bit-gamer.net

EA could skip Wii U with next gen titles

EA could skip Wii U with next gen titles

Battlefield 4 will sport the Frostbite 3 engine along with 14 other upcoming titles from EA.

The Wii U is set to miss out on at least 15 titles from EA that use the Frostbite 3 engine.

The games included were mentioned in a DICE presentation obtained by NEOGaf. They included Battlefield 4, Mass Effect 4, Dragon Age 3, Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel and as yet unannounced Star Wars titles, all of which will not be making their way to Nintendo's newest console due to the machine's incompatibility with the Frostbite 3 engine.

Developed by DICE, the engine and its predecessor's tests on the Wii U have not been successful and efforts to get it running have been ditched. 'We did some tests with not too promising results with FB2 and chose not to go down that path,' said DICE technical director Johan Anderson on Twitter.

On the run up to the new console's release, the Wii U was hyped up as Nintendo's bid to move away from the more casual audience built up through the Wii and the DS. Without EA's upcoming efforts, the Wii U library is going to continue to look bare compared to the competition.

This is not the first time that engine compatibility has been brought up as an issue for Nintendo's latest console. At GDC back in March, Epic Games vice-president Mark Rein noted that although it is possible to run Unreal Engine 4 on the machine, they consider Unreal Engine 3 to be more appropriate.

The Wii U launched at the end of 2012 and has not lived up to Nintendo's predictions for the console. In its most recent annual financial report, it was revealed that the Wii U sold 3.45 million units, compared to its predecessor's 4 million units sold over the same period.

36 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
GoodBytes 9th May 2013, 18:22 Quote
EA wanted full Origin on the WiiU with complete control and profit, using Nintendo servers, and want to sale it's "season pass" DLC crap. Nintendo refused (like anyone with the right mind would), so EA, like a 5 year old kid, pulls a tantrum, and forces it's developers and related studios to call the media to say how crappy the console is, and block any release of games to the WiiU.
Harlequin 9th May 2013, 18:23 Quote
^^ nothing to do with compatibility -Crysis 3 was ready to go on Wii U and because Nintendo wouldn't do origin exclusive for download sales EA pulled out
Andy Mc 9th May 2013, 19:16 Quote
Meh. I quit giving a s*it about EA titles some time ago. Origin is also a pile of crap. Fairplay to Nintendo for standing up to EA's bullying, regardless of the negative publicity for the Wii U. I'm very tempted to get one once prices lower more just to play Zombie U. That looks awesome.
GoodBytes 9th May 2013, 19:29 Quote
I agree. And personally, if I got a WiiU, I would not care about missing EA games, because they all be on PC in any case. I guess the looser here, are the WiiU owner who can't afford another console nor have PC that can play games. As instead of playing EA games right now, there is a big void of titles, and people are turning their thumbs until E3.
Horizon 9th May 2013, 19:40 Quote
Goodbytes, I don't think that's the situation, there's probably more to it that isn't known. Considering that EA gets along with Microsoft, the two you would think would be at each other's throats after the EA/Valve falling out. Nintendo is probably charging EA an obscene amount in order to use it's servers that EA doesn't want to pay or feels that it shouldn't have to pay given Nintendo's current standing.
Guinevere 9th May 2013, 20:16 Quote
The 'Our tests weren't promising' line is a load of bull. If they wanted to release games on the Wii U then they'd work something out... just drop the texture size, filters and poly count down enough to make it work. It would be awkward for them and make the U look like the runt it is.

Here's what's happened. They've looked at the sales figures and the deal on the table from Nintendo and they've made the decision it's not worth spending millions adding the U to their development when all the other platforms (4th Gen + PC) are broadly equal.

They've decided for them it's not worth it. So why say it's purely due to performance? Because that way it hurts the U a bit and drives people to other platforms.

EA want to sell games and they can't sell U games if they don't build them. So their advice is 'The Wii U is underpowered' (Which it is!)

