# Next gen EA games will skip the Wii U due to Frostbite Engine



## Guild McCommunist (May 8, 2013)

EA will not be invading the Wii U next gen. This comes on the news of the Wii U having performance issues with EA's next generation Frostbite Engine.

More akin to the Luftwaffe bombing of London, EA will be destroying the bastion of hope for Nintendo owners with exciting new titles such as Mass Effect 4, Dragon Age 3: Inquisition, Battlefield 4, and a supposedly new Star Wars game arising from the partnership between EA and Disney to create a true Axis force.

When it comes to EA games, it seems Wii U owners will be starved of quality titles.

With any hope, other third party developers will storm the Normandy-esque beaches of the Wii U, liberating owners from a lack of games.

 Source


----------



## kehkou (May 8, 2013)

...and there goes another nail on that coffin.


----------



## Dork (May 8, 2013)

*Next gen EA games will skip the Wii U due to Nintendo refusing to use Origin as it's online infrastructure


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 8, 2013)

Dark S. said:


> *Next gen EA games will skip the Wii U due to Nintendo refusing to use Origin as it's online infrastructure


 
Because that stopped other EA games like Mass Effect 3 and Need for Speed: Most Wanted.

HEY GUYS LET'S ACT LIKE THIS IS A POINT.

EDIT: And if you think Nintendo actively DENYING an option for their platform that makes them lose games is a GOOD thing then you should get your head checked.


----------



## Chary (May 8, 2013)

Wait. Didn't his happen with the Dreamcast as well? (And we all know how that turned out)


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

Now, now, now - EA is only skipping the WiiU when it comes to Frostbyte 3-based games, not _all_ their games.


----------



## Dork (May 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Because that stopped other EA games like Mass Effect 3 and Need for Speed: Most Wanted.
> 
> HEY GUYS LET'S ACT LIKE THIS IS A POINT.
> 
> EDIT: And if you think Nintendo actively DENYING an option for their platform that makes them lose games is a GOOD thing then you should get your head checked.


 
But it is a point.

And I never stated it was a good thing, but okay.


----------



## Celice (May 8, 2013)

I wonder how Nintendo's international stockholders will react. EA does not necessarily mean great games and great profit, but their licenses and monopoly on sports are a lucrative attraction for investors, and to have this estranged from the WiiU can be somewhat devastating. (I don't mean that this news in specific entails a lack of those kinds of titles, but EA and other publishers have been dipping out of the WiiU business with several major titles, it seems.)

More and more Nintendo seems to be estranging themselves from the market, standing on their own legs and alone. Initially they had the attraction of console dominance, where developers and publishers would flock to them. More and more it's feeling like Nintendo's becoming displaced from its popularity, and consequently are losing that which bolstered the attractiveness of their consoles. Nintendo is becoming a Nintendo machine for Nintendo games--holding themselves up as one of the few main software developers on their recent (main) systems.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 8, 2013)

Dark S. said:


> But it is a point.
> 
> And I never stated it was a good thing, but okay.


 
But like if it was an actual point EA wouldn't bring games to the system. But they did.

Crysis 3 Wii U died for a multitude of reasons, not a lack of Origin.


----------



## Dork (May 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But like if it was an actual point EA wouldn't bring games to the system. But they did.
> 
> Crysis 3 Wii U died for a multitude of reasons, not a lack of Origin.


 
With these games, they run on a new engine which EA probably doesn't want to port because the Wii U is struggling right now.
I'm sure there were many reasons behind Crysis 3, but no Origin is an example of lack of business support.


----------



## raulpica (May 8, 2013)

inb4*WiiUi* *XL* with stronger hardware and less fail


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

raulpica said:


> inb4*WiiUi* *XL* with stronger hardware and less fail


Naw man, it just follows its namesake. It's doing fine.

...now you're playing with power.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (May 8, 2013)

Wii U is dead.


----------



## AlanJohn (May 8, 2013)

This makes no sense. The current gen consoles can run the frostbite engine (very poorly tho), so why can't the wiiu? Is EA implying that the WiiU is inferior to those consoles hardware-wise?


----------



## Veho (May 8, 2013)

raulpica said:


> inb4*WiiUi* *XL* with stronger hardware and less fail


With a 14'' tablet controller.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

AlanJohn said:


> This makes no sense. The current gen consoles can run the frostbite engine (very poorly tho), so why can't the wiiu? Is EA implying that the WiiU is inferior to those consoles hardware-wise?


Frostbyte *2*, yes, but not Frostbyte *3* which is the Next-Gen engine.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 8, 2013)

Here's something I stumbled across recently. Seems to suggest EA is rather bitter with Nintendo, especially after their "support" back at E3 2011.

http://playeressence.com/eas-unprecedented-partnership-with-nintendo-and-other-fairy-tails/


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 8, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Frostbyte 2, yes, but not Frostbyte 3 which is the Next-Gen engine.


Battlefield 4 is using Frostbite 3 and is coming to the PS360.

This has more to do with the Wii U's install base being too low for EA to justify bringing over their engine than any technical limitations.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

soulx said:


> Battlefield 4 is using Frostbite 3 and is coming to the PS360.
> 
> This has more to do with the Wii U's install base being too low for EA to justify bringing over their engine than any technical limitations.


I'm sure you know better than the EA Techies.






_(What I actually mean is that you're accusing them without proof, and that's slander)_


----------



## ComeTurismO (May 8, 2013)

Well, the Wii U is gone.


----------



## ZaeZae64 (May 8, 2013)

oh no all those games I wasn't going to buy in the first place )':





Foxi4 said:


> I'm sure you know better than the EA Techies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Aint the first time EA lied about something.


----------



## KingVamp (May 8, 2013)

I'll just place this here.


----------



## Coto (May 8, 2013)

EA VS Wii U, who's doomed first


----------



## 2ndApex (May 8, 2013)

RIP Nintendo


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 8, 2013)

What's up with those nazi puns lately?


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 8, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm sure you know better than the EA Techies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


>Frostbite 3 supports the PS3/360
>Wii U is more powerful than the PS3/360

Ergo, Frosbite 3 can run on the Wii U. The only sensible reason to skip out on the platform is because of the install-base.


----------



## Joe88 (May 8, 2013)

next gen ea games are skipping wii u because its not next gen


----------



## Snailface (May 8, 2013)

2011-The 3ds is Dead
2013-OMG its coming back, best year ever!

2013-The WiiU is Dead
2015-OMG its coming back, best year ever!

Conclusion:
Gamers = Historical Amnesia + Micheal Pachter's vision


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 8, 2013)

Joe88 said:


> next gen ea games are skipping wii u because its not next gen


Yet many of those games utilizing FB3 are coming to last-gen systems? Besides, I wonder how many people have looked back at E3 2011 when EA wholeheartedly supported the Wii U, which they did mention as next-gen.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

soulx said:


> >Frostbite 3 supports the PS3/360
> >Wii U is more powerful than the PS3/360
> 
> Ergo, Frosbite 3 can run on the Wii U. The only sensible reason to skip out on the platform is because of the install-base.


That's the most upside-down logic I've ever heard - there can be an inheritent flaw in the WiiU's SDK that makes it impossible to port the engine, hardware has nothing to do with this.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 8, 2013)

Does FB2 not work on Wii U? Perhaps, but seeing EA's rather potent flip-flopping over the past year with regards to Nintendo and Wii U, I'm not so sure about it anymore.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 8, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the most upside-down logic I've ever heard - there can be an inheritent flaw in the WiiU's SDK that makes it impossible to port the engine, hardware has nothing to do with this.


Even _if_ there was _somehow_ a major flaw in the SDK that prevented them from bringing over the engine, they could have contacted Nintendo for support in overcoming the issue or updating the SDK to resolve it. Something like that could easily be rectified.

Fact of the matter is, if EA wanted to bring Frostbite 3 to the Wii U, they could. They simply decided that it wasn't worth putting time and money into, likely because of how the Wii U is selling right now.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

soulx said:


> Even _if_ there was _somehow_ a major flaw in the SDK that prevented them from bringing over the engine, they could have contacted Nintendo for support in overcoming the issue or updating the SDK to resolve it. Something like that could easily be rectified.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, if EA wanted to bring Frostbite 3 to the Wii U, they could. They simply decided that it wasn't worth putting time and money into, likely because of how the Wii U is selling right now.


...or they cannot for technical reasons and you cannot prove otherwise without proof - what you're saying is conjuncture. They're not coding for the system in binary - they're using the kit and if the kit doesn't have certain functionality, they're not working on porting the engine. Sure, there maybe some more to it, but we don't know what that might be - we're just speculating.


----------



## Rizsparky (May 8, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> I'll just place this here.



This man talk the truth!


----------



## Eerpow (May 8, 2013)

It's probably not worth the investment they need to put in to optimize the engine, if just putting it on the system as is isn't possible then they're obviously not going to put in money and effort looking deeper into it. As a developer you make your games multiplatform to generate profit, however in the case of the Wii U the margin between porting costs and sales isn't good enough to invest in the system, this is something that won't change until Nintendo manages to change the Wii U sales situation.

EA already put out some games for the system to serve as sales tests, seeing the currently low sales of the system it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't generate much if any profit with those titles. This decision won't change unless the install base of the platform grows or Nintendo decides to give them a hand by either sending them their own teams who knows the hardware or by simply giving them money so that EA themselves can make good ports for the system. A lot is up to Nintendo to show if they're capable of turning things around.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 8, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> ...*or they cannot for technical reasons* and you cannot prove otherwise without proof - what you're saying is conjuncture. They're not coding for the system in binary - they're using the kit and if the kit doesn't have certain functionality, they're not working on porting the engine. Sure, there maybe some more to it, but we don't know what that might be - we're just speculating.


Like what?

It's not an issue with horsepower as the Wii U is at least more powerful than the PS3/360.
It's not an issue with the feature set as the Wii U has a more modern feature set than the PS3/360.
It's not an issue with the SDK as EA could easily rectify such a problem by contacting Nintendo for support if they were really deadset on bringing the engine over.

So unless the Wii U is lacking in some _special sauce_ that the PS3/360 have and we're not aware of, common-sense says that they're not bringing it over because of sales. That's pretty much it.


----------



## shakirmoledina (May 8, 2013)

nintendo has dropped support for wii u because its engine cannot support its own hardware...

ea ... lazy devs, all of them


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

soulx said:


> Like what?
> 
> It's not an issue with horsepower as the Wii U is at least more powerful than the PS3/360.
> It's not an issue with the feature set as the Wii U has a more modern feature set than the PS3/360.
> ...


You can have the best components in the world but if you put them together with spit, it's just not going to work. Do take into account the way the WiiU's CPU works - it's a custom architecture that _does lack_ several contemporary features - it's by no means a beefy processor.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 8, 2013)

AlanJohn said:


> This makes no sense. The current gen consoles can run the frostbite engine (very poorly tho), so why can't the wiiu? Is EA implying that the WiiU is inferior to those consoles hardware-wise?


 
Because EA fucking sucks and they are crybabies who don't want to utilize the hardware at their disposal. Nintendo told them to fuck off with Origin integration into their infrastructure as well. EA required you to log into Origin when you first created a new game in Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U. Question, why would a game that doesn't have both it's predecessors on the platform, have to have an Origin log in? Do they expect you to carry over non existent save files from the previous games? Because those games aren't available and it just screamed DRM to me. You don't have to log into Origin on the Wii U version in order to play the game, though to access the DLC you might, I didn't own the game long enough to even try.


----------



## Eerpow (May 8, 2013)

To believe that it's actually a technical issue is the far more far fetched theory. There's no way EA would have put that kind of money towards Wii U hardware/infrastructure/SDK research when they know that it doesn't turn into profit with how things currently are going with the system. It's an excuse to not develop for the system, that said it's an understandable one.


----------



## lovewiibrew (May 8, 2013)

Yawn. The whole "console xyz is doomed!" blathering gets old. Did anybody REALLY want a Wii U for sports games? We buy it for the Mario/Zelda/Smash games. And if you disagree you probably eat aborted fetuses with a dash of cayenne pepper.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 8, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You can have the best components in the world but if you put them together with spit, it's just not going to work. Do take into account the way the WiiU's CPU works - it's a custom architecture that _does lack_ several contemporary features - it's by no means a beefy processor.


 
It's not x86 based, which is one reason why some studios are crying about it. It's also only clocked at 2.2 Ghz and is a triple core processor, while the 360 and PS3 processors are over 3 Ghz and quad core (360) and some weird ass thing with the PS3. See, the biggest fallacy is that clock speeds only matter in single threaded applications, in multithreaded applications, a lower clock speed doesn't really matter as much because the cores are able to work to do the same tasks as a single core processing unit with double the clock speed purely due to efficiency. Game studios are still thinking with the same mentality as they were a few years ago and have some fool notion that for next generation, clock speeds > all. The stronger your GPU is now, the longer it is going to last. Current gen systems are running games purely because their processors are being cranked out to the maximum of their performance, next generation with the same types of processors and a little more cache and a power graphics card, they won't even use 25% of a multicore processor right out of the gate.




lovewiibrew said:


> Yawn. The whole "console xyz is doomed!" blathering gets old. Did anybody REALLY want a Wii U for sports games? We buy it for the Mario/Zelda/Smash games. And if you disagree you probably eat aborted fetuses with a dash of cayenne pepper.


 

Pretty much this. No one buys a Nintendo console for all the rehashes that studios like EA put out. If I want to play games that are available on multiple platforms, I will buy them for my PC. If I want exclusives, I will buy Nintendo products. I don't need to have multiple systems to play the same shit as PC owners, especially when I already have a computer to game on.


----------



## Rizsparky (May 8, 2013)

shakirmoledina said:


> nintendo has dropped support for wii u because its engine cannot support its own hardware...
> 
> ea ... lazy devs, all of them


I think its more to do with the abysmal sales they had with the release ports, they simply don't want to invest in the WiiU, the hardware is more than capable to run Frostbite 2 but it has to be optimised, which takes time and resources..


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 8, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You can have the best components in the world but if you put them together with spit, it's just not going to work. Do take into account the way the WiiU's CPU works - it's a custom architecture that _does lack_ several contemporary features - it's by no means a beefy processor.


The Wii U CPU is indeed nothing special and may be lacking in some areas but compared to the PS3 and 360's, it's still superior to both. Don't take my word for it, take marcan's. And it isn't exactly some confusing custom part (like the Cell) considering it's based off the tried and true but now outdated Broadway architecture.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 8, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> It's not x86 based, which is one reason why some studios are crying about it. It's also only clocked at 2.2 Ghz and is a triple core processor,


GHz Myth. Read about it. The CPU is weak though, not sure about the clock, pretty sure it's lower than that but may be scalable upwards or downwards.


> while the 360 and PS3 processors are over 3 Ghz and quad core (360)


The 360 has three cores


> and some weird ass thing with the PS3.


...which makes it hard to code for.


> See, the biggest fallacy is that clock speeds only matter in single threaded applications, in multithreaded applications, a lower clock speed doesn't really matter as much because the cores are able to work to do the same tasks as a single core processing unit with double the clock speed purely due to efficiency.


What? No! What matters is the number of instructions the CPU performs per second - that's its actual performance derrived from instructions-per-cycle and cycles-per-second.


> Game studios are still thinking with the same mentality as they were a few years ago and have some fool notion that for next generation, clock speeds > all.


...No? The clock speed in no way represents the actual processing power of a CPU - it's merely a scale for cycles performed per second.


> The stronger your GPU is now, the longer it is going to last. Current gen systems are running games purely because their processors are being cranked out to the maximum of their performance, next generation with the same types of processors and a little more cache and a power graphics card, they won't even use 25% of a multicore processor right out of the gate.


...so the WiiU should be in the lead since its GPU is the best out of the three.

Lots and lots of fallacies/wrong information there, my friend.


soulx said:


> The Wii U CPU is indeed nothing special and may be lacking in some areas but compared to the PS3 and 360's, it's still superior to both. Don't take my word for it, take marcan's. And it isn't exactly some confusing custom part (like the Cell) considering it's based off the tried and true but now outdated Broadway architecture.


Nowhere in that article does he say that the CPU is more powerful - he says that it has more threads-per-core, that it has Out-Of-Order execution and _"shouldn't be dismissed"_. To assess which is _"the best"_, you'd have to benchmark them and for that you need homebrew. It may be superior in design, but it's not necessarily superior in performance. By the way, it inherited all the flaws of the Gamecube's and Wii's designs, too.


----------



## J-Machine (May 8, 2013)

DiscostewSM said:


> Here's something I stumbled across recently. Seems to suggest EA is rather bitter with Nintendo, especially after their "support" back at E3 2011.
> 
> http://playeressence.com/eas-unprecedented-partnership-with-nintendo-and-other-fairy-tails/


 
don't forget this: http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/03/25/the-sexual-history-between-nintendo-and-electronic-arts/

EA has always hated nintendo for interfering with their business model


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 8, 2013)

Darn, I was really hoping to play the rehashed madden, nhl, fifa games along with their other franchises they've ruined like Battlefield and Need For Speed. Woe is me. I say good riddance. I'm sorry but EA has really let me down this generation and has overly been a horrible publisher/developer. I'm not gonna go as far and say they're worse than the mafia. But I really hope that they get screwed over badly and the whole company has to do a reboot of it's own.

A lot of the higher ups, they need to be scrapped. The developers there have so much potential, but it's the big guys that are holding them back. But like I said, when it comes to EA and Nintendo is anybody really surprised?

All I know is EA just lost a huge chunk of revenue and made a big mistake by giving the "no thanks" to Nintendo. Not to mention the blatant lies that they've told not only Nintendo fans, but other console fans.


----------



## Gahars (May 8, 2013)

Let the tears flow like whine wine.


