• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

EA: Making Frostbite 3 Work On Wii U Is Not Impossible, focusing resources on XB1/PS4

EA for some reason thinks releasing games 6-24 month old games on wii-u should have sold better..... Maybe they should release Madden 2012 on PS4 and see how great it sells.

Very true.

If EA "supported" the PS4 and XB180 with the same games it gave the Wii U, they wouldn't sell on those platforms either.

Would all the people decrying Nintendo owners be so quick to assume that the audience just isn't there on those consoles, or would they understand that most people aren't interested in buying month's old ports with less content and no DLC support?
 
Anyone quoting bad sales in the face of EA's actual release-list for Wii U given proper context is putting blinders on. Simple. Cry "conspiracy," but something stinks and there's no evidence EA ever tried or even planned on trying.

Exactly. The bean counters should be all over the execs that allowed resources to be wasted on Madden 12 (supposedly took them 6 months to develop/port the Wii U version), FIFA 12, and Mass Effect 3. Let's not forget wasting resources releasing Need for Speed nearly 4 months after the other versions.

I wonder, did EA's President take a paycut before firing 1,000 employees in April/May? What about their COO? CFO? I did check, and didn't find it, if they did.
 
Very true.

If EA "supported" the PS4 and XB180 with the same games it gave the Wii U, they wouldn't sell on those platforms either.

No, they'd sell much, much better (see: the feature-lacking Madden '06 for 360), primarily because those platforms are produced by companies that actually try to cultivate an audience for the kind of games EA makes.
 

d[-_-]b

Banned
No, they'd sell much, much better (see: the feature-lacking Madden '06 for 360), primarily because those platforms are produced by companies that actually try to cultivate an audience for the kind of games EA makes.
Cultivate lol? Audience is some sort bacteria, anyways, did you really use 06 as an example though?

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/xbox-vs-xbox-360-do-you-really-need-hd-6140621/
Go look at the difference between the Xbox version and the 360 version... They built that shit from the ground up...
 

ShowDog

Member
What is the big deal here? Sure, it could run, but EA have decided it isn't worth the effort. The existing versions of the 360 and PS3 engine won't work on Wii U. Maybe the CPU is too slow, whatever it is. And obviously the PS4 and 180 versions won't work either. So yeah, in the current form it is impossible to run. They could make it run. You can make anything run with enough optimizations / compromises.

There must be an epic level of butthurt going on for these conversations to keep cropping up. I guess I can remember the feeling from my DC fanboy days, back when I was 13. But I thought you had to be older than that to post here...
 
No, they'd sell much, much better (see: the feature-lacking Madden '06 for 360), primarily because those platforms are produced by companies that actually try to cultivate an audience for the kind of games EA makes.

Link to sales? I'm having trouble finding them, though I have heard this one, particular example before.

And I disagree with you. I would say EA tries to cultivate their audience on the other platforms, not the platform owners. Some of the Wii versions of AAA games like CoD outsold the PS3 versions early in Gen 7. The audience was there, but the games were not.
 
Well, it´s impossible that the WiiU will ever be a successful third party platform and that makes Frostbite 3 kind of impossible too.

well at least tiger woods did quite well for EA on wii so they could get a frostbite 3 version on the system.

also starwars force unleashed was very succesful on wii. they could get a frostbite 3 version of that as well.

i think its not unfair to say that the investment will not be in total vain since everything EA does will be FB3 based from now on.
Seems like a very good business decision to me. To not bother making the engine for the Wii U that is.

I dont know. If you look at the stance of EA on WiiU it shifted from "we dont care" to "we may have to consider it" very quickly after may 21st.

If one of the two platforms EA banks on heavily does not do the numbers they anticipate they might want to have a third pillar. Just to be safe.
EA's flip flopping about what the Wii U is/isn't capable of is really annoying. Everyone knows that it's certainly possible to make that engine work on the Wii U.

It's understandable that EA doesn't want to invest in the Wii U right now since they're games won't sell that well considering the userbase and the lack of Nintendo titles to push hardware sales. That being said ... EA has done a shit job with Wii U ports so far, save for Need for Speed: Most Wanted U.