No point feeding the runt of the litter in next-gen-console land.
GoodBytes 9th May 2013, 20:42 Quote
How is the WiiU underpowered? It has a more powerful CPU, memory, memory speed, GPU, GPU features (so in every way) than the XBox 360 and PS3, by a nice margin too. I am looking at the Assassin Creed 4 PS4, and it doesn't look that much better than AC3 on the WiiU, and looks less than AC 3 on the PC... and AC4 on PS4 looks like it runs at 30fps and frame dips. Not really impressive.

While there is no doubt that the PS4 and XBox Inifnity are more powerful than the WiiU, even if Nintendo put a Core i3, GeForce 580 in there, Sony and Microsoft will put the Core i5 and GeForce 690. There is nothing Nintendo could have done. So it will always be underpowered, unless it's the last console release.

Also Nintendo has been producing under-powered console since day 1. They lasted all these years.
Sega didn't even have a chance.

Power doesn't make good games. And this time, Sony doesn't have something to intense buyers to the new console (The PS1 had disk (it was cool back then), DVD with the PS2, and Blu-ray with the PS3). It will be the role of each to present good and exclusive games.
Aracos 9th May 2013, 21:50 Quote
It's also worth noting that the most powerful console has never won a generation in terms of sales. I think that is true for both home and handheld consoles.
Guinevere 10th May 2013, 00:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
And this time, Sony doesn't have something to intense buyers to the new console (The PS1 had disk (it was cool back then), DVD with the PS2, and Blu-ray with the PS3).

4k movie support?

Okay so not everyone has gone 1080p yet, but with 50" 4K screen being available for $1500 I think there'll be some demand for it. I suspect it'll be one of the cheapest ways of getting native 4k playback in the home. Just like the PS3 was for blu-ray.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/28/4040932/sony-4k-movie-service-will-work-with-ps4-require-100gb-plus-downloads
GoodBytes 10th May 2013, 00:48 Quote
1- There is no visible different between 1080p and 4K unless you are up close.
2- TV content is in 1080p.
3- Broadcast network and your TV provider don't have the equipment or bandwidth for 4K.
4- HDMI 1.4 can only do 24Hz in 4K.
5- Less than a hand full, literally, movies where filmed in 4K
6- 4K is 4096x2160 OR 3840x2160. No standard set.
7- People just got their 1080p TV... they won't buy 4K. Heck, I still use a CRT TV. People are not uber rich like you.
8- Multiple Blu-ray needed or expensive multi-layer Blu-ray disk needed for movies, driving the cost of the movie much higher.
Aracos 10th May 2013, 01:33 Quote
Yeah the idea of 4K video taking off for a long time is utterly ridiculous. When DVD came along how long did it take before people were willing to give up their DVDs? Even now there is a serious lack of Blu-Ray players in the average household. So now we'll need new expensive TVs, likely new Blu-Ray players because they certainly won't have the horsepower for 4K video and most won't support a video connection which could provide it. Then you have TV content which is mostly 720p/1080i in the UK, we still struggle to find actual 1080p broadcast video. ISPs will absolutely cry if they have to be the deliverers of 4K video because of the sheer size of the videos and the constant load.

Remember how 3D TVs were going to take over and everyone was going to have one and use it......yep, dead on its arse. 4K video will not be a console selling feature this generation. Perhaps next generation but certainly not this generation. Everything is too far behind for that to be a reality.
Skiddywinks 10th May 2013, 02:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
How is the WiiU underpowered? It has a more powerful CPU, memory, memory speed, GPU, GPU features (so in every way) than the XBox 360 and PS3, by a nice margin too.

Incredibly, shockingly wrong. It has more memory and a better GPU, but these are hobbled by a CPU slower than the 360's and some terrible memory bandwidth (12.8GB/s Vs 22.4GB/s). In both cases this RAM is shared between CPU and GPU (and the Xbox has a significantly slower GPU).

Check out the comments on the Ars thread for more. Kevin G's posts (about a quarter the way down the page) is where I got the bandwidth numbers, and very shortly afterwards a ton of number crunching comes in to play, as well as feature discussions about the Wii U's hobbled CPU.

