The technical director for Frostbite, Johan Andersson has announced on twitter why Frostbite 3 will not be on the WiiU.
If Frostbite 2 doesn't run on the Wii U, then it would have been really surprising if Frosbite 3 did. But I'm not sure if Wii U owners are interested in BF 4 or Dragon Age 3 (game using FB 3) anyway. Or if they are, never intended to play them on that system.
Ouch! Seriously, what did Nintendo do with all the money they made on the Wii? Because at this point they should start considering paying for 3rd party support. ;) Frostbite 3 a next-gen engine! Faithfuls exposed!
So right man, where did they spend the money in research and development because wiiu is not next gen and its only on par with current gen Most ext gen engines aren't gonna run on wiiu Nintendo better show. Lot at E3 otherwise wiiu will be a or gotten device that people will buy to only play Nintendo exclusives
@showtimefolks, I agree with a lot of what you said, however, let me point out one mistake: "...wiiu is not next gen..." ^Next Gen doesn't have to do with "specs", it has to do with the system releases. (ie: "Nintendo 64 and PSX", "PS2, Xbox and Gamecube", "Xbox 360, PS3, Wii".) Everyone acknowledged that the Wii was part of the last generation, I don't see how it'd be any different with the WiiU. Next Gen = Next GENERATION = "Generation"! Think about it. Generation. Think about it, with your logic, that's like saying that your father is in the same generation as you are, within your family. That's not right by any means. I agree that the WiiU lacks power, COMPARED to the PS4 (and maybe the nextbox- wait until it's announced.) but the misuse of "next gen" could be very aggravating to others.
They use it to build a console base off a specific market believing it would drive users to their new console. The specific market I'm referring to is the tablet market. Sadly it didn't have the effect they thought it. -- They went from "Hey here's something for the whole family to enjoy" to "Hey here's something for you to enjoy" -- They should have just made a wii2. Increase the specs to make the console more future-proof and pleasing to third party developers. Kept the motion gaming for the causal crowd. Possibly redefine the controller and motion gaming mechanics. Not only that but kept core games controller only. The tablet could've still been available for those who want it.
How could they not get Frostbite 2 working on WiiU if it already works with PS3/360?
Nintendo spent most of the money they earned from Wii days on numerous free for all Orgies, high class prostitutes with huge tits and getting high every weekend. The left over from all that sodomy went to developing the Wii U. How ironic isn't it. They've been Cum-drained as a company.
The comments here are kind of stupid. CryEngine 3, Anvil, Unreal 3+4, Hedgehog, and so many other engines run on Wii . EA and DICE were too damn lazy to port the engine over. EA is still butthurt over the whole origin fiasco. @LOL Wut "Because at this point they should start considering paying for 3rd party support. ;)" The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2, Lego City Undercover, Monster Hunter 3?????
@BitbyDeath They'd still need to rewrite parts to make it work on Wii U, likely. The fact they've moved on, they probably don't see this as worth any sort of investment or time.
@BitbyDeath The memory of the WiiU is slower than on systems that are 7 respectively 8 years older: WiiU: 12.8 GB/s 360: 22.4 GB/s PS3: 25.6 GB/s Doesn´t matter if there´s 2 GB of it if it´s that sluggish. Frostbite 2 runs on 256MB...
When I see BF4 or the mention of Frostbite I start getting sleepy. The only thing Frostbite related that intrigues me is the next Mass Effect.
What's funny is that the only time I've ever heard anyone say "next gen is not about specs, it's about releases" is this gen with the Wii U. I wonder why that could be.
@DragonKnight Because it's with the Wii U in particular that people insist that it is not a generation eight console based solely on its specifications. Not even the Wii received that sort of treatment and its specs were comparable to an original Xbox, perhaps even lower.
@PopRock359 People don't pretend the Wii U isn't a generation 8 console, in fact most people probably don't even know about the specific console generations. When people say the Wii U isn't next gen its because it came out 7 years after a console cycle started and is only marginally better than those consoles, if not worse in some aspects. The Wii U is TECHNICALLY next gen in terms of its release time frame; but in comparison to the Xbox 360 and PS3 specs it's laughable to label the Wii U as next gen...especially with what we know about the PS4. I get that it might be frustrating to hear so many disregard the Wii U by not saying it's next gen, but instead of arguing semantics just let it go.
@colinzeal that information was given out by a person on a forum who had no expertise other than google, it probably came down to a lack of optimization to the gpgpu. From a couple interviews i've heard the 1gb ram is not a bottleneck for the wii u, even if it could have been more.