They killed Mass Effect 3 on Wii U on their own with the Trilogy announcement FFS.

i thought Fifa 13 was okay, despite it being Fifa 12

im puzzled about the tiger woods decision. that could have been a good seller with little effort. they have wii motion plus controls down and they had a solid fanbase on wii with that game. also in march it would have been an absolute highlight on that platform.
 
Q

qizah

Unconfirmed Member
EA's flip flopping about what the Wii U is/isn't capable of is really annoying. Everyone knows that it's certainly possible to make that engine work on the Wii U.

It's understandable that EA doesn't want to invest in the Wii U right now since they're games won't sell that well considering the userbase and the lack of Nintendo titles to push hardware sales. That being said ... EA has done a shit job with Wii U ports so far, save for Need for Speed: Most Wanted U.

They killed Mass Effect 3 on Wii U on their own with the Trilogy announcement FFS.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Where there are gamers, we’ll be there as well. This is the true meaning of “omnidirectional”"

So no gamers on Wii U means no Frostbite.
 
Link to sales? I'm having trouble finding them, though I have heard this one, particular example before.

178K in launch month alone.


And I disagree with you. I would say EA tries to cultivate their audience on the other platforms, not the platform owners. Some of the Wii versions of AAA games like CoD outsold the PS3 versions early in Gen 7. The audience was there, but the games were not.

While I somewhat agree that Wii could have become a more viable platform for core gaming (albeit not the dudebro console of choice, for obvious reasons) had it gotten better support in its first two years on the market, that's not the situation Wii U launched into; it launched seven years after 360 and six years after PS3, meaning that the overwhelming majority of people who had any interest in playing HD multiplatform games already owned another HD console. Since Nintendo has not made any demonstrable first-party investment in attempting to win over the primary target market - Western male gamers aged 17-35 - of publishers like EA, why should they believe that Wii U will offer a healthy market for such titles? And if Nintendo isn't offering incentives, why should they put any effort into supporting it?

There's certainly a significant element of self-fulfilling prophecy here, but those are the market realities Wii U launched into, and it's the job of the platform holder to change market realities. Not third parties.
 
178K in launch month alone.




While I somewhat agree that Wii could have become a more viable platform for core gaming (albeit not the dudebro console of choice, for obvious reasons) had it gotten better support in its first two years on the market, that's not the situation Wii U launched into; it launched seven years after 360 and six years after PS3, meaning that the overwhelming majority of people who had any interest in playing HD multiplatform games already owned another HD console. Since Nintendo has not made any demonstrable first-party investment in attempting to win over the primary target market - Western male gamers aged 17-35 - of publishers like EA, why should they believe that Wii U will offer a healthy market for such titles? And if Nintendo isn't offering incentives, why should they put any effort into supporting it?

Well maybe EA should try to get a game or two outside of that target audience to mitigate risks?

Activision has skylanders and guitarhero
Ubisoft has Just Dance
WB has Lego
Heck, even 2K has Carnival Games.

So in case the next Call of Duty, Batman or Assassins Creed fall short of their projection those companies still have a second pillar to stand on and those games show good sales on nintendo platforms

EA tried in the past (boomblox or mysims) but never really established anything that sold similar numbers to their main "hardcore" franchises (also their hardcore franchises outside of sports oftentimes fall short to the competition).
 
178K in launch month alone.




While I somewhat agree that Wii could have become a more viable platform for core gaming (albeit not the dudebro console of choice, for obvious reasons) had it gotten better support in its first two years on the market, that's not the situation Wii U launched into; it launched seven years after 360 and six years after PS3, meaning that the overwhelming majority of people who had any interest in playing HD multiplatform games already owned another HD console. Since Nintendo has not made any demonstrable first-party investment in attempting to win over the primary target market - Western male gamers aged 17-35 - of publishers like EA, why should they believe that Wii U will offer a healthy market for such titles? And if Nintendo isn't offering incentives, why should they put any effort into supporting it?

Thanks for the link.

As to the rest, I don't think they have any obligation to support the Wii U. But that doesn't change that EA cultivated their own audience on the other platforms and neglected to cultivate one on Nintendo platforms. We can't lay the blame for there "not being an audience for EA's games" (which I don't believe is true) on Nintendo, when EA pointedly doesn't release games of equal quality or effort on Nintendo platforms. Nintendo certainly could moneyhat some games, but that won't make the audience suddenly appear on the console. It will just give that audience a worthwhile game to buy on the console, finally.