EDIT: As far as CPU performance goes, I dug out the final (user calculated) numbers for the benefit of anyone reading. For the Xbox 360 and Wii U; 76.8 GFLOPS Vs 14.88 GFLOPS respectively.
GoodBytes 10th May 2013, 03:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
Incredibly, shockingly wrong. It has more memory and a better GPU, but these are hobbled by a CPU slower than the 360's and some terrible memory bandwidth (12.8GB/s Vs 22.4GB/s). In both cases this RAM is shared between CPU and GPU (and the Xbox has a significantly slower GPU).
No it does not. The CPU is much faster. Games on the WiiU who also have a XBox 360 port, has more things (more units with AI) than on the XBox 360. Devs also said how powerful the console is.

Nintendo didn't release any specs for the console. So I don't know where you get these numbers.
Quote:

Check out the comments on the Ars thread for more. Kevin G's posts (about a quarter the way down the page) is where I got the bandwidth numbers, and very shortly afterwards a ton of number crunching comes in to play, as well as feature discussions about the Wii U's hobbled CPU.
Yes, lets believe assumption mania. Clock speed means nothing.
Devs said that it's faster than the current gen consoles on the market CPU wise.

But if it makes you sleep at night that the WiiU is 3 Wii processors stuck together, as you suggest, that's fine.
Skiddywinks 10th May 2013, 04:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes

No it does not. The CPU is much faster. Games on the WiiU who also have a XBox 360 port, has more things (more units with AI) than on the XBox 360. Devs also said how powerful the console is.

Nintendo didn't release any specs for the console. So I don't know where you get these numbers.


Ok, so I post intelligent discussion backed up by evidence such as die shots, and you just say "Nope. Wrong. The Wii U CPU is much faster". Since Ninty haven't released any specs, what else do you want me to go on? I'm the only one with any evidence here. You can find as many developer claims about an amazeballs CPU as I can find developers bitching about it being underpowered, so those are instantly inadmissible. What else do you have? Try countering points instead of just saying I am wrong.

BTW, the numbers are from previous confirmed numbers on the Wii, die shot analysis and this guy's hacking. Just because Nintendo doesn't release specs doesn't mean they can't be found.
Quote:
Yes, lets believe assumption mania. Clock speed means nothing.
Devs said that it's faster than the current gen consoles on the market CPU wise.

But if it makes you sleep at night that the WiiU is 3 Wii processors stuck together, as you suggest, that's fine.

Clock speed matters a great deal, but it isn't everything, you are right. So when the Wii U is missing other important feature sets like VMX, I fail to see how your point improves your position. And unfortunately, it seems like the Wii U CPU largely is just three Wii CPUs stuck together, and clocked at almost twice as fast (with the addition of OoO and a shorter pipeline. Good moves, in all fairness).

I would love to see a source for that "Devs said that it's faster than the current gen consoles on the market CPU wise.", but like I said, I could just dig up one saying the CPU is terribad, so I suppose its a wash. Still, I certainly haven't heard a claim quite as strong as the one you are making, so I would appreciate a source all the same.

I sleep as well at night regardless of what the matter is, I just find tech interesting and thought I would correct your misunderstanding. Interesting you would bring up such personal attacks though, considering my last post was entirely neutral and merely based on evidence and as much objective analysis as possible.
Neogumbercules 10th May 2013, 07:57 Quote
I don't believe EA would intentionally drop their AAA support for the Wii U based solely on sour grapes over online stuff. It just doesn't make any sense, especially with their current financial situation. Even if it only means a few hundred-thousand to a million or so sales for a port of a AAA game on the WiiU, that's still profit. Ultimately they answer to shareholders, so it doesn't make any logical sense to give the finger to Nintendo over something stupid.

No, it's far more likely that the Wii U is just technically incapable of properly supporting Frostbite 3 without needing a huge investment in porting and support teams. Not to mention a reduction in quality. At that point, I can see it being it financially questionable to invest in a system with a low install base where the games are going to be demonstrably worse than the original game.