----------



## GreatZimkogway (May 8, 2013)

Like people've said, this isn't that big a deal.  EA's always done this with Nintendo consoles.  Not like they put out anything that's not a rehash, anyway.


----------



## Harumyne (May 8, 2013)

Oh well, no heartache here.

To be fair I never did really care for the Sims FIFA or other titles they produced, so this isn't much of a blow.
And besides, was it not quite the same for the Wii? nobody played EA games on that really, that was all XBOX/PS3 ware.


----------



## dgwillia (May 8, 2013)

Eh whatever, its not like I'd buy a multi-platform game for the WiiU exclusively anyway.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Let the tears flow like whine wine.


Scrumptious. 


GreatZimkogway said:


> Like people've said, this isn't that big a deal. EA's always done this with Nintendo consoles. Not like they put out anything that's not a rehash, anyway.


I was about to say _inb4NintendoFansWhoWaitedForCoreGamesSay"ItDoesn'tMatter"_ but I came too late.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> It's not x86 based, which is one reason why some studios are crying about it. It's also only clocked at 2.2 Ghz and is a triple core processor, while the 360 and PS3 processors are over 3 Ghz and quad core (360) and some weird ass thing with the PS3. See, the biggest fallacy is that clock speeds only matter in single threaded applications, in multithreaded applications, a lower clock speed doesn't really matter as much because the cores are able to work to do the same tasks as a single core processing unit with double the clock speed purely due to efficiency. Game studios are still thinking with the same mentality as they were a few years ago and have some fool notion that for next generation, clock speeds > all. The stronger your GPU is now, the longer it is going to last. Current gen systems are running games purely because their processors are being cranked out to the maximum of their performance, next generation with the same types of processors and a little more cache and a power graphics card, they won't even use 25% of a multicore processor right out of the gate.


 

Case in point, more GHz != faster CPU. PPC versus x86/x64; two very different architectures. Ever heard of the MHz Myth? No, then I'd suggest you read up on it. A good example would be, let's say you have a Pentium 4 with HT clocked at 3.4 GHz, then two years later, Intel releases the first gen i3 CPU, clocked at 2.2 GHz. On paper, the P4 has a higher clock speed, yes, but the 2.2 GHz CPU runs faster. How is that possible? Simple, it has to do with the architecture, the no. of transistors, the instruction set, how many cores and threads there are, how programs are written to take advantage of said cores. If you use a program only written for one core, then the Pentium IV may do it faster, but now that many programs take advantage of at least two cores, the Pentium IV loses by a long shot.

Marcan has stated numerous times that the Wii U CPU is single-threaded, but trumps the Xbox 360 and PS3 CPUs clock-for-clock, despite having a lower clock speed; it does number crunching more efficiently, and with the help of GPGPU, it can help with performance. EA skipping on the Frostbite 3 engine isn't a technical issue per se, but rather a "is it worth investing money into optimizing it?" question.

EA is the epitome of the ten year old brat who doesn't get his way when he gets punished for not doing his chores, so he doesn't get his allowance and throws a temper tantrum.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 9, 2013)

Some things that are nagging me:


The whole "We don't need EA games!" thing. It's incredibly snobbish and it sounds like you enjoy the smell of your own asshole. EA doesn't make "just sports games" or "just shooters". They're surprisingly a somewhat diverse third person publisher. They have RPGs, they have shooters, they have action games, they have sports games. And because _you_ don't want any of these doesn't mean a thousand other people don't. EA games often sell multimillions. There's an audience for them. Also I laugh at the whole "The Wii U only needs Mario/Zelda because that's what I bought it for." Yeah worked real fucking great for the N64 and Gamecube guys.
The "EA is all just microtransactions/DLC/blah blah I have no idea what I'm talking about" thing. First off EA has done a pretty decent job on microtransactions for their console releases. Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3 have really damn good models of it. Instead of basically strongarming you into buying DLC, they give you the _option_ to pay for it. You're still capable with working towards those items and there's nothing microtransaction exclusive. And the games aren't competitive so it doesn't fuck balance.
The "It's EA's fault" thing. I wouldn't consider it "their fault" for not wanting to adjust to the console. It's not a simple port job like the PS4 and Nextbox seem to be. Odds are they'll be running on equalish level hardware a la this current gen. Saying EA is "dumb" or "lazy" for not spending money on porting a game (not easily, mind you) to the Wii U for its small install base is the exact opposite of dumb and it's certainly not lazy.
tl;dr people don't know how businesses or most anything works and just hate EA because VIDEO GAMES.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Some things that are nagging me:
> 
> 
> The whole "We don't need EA games!" thing. It's incredibly snobbish and it sounds like you enjoy the smell of your own asshole. EA doesn't make "just sports games" or "just shooters". They're surprisingly a somewhat diverse third person publisher. They have RPGs, they have shooters, they have action games, they have sports games. And because _you_ don't want any of these doesn't mean a thousand other people don't. EA games often sell multimillions. There's an audience for them. Also I laugh at the whole "The Wii U only needs Mario/Zelda because that's what I bought it for." Yeah worked real fucking great for the N64 and Gamecube guys.
> ...


 
Except the thing is:

In order to get that small install base to grow, you have to make games for it. But no, EA among others say "Nintendo has to do with their franchises". Then when they do "We don't release games for the Nintendo console because we can't compete with Nintendo's games in terms of sales."

Then the fact that EA has said that they would support the WiiU at an E3 (2011 I believe), then they treat it this badly by releasing a game that only offers 1/3 of the story (Mass Effect) and say "Well, PS3 and 360 will be getting our games like Madden and NHL, but we won't release it on the WiiU"

Fuck, I mean the PS3 and 360 are getting Battlefield 4, and last I checked, the WiiU was stronger than those consoles, and you're telling me that the WiiU won't be able to handle it? No. I call bullshit. Even then, like I said, a bunch of their games aren't releasing on the WiiU because they're being lazy. I'm sorry but it's been proven so many times in the industry, in order to make money, you have to spend money. And EA just won't do that.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Except the thing is:
> 
> *In order to get that small install base to grow, you have to make games for it.* But no, EA among others say "Nintendo has to do with their franchises". Then when they do "We don't release games for the Nintendo console because we can't compete with Nintendo's games in terms of sales."


Eh, that's Nintendo's responsibility. EA isn't a charity, if they aren't going to make money off a platform, it makes sense not to develop for it.


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 9, 2013)

Very bad for the casuals, but Mario and link will save us.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 9, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Very bad for the casuals, but Mario and link will save us.


 
They won't but okay.

They'll sell units and they'll do well but it's not gonna push it to Wii levels of success.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 9, 2013)

soulx said:


> Eh, that's Nintendo's responsibility. EA isn't a charity, if they aren't going to make money off a platform, it makes sense not to develop for it.


 
But like I said, when Nintendo does, people still don't develop for it because they "can't compete with Nintendo's sales of games."

EA is mad because what, Mass Effect 3 didn't sell well, neither did Madden or their other games? Well no shit they didn't, why would they? Only a moron would think they would sell well considering how half assed they were. EA released Mass Effect 3 on the WiiU around the same time the trilogy was going on sale on the other consoles. Madden was late, Need for Speed was late.

This is just EA being stupid, making stupid business decisions, and pinning the blame on someone/something else.


----------



## Ergo (May 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But like if it was an actual point EA wouldn't bring games to the system. But they did.
> 
> Crysis 3 Wii U died for a multitude of reasons, _not a lack of Origin_.


 
You are mistaken, and I will leave it at that.

(No, I don't care if you don't believe it, and no, I won't be providing proof, but it's, well, true, and it runs a bit deeper than I think I've ever actually seen anyone articulate anywhere in the gaming media.)


----------



## Ergo (May 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> They won't but okay.
> 
> They'll sell units and they'll do well but it's not gonna push it to Wii levels of success.


 
Nothing was going to push it to Wii levels of success--that was a lightning in a bottle moment much like PS2--just like the PS4 and Durango won't, either.


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2013)

I really hope this doesn't turn the Wii U into Dreamcast 2 (Sega make Dreamcast 2.)
But I strongly doubt this will kill Nintendo as whole or that EA will continue doing this. Eventually one of the companies are going to crack or people are going to start losing money.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> But like I said, when Nintendo does, people still don't develop for it because they "can't compete with Nintendo's sales of games."
> 
> EA is mad because what, Mass Effect 3 didn't sell well, neither did Madden or their other games? Well no shit they didn't, why would they? Only a moron would think they would sell well considering how half assed they were. EA released Mass Effect 3 on the WiiU around the same time the trilogy was going on sale on the other consoles. Madden was late, Need for Speed was late.
> 
> This is just EA being stupid, making stupid business decisions, and pinning the blame on someone/something else.


 
Implying that the games sold badly because of EA and not because the Wii U is doing badly.

okay.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 9, 2013)

The love and apparent lack of animosity in this thread sure is profound. I should come here more often.


----------



## heartgold (May 9, 2013)

On the topic of Wii U CPU, I don't think it's weak when played to its advantages, but the engine likely isn't optimised for it. Wii U CPU is clocked lower but still perform on par with x360 cpu due to slightly modern desgin, more threads, more/fast cache and out of order execution processor. So frostbite engine is a CPU heavy engine, Wii U has work arounds trying to be on par with current gen CPU, but the engine isn't optimised for Wii U and may struggle on Wii U processor as it is different to current gen.

That's my take. Wii U CPU may be missing some features to enable frostbite to operate properly. Wii U's strength is its GPU, frostbite engine is CPU heavy.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 9, 2013)

It's not a matter of _if _the Wii U can run the engine, it's just a matter of _how well_ it can run the engine.

The Wii could run Call of Duty 4 on the same engine as the Xbox 360 and PS3. But it's still miles apart in terms of its capabilities and it's not a simple port.

If we see a similar gap between the Wii U and the PS4/Nextbox then there won't be much motivation to downport. The CoD games at least sold a healthy amount on the Wii. Not as much as the other consoles but enough to warrant an easy port. Considering developers are already expressing difficulty with porting current gen games, imagine that with next gen games.


----------



## chavosaur (May 9, 2013)

I feel like I'm one of the few wii u owners that actually faces the reality that the console is in serious serious trouble. 
It's funny reading all these posts and threads that try to justify owning it and how it doesn't need all these games and developers for it. 
But uh...
Yeah it sure as hell does. 
A console doesn't sell soley based on its exclusives no matter how much you want to believe that. 
It takes a healthy selection of First AND third party, and quite frankly, all third parties are jumping off the wii u ship. 
AND THAT'S
NOT
GOOD.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Implying that the games sold badly because of EA and not because the Wii U is doing badly.
> 
> okay.


 
Yeah, actually it is. Especially when say Mass Effect 3, is 80 fucking dollars before taxes at Wal-Mart. This is literally just EA being dumb.

Saying that the WiiU's sales are the reason is moot considering Capcom is developing Resident Evil Revelations for it, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate was made for it when it could have been 3DS only like Monster Hunter 4, hell even Call of Duty Ghosts is being developed for the WiiU despite sales.

EA has just been shooting themselves in the foot when other developers and publishers are not releasing half assed attempts of games.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Yeah, actually it is. Especially when say Mass Effect 3, is 80 fucking dollars before taxes at Wal-Mart. This is literally just EA being dumb.
> 
> Saying that the WiiU's sales are the reason is moot considering Capcom is developing Resident Evil Revelations for it, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate was made for it when it could have been 3DS only like Monster Hunter 4, hell even Call of Duty Ghosts is being developed for the WiiU despite sales.
> 
> EA has just been shooting themselves in the foot when other developers and publishers are not releasing half assed attempts of games.


 
Why Walmart? There are other ways of getting the game. Damn, your taxes suck balls. The console is capable of good ports (like NFSMW having PC enhancements). The first wave of ports were rushed, EA is just bitter like a bitching twelve year old.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Why Walmart? There are other ways of getting the game.


 
In some towns Wal-Mart is the only option to buy video games. Here the EB Games doesn't have it, but Wal-Mart does.


----------



## heartgold (May 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> It's not a matter of _if _the Wii U can run the engine, it's just a matter of _how well_ it can run the engine.
> 
> The Wii could run Call of Duty 4 on the same engine as the Xbox 360 and PS3. But it's still miles apart in terms of its capabilities and it's not a simple port.
> 
> If we see a similar gap between the Wii U and the PS4/Nextbox then there won't be much motivation to downport. The CoD games at least sold a healthy amount on the Wii. Not as much as the other consoles but enough to warrant an easy port. Considering developers are already expressing difficulty with porting current gen games, imagine that with next gen games.


Current gen engines are all CPU heavy coded due to the power of the cell and x360 cpu. Their GPU wasn't powerful. That's why porting games to Wii U sometimes don't go well, or no real upgrade. We have seen the PS4, it is going with a powerful GPU, CPU not so hardcore as cell. Also likely with the next xbox, hence Wii U has a chance to get down ports that won't require much effort as they will be on the same wavelength. Wii U is GPU more focused, now if it's decent it can get multiplatform games with next gen using similar engine and approach.


----------



## The Catboy (May 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> The love and apparent lack of animosity in this thread sure is profound. I should come here more often.


I am not going to lie, I am huge Nintendo fan and favor Nintendo products greatly, but Nintendo is in trouble right now. During E3 Nintendo wrote this massive check that the Wii U will make up for all the crap the Wii created, that it was going to get all the hardcore games and that it was going to be hardcore serious system, but they haven't shown that. There have been very few games released for it and almost all the games are coming out this Summer or next year. That's a serious slap in the face for those who bought the system early because it seems like both the fans and Nintendo should have waited. Not to mention EA, though an evil piece of shit, their games sell and a lot of people buy them, for the Wii U not getting them (or at least the big ones like Mass Effect 4, Madden, ect.) only leaves Nintendo behind again.
As a concerned fan, I am worried that the Wii U is just going to be left behind in games like the Wii was. Yes the Wii had some amazing first/second party games, and the Wii U has some amazing first/second party games coming out for it, but it can't be left behind in the 3rd party again. Even if the system succeeds and sells well in the future, it will still leave a nasty taste in months of those expecting better from Nintendo with 3rd party games.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 9, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> I am not going to lie, I am huge Nintendo fan and favor Nintendo products greatly, but Nintendo is in trouble right now. During E3 Nintendo wrote this massive check that the Wii U will make up for all the crap the Wii created, that it was going to get all the hardcore games and that it was going to be hardcore serious system, but they haven't shown that. There have been very few games released for it and almost all the games are coming out this Summer or next year. That's a serious slap in the face for those who bought the system early because it seems like both the fans and Nintendo should have waited. Not to mention EA, though an evil piece of shit, their games sell and a lot of people buy them, for the Wii U not getting them (or at least the big ones like Mass Effect 4, Madden, ect.) only leaves Nintendo behind again.
> As a concerned fan, I am worried that the Wii U is just going to be left behind in games like the Wii was. Yes the Wii had some amazing first/second party games, and the Wii U has some amazing first/second party games coming out for it, but it can't be left behind in the 3rd party again. Even if the system succeeds and sells well in the future, it will still leave a nasty taste in months of those expecting better from Nintendo with 3rd party games.


 
E3 has got to be the moment where they shine and get the appeal of other companies. It's now or never. But the Wii U has not flopped like the VirtualBoy, so we can be grateful for that. And with the advent of the eventual hack, that should keep interest alive I would think. I admit it, it's shaky, much like the 3DS was, and history often repeats.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (May 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Yeah, actually it is. Especially when say Mass Effect 3, is 80 fucking dollars before taxes at Wal-Mart. This is literally just EA being dumb.


How many people own a Wii U compared to the amount of people who own a PS3 or a 360?
Only people who actually own a Wii U would buy the Wii U versions of those games. This would explain (at least partially) why those games sold less on the Wii U.
(Also, the fact that these games had been out for a longer time on the PS3/360 than on the Wii U.)


----------



## Janthran (May 9, 2013)

Wii U isn't getting games. How is this news?


----------



## GreatZimkogway (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Scrumptious.
> 
> I was about to say _inb4NintendoFansWhoWaitedForCoreGamesSay"ItDoesn'tMatter"_ but I came too late.


 
You do realize that EA makes absolutely nothing that I'd consider "core", right?  Not a damn EA game I want, either.  Hurr durr.


----------



## chavosaur (May 9, 2013)

GreatZimkogway said:


> You do realize that EA makes absolutely nothing that I'd consider "core", right?  Not a damn EA game I want, either.  Hurr durr.


Because you personally account for all Gamers of course.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 9, 2013)

I'm just gonna say, I'm not worried about the WiiU at all. There's no reason for me to be.

The 3DS was going through the same thing, then look what happened. Nintendo knows what it's doing. I'm not worried. I play my WiiU more than my PS3 anyways. Though I do have a hankering to play some Uncharted, but it can wait. I'm having a blast with my WiiU and I'm so excited to see what's coming next.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Yeah, actually it is. Especially when say Mass Effect 3, is 80 fucking dollars before taxes at Wal-Mart. This is literally just EA being dumb.


Wow, you need to start importing from the US then.  You can get it for half that price here.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 9, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Wow, you need to start importing from the US then. You can get it for half that price here.


 
Or I could... you know, just buy the trilogy on the PS3 for 50 bucks, like I did.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 9, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Or I could... you know, just buy the trilogy on the PS3 for 50 bucks, like I did.


Well I wasn't just talking about ME3.  You'll save at least $20 per game (minus shipping) if you import.


----------



## Geren (May 9, 2013)

Once the wii-u starts to sell, EA won't have any reasons not to port their games.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 9, 2013)

Geren said:


> Once the wii-u starts to sell, EA won't have any reasons not to port their games.


 
Nah, they'd just come up with some other douche excuse.