@Thirty3Three- I agree that the term has changed since the Wii came out. Before then, developers would just say next gen. Wii is what caused developers to coin the term "High end next gen" ie when they announced Bioshock, they stated for "all High end next gen systems" ie they now needed to re-state what Next Gen exactly was. Regardless of what its called, it means NOTHING for the Wii U, its a pretty stupid agrument and just makes anyone who supports Wii U look even dumber. Wii is current gen yes? WTF DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING IF Mass Effect, Assassain's Creed, GTA, Red Dead, LA Noire, Bioshock, Battlefield. Dead Space etc all skipped the system? So.....because its "called" current gen or it "released" around the same time it some how mains it will get the same games? So.....if it didn't happen for the Wii....its somehow going to happen with the Wii U? LMFAO! Now....100 million units couldn't make that reality happen. What needs to be coined here is a term known as "HIGH END NEXT GEN" as in "ONLY PC PS4 and 720" Now this is not me thats dubbed this label, you can think the rest of the gaming industry for doing that. When we are talking about Next gen as in NEW LOOKING GAMES and NEW AI FEATURES....we are talking about "HIGH END NEXT GEN" (say it with me) "HIGH END NEXT GEN". PS4, PC, 720. ie "HIGH END NEXT GEN", aka "EVERYTHING BUT A NINTENDO SYSTEM" aka "Wii vs PS3,PC,360' aka "Wii U vs PS4, PC, XB Fusion" Its funny cause I actually agreed with you. (I still do on some level) but No...the Wii U is next gen by name only. The Nextbox will be a high end next gen system with PC and PS4. Gaming didn't let Wii's dated tech hold it back from making amazing games, I don't see why they will let Wii U.
@Thirty3Three - Define the terms however you want, but that next gen system is comparable in power to current systems, so not calling it next gen seems perfectly reasonable to me.
@ ijust2good: EVERY console should be made like that. Sure, we'd have Commodore 64 graphics in 2016, but think of the FUN!
@yodagamer, might have some truth to it considering all the OS issues they are having and that's running on a full 1GB
it's becoming commonplace now. Heads are going to roll for all of this incompetence.
all this means is that nintendo has yet again failed to appeal to a larger audience which is what they were aiming for with the wiiU and games like bayonetta2 and zombie U. looks like they need to rethink their strategy and cater to their nintendo fans with their tried and trusted titles like zelda, xeno blade and whatever it is nintendo fans are so fond of. the real crisis is if they fail in that respect too. personally i really hate that the halfhearted attempts by using old titles and sticking a "U" at the end like super mario U its as if they are not even trying anymore. not all doom and gloom just yet however
Really? Is this really bad news for Nintendo? Think about it. Nintendo made a system before with a lack of 3rd party support when they made the Wii. Now if they wanted those type of games, why wouldn't they just make a system that was truly "high end"? Its cause they don't want to. THINK ABOUT IT! Why should Nintendo as a publisher waste money making a beast system for games that will and have sold better on Sony and MS systems? I'm sorry but what Nintendo did with the Wii wasn't some sort of mistake. They knew VERY DAMN WELL WHAT THEY WHERE DOING! You guys do understand that Nintendo is purposely getting there crowd not get use to certain IP's? They don't want 3rd party support in that respect, they want 3rd parties to make "default exclusives" by making a weak system, they are now avoiding ports from PS4 and 720. ie LESS COMPETITION FOR NINTENDO'S OWN IP's. Genius. No mistake was made with the Wii U, its exactly what Nintendo wanted. Many of you have stated on here a whole lot "I'm buying it for Nintendo games" that is the attitude they want to hear. So your money when to ONLY Nintendo for the system clearly and your games are ONLY Nintendo games too? Sounds so bad for Nintendo. LOL!
All due respect, I did NOT buy a Wii U for Nintento exclusives. I bought it with hopes that there would be decent (existant?) 3rd-party support.
"They knew VERY DAMN WELL WHAT THEY WHERE DOING!"
By that do you mean, they want to be at the bottom? Cause I don't want to play on the system that has little to no 3rd-party support.
Nintendo can race to the bottom if they wish, I'll choose to jump ship!
Smells of EA stink lies and influence. Hmmm, so Crytek Engine 3 runs on Wii U (Shadow of the Eternals using this engine and will be for PC/WiiU) and Frostbite 3 can run on Xbox360/PS3 but cannot run on Wii U. It sure smells like a lie.