At some point, it must become technically "impossible" to run a high-end game on the Wii U without making drastic, fundamental changes to the underlying game mechanics. Like... try to get Final Fantasy X to run on an N64 (the Wii U is pretty much "last gen" tech compared to the new consoles).

It makes even less sense when we're talking about -core- AAA games that 90% of their audience is going to be playing on their PC/PS4/XBOX

Nintendo is pretty much at fault here for putting out yet another gimmick system that won't support modern advancements in console gaming technology. They will probably be very successful, as they have always been, but it's something that they consistently choose to do.
DrTiCool 10th May 2013, 09:20 Quote
EA did the same thing to Dreamcast from the start, and hell, DC was doing ok without EA. Just shows how greedy that company is.
Harlequin 10th May 2013, 09:35 Quote
Goodbytes - most TV content is either 720p or 1080i (sky hd - the hd in most homes)
rollo 10th May 2013, 10:03 Quote
EA can do what they want, It is after all there own company. Wii U sales are what has caused most developers rethinks. Activision and EA both have suggested similar things.

Frostbite is an expensive engine and the cost to port it to the Wii U was probably higher than the potential sales.

DC was Segas last major console and it was destroyed in sales terms by an old playstation, Not to mension what happened once the ps2 came out. DC sold well in only Japan.

Wii U is not selling well anywhere most see it as a Wii with a handheld screen. ( aka gimmick) Nintendo have not exactly advertised the console you would not even know it was on sale in the UK there has been so little marketing for it, Seen alot more Nintendo 3ds adverts than i have Nintendo Wii U adverts.

4K is a dream nothing more than that at this point. TV content providers can bearly provide 720p to 1080i let alone 4k. Sky HD pack in the uk is very few channels (60-75 i think it works out at). No one knows what hdmi specification the ps4 will launch with the playstation 3 was hdmi 1.0 but with firmware updates that has now hit 1.3.

You dont provide content for 1% of the world either till 4k tvs hit below £/$1000 for a decent set like current 1080 tvs then 4k will never take off in most major countries who simply do not have the bandwidth in tv or internet to support such a service.

Remember native blueray is 22 megabyte ( that is byte not bit ) per second thats only at 1080p, 4k is 4 x that thats effectively a 1gb internet for streaming purposes. Outside of Japan such things do not exist and even there they are not exactly mainstream.

The world is not ready for 4k tv.
Scroome 10th May 2013, 10:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Nintendo has been producing under-powered console since day 1. They lasted all these years.

Sorry for the minor side step here, but that isn't entirely true.

For the first couple of years of the N64's life, Nintendo was happily advertising it as the "Fastest, most powerful games console on Earth"

Back to the topic at hand :)
Griffter 10th May 2013, 10:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
(4th Gen + PC) are broadly equal.
.

did u just say the next round of consoles is equal to PC's? :-)

hahahahahaha
blackerthanblack 10th May 2013, 13:11 Quote
I think perhaps there is a mixture of reasons with EAs decision here, so it's probably not as clear cut as people are suggesting.

Yes Wii U sales are disappointing for Nintendo which could well have influenced EAs direction. However, if you are looking at the figures (from this article) they don't seem to be all that bad - 3.45 million units to date. I assume the last financial period will be first quarter 2013, plus maybe December 2012 to make it 1/3 of the year, we are still looking at around 10million units at the end of the first year - depending on if the price cuts make any difference, and that would be only up to December 2013 so before the last minute Christmas rush.

Considering the PS3 has sold around 70 million over its life so far, that not all that bad, and should still give a good return for a developer for the life of a console.

So it could be that the Wii U is a little difficult to develop for (not sure how that stands up considering the base technology - it's not a Cell CPU after all, and that didn't actually stop developers, it just got them complaining about it).