----------



## Gahars (May 9, 2013)

Geren said:


> Once the wii-u starts to sell, EA won't have any reasons not to port their games.


 
Or rather, they'll just have an incentive to do so.

From the sounds of it, the Frostbite Engine (and remember, they're only saying that they have no plans to bring FE games to the Wii U) and the Wii U aren't getting along. Could they be made compatible? I'm sure they could, but that would probably take some time and money. Right now, with the poor sales of their Wii U titles and the system as a whole, along with EA's own money troubles, it just doesn't make sense to take all those costs.

If the Wii U can turn itself around and it proves itself as a viable platform, then that investment will make a lot more sense.

This isn't "EA being butthurt/upset/whatever excuse you want to come up with", really. There's plenty to rag on EA for, but are we so desperate for scapegoats and boogeymen that we're demonizing them for making a frugal, sensible business decision?


----------



## Geren (May 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Nah, they'd just come up with some other douche excuse.


 
No matter how evil america thinks they are, EA it's a business, meaning they look to make money. Once the ps3/xbox sales start to diminish, and the ps4/nextbox start to take off, the wii-u will be the next gen console with the bigger installbase (even if it isn't outstanding). Or at least, this should be the plan that nintendo had when they released it early. Of course, this won't happen word by word, since there are many variables in play, but more or less this should be the way to make the wii-u some sort of success.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> This isn't "EA being butthurt/upset/whatever excuse you want to come up with", really. There's plenty to rag on EA for, but are we so desperate for scapegoats and boogeymen that we're demonizing them for making a frugal, sensible business decision?


But is it a sensible business decision?  It doesn't sound like they are putting much effort into it.  *They didn't even TRY to run FE3 on the Wii U*.  They say FE2 doesn't run as well as they want, but if it runs fine on inferior consoles (360/PS3) then I can't see why it's a performance issue.

Considering EA's recent and frequent attempts to screw Nintendo over (Crysis 3 anyone?), it's hard to believe that there is nothing more to this than business.


----------



## Gahars (May 9, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> But is it a sensible business decision? It doesn't sound like they are putting much effort into it. *They didn't even TRY to run FE3 on the Wii U*. They say FE2 doesn't run as well as they want, but if it runs fine on inferior consoles (360/PS3) then I can't see why it's a performance issue.


 
Because assuming that if the Wii U has trouble with FE2, it'll have trouble with its beefier, more intensive big brother is not sensible?

People have already addressed the bit about why it works better with the 360 or PS3 several times in this thread and others. In the simplest terms even I can understand - power isn't evenly distributed. It seems that the Wii U's strengths don't align with the 360's/PS3's (and more importantly, what the FE needs the most), and this is evidently creating problems of some sort.



JoostinOnline said:


> Considering EA's recent and frequent attempts to screw Nintendo over (Crysis 3 anyone?), it's hard to believe that there is nothing more to this than business.


 
Are we seriously going the "This time, it's personal!" route? Really? _Really_?

EA is not in the position to take petty revenge against Nintendo (also, companies are not single-minded entities). That's just the fact of the matter. They're hurting for cash right now, and a lot of their big titles right now have performed well below expectations. It's in their best interest to get more games out there, provided there's a chance they will sell.

Do you seriously think EA would commit financial hara kiri out of some (mostly unsubstantiated, mind you) grudge?


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Because assuming that if the Wii U has trouble with FE2, it'll have trouble with its beefier, more intensive big brother is not sensible?
> 
> People have already addressed the bit about why it works better with the 360 or PS3 several times in this thread and others. In the simplest terms even I can understand - power isn't evenly distributed. It seems that the Wii U's strengths don't align with the 360's/PS3's (and more importantly, what the FE needs the most), and this is evidently creating problems of some sort.
> 
> ...


Read this article (don't just skim it) and tell me you don't think EA is trying to run down Nintendo:
EA’s “Unprecedented Partnership” with Nintendo and Other Fairy Tales | PLAYERESSENCE

I have no doubt that there are financial reasons behind it.  I just don't think that they are all friendly (as in, "we would like to support you but we can't") ones.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 9, 2013)

The question I have is...

Was EA/DICE attempting to test FB2 on the Wii U as if it was a 360/PS3, or were they attempting to use the Wii U as it should be used? And (forgive me for bringing this up), what about the PS4? Based on speculation, the CPU in that isn't exactly special either, but it seems FB3 will automatically be used on it without FB2 testing, whereas Wii U required FB2 testing beforehand for a decision? Then there's E3 2011, which had EA touting how Wii U would be running their games, with some that just so happened to be utilizing FB2. Did they do actual testing, or (as MutedPenguin on Twitter put it) did the "'test' end around the same time as the 'unprecedented partnership'"?


----------



## Rydian (May 9, 2013)

DiscostewSM said:


> Was EA/DICE attempting to test FB2 on the Wii U as if it was a 360/PS3, or were they attempting to use the Wii U as it should be used?


What do you mean?



DiscostewSM said:


> And (forgive me for bringing this up), what about the PS4? Based on speculation, the CPU in that isn't exactly special either


Not special compared to PCs, but nobody expects it to be because it just needs to meet a minimum performance level.  It's still likely to be a good chunk more powerful than the Wii U's.

Despite Joostin's repeated denial, we have plenty of evidence that the Wii U's CPU is a higher-clocked Wii, and we've even gotten clarification from Marcan that it's not special and is indeed a higher-clocked Wii with more cores.


----------



## Qtis (May 9, 2013)

What I still don't understand here is why so many people think it's irrelevant for the WiiU that a huge publisher/developer like EA isn't going to bring a load of games over to the WiiU this year (perhaps even next year? Who knows..). Nintendo's first party games are great, don't get me wrong, but a few first party games in a row that are bad (and, in the end, low sales = low revenue) and any company will be struggling. Developing games isn't a charity thing and all the companies are in it for money. Ever wonder why so many game devs have gone bankrupt because of low sales (although the games may be good). While Nintendo may not be making the game, it's getting profit out of it per game sold (licensing income) and the resulting hardware sales (which usually lead to more games being bought). If EA doesn't see the profits in a certain game compared to the investment, I can see them not wanting to put out the money for the investment. Yet. 

If platform X doesn't have that one game you most likely want to play, you'll probably not buy it. This will usually lead to you not looking at the games for that platform X as much as looking at the games for platform Y. That's possibly lost income there.

TL;DR: How can someone honestly say that the world's biggest sports game publisher is not a major player in sports games and thus gaming industry? Some people actually want to play FIFA/NHL/NFL/whatever games with the best graphics (read: most realistic) and best gameplay (read: as close to real life games) and buy the new games every year. Not some Sony Uncharted, Microsoft Halo or Nintendo Zelda. Just plain and simple football, be it single player or perhaps local or online multiplayer.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 9, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> They won't but okay.
> 
> They'll sell units and they'll do well but it's not gonna push it to Wii levels of success.


 
And you think another 700 dollar Sony console with only a few exclusives is going to do well? Keep dreaming.


----------



## Eerpow (May 9, 2013)

Qtis said:


> TL;DR: How can someone honestly say that the world's biggest sports game publisher is not a major player in sports games and thus gaming industry? Some people actually want to play FIFA/NHL/NFL/whatever games with the best graphics (read: most realistic) and best gameplay (read: as close to real life games) and buy the new games every year. Not some Sony Uncharted, Microsoft Halo or Nintendo Zelda. Just plain and simple football, be it single player or perhaps local or online multiplayer.


It's not a big deal since it's Nintendos task to turn things around for the Wii U, not EA games. Losing support from big devs is to be expected if sales under perform, Iwata knows this and have in interviews told that they don't feel comfortable with Wii U advertising yet, the system has been put on hold and he has at times even said that he's sorry for the lack of games lately.
Nintendo has never been able to rely on big third party releases during their system launches as evident with the 3DS for example. Unless EA's titles were Wii U exclusive (which wasn't the case obviously) their decision to put Wii U development on hold won't impact the system in any significant way. People won't buy a Wii U for multiplatform games alone. EA's support comes _after_ the system have proven to have an audience, not the other way around.


----------



## ohsoroso (May 9, 2013)

So EA is voted worst company but without their titles the Wii U is doomed? I don't get it.


----------



## Etkar.H (May 9, 2013)

Good thing I bought a new gaming PC last year.


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (May 9, 2013)

Enough Said


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 9, 2013)

Jeez. Wii U is not looking good since the most 3rd parties do not want to supported it. Good thing, I won't buy it to waste my money. I will continue to keep my eyes on it this summer.


----------



## Rydian (May 9, 2013)

Fuzzeh said:


> So EA is voted worst company but without their titles the Wii U is doomed? I don't get it.


Probably because you think that the "worst company" poll was anything other than "the company that most of the internet that voted in this poll dislikes".


----------



## DaggerV (May 9, 2013)

I'm quite enjoying MH3U.


----------



## wrettcaughn (May 9, 2013)

Rare that Godwin's Law is invoked in a USN OP...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> And you think another 700 dollar Sony console with only a few exclusives is going to do well? Keep dreaming.


Are there any PS5 plans that we're unaware of or are you talking about the PS4 which was officially announced to be an _"affordable platform priced at around $400"_? As for exclusive titles, Sony platforms always had plenty of'em. Now, naturally the Wii had more exclusives than the PS3 or the 360, but when you sit down and think about it, it's because it couldn't push multiplatform titles at all due to restrictive hardware.


----------



## chavosaur (May 9, 2013)

The most annoying thing about this thread is the fact that everyone assumes their opinion alone accounts for the opinion of all Gamers. 
It's ok if you think the wii u doesn't need EA games, and its ok if you don't think EA provides core games. 
Just because you don't want Mass effect 4, Battlefield, and a ton of other titles on your wii u, doesn't mean I didn't want it on Mine.


----------



## Rockym (May 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> And you think another 700 dollar Sony console with only a few exclusives is going to do well? Keep dreaming.


 
Another console?  What was the first console Sony sold at 700 dollars?  PS3 debuted at $599.  Also, when did they announce the price of the PS4?  Could you provide me a link to the announcement?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Probably because you think that the "worst company" poll was anything other than "the company that most of the internet that voted in this poll dislikes".


We all hate EA, we just play their games because they're good. _;O;_

I will proceed to voice my disaproval as far as their business model is concerned by giving them my money. _;O;_


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 9, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> And you think another 700 dollar Sony console with only a few exclusives is going to do well? Keep dreaming.


 
implying there's going to be a $700 Sony console.

Are you perhaps illiterate or are facts and complete bullshit a blurry middleground for you?


----------



## LightyKD (May 9, 2013)

So, basically EA is giving Nintendo the cold shoulder... and what's this about a Mass Effect 4??? Why can't good trilogies stay a trilogy?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> So, basically EA is giving Nintendo the cold shoulder... and what's this about a Mass Effect 4??? Why can't good trilogies stay a trilogy?


I wholeheartedly agree, a trilogy is just fine but any more than that is just a stretch. 


Spoiler


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 9, 2013)

AlanJohn said:


> This makes no sense. The current gen consoles can run the frostbite engine (very poorly tho), so why can't the wiiu? Is EA implying that the WiiU is inferior to those consoles hardware-wise?


It's quite simple, really... EA has no faith in the Wii U as a profitable platform, but it's more politically correct to say " our new engine won't run well on it"... You know, despite the fact that it apparently runs fine enough on 7 year old hardware for EA to put it on PS3 and 360. Seems legit.

I'm at work and on mobile, so I'll just put this video here. This mofo says basically all the other points I would say.



Spoiler


----------



## Rizsparky (May 9, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Very bad for the casuals, but Mario and link will save us.


You forgot F-Zero, Samus and Smash


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> It's quite simple, really... EA has no faith in the Wii U as a profitable platform, but it's more politically correct to say " our new engine won't run well on it"... You know, despite the fact that it apparently runs fine enough on 7 year old hardware for EA to put it on PS3 and 360. Seems legit.
> 
> I'm at work and on mobile, so I'll just put this video here. This mofo says basically all the other points I would say.


As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, the WiiU's CPU is not exactly up to scratch. In fact, it's technology far _"older"_ than 7 years old - it's literally just three Broadway cores with some alterations _(Out-of-Order processing)_ strapped together at a higher frequency - the CPU inherited most of the flaws that plagued both the Wii and the Gamecube. Nintendo put a lot of pressure on GPGPU, but not all studios are willing to go in that direction yet and demand a little more from processors - the little more that the WiiU doesn't give.

Of course there are no accurate benchmarks of the CPU itself, nobody really knows its performance. Technically it has more threads-per-core, but we won't how far you can push it without some benchmarking software running on the console itself.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, the WiiU's CPU is not exactly up to scratch. In fact, it's technology far _"older"_ than 7 years old - it's literally just three Broadway cores with some alterations _(Out-of-Order processing)_ strapped together at a higher frequency - the CPU inherited most of the flaws that plagued both the Wii and the Gamecube. Nintendo put a lot of pressure on GPGPU, but not all studios are willing to go in that direction yet and demand a little more from processors - the little more that the WiiU doesn't give.
> 
> Of course there are no accurate benchmarks of the CPU itself, nobody really knows its performance. Technically it has more threads-per-core, but we won't how far you can push it without some benchmarking software running on the console itself.


 
But we do know it is better clock for clock than the Xbox or PS3's CPUs (the IBM Cell architecture was pretty convoluted from what I understand and was a pain to program for), the other issue is many developers aren't used to the out-of-order execution or GPGPU. Once the bigger titles are released/announced, the system will sell more. The very idea that the Wii U will fail in less than a year's time without substantial evidence and without waiting some more and then make judgment on it are the signs of a negative fanboy.


----------



## Rydian (May 9, 2013)

Out of order is how most modern CPUs work.  In fact the first Atoms were in-order, and everybody was all "WTF".


----------



## Walker D (May 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Probably because you think that the "worst company" poll was anything other than "the company that most of the internet that voted in this poll dislikes".


 
Yeah ...and this was the poll:


Spoiler



The people inside are 4chan probably..





(and by the look of it, I think they used Chrome also..)


----------



## Rydian (May 9, 2013)

When 4chan messes with a poll, they make it funny/ironic.

EA is believable, and the second year in a row.


----------



## kisamesama (May 9, 2013)

another one.... my fears on the wii u turned into reality ... wii u's going down... I don't know if the mario/zelda/metroid titles will be enough to save it


----------



## Qtis (May 9, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> But we do know it is better clock for clock than the Xbox or PS3's CPUs (the IBM Cell architecture was pretty convoluted from what I understand and was a pain to program for), the other issue is many developers aren't used to the out-of-order execution or GPGPU.


While I don't want to get into this argument any further, being a pain to program depends a lot on the SDK for the platform. The PS3 CELL was a pain to dev for in the beginning, but Sony has made a lot of improvements in the SDK to make development easier. It's not as much a pain to dev compared to a few years back. When the documentation and user-friendliness of the SDK is good, it's possible to make a better game on hardware that is considered worse than the other.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> As it was mentioned earlier in the thread, the WiiU's CPU is not exactly up to scratch. In fact, it's technology far _"older"_ than 7 years old - it's literally just three Broadway cores with some alterations _(Out-of-Order processing)_ strapped together at a higher frequency - the CPU inherited most of the flaws that plagued both the Wii and the Gamecube. Nintendo put a lot of pressure on GPGPU, but not all studios are willing to go in that direction yet and demand a little more from processors - the little more that the WiiU doesn't give.
> 
> Of course there are no accurate benchmarks of the CPU itself, nobody really knows its performance. Technically it has more threads-per-core, but we won't how far you can push it without some benchmarking software running on the console itself.


Considering the Frostbite director didn't even specify the CPU as a problem, all of this is really speculative. And from what I see, there is nothing that indicates the CPU was indeed a problem. The more likely scenario is that the dev tools were still premature when they were testing it (Criterion said as much).

But on the topic of the CPU, this "far older technology" features out of order processing and beats the 360's Xenon clock-per-clock on integer workloads. There's even a DSP for audio processing to take some of the load off the processor unlike the 360. It isn't as inferior to the Xenon as you put it out to be.

And yeah, sure the Wii U's Espresso may be lacking when it comes to SIMD or in terms of floating point performance when it comes to the Cell or Xenon but these supposed _next-gen_ CPUs don't fare much better and Frostbite 3 is coming to them. The Jaguar only reaches half of the peak performance of the Cell and is essentially a "netbook CPU".

If Frostbite 3 can support the PS3/360, it most certainly can support the Wii U. Like I already said, this is more likely a matter of EA not feeling that the Wii U is worth allocating resources to at this point because of how it's selling right now.


----------



## Rydian (May 9, 2013)

To take it to (somewhat) extremes, most people would prefer a machine with 75% relative speed where they can port an engine over and use high-level languages opposed to a 100% one where they have to use assembly.


----------



## kisamesama (May 9, 2013)

shakirmoledina said:


> nintendo has dropped support for wii u because its engine cannot support its own hardware...
> 
> ea ... lazy devs, all of them


 
nothing to do with laziness... everything's about money.. EA does not find it worth investing on its latest engine for the wii u


----------



## the_randomizer (May 9, 2013)

kisamesama said:


> nothing to do with laziness... everything's about money.. EA does not find it worth investing on its latest engine for the wii u


 
If they want money, they have to take risks, then they can decide whether or not it's worth it, but for them to make automatic assumptions without taking the risk of porting or programming Wii U games...the whole argument is a paradox. 
Make Wii U games that are good = profit. Too cowardly to invest in a system without seeing how the games will sell = no profit.

To EA: No sh*t Sherlock.


----------



## kisamesama (May 9, 2013)

they will make more games when the wii u gets more established... right now it seems risky to invest in making games on the wii u unfortunately


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Despite Joostin's repeated denial, we have plenty of evidence that the Wii U's CPU is a higher-clocked Wii, and we've even gotten clarification from Marcan that it's not special and is indeed a higher-clocked Wii with more cores.


