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

[Foxi4]

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]

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]

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.

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]

(...) 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Gahars]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.