It's more likely EA have listened to the hype around low sales and decided to put it on hold then - as mentioned above - derided the console to try to stop potential sales loss from the platforms they are supporting.
Harlequin 10th May 2013, 13:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
did u just say the next round of consoles is equal to PC's? :-)

hahahahahaha

next gen consoles are better than 80%+ of all pc`s sold last year.
Maki role 10th May 2013, 14:25 Quote
Well the true reasons are hardly ever clear cut, so I won't bother trying to make any assumptions as to why they made this decision.

However, I will make a point about my own disappointment with Nintendo. They've basically destroyed interest within the more "hardcore" gaming populous with the Wii. Sadly, these people are the kind likely to be early adopters. Hell I got a Wii, I'm not even remotely interested in a Wii-U, and I don't know a single person who is.

I was simply so disappointed with almost every Wii game I played bar Super Mario Galaxies; that was a lot of fun and did a lot right. I have yet to complete Skyward Sword, and probably never will, thought it was abysmal. Mariokart was fun, but without any support after, it can only go so far, the gimped split screen multiplayer options didn't help either. Smash bros brawl was again okay, but not as good as Melee. They didn't balance the characters at all well, which is okay at first, but after you've been playing with friends for a while, it becomes terribly limiting. We shouldn't have to ban the use of individual characters because they're simply overpowered, not fun in the long run.

Nintendo just stopped caring, and I wouldn't be so bothered with that, except all their decent games are first party. I eventually got sick of the silly controller and just used the GameCube one, which rendered the games that heavily used the motion one a bit useless.

I just hate having compulsory gimmicks. The Kinnect is a good example of something done right here. I practically never use one for games, and I don't know somebody who does. But the majority of games don't depend on it, so I don't mind. At the same time, it's handy for some things and works well enough to be a bit of fun.

Another issue I have, is that most of the big Nintendo games only rely on good gameplay. They don't bother with graphical immersion or gripping stories. The problem here is that when one of those games fails in the gameplay department, there's just nothing left to enjoy. I've just lost all my faith in Nintendo, I'd like to get it back, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Anfield 10th May 2013, 15:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neogumbercules
I don't believe EA would intentionally drop their AAA support for the Wii U based solely on sour grapes over online stuff. It just doesn't make any sense, especially with their current financial situation.

They are arrogant enough to think they can get way with not selling on steam, so I wouldn't put it below them to think they can get away with not supporting Nintendo products.
rollo 10th May 2013, 16:12 Quote
EA choice in the end of the day. They may reverse it they may not. Only thing it really alters is if you play ea published games then they won't be on the wii u at the moment.

EA publish so many games its a big old list to exclude yourself from so may affect purchase decisions.
Aracos 10th May 2013, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffter
did u just say the next round of consoles is equal to PC's? :-)

hahahahahaha

Come on man he's not being that silly! He's saying the SNES/Mega Drive/TurboGrafx/Neo Geo are equal to PCs!

EDIT: OK I do feel like a bit of a nob but I'm a bit of a generation nazi, remember we're in the eight generation of consoles now people.
Malfrex 10th May 2013, 16:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Less than a hand full, literally, movies where filmed in 4K
I work in film, and this is a horrible, horrible fallacy on your part. Most are filmed at 4K. Some are even starting to be filmed more regularly at 8K (especially anything IMAX related). The difference is that the final product is likely to be scaled down to 2K, with a few being released at 4K. The reason for this is that they end up shooting a little extra footage around the main shot in case they decide later in editing that they want to zoom in/out, pan, etc from the original shot. As well, the VFX work is done on the 4K plates (raw footage) then when everything is rendered out it gets saved to the desired size.
fdbh96 10th May 2013, 17:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
They are arrogant enough to think they can get way with not selling on steam, so I wouldn't put it below them to think they can get away with not supporting Nintendo products.

Its not that they were arrogant, it just didn't make financial sense. For indie devs and smaller studios, its ideal as they don't sell as many copies as EA or the number of different games, but with the number of units EA ships, the cut valve takes would be too high.

