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

[kisamesama]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Spoiler

I loved the Gamecube and N64...

 

[Foxi4]

I loved the Gamecube and N64...

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

 

[SSVAV]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

I loved the Gamecube and N64...

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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 one 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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?