Interesting point, I'm surprised no one pointed this out.
And the way EA has been unsupportive of the wii U, suggests your right.
Yep, the fact that Frostbite 3 runs on the PS3 and 360 makes the rest of the statement pretty much redundant. Of course the engine will run on the Wii U, they just don't want it to.
exactly... unless they wanna admit how inferior of an engine Frostbite 3. i mean, why would CryEngine 3 run on Wii U; or Unreal Engine 3 (and some 4), or any of Ubisoft's game engine (like that of Watch_Dogs) run on Wii U, but they can't make FB3 work on it? at least CryTek had the balls to admit that the reason they won't bring Crysis 3 in the Wii U (albeit admitting that they were able to run Crysis3 in it) is because EA doesn't want to publish it for the Nintendo console.
Then no. I won't be surprised if they can't get any of the new star wars games to run either...Or any of their games when it comes to EA....since EA is still butthurtt about no origins. Although, Had Nintendo went through, I bet EA would be singing on top of a mountain about how fantastic the Wiiu is, just like they did when it was announced.
well i guess you're right to some extent but that would imply that EA is not interested on developing for the wiiu, the real question is why?
Wow Way to straight up LIE to Gamers! Just tell the truth EA, Poor WiiU sales (Less than 4 Million) is not enough to warrant porting games to the WiiU. making up some crap about the Frostbite 2 Engine not running on the WiiU is CRAP.
Need for Speed Most Wanted U runs Frostbite 2 Engine with the PC textures and assets perfectly fine at 30 fps I assume 30. An EA game. :P
Mosted Wanted doesnt use FB2 it uses Criterion's Hot Pursuit engine
I am pretty sure if Nintendo sales skyrockected over the next year or two then sure Frostbite 3 would be on WiiU almost instantly. EA though WiiU would sell faster than the Wii and it didn't give them gold with Mass Effect 3, and Need for Speed U on WiiU. Which mind you Frostbite 2 runs fine with Need for Speed U. An EA game most are ignoring in thinking about this.
You believe this? The Frostbite engine, 2 or 3, is not doing anywhere near as much as the Crytek engine 3 and that runs on the Wii U with no issues. Heck, even UE4 can run on the Wii U to some degree. The devs said it. The reason it doesn't run on the Wii U is because they didn't make it run on the Wii U. If they stopped after a few test then that means they didn't try to optimize, debug, or recode anything. You can't put a program on a completely different architecture than it was built for an it work perfectly with no effort. Of course most people don't even care about that. All they care is that they can use this as more fodder to bash Nitnendo. Reality and logic always take a seat when its that time. The Dead Island devs tried to make that claim as well but the game engine dev stepped in and said it worked just fine. Anyone who says a game engine that runs on the PS3/360 can't run "better" on the Wii U is lying. If it doesn't work, that means they didn't want it to.
"Well Said" Another case of an engine designer or developer, making a lie the truth. Says: "Nintendo WiiU can't run this engine. Thinks: ("Because we did not design it too. hahahaha!" AND Says: "Nintendo fans don't buy our games or these types of games." Thinks: ("I think it is because of all of the crappy test games we make for Nintendo consoles. 'Dead Space' on rails haha! And maybe it is because they bought another console while they were waiting for us to release our game on their Nintendo console.")
Well said indeed. Wii U's third party issues have just as much to do with a lack of interest/effort on the developers as it does with Nintendo's hardware, if not more so.
Damn, so the wii u cant even run fb2 adequately? help!
I hate when people say Nintendo fans don't care about game a or game b, how can someone say that when Nintendo gamers are gamers just like Sony, PC and Microsoft gamers. The fact that companies are pulling away from the Wii u only 6 months in, is disappointing because a section of gamers are being ignored just because they like Nintendo.
I wonder what "not too promising results" really means. Does it mean it would have to have been heavily modified to make it run like it WILL be on PS360?
That's what it sounds like. It's weird cause they talk about how well Frostbite scales to different hardware. Hurts their creditably a little bit if they didn't even really try.
They were saying that when they tested Frostbite 2 on Wii U hardware,, which already ran on PS3 and 360 (it's what runs BF3), they were not impressed. They never even attempted to port frostbite 3. In other words, it didn't even do as good as PS3 and 360 at running their last engine, so they didn't even bother with the new one. It likely had to do with CPU limitations since by all indications Wii U has a more powerful GPU.