With origin, they get much more control, and get to take 100% of the price.
Harlequin 10th May 2013, 17:25 Quote
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/crytek-explains-why-crysis-3-wii-u-had-to-die-6404763
Quote:
"We did have Crysis 3 running on the Wii U," Yerli said. "We were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of business support between Nintendo and EA on that. Since we as a company couldn’t launch on the Wii U ourselves--we don’t have a publishing license--Crysis 3 on Wii U had to die."


Crysis 3 was ready to go - yet EA killed it
Neogumbercules 10th May 2013, 19:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neogumbercules
I don't believe EA would intentionally drop their AAA support for the Wii U based solely on sour grapes over online stuff. It just doesn't make any sense, especially with their current financial situation.

They are arrogant enough to think they can get way with not selling on steam, so I wouldn't put it below them to think they can get away with not supporting Nintendo products.

In addition to what fdbh96 said, it's not a real comparison. Origin has been a big success for EA. Wii U wouldn't be. People want to believe that all big companies are arrogant, evil, greedy, spiteful and vindictive. That is just internet noise/class-warfare BS. Companies like EA make decisions based on whether or not something is financially viable. There is no way EA would actively choose to ignore a Nintendo console with their AAA content just because they wanna be dicks. There aren't enough Wii U consoles sitting under the TV in peoples' homes, and people who CARE about buying AAA games KNOW ENOUGH to get them on the premium consoles where they will have the best experience.

It just doesn't make any sense for EA to get FB3 up and running on Wii U.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/crytek-explains-why-crysis-3-wii-u-had-to-die-6404763
Quote:
"We did have Crysis 3 running on the Wii U," Yerli said. "We were very close to launching it. But there was a lack of business support between Nintendo and EA on that. Since we as a company couldn’t launch on the Wii U ourselves--we don’t have a publishing license--Crysis 3 on Wii U had to die."


Crysis 3 was ready to go - yet EA killed it

What we don't know is the level of quality that port was at. We can only assume that EA decided spending millions on manufacturing, packaging, shipping, and support was not worth the investment. IMO that's more Nintendo's fault than EAs. Nintendo needs to sell more Wii Us before publishers are willing to put that much investment into it.
fdbh96 10th May 2013, 19:09 Quote
Either way EA can't win:
1. They release a game thats not ready/fully compatible and people complain.

2. They don't release the game and everyone moans.
GoodBytes 11th May 2013, 01:25 Quote
Off topic on topic goodness:
Since the April update, WiiU users noticed a bump in performance in games.
This raised a nice rumor that the WiiU has been overclocked.. or more like put to normal speed. There is no denying that Nintendo has big tendency to underclock their CPU and GPU on their console to reduce heat, and noise. The WiiU does come with a 75W PSU, but the console doesn't consume near that much under max load.

So the rumor, to take at a grain of salt.. and I mean GRAIN OF SALT. Like this is very unlikely:
- Nintendo set the CPU clock to 3.24GHz and the GPU to 800MHz compared to 550MHz

Nintendo never speaks about hardware specs, so we have no idea if anything of it is right.
Aracos 11th May 2013, 01:38 Quote
I saw that earlier, it's possible they could have underclocked But that jump is quite large I don't see it being that large if it happens at all, perhaps the guy who found out the normal clock speed could see if it's true,
GoodBytes 11th May 2013, 01:50 Quote
OR, the guy that figured our the clock of the CPU originally, his method was wrong. No one tested his findings.

But yes I agree with you, the clock increase can't be this big.
Neogumbercules 11th May 2013, 04:14 Quote
Could be that their improvements to the OS freed up resources for games.

Sent from Bittech Android app
GoodBytes 11th May 2013, 05:01 Quote
Well, it could. I don't have a WiiU to notice the performance difference. If we are talking about games at 30fps jump to 60fps, then it's a the big rumored OC. If it's in some areas where the poorly ported EA games runs a bit smoother, then its the OS.

I guess a good way to know is to monitor the power draw before and after the max power draw. If the console is OC, it must consume more Watts (unless the processor has some odd broken power saving/consuming system, where lower clock consumes just as much as full clock)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums