, Wii and gamecube as an example. the point is, when there is money to be made EA sure as hell has been there. EA didnt go all of a sudden now and say "you know what, we hate nintendo and the money we made on their consoles, lets stop making them". battlefield isnt on WiiU for reasons other than hatred. its not going to be released because it doesnt seem like a good financial business decision



S.T.A.G.E. on 27 March 2013
DaAndy said:
Oh, 3rds hate Nintendo - surprise, surprise. They would not even bringt it to WiiU if it had exactly the same hardware as PS4.


Do you think it would sell to a Nintendo audience? 



zippy on 27 March 2013

Carl2291 said:



zippy said:
Funny how all these types of threads are posted by a Sony fan ;)




Talking about the topic at hand, rather than trying to deflect the negativity back onto the OP... Is usually a good thing to do.
Anyway. I predicted it about a Year ago now that the Wii U would struggle for support in the opening 20 Months, though Im surprised its not getting this considering its EA and EA philosophy is to milk everything like a big bovine whore for all that its worth.
Nintendo need the big hitters out soon or interest in Wii U simply wont grow.


zippy
Im quite aware Battlefield wont be making its way to Wii U. I dont need a Sony fan to tell me that, its not the first time doom threads have been posted on a Nintendo discussions board by a non Nintendo fan. It becomes a little tiresome.



animegaming on 27 March 2013
ryuzaki57 said:
Mnementh said:
ryuzaki57 said:
Mnementh said:
There are seemingly camps: western developers tend to support Sony and MS, japanese devs tend to support Nintendo and Sony.

Then please tell me which japanese developer is still supporting WiiU (besides Capcom who obviously received a lot of money). Xbox get more, many more Japanese games than WiiU. The only real support I see for is from Ubisoft btw. Even 3DS is progressively abandoned by Japanese devs for major releases.

Namco, SquareEnix, Atlus. They are japanese companies last time I checked.

Yeah, just 3 of them. And besides, Namco & SquareEnix have merely delivered some ports, this is hardly called support. They have 0 known project on WiiU. Atlus is just collaborating on a first-party game, very far from the great deal of effort they're spending on 3DS.


also namco bandai is co developing smash brothers 4 



cusman on 27 March 2013

All I saw in the 17 minutes of Battlefield 4 gameplay is scripted move and shoot gameplay starting with typical military shooter non-sense story telling format of 13 minutes earlier.

Now in that 13 minutes here is what happened
* 3/4 team people meet up in a room and jibber jabber
* Remove window boards to help 4th team mate join up as well, clearly in an Urban setting, clearly day time
* Travel to Jungle on foot
* Travel to Industrial area near the coast emerging from forest, maybe evening, but certainly not sunset
* Lots of fire fighting, some menial vehicle use, going up a building, helicopter sequence with helicopter ally
* Enemy Helicopter shows up tries to shoot at you from behind the chopper that is trying to rescue you instead of just shooting that rescue chopper.
* Doesn't matter either way, in trying to kill you they managed to kill the building instead so it comes crashing down. Rescue chopper also dies.
* You wake up, it's night time, cut a fallen soldiers leg Nikita style, then driving coastal highway. Is it early morning sunrise now?
* Enemy chopper shows up again, this time you take it out using your grenade gun thingy
* Then your car crashes in water and loop is complete.

So basically F-U TIME

Seriously? Very nice graphics and I really liked the ocean waves splashing water ending up on car wind shield while driving. But the rest of the games plot, story, character, etc type stuff is just worthless.

Why can't they use all that technology to make a game that I might actually care about?