"It likely had to do with CPU limitations since by all indications Wii U has a more powerful GPU." Agreed that; and it sounds like the connection bus my not be enough in its ability to handle the data through put at an acceptable speed for the engine for its throughput to the io.
well if nintendo had frostbite than we would probably have to amputate.
They must not have tried or its a crap not well coded engine as the team at crytek managed to get cryengine 3 running on the Wii U. EA just really are holding a grudge against Nintendo atm
Because it's crap.
It's a not so good engine. Even the previous engine had better destruction and collision. The only thing it really seems to be strictly better at is graphics.
How in the hell do you know that?
EA just laid off 1000 employee's! nuff said
Well.. that's disappointing news for Wii U owners..
No, its not. It never is. "This is just EA". You can stick the words in quotation up whenever something involving them or one of their subsidiaries pop up and you will have the opinion of the majority of Wii U owners. There is no love lost, for there would have to be some to begin with. No Wii U owner expects anything from EA or their affiliates. We all know they are bitter about Nintendo not bending over for them. They made that clear before launch when they announced they were gimping the games they bring to the console. Why do so many people, like you and lol_wut, come in hear proposing, hopingly, that we feel some kind of apprehension or sadness about this? 1. Why would we feel bad for not getting a game that we never asked for or expressed any desire to obtain to begin with? 2. Have you seen Wii U owners asking or begging for games made with the Frostbite Engine anywhere, ever? 3. Why would we need this games with this engine when we will have better ones out by then? All of you apparently want us to be resentful, hard, but I assure you that we do not care in the least.
I know I don't. The last EA owned game I really gave a care about was Mass Effect 3, and the last one I thoroughly enjoyed was Brutal Legend (and that was only published by EA). I think I can survive without the likes of Madden, Crysis and Battlefield. That and if I really want to dive into those games (doubtful at full price, mind you) I'd probably get a PS4 first.
Oh come one, I don't think you could sound more resentful if you tried.
Don't listen to the Nintendo fanboys.
As a Wii U owner, it does hurt.
This, among the countless games that ARENT coming to the Wii U, makes my purchase very very regrettable.
EA is still butthurt over being told "no" to an Origin based Nintendo Network. Nothing to see here.
The thing is you say that, but one thing I learned about 3rd party devs and publishers last gen with the PS3 is that 3rd parties bend over for no-one, in the end Nintendo needs 3rd parties like EA more than they need Nintendo, this is further backed by the fact that they make most of their money of the other consoles and PC. Otherwise you get a console like the N64 and Gamecube. The reality is Nintendo made a console based on their standards and their criteria, not on what developers want.
Well, it has been reported that sales wise, first party games for Sony and Microsoft accounted for only 6% of total sales. Nintendo first party games accounted for 32%. Nintendo will always have a strong first party stable and people who will buy these games. But, since the Wii U will not be doing Wii numbers, Nintendo has to get third parties on board if it wants to expand it's user base.
Exactly It's no secret that people buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games, with exception of the Wii that sold purely based on a gimmick. The thing is, that may sound good on paper, but In reality it's actually a bad thing, because it means the only people that buy Nintendo consoles are Nintendo fans, 3rd party Developers have realised this, which is why Nintendo's 3rd party support has been pretty weak for almost 2 decades now. Again this shouldn't be a problem if you're a fan of Nintendo, but if you don't care for Nintendo games there consoles offer virtually nothing for you, again the Gamecube was a system that appealed only to Nintendo fans the exclusives sold well but that didn't translate into a console that barely scraped 20 million units worldwide, reason's being because it lacked the 3rd party support especially towards the end of it's lifetime. Which is why I lol whenever hear someone say "wait till, Mario, Zelda, Metroid.." like that's gonna help much Nintendo's greatest strength is also their greatest weakness, something their fans will always sidestep.
Well seeing as to how many 3rd party companies went under this generation. I think that both EA and Nintendo need each others business! But lets not be foolish in thinking that EA would survive longer than Nintendo without working with them. The Wii never received any of these franchises that EA are currently withholding from the WiiU,(outside of Tiger Woods, Fifa and Madden which is more of a indicator that this is behind Origin) but Nintendo still managed ok. Once they work out whatever their differences are about the whole Origin failure, then I'm guessing that a miracle would be performed and all EA funded engines will suddenly work on WiiU... The damage will probably be beyond repair at that point though.
Can EA make their hatred for Nintendo any more obvious.
