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

Forums - Nintendo - Battlefield 4 skipping Wii U

hinch said:

@Player2

Read the full article: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-28-the-big-battlefield-4-interview-dice-leaves-technology-behind

Well, not really if they looked at the hardware and said that its not really viable to the port a engine over from scratch.. then thats that. And like they said, they COULD even port the game to Vita, but they would have to scale back the game back so much that it would hardly recognisable to the same game that you saw in the trailer. Seems like they just want to push the technological barrier and didn't want to stretch themselves thin.

They could scale back the game as much as (or less than, they could ask Criterion what they did) the PS3/360 version. But they aren't interested:

It's about, where do you put your focus? And the Wii U is not a part of our focus right now.



Around the Network
bananaking21 said:
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

Absolutely.  But it only takes about 20k sales to pay for a port.  Maybe a little more for a game like battlefield.  With 100k they would easily be in the black, and they would sell 100k.  When it comes to EA there is a mix of reasons in their business decisions.  They balance making money on software with helping their biggest software competitor. A Battlefield port would probably make a little money but not a lot. Having Battlefield on WiiU might push systems, however, which is not in EA's overall goals.  This is in contrast with a company like, say Ubisoft, which wants Nintendo to sell as many hardware units as possible, and tries to have an early presence on Wii U and all other systems. With EA there is a mix of pure business, strategic software giant vs software giant business and a little bit of personal feelings from guys like Hawkins and Probst that goes in to how they operate.  I honestly think they make some poor financial decisions based on some of their business 'principles', and that shows in their recent CEO departure.  EA should be printing money right now.



Player2 said:
hinch said:

@Player2

Well, not really if they looked at the hardware and said that its not really viable to the port a engine over from scratch.. then thats that. And like they said, they COULD even port the game to Vita, but they would have to scale back the game back so much that it would hardly recognisable to the same game that you saw in the trailer. Seems like they just want to push the technological barrier and didn't want to stretch themselves thin.

They could scale back the game as much as (or less than, they could ask Criterion what they did) the PS3/360 version. But they aren't interested:

It's about, where do you put your focus? And the Wii U is not a part of our focus right now.


That's the thing though.. Dice already has the Frostbite engine up and running on the PS3/360, so they are comfortable working on those platforms. And the PS4/Nextbox and PC are all using the X86 architecture (with performance not too dissimilar from each other) so they're all in the same ballpark. Its only Wii U with its hardware as the odd man out,

Plus the battlefield games are very CPU intensive (which is the weaker side of the Wii U).



TheLastStarFighter said:
bananaking21 said:

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

Absolutely.  But it only takes about 20k sales to pay for a port.  Maybe a little more for a game like battlefield.  With 100k they would easily be in the black, and they would sell 100k.  When it comes to EA there is a mix of reasons in their business decisions.  They balance making money on software with helping their biggest software competitor. A Battlefield port would probably make a little money but not a lot. Having Battlefield on WiiU might push systems, however, which is not in EA's overall goals.  This is in contrast with a company like, say Ubisoft, which wants Nintendo to sell as many hardware units as possible, and tries to have an early presence on Wii U and all other systems. With EA there is a mix of pure business, strategic software giant vs software giant business and a little bit of personal feelings from guys like Hawkins and Probst that goes in to how they operate.  I honestly think they make some poor financial decisions based on some of their business 'principles', and that shows in their recent CEO departure.  EA should be printing money right now.

i really doubt that the port for battlefield would just need 20K to break even. one of battlefields main selling points is its great graphics, a simple port wouldnt cut it, with every system they make the game on Dice does build the game ground up on the system, not just port it. so they would spend a lot of time making frostbite 3 running on it and they would take a lot of time learning the new hardware and getting the best out of it. then the question is, how much would it really sell? CoD sold a very low 170K, would it be worth it? worth all the time and worth stretching the developers thin just for a few extra bucks? 



I blame EA and Obama for this horrible event.



Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter said:
bananaking21 said:
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

Absolutely.  But it only takes about 20k sales to pay for a port.  Maybe a little more for a game like battlefield.  With 100k they would easily be in the black, and they would sell 100k.  When it comes to EA there is a mix of reasons in their business decisions.  They balance making money on software with helping their biggest software competitor. A Battlefield port would probably make a little money but not a lot. Having Battlefield on WiiU might push systems, however, which is not in EA's overall goals.  This is in contrast with a company like, say Ubisoft, which wants Nintendo to sell as many hardware units as possible, and tries to have an early presence on Wii U and all other systems. With EA there is a mix of pure business, strategic software giant vs software giant business and a little bit of personal feelings from guys like Hawkins and Probst that goes in to how they operate.  I honestly think they make some poor financial decisions based on some of their business 'principles', and that shows in their recent CEO departure.  EA should be printing money right now.

That only applies for late ports and even then 20k is far too low (this doesn't include advertising costs either).
A simultaneous port needs much much much more to break even.

At least 300k lifetime or maybe even 400k for an AA to AAA HD game port.



kupomogli said:
KungKras said:
kupomogli said:
Suke said:
This sucks for the gamers, which is why I recommend Wii U owners to buy Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Show devs that you care about multiplats. The main reason you never see multiplats on Nintendo consoles is because comsumers only buy them for the first party exclusives.

Wii U owners, if you really want this game, show it, show Nintendo you want multiplats. Sign petitions, do what ever it take to get the word out. I may not be the biggest Nintendo fan, but I don't want to see Nintendo to be ignore like this.

This. 

Most people who own Nintendo consoles don't buy third party on them and they're the reason that the support on the consoles have been so poor and there's next to no support for the Wii U.

The Wii U has sold around three million consoles with Zombie U being the third highest selling game on the console with 380,000.  Only 11 games have sold 100,000 or more. 

Nintendo gamers bought a lot of third party games when their consoles were treated in an acceptable manner by third parties. When they started getting treated like shit, post SNES/N64, they bought less.

On the handhelds, where they haven't been given the middle finger, third party sales have always been healthy.

The NES and SNES sold well because they were the dominant consoles on the market.  Nintendo strong armed developers with threats that if they didn't remain Nintendo exclusive they wouldn't be allowed to develop future titles on Nintendo consoles.  This is the reason Sega licensed many games from developers like Capcom and ported the games themselves.

The Playstation was released and while it wasn't supported much in the start, it sold very well.  Developers jumped ship from Nintendo's monopoly on the market and went with Sony.  That's where the third party support faltered and Nintendo really only has themselves to blame.  Because Squaresoft wanted to develop Final Fantasy 7 on the Playstation, Nintendo tried their strong arm tactic on them and that's the reason that Squaresoft didn't release games on Nintendo consoles for such a long time and why you saw them give good support to Bandai's Wonderswan.    

Developers started to support Nintendo again late that gen or during the following gen.  The Gamecube received a lot of console exclusives, but none of them sold very well.  The Wii had a lot of console support from developers like Sega, EA, and Activision, and a little bit of support from everyone else.  A few good exclusives from multiple companies that also didn't sell well.

So regardless if developers gave Nintendo the middle finger, there was still support of good Gamecube exclusives and good Wii U exclusives which didn't get sales from the fanbase.  As Nintendo fans if you're telling the developers that you're not going to buy their games, what do you expect them to do?  You still expect them to release games in the future for you continue not buying them?

*edit*

I forgot to add this, but Nintendo fans barely support third party developers on the handhelds as well.  There's more third party support so you would come across that assumption, but the fact of the matter is that across all current Nintendo consoles, there's very little third party support, especially compared to how much support first party titles get. 

Here are the sales of games from the original DS.  I'll point out first off that New Super Mario Bros sold just over 29 million copies, but look at how many games until the sales drop below a million?  The DS has 130 games that broke a million while the Wii has 141.  The 360 has 173 games and the PS3 has 171 games.  Without even going through the list, I can guarantee that there are far more first party titles in the DS and Wii lists than there are in the PS360 lists.  The PS360 games cost more at launch as well.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/

Nintendo did not have a monoploly. Remember Sega?