Why give four links to (essentially) the same thing?  1 source does not mean plenty.   It's just marcan saying that the CPU is an improvement over the Wii's.  And somehow you think that's a bad thing.

Also, clock speed isn't really a big deal these days, it's about cache memory.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

soulx said:


> Considering the Frostbite director didn't even specify the CPU as a problem, all of this is really speculative. And from what I see, there is nothing that indicates the CPU was indeed a problem. The more likely scenario is that the dev tools were still premature when they were testing it (Criterion said as much).


Here we agree - we do not currently have the software to properly measure the machine's performance and testing with external hardware only gives you very basic information such as the clock speed.



> But on the topic of the CPU, this "far older technology" features out of order processing and beats the 360's Xenon clock-per-clock on integer workloads. There's even a DSP for audio processing to take some of the load off the processor unlike the 360. It isn't as inferior to the Xenon as you put it out to be.


You're using a very smart term, but I'm not sure if you understand its implication. Clock-per-clock/clock-to-clock performance is the measure of the instructions calculated when both CPU's are working at the same clock speed - it's almost as bad a measure as comparing clock speeds themselves. For example, the Pentium III had better clock-to-clock performance than the Pentium IV - so what? On stock speeds, the Pentium IV still performed better because it was faster. The only accurate measure is a measure that uses real-time - instructions-per-second. What I'm saying here is that the core itself is indeed capable of carrying out more instructions per cycle, but whether it performs better or not in a real-life situation depends on how many cycles it will perform.

To put the situation in perspective, using 10 baskets with 1 apple each _(10 apples)_ to carry them from one end of the room to the other 10 times _(100 apples)_ per second is still better than using 20 baskets with 2 apples each _(40 apples)_ to carry them across the room twice _(80 apples)_. In this analogy, the baskets are the threads _(the Wii U has more)_, the apples are Instructions _(the Wii U can push more per one cycle)_, the number of rounds around the room is the clock speed and the time span of one second is a real-life representation of time while the total number of apples carried is the real-life performance.



> And yeah, sure the Wii U's Espresso may be lacking when it comes to SIMD or in terms of floating point performance when it comes to the Cell or Xenon but these supposed _next-gen_ CPUs don't fare much better and Frostbite 3 is coming to them. The Jaguar only reaches half of the peak performance of the Cell and is essentially a "netbook CPU".


Keep in mind that first and foremost those CPU's are old designs in comparison and the fact that floating point values are heavily featured in physics engines. While on PC those operations are easily pushed to the GPU, on consoles it may be wishy-washy not due to a hardware flaw but due to an unpolished SDK or the system software itself - it's all custom-made and if it's not comfortable to use, coders will stray away from it even if it can be done.



> If Frostbite 3 can support the PS3/360, it most certainly can support the Wii U. Like I already said, this is more likely a matter of EA not feeling that the Wii U is worth allocating resources to at this point because of how it's selling right now.


Again, that's an assumption. None of the points you made actually proves that it can be done and that EA isn't interested in porting the engine due to a hardware/software flaw. We'll have reliable results once the system is hacked and we get to benchmark it _or_ if a developer does it and posts results online.


----------



## SSVAV (May 9, 2013)

Rydian said:


> To take it to (somewhat) extremes, most people would prefer a machine with 75% relative speed where they can port an engine over and use high-level languages opposed to a 100% one where they have to use assembly.


 
The fact that EA dropping Wii U because of development (a.k.a porting) costs doesn't take a genius to figure out. I think most people already grasped this concept.

And I would hardly call EA "believable". They screw up. A lot. Marketing screw ups, like Dead Space 2 or Dante's Inferno. Development screw ups, like rushed Mass Effect 3 or unplayable SimCity 3. Then communication screw ups, like "consumers like micro-transactions!" or this topic for example (which is a blatant lie as you pointed it out).

EA only really started to launch games on a Nintendo console since the Wii era. Before that, EA preferred Sega and Sony since they would make more profitable deals (and Nintendo was kind of a jerk at the time).
But even then EA did not make a lot of effort on the sports side of things. FIFA 13 on Wii is the perfect example, since it is Wii's FIFA 12 with different clothing for the players.

In the end, this is just another of EA's com fuck ups. If they really planned to support the Wii U like they showed at E3, they should have thought about the consequences earlier. I don't know what happened between them after that conference. I do not know what is EA's financial status (or DICE's for that matter). But I do know it is another case of them taking the general public as idiots.

And I don't think that this will push the Wii U to the grave. Nintendo wouldn't allow their consoles to fall just because the publisher that never supported them in the first place decides not to follow up because their "OH SO GODLY" engine is hard to port.


----------



## grossaffe (May 9, 2013)

Can't say I'm too distressed.  Just means I won't be tempted to financially support a company who's business practices I dislike anyways.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

SSVAV said:


> And I don't think that this will push the Wii U to the grave. Nintendo wouldn't allow their consoles to fall just because the publisher that never supported them in the first place decides not to follow up because their "OH SO GODLY" engine is hard to port.





Spoiler


----------



## grossaffe (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Spoiler


I loved the Gamecube and N64...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> I loved the Gamecube and N64...


Still, failed products in comparison to their compeition - big time.


----------



## SSVAV (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Still, failed products in comparison to their compeition - big time.


 
I don't think nintendo will allow their _*current*_ consoles to fall. It is obvious that Virtual Boy was a failure.
And Nintendo 64 was a commercial success. Why put it in that image?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

SSVAV said:


> I don't think nintendo will allow their _*current*_ consoles to fall. It is obvious that Virtual Boy was a failure.
> And Nintendo 64 was a commercial success. Why put it in that image?


How is it a success when it sold 3 times less than the PlayStation _(N64 sold 32,93 million units - if it was profitable then barely)_ and had what, 387 games in comparison to the 2418 of the PlayStation? Excuse me, but it was a failure. I'd love to see sales charts from that period, but I'm not expecting them to look pretty, unfortunately I was never able to find accurate ones.


----------



## NightsOwl (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> How is it a success when it sold 5 times less than the PlayStation _(N64 sold 32,93 million units - if it was profitable then barely)_ and had what, 387 games in comparison to the 2418 of the PlayStation? Excuse me, but it was a failure. I'd love to see sales charts from that period, but I'm not expecting them to look pretty, unfortunately I was never able to find accurate ones.


Making a profit off a console is a failure? Then what the fuck is the Jaguar, 3DO, and TG16?



Foxi4 said:


> Like I said, I'm yet to see an accurate representation of their profits from that particular system in that time period.
> 
> The N64 had _terrible, abyssmal_ third-party support and very little titles are worth replaying for the system, it also failed on the hardware front since despite being the beefiest console on the market, it had no CD support - only 64MB cartridges which restricted game development. The texture storage was so small that developers had to use wicked programming tricks or shading to make the games look appealing. All in all, it's a failed system.
> 
> Remember that the Game Boy was standing strongly at that time, hence Nintendo's operating profit. You don't know if the N64 had a part in that in any form though, and due to incredibly low sales I doubt it did.


 
"It's a failed system" is really an opinion. Just because it didn't have the line-up you desired or it didn't hold a candle to the PS1 doesn't mean it was a failure of a console. We could argue back and forth all day about this but the fact of the matter is, either A.) Nintendo obviously didn't lose too much money on the N64 since they didn't have any annual losses until recently. Or B.) It did well enough to turn a small profit. 

I doubt the Gameboy/Color/Pocket would prevent Nintendo from an annual loss if the N64 was a big money sink as you make it out to be.


----------



## grossaffe (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Still, failed products in comparison to their compeition - big time.


I'm not worried about their competition.  As long as Nintendo makes products I enjoy and they're profitable enough to keep chugging along and continue innovating in the gaming industry, the competition is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

NightsOwl said:


> Making a profit off a console is a failure? Then what the fuck is the Jaguar, 3DO, and TG16?


Like I said, I'm yet to see an accurate representation of their profits from that particular system in that time period.

The N64 had _terrible, abyssmal_ third-party support and very little titles are worth replaying for the system, it also failed on the hardware front since despite being the beefiest console on the market, it had no CD support - only 64MB cartridges which restricted game development. The texture storage was so small that developers had to use wicked programming tricks or shading to make the games look appealing. All in all, it's a failed system.

Remember that the Game Boy was standing strongly at that time, hence Nintendo's operating profit. You don't know if the N64 had a part in that in any form though, and due to incredibly low sales I doubt it did.

This is not something arguable by the way. The fact that it's a memorable system for many players doesn't mean it was a good one.


----------



## Hanafuda (May 9, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> I loved the Gamecube and N64...


 


Foxi4 said:


> Still, failed products in comparison to their compeition - big time.


 

In terms of 3rd party support, yeah. But in terms of profitability for Nintendo, not so much. AFAIK Nintendo's consoles (excluding VB, which was really more experimental) have always turned a fat profit on the combination of hardware and 1st party game sales, even when they were dubbed 'failures.' Hard to say yet whether that trend will continue with this gen, but the 3DS is doing super now which will probably compensate regardless.

Depends on how you define success, I guess. Nintendo likes to claim they're not in competition with the other consoles. As long as there's always more money in the bank at the end of each generation than there was at the beginning, they can keep on saying it.


.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 9, 2013)

NightsOwl said:


> Making a profit off a console is a failure? Then what the fuck is the Jaguar, 3DO, and TG16?



Well there is the term underperforming investments and if you are an investor it is usually big margins or nothing.

I figure there are three races as it were.
The science -- not sure what boundaries the N64 pushed at this point that others did not or did not catch up with quickly.
The art -- N64 classics stand at? Dismiss them in favour far superior remakes of most of those for the later consoles and things like XBLA (seriously though go back and play some of those titles on the N64 after a spell on the XBLA ports and such like*). Even the Saturn has things truly worth going back for and the PS1 has quite a few. Now I do hold that Perfect Dark still possibly has the best options set for multiplayer this side of things with a level editor but that only goes so far. 
The business -- I believe we already took that.

*I do have to go back and play some Bomberman 64 multiplayer to see if it held up.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 9, 2013)

So because one game company has a lot more games on their system than another company on their system means the one with less games is a failure? With much talk about shovelware, how many from each system were actually considered good investments? Let's also not forget that even if a system has 1k+ games on it, how many people will buy 1k+ games, let alone even 100 throughout the system's lifespan?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

NightsOwl said:


> "It's a failed system" is really an opinion. Just because it didn't have the line-up you desired


No, no, no - it didn't have _a line-up, period_. 380-odd games is nothing to boast about when your competition had 2100 more to offer.


> or it didn't hold a candle to the PS1 doesn't mean it was a failure of a console.


In terms of _"Console Wars"_? That's precisely what that means.


> We could argue back and forth all day about this but the fact of the matter is, either A.) Nintendo obviously didn't lose too much money on the N64 since they didn't have any annual losses until recently. Or B.) It did well enough to turn a small profit.


The first part may very well be due to the Game Boy which sold filthy-well throught its lifespan and you can't prove point B as all I've seen are consolidated profits, not ones divided between the two systems which is a common practice when _one system does exceptionally well and the other fails miserably_. It doesn't take a genius to guess that if a system is expensive to manufacture and doesn't sell, it brings losses or at least very, very marginal profits.


> I doubt the Gameboy/Color/Pocket would prevent Nintendo from an annual loss if the N64 was a big money sink as you make it out to be.


Oh yes it could if it sold filthy-well. Just because it's a portable doesn't mean it didn't bring massive profits - the hardware cost next to nothing to manufacture and it had fantastic third party support so Nintendo was reaping truckloads of cash with licensing fees alone.


----------



## NightsOwl (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> No, no, no - it didn't have a line-up, period. 380-odd games is nothing to boast about when your competition had 2100 more to offer.
> 
> In terms of _"Console Wars"_? That's precisely what that means.
> 
> ...


I really don't see a point in even replying to you. You seem way too ignorant to your own thoughts to even discuss things with. Same as when you were blathering about my opinion on Persona.


----------



## SSVAV (May 9, 2013)

Then the Wii and the DS are the best consoles ever just because they outsold the competition?

The N64 recieved universal critical acclaim with games like SM64, Goldeneye, or Zelda. Why would that be a failure? Because it sold less?

Why would it be a failure if its first party, exclusive titles all received universal acclaim, when Sony can't say the same?

History has shown that the cheapest to buy and to develop for consoles always outsell the others. Right now, it is the 3DS and the Wii U. The nextbox and PS4 will obviously be more expensive to buy and to develop for, and VITA is a total flop right now.

The cheapest consoles in the market get Nintendo exclusives? Explain to me how that is a failure.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

NightsOwl said:


> I really don't see a point in even replying to you. You seem way to ignorant to your own thoughts to even discuss things with. Same as when you were blathering about my opinion on Persona.


I'm not being ignorant, I'm showing you reasons as to why I think you are wrong and you in turn show me nothing other that _"It wasn't that bad"_ - that's not an argument, that's nostalgia being a cruel mistress.


SSVAV said:


> The N64 recieved universal critical acclaim with games like SM64, Goldeneye, or Zelda. Why would that be a failure? Because it sold less?


Because those few games are the only ones worth mentioning.


> Why would it be a failure if its first party, exclusive titles all received universal acclaim, when Sony can't say the same?


Of course they can - the PlayStation 1 was a bucket of legendary titles of epic proportions. _FIFA_? On the PlayStation. _Legacy of Kain_? On the PlayStation. _Medal of Honour_? On the PlayStation. _Armored Core_? On the PlayStation. _Final Fantasy 7 and up_? On the PlayStation. _Tony Hawk, Dave Mira Freestyle Pro BMX, Grand Theft Auto, Gex, Bloody Roar, Tekken, Need for Speed, Rollcage, StarOcean, MDK, Klonoa, Fear Effect, Abe's Exodus, Dead or Alive, Tenchu, Soul Blade, Persona, Dino Crisis,_ I could sit here for a week straight enumerating PS1 titles - how many N64 titles can you mention?


----------



## Gahars (May 9, 2013)

NightsOwl said:


> I made a mistake in reasoning but I don't want to appear weak so I will insult you instead.


 
gg


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (May 9, 2013)

Oh no, I won't be able to play all those games I wasn't interested in anyway!


----------



## NightsOwl (May 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> gg


Hardly an insult, but whatever.


----------



## SSVAV (May 9, 2013)

Well anyway this conversation wasn't about console wars to begin with, it was about how McCommunist said:



Guild McCommunist said:


> When it comes to EA games, it seems Wii U owners will be starved of quality titles.
> 
> With any hope, other third party developers will storm the Normandy-esque beaches of the Wii U, liberating owners from a lack of games.


 
Now, the Wii and the DS survived and triumphed without so called "EA's quality titles" and had an expansive library.

With Sony on financial crisis, Microsoft to yet make a move, and most third party developers on the same wavelength of producing less titles per year to reduce costs, I don't see how Nintendo's situation right now is more dire than their competition, as they still made a profit after all.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

NightsOwl said:


> Hardly an insult, but whatever.


Look, I don't want to cause any hard feelings, all I'm asking for is for you to support your argument with _some_ figures. I posted the number of releases and sales plus some commonly known N64 woes programmers had to deal with and the reasons why I think it failed in the grand scheme of things - you do your part and prove otherwise. Besides, even if it _DID_ post profits, a console that has no _(or very little)_ games to offer is still a failure in my book.


----------



## Mantis41 (May 9, 2013)

With the Wii-U price plummeting it will almost be at price point where it can be purchased just to play a few stellar Nintendo titles. It just means most fans will need a second console.

EDIT: With hacks possibly on the way it will make a fun toy to play homebrew and EMUs on as well. Providing the hacks materialise it's almost worth the purchase now.


----------



## SSVAV (May 9, 2013)

Gahars said:


> gg


I hardly see "ignorant" as an insult compared with the vulgarity level some replies can escalate to in this topic (looking at McCommunist here).


----------



## grossaffe (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Look, I don't want to cause any hard feelings, all I'm asking for is for you to support your argument with _some_ figures. I posted the number of releases and sales plus some commonly known N64 woes programmers had to deal with plus the reasons why I think it failed - you do your part and prove otherwise. Besides, even if it _DID_ post profits, a console that has no _(or very little)_ games to offer is still a failure in my book.


But there were plenty of N64 games worth playing.
Mario 64
Star Fox 64
Ocarina of Time (widely regarded as best game of all time)
Majora's Mask 
1080 Snowboarding
Shadows of the Empire
Banjo Kazooie
Banjo Tooie
Conker's Bad Fur Day
Cruzin' USA/World/Exotica
Donkey Kong 64
Goldeneye
Perfect Dark
Fighting Force 64
Kirby 64
etc.

There are a bunch more that I didn't list, but I'm just gonna stop there because I've proven my point that there's more than mario, zelda, and whatever other game you said it was that comprised the entirety of the N64 library.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> But there were plenty of N64 games worth playing.
> Mario 64 *<--Nintendo game*
> Star Fox 64 *<--Nintendo game*
> Ocarina of Time (widely regarded as best game of all time) *<--Nintendo game, also "arguable"*
> ...


Not really, you haven't. If you want to start _"List Wars"_, you're going to lose miserably - 84 out of the 386 N64 titles were Japan-exclusive, leaving you with a grand total of 303 European/American games - what do you think is the likelyhood that I'll find less good titles on the PSOne list than you will on the N64 list? I'd say your chances of going out of this one victorious are pretty slim.

I've also outlined an interesting trend on your list - a trend I call _"First-Party Life Support"_ if you know what I mean.