I don't understand the argument that the audience doesn't exist when the reality is that the games don't exist for that audience to buy. A few late, shitty ports of games available for lower prices on other consoles doesn't determine whether or not an audience exists, apparently unless you're an early Xbox 360 adopter looking to play Madden, which is the only counterargument I've seen to this.

The fact of the matter is, EA won't give the same shitty "support" to the other consoles that it gives to Nintendo, so we won't know how they would respond. But EA also won't bother to actually put effort into, at the very least, a truly multiplatform Wii U release that has the same DLC and features as, again, at the very fucking least, the PS360 versions. So no one can every really say whether that audience exists on the Wii U or not.
 
Thanks for the link.

As to the rest, I don't think they have any obligation to support the Wii U. But that doesn't change that EA cultivated their own audience on the other platforms and neglected to cultivate one on Nintendo platforms. We can't lay the blame for there "not being an audience for EA's games" (which I don't believe is true) on Nintendo, when EA pointedly doesn't release games of equal quality or effort on Nintendo platforms. Nintendo certainly could moneyhat some games, but that won't make the audience suddenly appear on the console. It will just give that audience a worthwhile game to buy on the console, finally.

I don't understand the argument that the audience doesn't exist when the reality is that the games don't exist for that audience to buy. A few late, shitty ports of games available for lower prices on other consoles doesn't determine whether or not an audience exists, apparently unless you're an early Xbox 360 adopter looking to play Madden, which is the only counterargument I've seen to this.

The fact of the matter is, EA won't give the same shitty "support" to the other consoles that it gives to Nintendo, so we won't know how they would respond. But EA also won't bother to actually put effort into, at the very least, a truly multiplatform Wii U release that has the same DLC and features as, again, at the very fucking least, the PS360 versions. So no one can every really say whether that audience exists on the Wii U or not.
to be fair EA tried a bit with

EA sports active
EA Sports titles (with Tiger Woods and Grand Slam Tennis being prime examples of good implementation)
MySims
BoomBlox

I think they kinda missed to carry out their plans and invest a bit more into them. Especially Boom Blox was a great product that they could have build on and expanded more. I am sure it would have sold loads better with better character design and decent marketing.
 
"but it’s also partly because the multiplayer of Battlefield 3 has been strongly supported by the Xbox community, and we’re showing gratitude for that support."

Didn't the game sell more on PS3 and there's always more players playing on PS3? Looking at the numbers right now:

PC online 46 968
PS3 online 67 667
360 online 54 446

What a load of bs lol
 
I don't understand the argument that the audience doesn't exist when the reality is that the games don't exist for that audience to buy. A few late, shitty ports of games available for lower prices on other consoles doesn't determine whether or not an audience exists, apparently unless you're an early Xbox 360 adopter looking to play Madden, which is the only counterargument I've seen to this.

Hmm, what's one thing that certain other first parties do to ensure that those games do exist for that audience to buy, which Nintendo pointedly doesn't? They fund and publish exclusive games aimed at that audience.

The fact of the matter is, EA won't give the same shitty "support" to the other consoles that it gives to Nintendo, so we won't know how they would respond. But EA also won't bother to actually put effort into, at the very least, a truly multiplatform Wii U release that has the same DLC and features as, again, at the very fucking least, the PS360 versions. So no one can every really say whether that audience exists on the Wii U or not.

It's true that Wii U has yet to get a major multiplatform title aimed at the aforementioned 17-35 male demographic that has both timing and feature parity with the PS3/360 versions, but all the ports it's gotten in that regard have bombed badly enough that I don't think release timing/features are enough to explain them (see: NFS MW Wii U vs. Vita).

In any case, I imagine that SC BL, Watch_Dogs, and ACIV will offer pretty definitive proof. Arkham Origins as well, in the event that the feature parity excuse turns out not to be applicable there.
 

Mithos

Member
In any case, I imagine that SC BL, Watch_Dogs, and ACIV will offer pretty definitive proof. Arkham Origins as well, in the event that the feature parity excuse turns out not to be applicable there.