Also, the narrative I remember is that Square and Nintendo were really close before FFVII but Since Nintendo didn't want to pay Square money for it, they jumped ship. What do you mean trying to strong-arm them afterwards?

Also, can Nintendo really be blamed for strict policies on their consoles with the atari era still fresh in their memory?

We must not be talking about the same gamecube. The really big games of that era like GTA and Final Fantasy skipped the GC, and Gamecube gamers were thrown bare bones like Final Fantasy Crystal Cronicles and a Metal Gear remake. Some cool games like Eternal Darkness and Rogue Leader emerged from Nintendo actively seeking partnerships and Resident Evil was the only real big series that was properly represented on it. Compared to the support that other consoles got, GC gamers were pitifully treated.

You can't use Nintendo games doing well as an indicator that third parties aren't. Is it fair to demand Nintendo games do less well on their systems? DS sales of third party games were perfectly fine. Game sales are traditionally lower on handhelds, and in return the dev costs are lower as well.



I LOVE ICELAND!

KungKras said:
kupomogli said:
KungKras said:
kupomogli said:
Suke said:
This sucks for the gamers, which is why I recommend Wii U owners to buy Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Show devs that you care about multiplats. The main reason you never see multiplats on Nintendo consoles is because comsumers only buy them for the first party exclusives.

Wii U owners, if you really want this game, show it, show Nintendo you want multiplats. Sign petitions, do what ever it take to get the word out. I may not be the biggest Nintendo fan, but I don't want to see Nintendo to be ignore like this.

This. 

Most people who own Nintendo consoles don't buy third party on them and they're the reason that the support on the consoles have been so poor and there's next to no support for the Wii U.

The Wii U has sold around three million consoles with Zombie U being the third highest selling game on the console with 380,000.  Only 11 games have sold 100,000 or more. 

Nintendo gamers bought a lot of third party games when their consoles were treated in an acceptable manner by third parties. When they started getting treated like shit, post SNES/N64, they bought less.

On the handhelds, where they haven't been given the middle finger, third party sales have always been healthy.

The NES and SNES sold well because they were the dominant consoles on the market.  Nintendo strong armed developers with threats that if they didn't remain Nintendo exclusive they wouldn't be allowed to develop future titles on Nintendo consoles.  This is the reason Sega licensed many games from developers like Capcom and ported the games themselves.

The Playstation was released and while it wasn't supported much in the start, it sold very well.  Developers jumped ship from Nintendo's monopoly on the market and went with Sony.  That's where the third party support faltered and Nintendo really only has themselves to blame.  Because Squaresoft wanted to develop Final Fantasy 7 on the Playstation, Nintendo tried their strong arm tactic on them and that's the reason that Squaresoft didn't release games on Nintendo consoles for such a long time and why you saw them give good support to Bandai's Wonderswan.    

Developers started to support Nintendo again late that gen or during the following gen.  The Gamecube received a lot of console exclusives, but none of them sold very well.  The Wii had a lot of console support from developers like Sega, EA, and Activision, and a little bit of support from everyone else.  A few good exclusives from multiple companies that also didn't sell well.

So regardless if developers gave Nintendo the middle finger, there was still support of good Gamecube exclusives and good Wii U exclusives which didn't get sales from the fanbase.  As Nintendo fans if you're telling the developers that you're not going to buy their games, what do you expect them to do?  You still expect them to release games in the future for you continue not buying them?

*edit*

I forgot to add this, but Nintendo fans barely support third party developers on the handhelds as well.  There's more third party support so you would come across that assumption, but the fact of the matter is that across all current Nintendo consoles, there's very little third party support, especially compared to how much support first party titles get. 

Here are the sales of games from the original DS.  I'll point out first off that New Super Mario Bros sold just over 29 million copies, but look at how many games until the sales drop below a million?  The DS has 130 games that broke a million while the Wii has 141.  The 360 has 173 games and the PS3 has 171 games.  Without even going through the list, I can guarantee that there are far more first party titles in the DS and Wii lists than there are in the PS360 lists.  The PS360 games cost more at launch as well.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/

Nintendo did not have a monoploly. Remember Sega?

Also, the narrative I remember is that Square and Nintendo were really close before FFVII but Since Nintendo didn't want to pay Square money for it, they jumped ship. What do you mean trying to strong-arm them afterwards?

Also, can Nintendo really be blamed for strict policies on their consoles with the atari era still fresh in their memory?

We must not be talking about the same gamecube. The really big games of that era like GTA and Final Fantasy skipped the GC, and Gamecube gamers were thrown bare bones like Final Fantasy Crystal Cronicles and a Metal Gear remake. Some cool games like Eternal Darkness and Rogue Leader emerged from Nintendo actively seeking partnerships and Resident Evil was the only real big series that was properly represented on it. Compared to the support that other consoles got, GC gamers were pitifully treated.

You can't use Nintendo games doing well as an indicator that third parties aren't. Is it fair to demand Nintendo games do less well on their systems? DS sales of third party games were perfectly fine. Game sales are traditionally lower on handhelds, and in return the dev costs are lower as well.

I do find it hilarious how people talking about Wii U doom seem to think that GameCube had great third party support.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
KungKras said:
kupomogli said:
KungKras said:
kupomogli said:
Suke said:
This sucks for the gamers, which is why I recommend Wii U owners to buy Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Show devs that you care about multiplats. The main reason you never see multiplats on Nintendo consoles is because comsumers only buy them for the first party exclusives.

Wii U owners, if you really want this game, show it, show Nintendo you want multiplats. Sign petitions, do what ever it take to get the word out. I may not be the biggest Nintendo fan, but I don't want to see Nintendo to be ignore like this.

This. 

Most people who own Nintendo consoles don't buy third party on them and they're the reason that the support on the consoles have been so poor and there's next to no support for the Wii U.

The Wii U has sold around three million consoles with Zombie U being the third highest selling game on the console with 380,000.  Only 11 games have sold 100,000 or more. 

Nintendo gamers bought a lot of third party games when their consoles were treated in an acceptable manner by third parties. When they started getting treated like shit, post SNES/N64, they bought less.

On the handhelds, where they haven't been given the middle finger, third party sales have always been healthy.

The NES and SNES sold well because they were the dominant consoles on the market.  Nintendo strong armed developers with threats that if they didn't remain Nintendo exclusive they wouldn't be allowed to develop future titles on Nintendo consoles.  This is the reason Sega licensed many games from developers like Capcom and ported the games themselves.

The Playstation was released and while it wasn't supported much in the start, it sold very well.  Developers jumped ship from Nintendo's monopoly on the market and went with Sony.  That's where the third party support faltered and Nintendo really only has themselves to blame.  Because Squaresoft wanted to develop Final Fantasy 7 on the Playstation, Nintendo tried their strong arm tactic on them and that's the reason that Squaresoft didn't release games on Nintendo consoles for such a long time and why you saw them give good support to Bandai's Wonderswan.    

Developers started to support Nintendo again late that gen or during the following gen.  The Gamecube received a lot of console exclusives, but none of them sold very well.  The Wii had a lot of console support from developers like Sega, EA, and Activision, and a little bit of support from everyone else.  A few good exclusives from multiple companies that also didn't sell well.

So regardless if developers gave Nintendo the middle finger, there was still support of good Gamecube exclusives and good Wii U exclusives which didn't get sales from the fanbase.  As Nintendo fans if you're telling the developers that you're not going to buy their games, what do you expect them to do?  You still expect them to release games in the future for you continue not buying them?

*edit*

I forgot to add this, but Nintendo fans barely support third party developers on the handhelds as well.  There's more third party support so you would come across that assumption, but the fact of the matter is that across all current Nintendo consoles, there's very little third party support, especially compared to how much support first party titles get. 

Here are the sales of games from the original DS.  I'll point out first off that New Super Mario Bros sold just over 29 million copies, but look at how many games until the sales drop below a million?  The DS has 130 games that broke a million while the Wii has 141.  The 360 has 173 games and the PS3 has 171 games.  Without even going through the list, I can guarantee that there are far more first party titles in the DS and Wii lists than there are in the PS360 lists.  The PS360 games cost more at launch as well.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/

Nintendo did not have a monoploly. Remember Sega?

