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

Forums - Nintendo - EA: Frostbite 3 Is Possible On Wii U

Wyrdness on 02 July 2013
Zero999 said:
Wyrdness said:
Tbh I think we all get the basic gist of EA's statement on FB2 and what they were trying to imply, a combination of the DRM reversal and Disney has more then likely put EA on the spot in a situation where they probably had a lot of eggs in one basket.

what about disney? I know they own star wars now but do they have a say in EA's general business?


Some of those Star Wars games if not all are running on FE3, if Disney demand the games hit all platforms then EA have to comply otherwise lose the contract. It won't affect EAs other games but they'd still have FE3 running on the U.



Around the Network
chapset on 02 July 2013
MohammadBadir said:
chapset said:
Na, they must be hating Nintendo after all this is what vgchartz as taught me, it's not like their games don't sell enough and that's why they are not porting anything anymore


the games don't sell because they're shit ports, look at Fifa 13, it's 12 with an 2013 logo slapped on it with some character roster improvments, why the hell woul I buy a half-assed game?

And what about the superior version need for speed: most wanted



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Barozi on 02 July 2013
MohammadBadir said:
Barozi said:
MohammadBadir said:

what lie is he spreading exactly?

I've already bolded it in his post.

honestly, who the hell believed EA in the first place? if Frostbite 3 can run on the PS360, then why can't it on the Wii U which is more powerful? if Crysis 3 with the CryEngine 3 ran on the Wii U "beautifully" on the Wii U, why can't Frostbite 3 run on it?

ugh you don't get it either.
EA NEVER said that WiiU can't run Frostbite 3. That IS the lie that people have made up.



Proxy-Pie on 02 July 2013
Barozi said:
MohammadBadir said:
Barozi said:
MohammadBadir said:

what lie is he spreading exactly?

I've already bolded it in his post.

honestly, who the hell believed EA in the first place? if Frostbite 3 can run on the PS360, then why can't it on the Wii U which is more powerful? if Crysis 3 with the CryEngine 3 ran on the Wii U "beautifully" on the Wii U, why can't Frostbite 3 run on it?

ugh you don't get it either.
EA NEVER said that WiiU can't run Frostbite 3. That IS the lie that people have made up.

if they say the console can barely run FB2, what does one automatically assume for FB3?



curl-6 on 02 July 2013
chapset said:
MohammadBadir said:
chapset said:
Na, they must be hating Nintendo after all this is what vgchartz as taught me, it's not like their games don't sell enough and that's why they are not porting anything anymore


the games don't sell because they're shit ports, look at Fifa 13, it's 12 with an 2013 logo slapped on it with some character roster improvments, why the hell woul I buy a half-assed game?

And what about the superior version need for speed: most wanted

Excellent game, but 5 months late.



Around the Network
KungKras on 02 July 2013
UltimateUnknown said:
KungKras said:
UltimateUnknown said:
KungKras said:
UltimateUnknown said:
Finally no more BS and just straight to the point.

If Wii U ever sells well enough I'm sure they'll bring the next Battlefield or whatever else they're making to the platform. Now the ball is on Nintendo's quarter to sell some consoles.

You're just swallowing the new BS that they decided to stick with.......

No, EA is a business and they'll go where money is. If Nintendo paid them enough cash (and I'm talking higher than they got for Titanfall), then even Battlefield could be exclusive to Wii U. EA doesn't have this make believe relationship with MS/Sony that makes them not publish on Nintendo platforms. It's either MS/Sony pays them to get their stuff on their platform (and keep it exclusive) or its that their software sells on the aforementioned platforms because their target audience is on those platform. That's just how it goes.

You're taliking about the company whose founder threw chairs (or was it his shoe?) when his investors forced him to make games for NES. Whose boss demanded a sports games monopoly from Sega, and becuase they rightfully refused, left money on the table on Dreamcast (NFL 2k sold more than Madden that year). The same company, that when making Joe Montana Football, sabotaged the game to make Madden look better. The same company that illegaly reverse-engineered the Megadrive to get favourable licensing deals from Sega. You're telling me, with a straight face, that this company is not above having favourites when it comes to console makers?

EA brought decent support to the Wii (at least on par with most 3rd parties if not better) given it's sizeable install base even though a lot their flagship titles still sold better on other platforms. So I see no reason for them to suddenly stop making games for Nintendo because of this unforseen hatred. I won't comment on Origin integration on Wii U because it is still a rumour. Maybe if it was true then perhaps that could be a reason, but even that is a business decision.