----------



## GHANMI (May 9, 2013)

Just localize Dragon Quest X already. (but with how Square Enix handled their 3DS titles I wouldn't be to hopeful about this).
Also, what happened to that Yuji Naka spiritual successor of NIGHTS, "Rodea the Sky Soldier" on the Wii?
Nintendo should go ahead and publish those.


----------



## gamefan5 (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Look, I don't want to cause any hard feelings, all I'm asking for is for you to support your argument with _some_ figures. I posted the number of releases and sales plus some commonly known N64 woes programmers had to deal with and the reasons why I think it failed in the grand scheme of things - you do your part and prove otherwise. Besides, even if it _DID_ post profits, a console that has no _(or very little)_ games to offer is still a failure in my book.


It's called N64 nostalgia butthurt-ness. 
I think it depends how you define the term "failure". I don't think people here realize that sale-wise and game library wise, it was a failure.

However, the N64 does have a certain legacy and a good share of games.
Which is mainly why N64 Nostalgia can make Ninty fans... well... I rather not say the word but I think you know what I'm saying. 
For example: LoZ: Ocarina of time? Hailed as one of the best games of all time. Timeless classic, blah blah blah Super Mario 64 was the first 3D game ever (God knows it ain't but damn I have heard this many times)
In fact, pointing out the best games and their legacy will mostly be their argument, and yet it falls so short.


----------



## grossaffe (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Not really, you haven't. If you want to start _"List Wars"_, you're going to lose miserably - 84 out of the 386 N64 titles were Japan-exclusive, leaving you with a grand total of 303 European/American games - what do you think is the likelyhood that I'll find less good titles on the PSOne list than you will on the N64 list? I'd say your chances of going out of this one victorious are pretty slim.
> 
> I've also outlined an interesting trend on your list - a trend I call _"First-Party Life Support"_ if you know what I mean.


Again, I'm not worried about the competition.  Merely debunking the claim that mario, zelda, and goldeneye are the only games worth playing in the library.  I don't play 2000 games per console generation.  I tend to play somewhere around 30.  There were more than enough quality N64 games to satiate my desires, including some of the best games ever made.  I still regard Mario 64 as the best 3D platformer and would not have traded away that experience.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

gamefan5 said:


> In fact, pointing out the best games and their legacy will mostly be their argument, and yet it falls so short.


That's the thing - I don't deny the fact that the N64 had _some_ good games - it did! I like quite a few of them. Question is, how long can you rinse and repeat the same ten games over and over again? The console just didn't have a big release list and I don't think the selection in any way validated the purchase. It will forever be _"the console with SM64, Zelda: OoT, Majora's Mask, Mario Party, Smash Bros., GoldenEye and Mario Kart"_ but that's _it_. There is nothing more beyond that.


grossaffe said:


> Again, I'm not worried about the competition. Merely debunking the claim that mario, zelda, and goldeneye are the only games worth playing in the library. I don't play 2000 games per console generation. I tend to play somewhere around 30. There were more than enough quality N64 games to satiate my desires, including some of the best games ever made. I still regard Mario 64 as the best 3D platformer and would not have traded away that experience.


Your taste is not universal though - the console had a very small selection of titles, only a handful of which were actually good. 90% of the titles you mentioned reoccur on different _"Top N64 Games" _for a reason - because the system doesn't have a lot of good games.

Besides, my post was sarcastic - I was not intending on starting a _"List War"_ because it's pointless - you'd still stand by your favourites even if I named hundreds of titles because you like them and you're entitled to it. The harsh reality is in the numbers though, and the numbers speak against the N64 on every front.


----------



## grossaffe (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the thing - I don't deny the fact that the N64 had _some_ good games - it did! I like quite a few of them. Question is, how long can you rinse and repeat the same ten games over and over again? The console just didn't have a big release list and I don't think the selection in any way validated the purchase. It will forever be _"the console with SM64, Zelda: OoT, Majora's Mask, Mario Party, Smash Bros., GoldenEye and Mario Kart"_ but that's _it_. There is nothing more beyond that.
> 
> Your taste is not universal though - the console had a very small selection of titles, only a handful of which were actually good. 90% of the titles you mentioned reoccur on different _"Top N64 Games" _for a reason - because the system doesn't have a lot of good games.
> 
> Besides, my post was sarcastic - I was not intending on starting a _"List War"_ because it's pointless - you'd still stand by your favourites even if I named hundreds of titles because you like them and you're entitled to it. The harsh reality is in the numbers though, and the numbers speak against the N64 on every front.


I would stand by my list not necessarily because I believe it superior to your list, but because I feel my list is enough to support the N64 as a console.  Perhaps there are a lot of games I would have enjoyed that I missed out on having not had the Playstation, but that has little bearing in my mind on whether the N64 was a worthy console.  It had enough games that I enjoyed and it was profitable enough to warrant a successor.  That's all I need to know that it wasn't a failure.

I'm also a person who's been perfectly content with a Gamecube and with a Wii, so take that how you will.


----------



## SSVAV (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Besides, my post was sarcastic - I was not intending on starting a _"List War"_ because it's pointless - you'd still stand by your favourites even if I named hundreds of titles because you like them and you're entitled to it. The harsh reality is in the numbers though, and the numbers speak against the N64 on every front.


 
Mandatory troll post: Quality, not quantity.

_*goes to hide*_


----------



## ilman (May 9, 2013)

GHANMI said:


> Also, what happened to that Yuji Naka spiritual successor of NIGHTS, "Rodea the Sky Soldier" on the Wii?


Wait, someone remembers that? I thought I was the only one.
I got really hyped at the trailer but since then there's been nothing. I believe it's most likely scrapped.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 9, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Not really, you haven't. If you want to start _"List Wars"_, you're going to lose miserably - 84 out of the 386 N64 titles were Japan-exclusive, leaving you with a grand total of 303 European/American games - what do you think is the likelyhood that I'll find less good titles on the PSOne list than you will on the N64 list? I'd say your chances of going out of this one victorious are pretty slim.
> 
> I've also outlined an interesting trend on your list - a trend I call _"First-Party Life Support"_ if you know what I mean.


Really? :/

The N64 was a lot of things but I don't know how you could say the console with Super Mario _fucking_ 64, Ocarina of goddamn Time and Majora's Mask was a failure. Those are both games that still compare favourably to games of today and remain timeless classics.

Sure, it might not have sold as much as the Playstation but it still sold relatively well (mostly in North America). I mean it outsold the Xbox and no one considers that a failure not to mention that it still made a profit for Nintendo.

And yes it may not have had as much games as the PS1 but the N64 had tons of quality games.

To name a few,


> 1. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
> 2. Goldeneye 007
> 3. Super Mario 64
> 4. Perfect Dark
> ...


 
BTW, Fifa was on the N64 too.

The N64 was a lot of things. It marked the beginning of third-parties abandoning Nintendo platforms. It was difficult to develop for. It had a weird controller designed for three-handed mutants. But I wouldn't call it a "failure".


----------



## Foxi4 (May 9, 2013)

soulx said:


> The N64 was a lot of things. It marked the beginning of third-parties abandoning Nintendo platforms. It was difficult to develop for. It had a weird controller designed for three-handed mutants. But I wouldn't call it a "failure".


To be perfectly honest, the original XBox was as much a failure as the Gamecube, it just had a little bit more third-party support. The PS2 easily dominated that generation - were the two competitors released earlier, they'd have a chance... but they were not. I'm glad that you found 38 titles, but that's just... not much. The N64 got 3 FIFA games, yeah _(FIFA 99, FIFA Soccer 64 and FIFA: Road to World Cup 98). Meanwhile_ the PSOne has _10 - _clearly it was the _"main FIFA outlet"_, which is what I meant.


----------



## grossaffe (May 9, 2013)

It really makes you wonder how Nintendo has survived so long with all of it's consoles since the SNES being failures.


----------



## The Milkman (May 9, 2013)

> Sees thread with 8 pages expecting 8 pages of butthurt towards EA and other various forms of dick sucking

> Thread is an argument about how good the N64 is.

Classy temp. Classy.


----------



## Rizsparky (May 9, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> It really makes you wonder how Nintendo has survived so long with all of it's consoles since the SNES being failures.


Software, and not all of them were failures, especially the handhelds have done extremely well.


----------



## narutofan777 (May 9, 2013)

nintendo has already lost this gen rofl..
wii u needs more games they said..ea just made them shush.
ohh please ea give them fifa at least.. plzzz


----------



## The Milkman (May 9, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> nintendo has already lost this gen rofl..
> wii u needs more games they said..ea just made them shush.
> ohh please ea give them fifa at least.. plzzz


 
Go back to IGN plz.


----------



## DiscostewSM (May 9, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Go back to GameFAQs plz.


 

fix't for ya.


----------



## Eerpow (May 10, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> snip64


You shouldn't generalize foxi4, you said that the N64 doesn't have titles worth replaying which I and many others simply don't agree with you on.
Hell, I can even argue that today the N64 has just about the same amount of titles worth replaying today as the PSone. Reason being that many of the titles on the PS have better "upgraded" releases on newer systems (tekken, fifa, gta, medal of honor). Games like Gex, which I own for the N64 just isn't worth my time due to aging, unlike Mario 64, Crash, Pokémon Snap, SotN etc.
I didn't own either of these systems growing up and only got to play them at friends houses sometimes, mostly PS since the kid next to us had one (it played pirated games even).
Point is that I got a N64 much later and I still to this day play many of the titles released for the system, the library is comparable. The N64 is still praised for it's first party games, Rarewares fantastic support and another scoop of hidden gems like the Goemon games, the second one which plays excellently by todays standards. I don't feel like making a list but the titles for the PSone I'm willing to play/replay are far less than the games people played on it back in the day.

Also why do you see the N64 as this "huuuge" failure? It was still a moderate commercial success, in Japan things were different at the time, however in the late 90's US the N64 sold around 7mil total while the PS was at 11mil. During the peak of the generation the N64 still was a worthy competitor. The PS ended production in 2006 and made 40mil from it's total sales _after_ the PS2 and eventually the GC released. It was significantly ahead of the competition, yes, but the enormous sales people bring up came much later when the PS was sold as a budget system.
The N64 sold 32mil by 2000, the PS sold double the amount at that time. Selling half as many as one of the most commercially successful consoles ever is still pretty darn good, It's not bad enough to put it in the same category as the Dreamcast or VirtualBoy.

People where I live have fond memories of playing the N64, it's not like it was some obscure system no one played, I think the majority I know played the N64 and not the PS actually, things changed with the Gamecube though, but that's an offtopic discussion for another time.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 10, 2013)

Rockym said:


> Another console? What was the first console Sony sold at 700 dollars? PS3 debuted at $599. Also, when did they announce the price of the PS4? Could you provide me a link to the announcement?


 
The PS3 was over 700 dollars in Canada thanks to a little thing called the exchange rate, which at that time was about 75 cents per 1 American dollar, then a little thing called sales taxes on top of it. I believe it retailed at either 649.99 or 699.99 CAD. It seems you Americans take your products for granted when it comes to how much you pay for them over the rest of the world. I am glad our dollar is close to parity and that products are in general, competitively priced with what can be easily bought by someone like myself over the border if need be.



Foxi4 said:


> Are there any PS5 plans that we're unaware of or are you talking about the PS4 which was officially announced to be an _"affordable platform priced at around $400"_? As for exclusive titles, Sony platforms always had plenty of'em. Now, naturally the Wii had more exclusives than the PS3 or the 360, but when you sit down and think about it, it's because it couldn't push multiplatform titles at all due to restrictive hardware.


 
Sony's idea of affordable is what I call a ripoff. And if the Wii U at 350 dollars is being sold at a loss, you can bet your bottom dollar that Sony and most likely Microsoft, will be losing wheel barrows full of money on console sales to make something more powerful then that, and it will probably cost more then 400 dollars as well.

Either way, EA has alienated Nintendo since the N64 days for the majority of their games so I am not too worried. Nintendo will continue to sit back and count all the cash they are raking in from 3DS sales and when the Wii U picks up in sales, they will be counting more cash. I really don't think anyone at Nintendo is worried or cares about what companies like EA think of their hardware, at least Nintendo can make a profit. When studios start seeing what the Wii U is truly capable of, which at this point no one is giving it enough credit for it's capability and no one knows how long before it's maximum potential could be reached, but one way or another even EA will come crawling back if they want to make more money. EA should be more worried about their ever declining product sales and their constant pissing off of customers over poorly designed games and a lot of lying. 




Eerpow said:


> You shouldn't generalize foxi4, you said that the N64 doesn't have titles worth replaying which I and many other simply don't agree with you on.
> Hell, I can even argue that today the N64 has just about the same amount of titles worth replaying today as the PSone. Reason being that many of the titles on the PS have better "upgraded" releases on newer systems (tekken, fifa, gta, medal of honor). Games like Gex, which I own for the N64 just isn't worth my time due to aging, unlike Mario 64, Crash, Pokémon Snap, SotN etc.
> I didn't own either of these systems growing up and only got to play them at friends houses sometimes, mostly PS since the kid next to us had one (it played pirated games even).
> Point is that I got a N64 much later and I still to this day play many of the titles released for the system, the library is comparable. The N64 is still praised for it's first party games, Rarewares fantastic support and another scoop of hidden gems like the Goemon games, the second one which plays excellently by todays standards. I don't feel like making a list but the titles for the PSone I'm willing to play/replay are far less than the games people played on it back in the day.
> ...


 

If you cared about local multiplayer games, which at the time were the only thing (and for a later discussion, online gaming has ruined the fun of multiplayer), you owned an N64 and either you owned 4 controllers, or all your friends had controllers and their own systems, memory cards and what not. The N64 to me, was the thing to play for multiplayer gaming, and I still don't believe that the PS1 ever caught on as a multiplayer system since the Multitap adapter was an add on device and there wasn't near the plethora of 4 player games as there were for the N64 at that time. I think the best PS multiplayer games were the Twisted Metal series, but I always felt that Nintendo offered a superior local multiplayer experience with the N64.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 10, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Still, failed products in comparison to their compeition - big time.


"Failed in comparison to the competition" is hugely different from "failed in general." It's like the people who claim that the PSP "failed" because the DS outsold it 10 to 1. Did the PSP fail in comparison the the DS? Yes. Did it fail in general, though? No. It was still a profitable system with its share of great games. Same as with the N64 and GameCube. Both systems had a share of great games, and were profitable for Nintendo.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 10, 2013)

Gahars said:


> gg


Did you ever do this?


----------



## Gahars (May 10, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Did you ever do this?


 
Yup. I didn't post again because I've argued this so many times at this point that I was just fine letting the argument be, but...

I was unimpressed. While raising some interesting points, it's entirely based on straw-grasping speculation and little else. It reads a bit like one of those conspiratorial blogs that pop up after every tragedy, trying to find pieces for a puzzle that just doesn't exist. I could read into buzzwords and promotions (or unsubstantiated internet rumors, etc. etc.) all day long to pull any conclusion I want, but that doesn't mean anything at all. (Also, yadda yadda yadda Hanlon's Razor yadda yadda yadda)

I'm not saying that EA is a perfect company or anything (ha ha ha ha ha ha no), but come on, guys. The finger-pointing is getting ridiculous.

At this point, EA is the new Ubisoft. People seem desperate to believe that the Wii U's struggles were orchestrated, calculated, a part of a sinister plot to undermine glorious Nintendo (the bastion of all that is good and holy in gaming, blessed be their name). Nintendo didn't miscalculate - they were betrayed! The fact of the matter is, EA has nothing to gain by sabotaging them (not even 30 silver pieces, as so many would have you believe). Trying to spin this into anything more is just wrong. Period. End of story. Good day.

So, I have to ask: Do console fans go through the five stages of grief? Because it seems like we're firmly rooted rooted in "Anger" right now.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> It's like the people who claim that the PSP "failed" because the DS outsold it 10 to 1.


Well, that's a slight exaggeration - it was 2 to 1 _(76,3 million PSP's and 153,87 DS'es sold) _but that train of logic was precisely what I meant.  I'm sure a lot of people here have fond memories of the system but now that some time has passed, you should at least try to look at it critically. I was one of the first in line for a Gamecube and it was a really fun system _(which I still own)_ but I'm not going to go out of my way to deny the fact that the PS2 mopped the floor with it because I'd just look silly.


----------



## Rydian (May 10, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Why give four links to (essentially) the same thing?  1 source does not mean plenty.   It's just marcan saying that the CPU is an improvement over the Wii's.  And somehow you think that's a bad thing.
> 
> Also, clock speed isn't really a big deal these days, it's about cache memory.


Two are posts from the same thread (info from different people), the others are decidedly-different and recent and go into a lot more details.  In fact the last one shows how to access some extra Wii U resources from vWii mode, since the Wii U is an upgraded Wii.

I'm not saying the Wii U can't run anything, but it's obvious at this point it might become another Wii.  A lack of ports, and games that do get ported might have features cut... is not good, and we're seeing devs talk about it like that already, even when talking about porting from the 360, which was also tri-core PPC...



SSVAV said:


> And I would hardly call EA "believable".


I was referring to the results of the poll.  EA does so many actions that make so many people pissed off that it's entirely believable that the results are real.


----------



## Ericthegreat (May 10, 2013)

Rizsparky said:


> You forgot F-Zero, Samus and Smash


I don't count f zero for casuals since the gc version was one of the hardest games ever made (second level especially lol)


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2013)

Eerpow said:


> You shouldn't generalize foxi4, you said that the N64 doesn't have titles worth replaying which I and many other simply don't agree with you on. Hell, I can even argue that today the N64 has just about the same amount of titles worth replaying today as the PSone.


You are positively insane but entitled to that opinion, however, again, 2400+ games versus 387 games_ (only 303 of which were available outside Japan)_. 