Also, the narrative I remember is that Square and Nintendo were really close before FFVII but Since Nintendo didn't want to pay Square money for it, they jumped ship. What do you mean trying to strong-arm them afterwards?

Also, can Nintendo really be blamed for strict policies on their consoles with the atari era still fresh in their memory?

We must not be talking about the same gamecube. The really big games of that era like GTA and Final Fantasy skipped the GC, and Gamecube gamers were thrown bare bones like Final Fantasy Crystal Cronicles and a Metal Gear remake. Some cool games like Eternal Darkness and Rogue Leader emerged from Nintendo actively seeking partnerships and Resident Evil was the only real big series that was properly represented on it. Compared to the support that other consoles got, GC gamers were pitifully treated.

You can't use Nintendo games doing well as an indicator that third parties aren't. Is it fair to demand Nintendo games do less well on their systems? DS sales of third party games were perfectly fine. Game sales are traditionally lower on handhelds, and in return the dev costs are lower as well.

I do find it hilarious how people talking about Wii U doom seem to think that GameCube had great third party support.

@KrungKas. 

Of course I remember Sega.  This is why I list Sega in the very first paragraph pointing out that they were required to port the titles themselves to get a lot of multiconsole titles from bigger name developers.

Look at the picture below of Strider.  See that "reprogrammed by Sega."  It's that Sega got the license to be able to take the arcade version and port it over to the Genesis and Master System.  This wasn't just Capcom, but a lot of developers had to sign contracts and remain exclusive to Nintendo in order to develop for them.  The only time developers ported games and such to other consoles is when their contracts lapsed.  I'm sure you can find more info if you're to Google it, what games were reprogrammed by Sega, Nintendo's control over the gaming market, etc.  A monopoly doesn't necessarily mean "Nintendo was the only console developer."  They had control over almost all of the biggest developers.  That's a monopoly.  There were several companies that both entered and exited the business during that time because they couldn't get decent third party support.  No support meant less console sales.  The Wii U has hardly any developers and this is a time when developers are free to go with whoever they want, but think about console developers like Hudson or SNK when they got into the console business and got little developer support.  No support from any of the bigger developers except during a lapse in contract

 

Squaresoft didn't quit developing for Nintendo because they wouldn't give them money to develop Final Fantasy 7.  Sony wanted to fund Squaresoft and Squaresoft didn't want to be tied to the constraints of the cartridge format for all of their games.  Squaresoft and Nintendo broke it off very badly so they didn't release games for Nintendo for  quite some time.

Here's a paper written in 2001 on the subject. 

http://xenon.stanford.edu/~geksiong/papers/sts145/Squaresoft%20and%20FF7.htm

"Squaresoft’s relationship with Nintendo remains touchy even to this day. The split was so bitter that even after Nintendo re-established relations with Namco in 1999, Yamauchi, president of Nintendo, still refused to consider working with Squaresoft. When asked about if Nintendo would allow Squaresoft to publish games for their upcoming GameCube console, Minoru Arakawa of Nintendo replied, “I don’t think it is yet time for Squaresoft.”

Many people think that the reason Squaresoft finally came back to Nintendo was when Yamauchi retired and Iwata took over.  That would actually be in line with release dates, as Iwata took over in early 2002, then late 2002 the first Squaresoft game a Nintendo console has got in eight years was released on the GBA.

@Mr Khan

The Gamecube had great third party support.  Way better than the N64.  Gamecube has a lot of  great exclusives and multiconsole titles that are just as good or better than the other versions.  The Wii has more third party support, although a lot of that is shovelware or downgraded versions from the HD consoles, but there's some good games within all that junk. 



hinch said:

@Player2

Well, not really if they looked at the hardware and said that its not really viable to the port a engine over from scratch.. then thats that. And like they said, they COULD even port Battlefield to Vita, but they would have to scale back the game back so much that it would hardly recognisable to the same game that you saw in the trailer. Seems like they just want to push the technological barrier and didn't want to stretch themselves thin.


You know you can play this game on Vita without any loss of quality via PS4 remote play right? :p