I don't think these games will sell that insane even IF they are up to par and/or even surpasses the PS360 versions, I think people might just start thinking OK maybe now I could start to think about these game/-series.

Maybe 2-3 games from now when people that have chosen to have a Nintendo platform as the main and/or only platform see that the games keep coming even if/when the sales have not been 1-2 million first month, maybe then they will invest in that gameseries.

Until then I believe that they will invest in the games that more then others will have a sequel or prequel on the Nintendo platform (I know I would).
 

8bits

Banned
to be fair EA tried a bit with

EA sports active
EA Sports titles (with Tiger Woods and Grand Slam Tennis being prime examples of good implementation)
MySims
BoomBlox

I think they kinda missed to carry out their plans and invest a bit more into them. Especially Boom Blox was a great product that they could have build on and expanded more. I am sure it would have sold loads better with better character design and decent marketing.

Serious post or....?
 
Serious post or....?

Oh I am serious. some of the EA games on Wii were quite good (especially boom blox). They were not succesful saleswise though. Those games that were succesful (tigerwoods and ea sports active) did fizzle out and could not be used annual games.

But they did try to be succesful on the Wii.
 

Mlatador

Banned
Oh I am serious. some of the EA games on Wii were quite good (especially boom blox). They were not succesful saleswise though. Those games that were succesful (tigerwoods and ea sports active) did fizzle out and could not be used annual games.

But they did try to be succesful on the Wii.

If bloom blox wasn't successfull, why did it get a sequel then (bloom box bash party)?
 
I don't know, the bean counters are pretty stupid if you go that route, and I see no evidence it's the bean counters. I see it as EA making terrible business decisions.

Releasing Madden 12 on the Wii U as Madden 13.
Releasing FIFA 12 on the Wii U as FIFA 13.
Releasing Mass Effect 3 on the Wii U, but announcing the Mass Effect Trilogy 2 weeks before the Wii U launches and releasing it shortly after.
Releasing Need for Speed: Most Wanted 4 months after the system launched at full price, when the other versions were already cheaper?

I mean, if I were a bean counter, I would want my products on as many products as possible in THIS market. Especially considering the fiasco that is/was the Xbox One pre-launch.

Again, can't never could, but it can fire 1,000 employees and close studios.

This is why you're not in charge of platform strategy at EA.
 
You guys fail to understand that EA isn't DICE, and this guy isn't a programmer. The guy who talked about Wii U and Frostbite, and worked for Dice said that they didn't have good results when trying to port Frostbite 2.

What I take from that is that they would have to spend quite a bit of resources getting the engine to work on Wii U as they intend it to do, and they decided otherwise.

We get hung up on the "Is the WiiU capable of running the engine" question needlessly. The question is "Is it even worth it to put the engine running on the Wii U?". At the end of the day not only will the Wii U not support half the shit they are doing for PS4/PC/Xbox One, but the kind of resources they will have to spend on it doesn't seem to come with a good pay off since the platform is far from promising at this point.
 

F#A#Oo

Banned
Nintendo isn't making money on the Wii U, how can anyone else?

That's the defeatist stance.

Nintendo and third party's can make money if they put enough effort and push for things.

EA only cares about easy money but actually they have a perfect opportunity to take up a niche position on the Wii U if they so choose but it's too much work for a company creatively bankrupt.

I'm a firm believer in software sells hardware. Sony managed it with the PS3 and Nintendo are well on the road with the 3DS and Nintendo have some excellent software lined up for the Wii U later this year and beyond and things will pick up.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
"but it’s also partly because the multiplayer of Battlefield 3 has been strongly supported by the Xbox community, and we’re showing gratitude for that support."

Didn't the game sell more on PS3 and there's always more players playing on PS3? Looking at the numbers right now:

PC online 46 968
PS3 online 67 667
360 online 54 446

What a load of bs lol

Well, they can't come out and say Microsoft paid us a nice sum of money to ensure they got everything first.
 
That's the defeatist stance.

Nintendo and third party's can make money if they put enough effort and push for things.

EA only cares about easy money but actually they have a perfect opportunity to take up a niche position on the Wii U if they so choose but it's too much work for a company creatively bankrupt.