> Reason being that many of the titles on the PS have better "upgraded" releases on newer systems (tekken, fifa, gta, medal of honor). Games like Gex, which I own for the N64 just isn't worth my time due to aging, unlike Mario 64, Crash, Pokémon Snap, SotN etc.


Wait, wait, wait - this is entirely unfair. How can you say that two platformers from the exact same period are not equally worth the time to look back at? That's your subjective preference talking there, mister.


> I didn't own either of these systems growing up and only got to play them at friends houses sometimes, mostly PS since the kid next to us had one (it played pirated games even).


I know the feeling.


> Point is that I got a N64 much later and I still to this day play many of the titles released for the system, the library is comparable.


It's not, not by a long shot and if you claim otherwise, you're unfamiliar with the PS1's library. Comparable means that you have a similar number of good titles and you don't - if I started enumerating great PlayStation games at the point where I mentioned _"List Wars"_, I wouldn't be done by now.


> The N64 is still praised for it's first party games, Rarewares fantastic support and another scoop of hidden gems like the Goemon games, the second one which plays excellently by todays standards. I don't feel like making a list but the titles for the PSone I'm willing to play/replay are far less than the games people played on it back in the day.


That's great, but at the same time the PlayStation had its own memorable developers at work. Tekken became a symbolic fighting game everybody and their dog has played, Spyro was in its golden age, so was Crash Bandicoot and many others.


> Also why do you see the N64 as this "huuuge" failure? It was still a moderate commercial success, in Japan things were different at the time, however in the late 90's US the N64 sold around 7mil total while the PS was at 11mil. During the peak of the generation the N64 still was a worthy competitor. The PS ended production in 2006 and made 40mil from it's total sales _after_ the PS2 and eventually the GC released.


That's great, but the N64 was discontinued in 2003 so why use 1990's as a reference if the PlayStation continued to sell and the N64 plummeted?


> It was significantly ahead of the competition, yes, but the enormous sales people bring up came much later when the PS was sold as a budget system.
> The N64 sold 32mil by 2000, the PS sold double the amount at that time. Selling half as many as one of the most commercially successful consoles ever is still pretty darn good, It's not bad enough to put it in the same category as the Dreamcast or VirtualBoy.


You have to look at things from the global scope if you want to be objective. All in all, the system was outsold 3 to 1 and that's that - you give the argument of the PS1 becoming a great budget system, but the N64 wasn't in a bubble where time has stopped and dropped in price as well - people during that time chose the PS1 and not the N64 - simple.



> People where I live have fond memories of playing the N64, it's not like it was some obscure system no one played, I think the majority I know played the N64 and not the PS actually, things changed with the Gamecube though, but that's an offtopic discussion for another time.


And those fond memories are all you've got to support your argument because every other figure seems to speak againts you, sorry. It's been years now, time for a reality check.


----------



## tronic307 (May 10, 2013)

This is all just political bullshit.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 10, 2013)

I'll never understand people at all... To the people bitching about N64 and PSone, great job staying on topic. Also, 32 million is not a failure AT ALL. At least not for back then. That's like saying the PSP was a failure because it sold 76 million, far less than the DS. Which it isn't.


----------



## grossaffe (May 10, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I'll never understand people at all... To the people bitching about N64 and PSone, great job staying on topic. Also, 32 million is not a failure AT ALL. At least not for back then. That's like saying the PSP was a failure because it sold 76 million, far less than the DS. Which it isn't.


That's just, like, your opinion, man.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I'll never understand people at all... To the people bitching about N64 and PSone, great job staying on topic. Also, 32 million is not a failure AT ALL. At least not for back then. That's like saying the PSP was a failure because it sold 76 million, far less than the DS. Which it isn't.


It sold half the number of units the DS did - it lost, but the defeat is not as crushing as 32,93 million in comparison to 102,49 million PlayStations (and 28,15 million PSOne's _(which was the miniature PlayStation - I'm not sure if the sales were consolidated or not in the final number)_.

I do agree that if anyone wants to continue this conversation, we should do so in the Console Wars thread since Console Wars started this whole thing. My point was to outline that sometimes even if Nintendo tries not to fall behind, they do fall behind, such is life - the original reply was on-topic.

I'm sorry if me defending a statement made in my comic _(which again was posted on-topic)_ derailed the thread too much, we should get back to the matter at hand.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (May 10, 2013)

Forget this post please. Changed my mind about wanting people to see it.


----------



## Rydian (May 10, 2013)

If you rake in millions in profit, is second or third place failure?

TIL Foxi is a military dad.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 10, 2013)

Rydian said:


> If you rake in millions in profit, is second or third place failure?
> 
> TIL Foxi is a military dad.


 
Pretty sure you get the idea.

It lost in a console war, sure. But it was not a failure. A failure would be Virtual Boy, or Games.com or Atari Jaguar or 3DO.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2013)

Rydian said:


> If you rake in millions in profit, is second or third place failure?
> 
> TIL Foxi is a military dad.


Failure in comparison, plus I don't particularily care for sales however they're a good representation of the size of the userbase which is why they were mentioned. The profit a company makes is not a good representation of success in reference to the gaming sphere - a console is successful in gaming when it has plenty of great games to play and the Nintendo 64 has a handful - where Nintendo 64 truly was crushed is in the size of the library which was pitiful. Again, if you want to continue this, please, let's do that in the Console Wars thread. 

*EDIT: *A little clarification before I fully jettison myself from this thread - if you want to reply to any of it, do so in the Console Wars thread - the link is in my signature. If you don't want to read it, don't open the spoiler although if you're upset about what I wrote, I urge you to do so.



Spoiler



People completely misunderstood what I said as they omitted the original context, the original context being "I'm not afraid of this situation, Nintendo won't let the console fall" when there are times when Nintendo can't really help the situation.

Developers were not interested in the system, it resulted in a small amount of games and all Nintendo could do was release great first and second-party, which they did, bless'em.

In regards to the PS1 shovelware accusations, the N64 has shovelware too. Carmageddon 64? Superman 64? The N64 has shit games too. It has less of'em because it has less games in general - 5 times less, that's the whole problem. I do not deny it has some great games - it does, there are a few I sincerely like. That being said, objectively, it just offers less than the PlayStation.

I coined it a failure in reference to what is widely considered as _"Console Wars"_, not in reference to profits which I don't care about as I'm not a stock holder - I'm a gamer and I care about gaming, not whether Nintendo made money off it or not. I care about whether a gaming system had a lot of games in its library, about its popularity which is important when looking for gaming buddies _(which is "somewhat" reflected in the sales numbers) _and whether or not it was up to scratch from a technological standpoint.

I just wanted to level with you guys for a moment here because I may have been coined fanboyish in this thread and that's not true - I'm merely being analytical and I compare figures.

I hope this clarifies it. The whole debacle was all about the bitter comedy of the situation - about how _"trying really hard"_ doesn't always work - there's only so much you can do to save a system nobody wants to develop for. 


 
...now how does that relate to the Wii U? Pretty directly - more and more developers seem to stray away from it and as shown by the example above, no third-party interest equals first and second-party games only as well as a small library - we don't want that. I think that diverse gaming experiences from numerous developers are better - I promote diversity. It's great to have a selection of games, the bigger the better. 

...See? It wasn't _all_ off-topic after all!


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 10, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Failure in comparison, plus I don't particularily care for sales however they're a good representation of the size of the userbase. The profit a company makes is not a good representation of success in reference to the gaming sphere - a console is successful in gaming when it has plenty of great games to play and the Nintendo 64 has a handful. Where Nintendo 64 truly was crushed is in the size of the library which was pitiful. Again, if you want to continue this, please, let's do that in the Console Wars thread.


 
I agree this discussion should end, but one thing to note, even though the PSone had a bigger library, a lot of it was just pure shit and shovelware and everything. Also, the N64 has some great titles, ones that will always make me coming back to it, and it has some classic hidden gems too (Glover, Mischief Makers, Goemons Great Adventure, Space Station Silicon Valley, Jet Force Gemini, Battletanx, Vigilante 8, Fighters Destiny just the ones that come off of my head) But like I said, this discussion got way too far off from EA and WiiU,  I just wanted to point that out before it ends.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 10, 2013)

Gahars said:


> At this point, EA is the new Ubisoft. People seem desperate to believe that the Wii U's struggles were orchestrated, calculated, a part of a sinister plot to undermine glorious Nintendo (the bastion of all that is good and holy in gaming, blessed be their name). Nintendo didn't miscalculate - they were betrayed! The fact of the matter is, EA has nothing to gain by sabotaging them (not even 30 silver pieces, as so many would have you believe). Trying to spin this into anything more is just wrong. Period. End of story. Good day.
> 
> So, I have to ask: Do console fans go through the five stages of grief? Because it seems like we're firmly rooted rooted in "Anger" right now.


 
How about no? Ubisoft was never as bad as EA. Sure, the DRM on their PC games was pretty terrible, but at least Ubisoft hasn't had some of the business ethics that EA has had in the last few years. Ubisoft also learned from and admitted to their mistakes while EA continues to be ignorant and pretend like everything is all sunshine and lollipops for them when in reality it isn't. I feel sorry for the studios that are getting all the heat because of decisions that EA is making for them on behalf of their products just because EA is the publisher.

I will continue to boycott buying EA products until they smarten up their act, ditch the mandatory need for Origin on the PC and stop trying to force companies like Nintendo into integrating it into their online service. Ignorance is bliss, and EA is living in it.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 10, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> How about no? Ubisoft was never as bad as EA. Sure, the DRM on their PC games was pretty terrible, but at least Ubisoft hasn't had some of the business ethics that EA has had in the last few years. Ubisoft also learned from and admitted to their mistakes while EA continues to be ignorant and pretend like everything is all sunshine and lollipops for them when in reality it isn't. I feel sorry for the studios that are getting all the heat because of decisions that EA is making for them on behalf of their products just because EA is the publisher.
> 
> I will continue to boycott buying EA products until they smarten up their act, ditch the mandatory need for Origin on the PC and stop trying to force companies like Nintendo into integrating it into their online service. Ignorance is bliss, and EA is living in it.


 
Except business ethics mean absolutely nothing when their software is selling millions upon millions and there's still quite a demand for their titles. Even the DRM-ridden SimCity sold over a million copies in what, a week?


----------



## Rizsparky (May 10, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> I don't count f zero for casuals since the gc version was one of the hardest games ever made (second level especially lol)


You're right, I still have trouble with the game!


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 10, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, that's a slight exaggeration - it was 2 to 1 _(76,3 million PSP's and 153,87 DS'es sold) _but that train of logic was precisely what I meant.  I'm sure a lot of people here have fond memories of the system but now that some time has passed, you should at least try to look at it critically. I was one of the first in line for a Gamecube and it was a really fun system _(which I still own)_ but I'm not going to go out of my way to deny the fact that the PS2 mopped the floor with it because I'd just look silly.


There's also a huge difference between "the PS2 mopped the floor with the GameCube" and "the GameCube was a failure."


----------



## Foxi4 (May 10, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> There's also a huge difference between "the PS2 mopped the floor with the GameCube" and "the GameCube was a failure."


The Gamecube was a failure _in comparison_ to the PS2, but that's besides the point - if you want to drag on the subject, you're welcome to do so in the Console Wars thread - the EoF accepts off-topic discussion.

The N64 had very little third-party support due to its technological handicaps _(cartridge, texture management system, troublesome SDK)_ and the Wii U is in a similar situation right now _(outdated CPU technology with a facelift)_ - that's the connection I was drawing. Seeing first and second-party life support for a promising platform would be a huge disappointment, don't you think?


----------



## jacksprat1990 (May 10, 2013)

People generally have 2 consoles. Why is this a problem?


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 10, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The Gamecube was a failure _in comparison_ to the PS2, but that's besides the point - if you want to drag on the subject, you're welcome to do so in the Console Wars thread - the EoF accepts off-topic discussion.
> 
> The N64 had very little third-party support due to its technological handicaps _(cartridge, texture management system, troublesome SDK)_ and the Wii U is in a similar situation right now _(outdated CPU technology with a facelift)_ - that's the connection I was drawing. Seeing first and second-party life support for a promising platform would be a huge disappointment, don't you think?


You're right this is off topic, so I'll stop after this post. Anyway, I agree with you here, as I mentioned in previous posts. N64 and GCN failed in comparison to their competition, no denying that. You just didn't make that distinction until recently, simply saying at first "the GameCube/n64 was a failure," which is different than "failed against the PS/PS2."

But obviously we're on the same page now, so it's all good. 


jacksprat1990 said:


> People generally have 2 consoles. Why is this a problem?


Maybe people don't want to have to buy multiple consoles just to get multiplats? I was really hoping the Wii U would be the only console I would need this generation, but it's looking like that might not be the case, especially if things keep going the way they are. All the money I would spend on a second console could be better spent actually buying multiplats for my hypothetical Wii U... If it actually had any.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 10, 2013)

jacksprat1990 said:


> People generally have 2 consoles. Why is this a problem?


 
Is there a survey that confirms this?


----------



## Rydian (May 10, 2013)

I'm missing a second one.  Anybody care to fix this and toss it my way so I'm not (_more_) abnormal?


----------



## jacksprat1990 (May 10, 2013)

Thought I was poor...


----------



## chavosaur (May 10, 2013)

jacksprat1990 said:


> Thought I was poor...


Not everyone can stupidly throw around money. Even if we could, I'd rather be smart with a console purchase then just buy all of em.


----------



## Rydian (May 10, 2013)

Hey now, just because somebody may have two doesn't mean it's dumb.  Even in today's age of cross-ports and semi-ports, there's still plenty of games that are only released on one system... and then there's all the other older systems where if one game was released on both, sometimes it was similar in name only.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 10, 2013)

To be fair even people with more money I see only float around one console predominantly. I own all three (not that I come from a wealthy family but I bought them with my own money) but I only use one usually. First it was the Wii, but once I got a Xbox 360 I have barely touched it. Then I got the PS3 and that's basically all I use now.

So even if you own multiple consoles odds are you'll only stay around one. And I know plenty of single-console households.


----------



## emigre (May 10, 2013)

I have two consoles. A PS3 and Wii. I got the Wii for free. I have however bought the DS/PSP and recently the 3DS/Vita. That's not because I'm rich or poor, it's because I'm a fucking idiot.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (May 10, 2013)

Unless gaming is one of your more predominant hobbies, I don't see why anyone would have more than one console/handheld.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 10, 2013)

I have a lot of consoles (ever Nintendo console except for Wii U, a PS2, PS3, and 360). The 360 was a gift, and the PS3 I got because I found a 160 gb unbanned slim with 2 dualshocks for only $125 at a pawn shop. I much prefer to buy only one current gen console though, especially early in the system's life. No way I would've wanted to pay $250 for a Wii AND $600 for a PS3 around the first year or two of the systems' life span. The only reason I even have 2 out of the 3 current-gen consoles I own is special circumstances that I mention above.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 12, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Except business ethics mean absolutely nothing when their software is selling millions upon millions and there's still quite a demand for their titles. Even the DRM-ridden SimCity sold over a million copies in what, a week?


 
A million copies is a low yield in contrast to the development costs of making and operating the game. They probably are barely breaking even after all the fuck up's they made at launch.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> A million copies is a low yield in contrast to the development costs of making and operating the game. They probably are barely breaking even after all the fuck up's they made at launch.


http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=671113

_(Using Fiscal Year 2012 figures since 2013 isn't over yet)_


> Electronic Arts Reports Q4 FY12 and FY12 Financial Results
> 
> All-Time High Non-GAAP *Net Revenue of $4.2 Billion in Fiscal 12*
> Annual Digital Non-GAAP Revenue — *Up 47% to $1.2 Billion*


 
That is all.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 12, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> http://investor.ea.com/releases.cfm?ReleasesType=Earnings
> 
> That is all.


 
What does that have to do with Sim City sales? Nothing, that is what.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> What does that have to do with Sim City sales? Nothing, that is what.


It directly contradicts what you've said - EA is _(and was)_ consistently making money on their products.


----------



## DSGamer64 (May 12, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It directly contradicts what you've said - EA is _(and was)_ consistently making money on their products.


 
I was talking about SimCity you knob, not about their other products. We all know people are sheep for Battlefield and Fifa. A million copies is a low return for a game that runs online and requires server maintenance.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 12, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> I was talking about SimCity you knob, not about their other products. We all know people are sheep for Battlefield and Fifa. A million copies is a low return for a game that runs online and requires server maintenance.


Calm down.


----------



## tronic307 (May 14, 2013)

Look, *EA is full of shit*. It's not about engines, and if UbiSoft's uPlay can run on Wii U, why can't Origin, as long as Nintendo gets their cut?
EA games just don't appeal to Nintendo fans. If they did, why hasn't a single one of their titles cracked 50k on Wii U? I can't blame EA for cutting their losses and it's honestly no loss to anyone.
What does it take to reclaim the hardcore? You have to be willing to take *massive* losses on *advanced* hardware that's a veritable developer's playground, *not* adequate hardware that's easy for *Nintendo* to develop on.
Nintendo still sees third parties as competition, apparently, even though they make the bulk of their profits from licensing fees. Nintendo should just massively ramp up their development facilities and be *fully* prepared to support their hardware on their own.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 14, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> Look, EA is full of shit. It's not about engines, and if UbiSoft's uPlay can run on Wii U, why can't Origin, as long as Nintendo gets their cut?


Given time, money and the effort of coders (not a limitless resource) then maybe. However if the engine would take ages to port when the resources could be better used, not be very extensible once it gets there (though I can buy an off the shelf engine I can expect to spend the time customising it), not be very easy to maintain (just because it is an "unreal engine 3" title do not for a moment assume that it is the same unreal engine 3 that came out 3 years earlier) and not have a terribly bright future (the Wii U is struggling and set to be underpowered in the near future) then perhaps not so much. To that end given many people do not understand programming and programming from an enterprise perspective especially then "we can't make it work" is not a lie.



tronic307 said:


> EA games just don't appeal to Nintendo fans. If they did, why hasn't a single one of their titles cracked 50k on Wii U? I can't blame EA for cutting their losses and it's honestly no loss to anyone.