So let me get this straight, the Wii U isnt powerful enough to run the engine but the PS3 and the 360 can run it? Am i missing something here or is the Wii U supposedly more powerful than the PS3 and the 360? This is a bit confusing either the Wii U is weaker than the PS3 or the 360 or the hardware is so complex that developers wont even bother porting the engine over. Something strange is going on here its almost as if 3rd partys want the Wii U to fail in favor of the PS4 and the 720.
It could run Cryengine 3 almost flawlessly and the Crysis 3 port was near completion but got cancelled by EA. This is likely due to the whole 'Nintendo not running Origin for their online service like Ea wanted them to' thing. Crysis 3 for Wii U was up and running, but it was not meant to be. Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli explained to VentureBeat that a lack of Electronic Arts-Nintendo business drive ultimately killed the project. "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." http://www.gamespot.com/new... Anybody can tell that cancelling an almost finished and well-running game is just pissing funds down the drain. EA was mad about something and Nintendo refusing to use origin, and subsequently handing over control of the online services to EA, is likely the reason.
Shadow of the Eternals is running on cry engine 3. Precursor gonna shut the trolls up.
I would have been mad if I spent all of that time porting Crysis 3 on the Wii U only for it to get cancelled near completion.
load of crap from ea and dice. Something happened between ea and nintendo that made them so butthurt
They don't care if the Wii U fails or not. It's just business for them. The reason that the PS3 and 360 are getting BF4 is because Frostbite already runs on the consoles and because they each have a large customer base. The reason the PS4 and XBox 8 are going to get Frostbite 3 is because they both similar in power and they both have the same 8 core CPUs. And because Playstation and XBox have a reputation for adult games/mature themes and for shooters. What financial incentive is there to port Frostbite 3 to the Wii U? If you were a Battlefield or COD fan last gen would you have bought a Wii as your only console? No. You'd have bought it for family fun or Mario and Zelda. Nintendo are courting the same audience as they did last gen buy making a next gen console with internal components similar to current gen tech. So you're probably thinking. Why not have a PS3, 360, WiiU version? The reason is that PS3 and 360 are known consoles. DICE have been working on them a whole generation. Frostbite 2 already works on them. Wii U doesn't have the userbase of the current gen consoles and will Battlefield even sell on a Nintendo console? Porting a game is expensive. Are Dice going to port a game to a console with no userbase and where shooters aren't that popular? It's a business decision, nothing more. No spite. No pettiness.
That makes sense, but it also doesn't make sense to cancel an almost finished port after all that work and money was put into it and then don't even try to make anything but the bare basics for a system while claiming support. There's clearly something between Nintendo and EA, and considering that Acitvision seems to have no problem with them and EA's behavior general behavior, I have little doubt who started this.
@Brucis Do you really think that if Wii Us started flying off the shelves and got a massive FPS fan following EA would ignore that? It all comes down to money. You're probably wondering why a game would get canned if it was mostly built. And the sad fact is that licencing, printing discs, marketing all cost far more that actually building the game. Losing all the money it cost to port the game is bad for a developer, but the money lost on a fully licenced marketed game that doesn't sell is worse. EA have made an executive decision and have picked what they think is the lesser of two evils. 1) Lose some money on a mostly developed game. Or 2) Finish the game, print all the discs, pay all the nintendo licensing, server costs and then have a game that doesn't sell on that console? At which point you've lost even more money. EDIT: I reckon DICE built the Wii U version, but EA told them to can it because they didn't want to spend the money licencing and marketing it, because they didn't think it would sell. Then they had to come up with a statement to the public why they wouldn't bring it out on the Wii U. Wii U not being powerful enough is believable and a good excuse. Have you ever seen that chart about how the cost of a game is divided up. I'll post if I can find the link. It's pretty interesting. EDIT 2: http://www.newgamernation.c...
Well the developers have been saying for the last couple of years about more ram, Sony and MS have given this with PS4/Fusion and Nintendo did not. I think developers are just saying why make a downgraded version for WiiU when we can concentrate on PS4/Fusion at max capacity with big install base. Not knocking the WiiU but if I was a game maker I would be putting full production into PS4/Fusion and no support for the WiiU cause 90% of gamers would buy the game for PS4/Fusion anyway leading to wasteful money/time resources on the downgraded WiiU version. By the time these games come out nintendo would have there big hitters out ie WiiU owner walks into game shop and see`s new zelda, f-zero and bf4 (downgraded version)they will buy the f-zero and zelda and not the bf4, they would pick it up for there other console of choice.