I'm a firm believer in software sells hardware. Sony managed it with the PS3 and Nintendo are well on the road with the 3DS and Nintendo have some excellent software lined up for the Wii U later this year and beyond and things will pick up.

This whole theory is completely misguided. It's on Nintendo to prove to third parties that their platform is not only a viable option, but a great opportunity for revenue in genres across the spectrum. With the other options out there, EA and the likes aren't the ones who have to take a freaking leap of faith. Get real.
 

remnant

Banned
The revisionist history nintendo fans try to spin on EA is getting really sad.

EA was one of the better publishers on the wii, and the fact they have soured so quickly, so completely on the wiiu is an issue.
 
The revisionist history nintendo fans try to spin on EA is getting really sad.

EA was one of the better publishers on the wii, and the fact they have soured so quickly, so completely on the wiiu is an issue.

i think the big question is why, because they soured before the thing even launched.
 

Mlatador

Banned
This whole theory is completely misguided. It's on Nintendo to prove to third parties that their platform is not only a viable option, but a great opportunity for revenue in genres across the spectrum. With the other options out there, EA and the likes aren't the ones who have to take a freaking leap of faith. Get real.

No, it's not. It's an equal responsibility of 3rd Parties to HELP push things. Nintendo's 1rst party titles will sell consoles, no doubt, but EA should be better prepared to ride on that momentum by announcing and advertising games beforehand.

Plus, they really need to get the trust of the Wii U owners back, because they - objectively - fucked up with Fifa, Madden and especially Mass Effect 3 for obvious reasons.

After those didn't bring them the success they wanted, they decided to put more efford into Need for Speed Most Wanted, but the damage at this point - from their part - has already been done.
 

F#A#Oo

Banned
This whole theory is completely misguided. It's on Nintendo to prove to third parties that their platform is not only a viable option, but a great opportunity for revenue in genres across the spectrum. With the other options out there, EA and the likes aren't the ones who have to take a freaking leap of faith. Get real.

Of course it's on Nintendo to prove it. Where did I say otherwise?

The point is that if EA want to be successful they need to start taking every platform seriously. Especially given their decline in recent years. They can't just bet on their sports licences to carry them as it's not working.
 
No, it's not. I the an equal responsibility for 3rd Parties to HELP push things. Nintendo's 1rst party titles will sell consoles, no doubt, but EA should be better prepared to ride on that momentum by announcing and advertising games beforehand.

Plus, they really need to get the trust of the Wii U owners back, because they - objectively - fucked up with Fifa, Madden and especially Mass Effect 3 for obvious reasons.

After those didn't bring them the success they wanted, they decided to put more efford into Need for Speed Most Wanted, but the damage at this point - from their part - has already been done.

doesn anyone even know how well NFS actually sold? everyone says it bombed but i have seen no proof. You cant expect a late port to show up on NPD in big numbers, and i expect that most people who were wanting to buy it at launch would have bought it on origin since it was heavily discounted online ($30, i know thats where i bought it)
 
No, it's not. I the an equal responsibility for 3rd Parties to HELP push things. Nintendo's 1rst party titles will sell consoles, no doubt, but EA should be better prepared to ride on that momentum by announcing and advertising games beforehand.
If 3rd parties are expected to help push console sales then they should also expect to get a cut of the profits resulting from console sales and licensing fees.

doesn anyone even know how well NFS actually sold? everyone says it bombed but i have seen no proof. You cant expect a late port to show up on NPD in big numbers, and i expect that most people who were wanting to buy it at launch would have bought it on origin since it was heavily discounted online ($30, i know thats where i bought it)
Well under 10k in the launch month. What's important about that number is that the narrative that EA shouldn't have "expected big numbers" is founded on the delusion that EA actually "expected big numbers" instead of likely expecting numbers that aren't a complete and total cratering.
 

solarus

Member
Well it makes sense, they are in the business of making money after all, probably not worth porting games to the Wii U.
 
The revisionist history nintendo fans try to spin on EA is getting really sad.

EA was one of the better publishers on the wii, and the fact they have soured so quickly, so completely on the wiiu is an issue.
Where is that Michael Jordan .gif when one needs it?

They weren't horrible relative to other publishers on the Wii but they certainly weren't "better".
 
Top Bottom