I do not have a good list of all EA funded Wii U titles but if games are mainly sold in the first 6 months of their life then what EA games that are not sports games would seem to have come out several months later when people that wanted to play them probably had ample chance to do so. Equally it is not like EA put out many games of astounding quality last year.


----------



## The Milkman (May 14, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> Look, EA is full of shit. It's not about engines, and if UbiSoft's uPlay can run on Wii U, why can't Origin, as long as Nintendo gets their cut?
> EA games just don't appeal to Nintendo fans. If they did, why hasn't a single one of their titles cracked 50k on Wii U? I can't blame EA for cutting their losses and it's honestly no loss to anyone.


 
Has the Wii U itself even broken past a couple million? Also, most of the games they PUT on the Wii U have just been ports or "enhanced" versions. Games you could get on other consoles, which chances are a good amount of Wii U owners have. I doubt this has anything to do with the tastes of Nintendo fans, hell im an Nintendo fan and I have ME:2 and BF3 on my PC.

Even though it was a rumor, I still think this has something to do with Nintendo turning down Origin as their online infrastructure. Till it's been de-bunked I'll keep thinking it too.


----------



## tronic307 (May 14, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Given time, money and the effort of coders (not a limitless resource) then maybe. However if the engine would take ages to port when the resources could be better used, not be very extensible once it gets there (though I can buy an off the shelf engine I can expect to spend the time customising it), not be very easy to maintain (just because it is an "unreal engine 3" title do not for a moment assume that it is the same unreal engine 3 that came out 3 years earlier) and not have a terribly bright future (the Wii U is struggling and set to be underpowered in the near future) then perhaps not so much. To that end given many people do not understand programming and programming from an enterprise perspective especially then "we can't make it work" is not a lie.
> 
> 
> I do not have a good list of all EA funded Wii U titles but if games are mainly sold in the first 6 months of their life then what EA games that are not sports games would seem to have come out several months later when people that wanted to play them probably had ample chance to do so. Equally it is not like EA put out many games of astounding quality last year.


I'm sorry, I was referring to the rumored Origin digital game store debacle between EA and Nintendo, not the Frostbite3 game engine. Even if the Wii U could support the engine, there is no financial incentive for EA to port it. EA saying that the Wii U can't run it might give the matter some closure and cut down on port begging.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 14, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> I'm sorry, I was referring to the rumored Origin digital game store debacle between EA and Nintendo, not the Frostbite3 game engine. Even if the Wii U could support the engine, there is no financial incentive for EA to port it. EA saying that the Wii U can't run it might give the matter some closure and cut down on port begging.


 
I don't buy the "Frostbite3 engine not being able to run on the WiiU". The WiiU is stronger than the 360 and PS3... and yet those consoles are getting it? That just seems shady to me.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I don't buy the "Frostbite3 engine not being able to run on the WiiU". The WiiU is stronger than the 360 and PS3... and yet those consoles are getting it? That just seems shady to me.


Again, numbers showing the computing power of those systems are not a representation of what they can or can't do - the SDK may be lacking some functionality crucial for Frostbite 3's operation, making porting either impossible _(if there is no workaround)_ or at least costly _(if there is a workaround, but it requires SDK modification)_. We don't know that and as much as it seems unbelievable, we don't have anything to prove that it's not the case.


----------



## tronic307 (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I don't buy the "Frostbite3 engine not being able to run on the WiiU". The WiiU is stronger than the 360 and PS3... and yet those consoles are getting it? That just seems shady to me.


I don't buy that either, but the Wii U is not clearly superior to the previous HD consoles.
It has much more RAM and the GPU is generations ahead of the others, but only 60% of the memory bandwidth and CPU floating point performance is lacking in comparison. The CPU is like three Wii cores with SMP, more cache and a 70% clock speed increase. There is no SIMD, or vector processing; 64-bit floating point is achieved by pairing two 32-bit instructions, just like the Wii and GC.
All things considered, we wind up with a game console that is in the same class as PS3 and Xbox360; better in many ways but worse in others.
I don't think that it's anything that would scare developers off, though. Need for Speed Most Wanted for the Wii U looked nearly as good as the PC version, and better side-by-side than PS360. The game even got great reviews but only managed to sell 10k in North America, 10k in Europe, and likely only hundreds in Japan, as there is not enough sales data to register on VGChartz.
I doubt EA made their money back on that one. I agree that this is political bullshit, but you also have to take demographics into consideration.


----------



## BenRK (May 14, 2013)

I tried reading this, but all I got out of it was "We're to lazy to get a Wii U port of our engine working cause we don't want to put in any effort and keep pumping out the same set of games year after year."


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

There's no reason for anyone to be _ninbuttset*_ due to a video game publisher making a logically sound decision.





_*Nintendo Butthurt Upset_


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

I literally think people would get less anally frustrated if EA just said "We're not developing for the Wii U because it's fucking terrible" than giving an actual excuse as to why they won't do it.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I literally think people would get less anally frustrated if EA just said "We're not developing for the Wii U because it's fucking terrible" than giving an actual excuse as to why they won't do it.


I agree, actually.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I literally think people would get less anally frustrated if EA just said "We're not developing for the Wii U because it's fucking terrible" than giving an actual excuse as to why they won't do it.


Or if people believed that was the real reason.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Or if people believed that was the real reason.


 
Well people here are saying that the device not being "up to standards" isn't the case because a few internet geniuses obviously know more about the internal workings of the machine than professional video game developers.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well people here are saying that the device not being "up to standards" isn't the case because a few internet geniuses obviously know more about the internal workings of the machine than professional video game developers.


...and hackers who hacked the device and see no point in further elaborating on their findings because three Wii's strapped together and overclocked with some added RAM and a newer GPU are not exactly good prospects for homebrew anyways.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well people here are saying that the device not being "up to standards" isn't the case because a few internet geniuses obviously know more about the internal workings of the machine than professional video game developers.


1) It's more than a few, and there are quite a number of reputable sources which say otherwise.  When reputable sources say different things, people will obviously side with the option they want to be true.
2) We know that EA intentionally prevented Crysis 3 from being developed on the Wii U, so it's easy to mistrust them.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well people here are saying that the device not being "up to standards" isn't the case because a few internet geniuses obviously know more about the internal workings of the machine than professional video game developers.


 
Except when other developers, who are not as large as EA make games for it...

Like I said, it doesn't make sense as to why games like Battlefield 4 or fuck, even NHL or Madden won't come to the system, but will still come to the PS3... something just doesn't add up. Ok, give EA the benefit of the doubt for Battlefield 4, and we'll ignore that it's coming to the PS3 and 360 (although the WiiU can and has proven that it can do better than those consoles (need for speed being a prime example), NHL and Madden are definitely not that graphic heavy or anything, and they really don't look any better than their predecessors from 2006/07. Iono, it just doesn't make sense at all. And I'm sticking with that.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> 1) It's more than a few, and there are quite a number of reputable sources which say otherwise. When reputable sources say different things, people will obviously side with the option they want to be true.
> 2) We know that EA intentionally prevented Crysis 3 from being developed on the Wii U, so it's easy to mistrust them.


Pouring buckets of money down a well without a clearly visible bottom in the vain hopes that there's a treasure chest of some higher value that'll float to the surface once you fill the well up is not exactly a decision someone of a sound mind would make. If the console manages to take a slice of the market once the PS3/360 are discontinued, it very well may see developers developing for it, if not, it'll be _"First and Second-Party C.P.R."_ all over again which isn't a big issue since most Nintendo fans are actually happy with those games on their own.


----------



## Gahars (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Except when other developers, who are not as large as EA make games for it...


 
Are they making Wii U games with Frostbite 2 or 3?

No? Then that's completely irrelevant.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> 1) It's more than a few, and there are quite a number of reputable sources which say otherwise. When reputable sources say different things, people will obviously side with the option they want to be true.
> 2) We know that EA intentionally prevented Crysis 3 from being developed on the Wii U, so it's easy to mistrust them.


 
But "otherwise" being that it can run the engine and whether it can run the engine up to their standards is completely different. The Wii runs the same Call of Duty engine as everyone else but it's not nearly as good. EA may not want that with the Wii U and their next gen engines.

What is there to "mistrust" about Crysis 3 on the Wii U? Mistrust implies they promised something to you and then broke that promise. You lost trust in them. There was never any promise of Crysis 3 on the Wii U. Crytek said it was possible, EA found that it would not be a good business decision, they declined to make it a reality. EA is not a charity, they're a business. If they don't see the returns in a game they won't pursue it. End of story. Same goes with any company, from Valve to Nintendo.



ShadowSoldier said:


> Except when other developers, who are not as large as EA make games for it...
> 
> Like I said, it doesn't make sense as to why games like Battlefield 4 or fuck, even NHL or Madden won't come to the system, but will still come to the PS3... something just doesn't add up. Ok, give EA the benefit of the doubt for Battlefield 4, and we'll ignore that it's coming to the PS3 and 360 (although the WiiU can and has proven that it can do better than those consoles (need for speed being a prime example), NHL and Madden are definitely not that graphic heavy or anything, and they really don't look any better than their predecessors from 2006/07. Iono, it just doesn't make sense at all. And I'm sticking with that.


 
Probably because there's already like 60+ million PS3s floating around there and a millions strong market base and it's STILL selling more than the Wii U. Like you don't need to be a fucking math wizard to see why they'd develop a game for a system that has a huge userbase and that has provided a profitable venture for their company for many years but decline to develop for a struggling new system with a minuscule userbase that has burned them with their other games. If you're going to say "WELL MASS EFFECT 3 AND NEED FOR SPEED WERE EA'S FAULT FOR NOT SELLING WELL" then you probably shouldn't be commentating on game sales figures as a whole since you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> _(...) _EA found that it would not be a good business decision, they declined to make it a reality. EA is not a charity, they're a business.


...are you trying to say that their sole purpose in life is _not_ to give gamers their gaems? 

Now that's just stretching it, Guild - get real.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Are they making Wii U games with Frostbite 2 or 3?
> 
> No? Then that's completely irrelevant.


 
Okay, but like I said it's hard to trust EA on this one when as I said, games like NHL and Madden won't be coming to the console at all either. While I can understand that "hey, we can get the engine to run on it but we can't afford to right now" is certainly a viable truth, it's hard to take their word for it when there's a ton of rumors going around saying EA is mad at EA, and they won't be releasing NHL and Madden to the WiiU, which don't use the Frostbite engines (at least as far as I know). I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt sure, but at the same time, a part of me will think that they are just completely bullshitting and are butthurt.

Iono, I'll shut up. EA has turned into one of those companies that everybody loved and did great things like TimeSplitters Future Perfect, to basically dividing it's fanbase in half where they're hard to be trusted, but at the same time people like them.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Okay, but like I said it's hard to trust EA on this one when as I said, games like NHL and Madden won't be coming to the console at all either. While I can understand that "hey, we can get the engine to run on it but we can't afford to right now" is certainly a viable truth, it's hard to take their word for it when there's a ton of rumors going around saying EA is mad at EA, and they won't be releasing NHL and Madden to the WiiU, which don't use the Frostbite engines (at least as far as I know). I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt sure, but at the same time, a part of me will think that they are just completely bullshitting and are butthurt.


 
Pretty sure the games aren't coming to the Wii U because it's doing absolutely horribly and there's no incentive to develop for a system that won't give them returns.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> But "otherwise" being that it can run the engine and whether it can run the engine up to their standards is completely different. The Wii runs the same Call of Duty engine as everyone else but it's not nearly as good. EA may not want that with the Wii U and their next gen engines.
> 
> What is there to "mistrust" about Crysis 3 on the Wii U? Mistrust implies they promised something to you and then broke that promise. You lost trust in them. There was never any promise of Crysis 3 on the Wii U. Crytek said it was possible, EA found that it would not be a good business decision, they declined to make it a reality. EA is not a charity, they're a business. If they don't see the returns in a game they won't pursue it. End of story. Same goes with any company, from Valve to Nintendo.


This is the exact 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."


 
Anyway, I'm just speaking about how most people feel.  Maybe I'm wrong, but it doesn't really matter.  No need to argue with me.


----------



## Gahars (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Okay, but like I said it's hard to trust EA on this one when as I said, games like NHL and Madden won't be coming to the console at all either. While I can understand that "hey, we can get the engine to run on it but we can't afford to right now" is certainly a viable truth, it's hard to take their word for it when there's a ton of rumors going around saying EA is mad at EA, and they won't be releasing NHL and Madden to the WiiU, which don't use the Frostbite engines (at least as far as I know). I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt sure, but at the same time, a part of me will think that they are just completely bullshitting and are butthurt.


 
But rumors mean nothing. I mean, are we really so thirsty for blood that we'll put a company to the stake over hearsay and nothing else?

If you're going to lambast EA, go ahead, but do it for the actual bad decisions they've made. There's no shortage of actual screw ups on their part; it's wholly unnecessary to go about inventing new ones.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> This is the exact quote.


That's even worse as it means that Crisis 3 Wii U never came to fruition because Nintendo and EA couldn't find a common tongue and there's nothing worse than _"issues"_ with matters as simple as _"giving a company a license to publish a title"_. Perhaps EA wanted to secure their interests somehow by wanting Nintendo to give them some kind of a guarantee of returns _(as one would with a triple-A, system-selling title when released for a brand-new platform without a big market share)_, who knows.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Pretty sure the games aren't coming to the Wii U because it's doing absolutely horribly and there's no incentive to develop for a system that won't give them returns.


 
Well that didn't really stop them from releasing stuff on the Wii, which was vastly underpowered, and as I checked, didn't really give them a whole lot of sales for it either.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Well that didn't really stop them from releasing stuff on the Wii, which was vastly underpowered, and as I checked, didn't really give them a whole lot of sales for it either.


 
Wait, so EA developed on the Wii, didn't do well financially on it, and aren't developing for its successor console?

WELL COLOR ME SHOCKED AND SPANK ME PURPLE.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Well that didn't really stop them from releasing stuff on the Wii, which was vastly underpowered, and as I checked, didn't really give them a whole lot of sales for it either.


...the Wii didn't do horribly - it was the best-selling system of the last generation that was incredibly easy to develop _simple_ titles for it _(massive triple-A multiplatform productions not so much, but dedicated exclusives? Sure)_. Now, whether or not it brought profits to EA is something I'd have to verify.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Wait, so EA developed on the Wii, didn't do well financially on it, and aren't developing for its successor console?
> 
> WELL COLOR ME SHOCKED AND SPANK ME PURPLE.


 
But they kept developing for the Wii, that's what I'm saying. Read more next time please -__-


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> But they kept developing for the Wii, that's what I'm saying. Read more next time please -__-


 
Probably because there was some hope? The system was selling really well and had a large userbase.

But the fact they didn't do well on it financially (according to you) paired with the fact that it's successor is doing nowhere near as well makes why they wouldn't develop for it dead obvious.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Crysis 3 proves that they would rather waste time and money than let developers publish games for the Wii U.


----------



## Gahars (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Crysis 3 proves that they would rather waste time and money than let developers publish games for the Wii U.


 
As if developing for the Wii U _isn't_ wasting time and money.

HI-YO! 

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week, folks!


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Gahars said:


> As if developing for the Wii U _isn't_ wasting time and money.


It is if, after the game is completed, EA won't let you publish it.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

> there was a lack of business support between *Nintendo* and EA on that.


 
hey guys there was a second party in that crysis 3 debacle I didn't know that


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> hey guys there was a second party in that crysis 3 debacle I didn't know that


Nintendo isn't the one who refused to publish the game.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Nintendo isn't the one who refused to publish the game.


 
The statement says there was a "lack of business support" between two parties. That doesn't mean it was 100% EA's fault unless you're a magical EA insider.

You can't just shout "I'M PUBLISHING A GAME FOR THIS SYSTEM" and it happens with no issues. It's a business deal between console manufacturers and publishers. If things break down so does publishing the game.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The statement says there was a "lack of business support" between two parties. That doesn't mean it was 100% EA's fault unless you're a magical EA insider.
> 
> You can't just shout "I'M PUBLISHING A GAME FOR THIS SYSTEM" and it happens with no issues. It's a business deal between console manufacturers and publishers. If things break down so does publishing the game.


So you are suggesting that Nintendo decided they didn't want a developer to publish a completed game when they really needed the business?


----------



## Centrix (May 14, 2013)

I hate companies that down play a next gen console when the console can actually run Frost Bite 3 or Cry Engine 3 or Unreal 4 all of which have been proven to run on the Wii U by other developers with no problems so drop dead EA!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> So you are suggesting that Nintendo decided they didn't want a developer to publish a completed game when they really needed the business?


 
I'm suggesting that it could be equal parts wrong on both sides and that saying "Oh it was all EA's fault" when you have not the slightest idea what really happened is an incredible jump with no justification other than "I think EA is bad."


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'm suggesting that it could be equal parts wrong on both sides and that saying "Oh it was all EA's fault" when you have not the slightest idea what really happened is an incredible jump with no justification other than "I think EA is bad."


No, that's not what I'm saying.

We know for a fact that Crysis 3 was completed for the Wii U.
We know for a fact that there are business problems between EA and Nintendo.
We know for a fact that EA is refusing to publish several titles for the Wii U.
Developers decided to make Crysis 3 for the Wii U, and either Nintendo or EA stopped it after all the work was done.  Which is more likely:
A) Nintendo decided they didn't want a game published for the Wii U, even though they were struggling.
B) EA decided to repeat the pattern they've had for months and not publish a game for the Wii U.

