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

[lovewiibrew]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Let the tears flow like whine wine.

 

[FluffyLunamoth]

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.

 

[Mollycule]

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]

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

 

[Foxi4]

Let the tears flow like whine wine.

Scrumptious.

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]

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]

Some things that are nagging me:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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]

Some things that are nagging me:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Guild McCommunist]

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]

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]

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.)