While I personally don't play much of any EA games, I don't think it's fair to just corner EA as the only 3rd party who is ignoring the Wii U. There are many more. Saying all of them don't publish on Wii U due to some kind of bias seems far fetched to me. From what I understand, publishers look at the install base, the cost for porting and predict whether they'd sell enough copies to make a decent profit. Right now Wii U doesn't seem to be a good investment from their perspective. The perception that Wii U's audience not being the same of the PS360 audience who buys certain types of games 3rd parties make may also be a factor, but that's just my own outlook.

EA was dragged kicking and screaming to support the Wii. (Investors would have given them hell otherwise, considering the install base). And in the end, they ended up sabotaging their own efforts anyway. Just so they could excuse not making games for it. Remember Dead Space Extraction and NBA Jam?

You're right that EA is not the only one. I think most executives in this corrupt industry are pretty like-minded. I think, if all companies were equally fair, and business driven, they would support the Wii U in the same manner Ubisoft currently does.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Cobretti2 on 02 July 2013
curl-6 said:
chapset said:
MohammadBadir said:
chapset said:
Na, they must be hating Nintendo after all this is what vgchartz as taught me, it's not like their games don't sell enough and that's why they are not porting anything anymore


the games don't sell because they're shit ports, look at Fifa 13, it's 12 with an 2013 logo slapped on it with some character roster improvments, why the hell woul I buy a half-assed game?

And what about the superior version need for speed: most wanted

Excellent game, but 5 months late.


Time has nothing to do with it. It is EA saying fuck you Nintendo fans and fans saying fuck all your games no matter if any of them are good.

People are not going to dig for a needle in a haystack of shit.



 

 

Barozi on 02 July 2013
MohammadBadir said:
Barozi said:
MohammadBadir said:

honestly, who the hell believed EA in the first place? if Frostbite 3 can run on the PS360, then why can't it on the Wii U which is more powerful? if Crysis 3 with the CryEngine 3 ran on the Wii U "beautifully" on the Wii U, why can't Frostbite 3 run on it?

ugh you don't get it either.
EA NEVER said that WiiU can't run Frostbite 3. That IS the lie that people have made up.

if they say the console can barely run FB2, what does one automatically assume for FB3?

First of all they never said that FB2 barely run on WiiU.
They said the results weren't too promising, which could mean a lot of things.
What obvious is however that it didn't run as great as on other platforms, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with putting more work into it and/or downgrading the games.
But as they said in article in the OP, it wouldn't be worth it for them, since the userbase is low, it would be too much work/investment for little (if any) profit, and they don't want their engine to look ugly.

FB3 is on top of that more scalable. You're mistakenly thinking that a new version automatically means that it's more demanding, which is not necessarily true or how is it possible that BF3 on PS360 looks better than BF:Bad Company on PS360 even though BF3 runs on FB2 and Bad Company on FB1 (while both having the same resolution and framerate) ?

Another example would be that CryEngine 3 is less demanding than CryEngine 2.



Conegamer on 02 July 2013

After what MS did with the Xbone, I guess they're looking back at Nintendo to make easy money.

The question is, if the system takes off and/or the other systems start slowly, how quickly can they get their main projects back on the U?



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Proxy-Pie on 02 July 2013
Barozi said:
MohammadBadir said:
Barozi said:
MohammadBadir said:

honestly, who the hell believed EA in the first place? if Frostbite 3 can run on the PS360, then why can't it on the Wii U which is more powerful? if Crysis 3 with the CryEngine 3 ran on the Wii U "beautifully" on the Wii U, why can't Frostbite 3 run on it?

ugh you don't get it either.
EA NEVER said that WiiU can't run Frostbite 3. That IS the lie that people have made up.

if they say the console can barely run FB2, what does one automatically assume for FB3?

First of all they never said that FB2 barely run on WiiU.
They said the results weren't too promising, which could mean a lot of things.
What obvious is however that it didn't run as great as on other platforms, but nothing that couldn't be fixed with putting more work into it and/or downgrading the games.
But as they said in article in the OP, it wouldn't be worth it for them, since the userbase is low, it would be too much work/investment for little (if any) profit, and they don't want their engine to look ugly.

FB3 is on top of that more scalable. You're mistakenly thinking that a new version automatically means that it's more demanding, which is not necessarily true or how is it possible that BF3 on PS360 looks better than BF:Bad Company on PS360 even though BF3 runs on FB2 and Bad Company on FB1 (while both having the same resolution and framerate) ?

Another example would be that CryEngine 3 is less demanding than CryEngine 2.

but isn't them deciding not to run FB3 on the Wii U because FB2 didn't have promising results a bit contradicting? XD