Now option A is possible, but insanely unlikely.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 14, 2013)

kehkou said:


> ...and there goes another nail on that coffin.


 
unrelated to the thread, but I like your sig

".. water tribe .." lol. Do you remember what episode that was from?


----------



## Deleted User (May 14, 2013)

Iz k. Az lung axe I huv mareoh nun ten dough iz dumed butt nut reely aneemor. Mess afect pluss fps r fer peple hoo preteen two bee herdkare hoo neds tooo kell al dose geyes aneewneys. Wut r yu geyes? Sycopats? Wii Ned twoo pot ehvreewon hoo lik dos gems en streight shurts bcuz tay gna kil ehvreewon em eye rite? Lok at ahl dose skol shewtin ets cuz gam like cod an baishack! LOL! Onely gam lik mareoh n kerbee shed eggcist. Da wurled wud bee a behter pleyce.

NINTENDO4LYFE


----------



## Gahars (May 14, 2013)

andy249901 said:


> Iz k. Az lung axe I huv mareoh nun ten dough iz dumed butt nut reely aneemor. Mess afect pluss fps r fer peple hoo preteen two bee herdkare hoo neds tooo kell al dose geyes aneewneys. Wut r yu geyes? Sycopats? Wii Ned twoo pot ehvreewon hoo lik dos gems en streight shurts bcuz tay gna kil ehvreewon em eye rite? Lok at ahl dose skol shewtin ets cuz gam like cod an baishack! LOL! Onely gam lik mareoh n kerbee shed eggcist. Da wurled wud bee a behter pleyce.
> 
> NINTENDO4LYFE


 
Hard-hitting satire or Narutofan's new rival? You decide!


----------



## Lastly (May 14, 2013)

andy249901 said:


> Iz k. Az lung axe I huv mareoh nun ten dough iz dumed butt nut reely aneemor. Mess afect pluss fps r fer peple hoo preteen two bee herdkare hoo neds tooo kell al dose geyes aneewneys. Wut r yu geyes? Sycopats? Wii Ned twoo pot ehvreewon hoo lik dos gems en streight shurts bcuz tay gna kil ehvreewon em eye rite? Lok at ahl dose skol shewtin ets cuz gam like cod an baishack! LOL! Onely gam lik mareoh n kerbee shed eggcist. Da wurled wud bee a behter pleyce.
> 
> NINTENDO4LYFE


Troll Translator (Original Text) -> Engrish -> English

Result form translate.google.com/trollTranslator
TrollerBrothers 1337-2013 - All Right Reserved

As long as I have Mario, nothing though is doom, but not really anymore. Mass Effect plus other FPS are for other people who pretend to be hardcore who needs to tell all those guys anyway. What are you guys? Sycophant? We need to put everyone who like those game in straight shirt, because they going to kill everyone, am I right? Look at those shooting at Schools, because it's game like COD and Bioshock! LOL! Only games like mario and Kirby should exist. The world would be a better place.


----------



## ggyo (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> I don't buy the "Frostbite3 engine not being able to run on the WiiU". The WiiU is stronger than the 360 and PS3... and yet those consoles are getting it? That just seems shady to me.


The WiiU is also using a CPU from 1997. The IBM Broadway PowerPC CPU debuted in 1997 and was used in the Gamecube, codenamed "Gekko". The same CPU was used in the Wii, but overclocked. The same CPU is being used in the WiiU, with two extra cores, more moderized, overclocked, etc., but still based on a CPU from 1997. That's closing in on two decades.

The CPU so nice they used it thrice.

I wondered if it's maybe for backwards compatibility reasons? I use to think Nintendo bought way too many of them off IBM in Gamecube days, expecting much higher sales, and ended up tossing it into the Wii to get rid of an otherwise useless investment.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

ggyo said:


> I wondered if it's maybe for backwards compatibility reasons?


It's not the same CPU, it's similar though.  And yes, it's for backwards compatibility.


----------



## izzydeank (May 14, 2013)

You guys are silly. lol Don't hump Squirrels. Its not nice!


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

izzydeank said:


> You guys are silly. lol Don't hump Squirrels. Its not nice!


It's a perfectly natural fetish.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (May 14, 2013)

andy249901 said:


> Iz k. Az lung axe I huv mareoh nun ten dough iz dumed butt nut reely aneemor. Mess afect pluss fps r fer peple hoo preteen two bee herdkare hoo neds tooo kell al dose geyes aneewneys. Wut r yu geyes? Sycopats? Wii Ned twoo pot ehvreewon hoo lik dos gems en streight shurts bcuz tay gna kil ehvreewon em eye rite? Lok at ahl dose skol shewtin ets cuz gam like cod an baishack! LOL! Onely gam lik mareoh n kerbee shed eggcist. Da wurled wud bee a behter pleyce.
> 
> NINTENDO4LYFE


 
Jesus fucking christ that was a mess to read. I got up to Mess Afect then I gave up.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Jesus fucking christ that was a mess to read. I got up to Mess Afect then I gave up.


I got to "andy249901" and I gave up.


----------



## Lastly (May 14, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Jesus fucking christ that was a mess to read. I got up to Mess Afect then I gave up.


But I, or rather Troll Translator, already translated it. Look up a couple posts from yours.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 14, 2013)

andy249901 said:


> Iz k. Az lung axe I huv mareoh nun ten dough iz dumed butt nut reely aneemor. Mess afect pluss fps r fer peple hoo preteen two bee herdkare hoo neds tooo kell al dose geyes aneewneys. Wut r yu geyes? Sycopats? Wii Ned twoo pot ehvreewon hoo lik dos gems en streight shurts bcuz tay gna kil ehvreewon em eye rite? Lok at ahl dose skol shewtin ets cuz gam like cod an baishack! LOL! Onely gam lik mareoh n kerbee shed eggcist. Da wurled wud bee a behter pleyce.
> 
> NINTENDO4LYFE


 
Translation: "Random, nonsensical string of unintelligible remarks about video games and violence without mentioning that TV shows and movies can have the same effect but then what would be the fun of singling out video games what am I talking about I'm just an ordinary troll who can't spell a single English word worth crap 'kay thanks gotta-----"

Error: Troll_translator.exe has encountered an error from which it will never recover and is forced to close.

Error: Give_a_damn.exe has also encountered an error but will start up normally on the next restart.



izzydeank said:


> You guys are silly. lol Don't hump Squirrels. Its not nice!


Why not? I do it all the time. Hasn't anyone told you about my deep, dark secrets?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying.
> 
> We know for a fact that Crysis 3 was completed for the Wii U.
> We know for a fact that there are business problems between EA and Nintendo.
> ...


It's not the developers who decide on working on a given platform but the parent company. If there was a working prototype that was practically ready for launch then it was a planned project, it had a budget and it was actively developed. This means that, surprise, surprise, EA dished out money for it but failed to strike a deal with Nintendo that would outweigh their own input so the project was cancelled to cut the losses. I think we're pointing at the wrong company here - Nintendo is notorious for being hard to work with or even get in touch with and EA isn't going to do them any favours - it's in Nintendo's business to secure titles for their struggling system, not EA's.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

So you think the game was finished and Nintendo said "No, we have plenty of games already."?  It's far more logical that EA did the same thing they have been doing for months.  They said no to releasing a Wii U version.  Why should this time be any different?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> So you think the game was finished and Nintendo said "No, we have plenty of games already."? It's far more logical that EA did the same thing they have been doing for months. They said no to releasing a Wii U version. Why should this time be any different?


It's far more logical that EA has better things to do than waste their money and they were likely met with ludicrous licensing terms they were unwilling to sign as they would not guarantee profit. In their current situation Nintendo, for all intents and purposes should secure such deals even at their own disadvantage because their console needs AAA titles right now. It would be a long-term investment in their system.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It's far more logical that EA has better things to do than waste their money and they were likely met with ludicrous licensing terms they were unwilling to sign as they would not guarantee profit. In their current situation Nintendo, for all intents and purposes should secure such deals even at their own disadvantage because their console needs AAA titles right now. It would be a long-term investment in their system.


But they lost money by their decision.  They funded the Wii U version and didn't release it.  The choices were, make money (or at least recover some of the money spent) by publishing the Wii U version, or just lose all the money.  They chose "lose all the money" and you are telling me they made a profitable business decision.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> But they lost money by their decision. They funded the Wii U version and didn't release it. The choices were, make money (or at least recover some of the money spent) by publishing the Wii U version, or just lose all the money. They chose "lose all the money" and you are telling me they made a profitable business decision.


That's the whole point - if the risks of publishing the title according to the licensing scenario proposed outweighed the money they invested in the port, it would be unreasonable to release it. If the costs of publishing the title outweigh the possible profits and cancelling is a lesser loss, you cancel the title.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the whole point - if the risks of publishing the title according to the licensing scenario proposed outweighed the money they invested in the port, it would be unreasonable to release it. If the costs of publishing the topic outweigh the possible profits and cancelling is a lesser loss, you cancel the title.


Considering how much shovelware is available across different consoles, there can't be a whole lot of risk in selling a game.  Besides, it would sell huge for the Wii U, ESPECIALLY because there aren't that many games yet.  Far less competition.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Considering how much shovelware is available across different consoles, there can't be a whole lot of risk in selling a game. Besides, it would sell huge for the Wii U, ESPECIALLY because there aren't that many games yet. Far less competition.


Far less market share too.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Far less market share too.


It doesn't matter.  Obviously they wouldn't make that many copies for the Wii U, but pressing discs is cheap.  With a $60 price on the game, they should have been able to make a lot of money.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> It doesn't matter. Obviously they wouldn't make that many copies for the Wii U, but pressing discs is cheap. With a $60 price on the game, they should have been able to make a lot of money.


I'll give you an example here - let's say that they sell 1 million copies and already spent about a million on getting it to work on the Wii U. Now, let's say that Nintendo will take a 10% cut for each sold game due to licensing. The profits are going to be an initial $27 million for the first half-a-million copies and about $18 million after the game drops in price.

That brings us to a grand total of $34,8 million dollars. Now, how much do you think does patching post-release, keeping servers online, pressing the discs, preparing the cases, distributing the game and advertising it worldwide are going to cost?

Hint, pretty sure it's going to be more than $34,8 million dollars.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 14, 2013)

Even assuming pressing, shipping and licensing was not all that much there might be commitments for levels of advertising, the licensing stuff* might have meant EA could be left holding the bag for some time (a lack a liquidity is not a nice position to be in, especially if you are EA coming off the last few years), you could be seen to have to support a game (I have only seen what MS charge for title update publishing but I am guessing it might be comparable or at least similar orders of magnitude and if there is a "matched patch" commitment for licensing) and I could quite happily see cancelling a game if it would have led to bad PR.

*if EA used another dev tool they might have to pay per version released.

Also how much money was "lost" by porting to the Wii U? Presumably the assets which were already created could have been reused and asset creation is a killer. To that end if you stuck a bunch of cheap and cheerful code slaves in the basement for a few months then what you might have lost to wages and electricity use could be nothing to some of the stuff up above. Now this might at some level run contrary to the other things we have been discussing in the thread (in effect some of it could be saying the Wii U is not all that underpowered/difficult to code for) but I will stand by it for now.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Hint, pretty sure it's going to be more than $34,8 million dollars.


I seriously doubt that.  Pressing discs is really cheap, the cases take up about 50% less plastic than any other consoles, and instruction manuals are no longer included.  All that together is going to cost less than one dollar per game.

As far as advertisement, all they have to do is add the Wii U logo to the end of the advertisement right next to the other logos.  Minimum wage is like $8 now, right?  Since it takes at most 30 seconds to add a logo, it should cost them less than one penny in advertisement.

Unless you think that servers is going to cost around $33 million dollars, I'd say you are very wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I seriously doubt that. Pressing discs is really cheap, the cases take up about 50% less plastic than any other consoles, and instruction manuals are no longer included. All that together is going to cost less than one dollar per game.
> 
> As far as advertisement, all they have to do is add the Wii U logo to the end of the advertisement right next to the other logos. Minimum wage is like $8 now, right? Since it takes at most 30 seconds to add a logo, it should cost them less than one penny in advertisement.
> 
> Unless you think that servers is going to cost around $33 million dollars, I'd say you are very wrong.


Assuming that $33 million dollars is just about enough to launch a triple-A title these days is pretty naive and a grand total of $33 million in sales _(not profit, since this money would have to be used to cover the forementioned costs)_ is not an interesting prospect for a company that sold $200+ worth of Mass Effect 3 copies.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Assuming that $33 million dollars is just about enough to launch a triple-A title these days is pretty naive and a grand total of $33 million in sales _(not profit, since this money would have to be used to cover the forementioned costs)_ is not an interesting prospect for a company that sold $200+ worth of Mass Effect 3 copies.


You are confusing launching a series of titles (i.e. the same game on several systems) and launching an extra title along the already funded titles.   It's the difference in spending millions on advertisement, and spending 0.8 cents extra on advertisement.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 14, 2013)

Look, EA are not Disney villains, they're not releasing Crysis 3 for the Wii U not because they're stupidly evil and just want to torment Wii U owners but because there's LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASONS why they didn't.

I don't know what point you're trying to make but honestly I'm going to take the point of a company with trained professionals who are trained and whose job is to decide what is a good and what is a bad business decision than that of an internet forum-goer whose using very basic reasoning with no actual knowledge of the deal making assumptions.


----------



## tronic307 (May 14, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Nintendo isn't the one who refused to publish the game.


If Nintendo moneyhatted Crysis 3, published it and slapped their Seal of Approval® on the box; would it have even sold 100k?


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Look, EA are not Disney villains, they're not releasing Crysis 3 for the Wii U not because they're stupidly evil and just want to torment Wii U owners but because there's LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASONS why they didn't.


The point I'm making is that I don't see any LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASONS.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Regardless of the reasons though, I feel bad for any group of developers that create a game for a console and, right when it's ready to publish, get shut down.  All the time and money went to waste.


----------



## Rydian (May 14, 2013)

Income - Expenses = Net Income.

If Net Income is positive, then you make a profit.  If net Income is negative, you take a loss.  Even if you do make a profit, the profit often has to be large enough to make up for the time spent and all that jazz so some companies will not undertake something that's expected to only grant them a minimal profit over a large amount of time.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 14, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Income - Expenses = Net Income.
> 
> If Net Income is positive, then you make a profit. If net Income is negative, you take a loss. Even if you do make a profit, the profit often has to be large enough to make up for the time spent and all that jazz so some companies will not undertake something that's expected to only grant them a minimal profit over a large amount of time.


Thank you for mentioning the time aspect Rydian, we completely forgot about it earlier.

People often forget about the time aspect - even if a title would be profitable to a small degree, the studio indeed has to delegate the whole process, meaning use their human resources and their time to create a product ready for release. If that time could've been used differently and in a more profitable fashion, of course the studio isn't going to waste their resources on the barely profitable venture - they'll go for the big bucks because that's how business works.

_"Time is Money"_ comes to mind - if the end product is not expected to give them a pre-determined profit nobody's going to engage their talented developers in it, instead giving them a more profitable project to work on.


----------



## ggyo (May 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Look, EA are not Disney villains, they're not releasing Crysis 3 for the Wii U not because they're stupidly evil and just want to torment Wii U owners but because there's LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASONS why they didn't.
> 
> I don't know what point you're trying to make but honestly I'm going to take the point of a company with trained professionals who are trained and whose job is to decide what is a good and what is a bad business decision than that of an internet forum-goer whose using very basic reasoning with no actual knowledge of the deal making assumptions.


For real.

Corporations, or at least those run by business-sensible executives, don't base their decisions on emotional interests. If they could make a profit by simply releasing a game that was (assumed by tempers to) already have completed development, it would have been released. Financial interests are first. These people have mouths to feed, investors to please, and employees to pay. They can never intentionally make a deal that will lose them money, and can never intentionally ignore prospects that will make them money.

And that's the difference between JoostinOnline, and successful people who don't project their emotional dispositions out of spite. It's not even about business knowledge. This is (un?)common sense.


----------



## kehkou (May 14, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> unrelated to the thread, but I like your sig
> 
> ".. water tribe .." lol. Do you remember what episode that was from?


 
I think its just fan art.


----------



## Haloman800 (May 15, 2013)

kehkou said:


> I think its just fan art.


I know, but I remember one episode of Avatar where Katara said that/did that with her hands, I think it was an episode with Toph as well.


----------



## ggyo (May 16, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> I know, but I remember one episode of Avatar where Katara said that/did that with her hands, I think it was an episode with Toph as well.


Nah, it's the very first episode with Toph, and Sokka does it. Aang is looking for an earthbending master, and he goes to a bunch of quack trainers, and a school. After the school doesn't work out, he asks two students about earthbending matches at an earthbending arena, and the students go like "On the island of nunya... nunya business. AHAHAHAHA!" Katara does her thing, scares them, they give up the information, and while they're walking out, Sokka does a "represent" exit and says "Water triiibe."

I think it's called The Blind Bandit.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 16, 2013)

Humorously, EA officially phases out online passes as of earlier today. HA-HA!


----------



## Haloman800 (May 16, 2013)

ggyo said:


> Nah, it's the very first episode with Toph, and Sokka does it. Aang is looking for an earthbending master, and he goes to a bunch of quack trainers, and a school. After the school doesn't work out, he asks two students about earthbending matches at an earthbending arena, and the students go like "On the island of nunya... nunya business. AHAHAHAHA!" Katara does her thing, scares them, they give up the information, and while they're walking out, Sokka does a "represent" exit and says "Water triiibe."
> 
> I think it's called The Blind Bandit.


 
Hahaha, that's exactly it. Thanks so much, great memory btw.


----------

