Electronic Arts Currently Has Zero Wii U Games in Development

Published 1 year ago by

Wii U No Frostbite 3

The good news: Nintendo has a Nintendo Direct presentation lined up for tomorrow morning that will hopefully shed some light on the company’s remaining 2013 releases. The bad news: while first party support is still going strong, support from a few third party publishers has tapered off substantially, or in Electronic Arts‘ case, completely.

Earlier today, Electronic Arts spokesman Jeff Brown revealed the publisher currently has no Wii U games in development. No ports, no console exclusives, nothing.

Although the fact Nintendo has all but lost support from one of the more prominent companies out there is somewhat troubling, this news isn’t entirely surprising. When DICE revealed the Frostbite 3 engine could not run on the Wii U, that nixed any chances gamers might see Mass Effect 4, Battlefield 4, or Dragon Age III on the console. And since Frostbite 3 is fast becoming the standard for EA products, it only makes sense that Wii U support would taper off.

This announcement also comes about two weeks after EA Sports revealed Madden would be skipping the Wii U for this year’s and future iterations. When breaking that news, however, EA suggested their relationship with Nintendo was still strong, even if Madden NFL 25 wasn’t coming to the Wii U.

This more recent development indicates almost the complete opposite. Obviously, EA’s decision likely has something to do with the Wii U’s poor sales, but the publisher would never come out and say that. The safer bet was simply to say there are no Wii U games currently in development.

Nintendo fans have likely become accustomed to taking the bad news with the good, but this particular revelation is yet another reminder that Nintendo needs help. Sure, the Nintendo faithful can let their console collect dust while they wait for the next Mario, Zelda, or Smash Bros., but what about everyone else?

To be fair, most gamers aren’t going to want to play a multiplatform title if a PS4 or Xbox 720 version is available, but that’s not necessarily the point. Hopefully, tomorrow’s Nintendo Direct will bring good news…a lot of good news.

Are you surprised to find out EA doesn’t have any Wii U games in development? Wii U owners, does this news concern you?

-

Source: Kotaku

TAGS: Electronic Arts, Nintendo, Wii U

21 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. EA is the worst company on the planet. Nintendo will thrive off this lol

  2. I kinda feel like nintendo is being black balled

  3. Wii U’s poor sales have nothing to do with it. Supposedly Frostbite # works on smartphones, so I see no reason for it to be on the Wii U. EA needs to quit being so childish. It’s obvious they’re doing this because of the Origin spat, and anyone who thinks otherwise is daft.

    • no reason for it to *not be on the Wii U

    • EA is supposedly developing a Frostbite mobile engine that will work on smartphones. Frostbite 3 is the engine they’re working with for console games, and the Wii U (for whatever reason) is not capable of handling it. EA could make a version of Frostbite for the Wii U, but I’d guess their incentive to do so is pretty low right now.

    • Glad to know you’ve predetermined the mental state of people who disagree with you.

      I’ve been looking a little into the claim by DICE that Frostbite 2 didn’t run well on the Wii U and that’s why they aren’t bothering with Frostbite 3. I thought it odd that the Wii U is capable of matching or slightly surpassing current consoles which are running games on Frostbite 2 but the Wii U is claimed to not do as well with it. From what I’ve found, the answer may be the CPU. Apparently it’s a weak CPU even when compared to current generation consoles that is being offset by a good GPU, when going up against what the 360 or PS3 have that is. I guess some developers, 4A Games being one of them, said that the CPU is just too slow. Considering that some engines can at times require good specs across the board this may explain it.

      I’m certain that there is some amount of animosity at play here considering the falling out between EA and Nintendo but EA is a business first and foremost so I’m not keen on chalking it up to nothing more than some emotional rage. This isn’t a personal story of one guy sleeping with another guy’s wife or something. It seems that regardless of what people choose to think about the situation, EA may very well have a legitimate excuse to not bring their latest titles to the Wii U if their new engines aren’t having much luck running on that processor.

      • This will probably make you think differently.

        http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/17/ea-senior-engineer-the-wii-u-is-crap

        • I’ve already read about that tweetfest and I’m not going to base my judgement of EA’s decisions on the words of one guy from EA. Do you care what any one person says about the Wii U that doesn’t seem to prove a point you want to make? You’ve shown on this website that you don’t so please don’t be a hypocrite about this. I mean that in a non-offensive way so please don’t assume I’m attacking you.

          EA is a business. Nintendo is a business. Nintendo decided to not help EA promote their Origin service which is the future of EA’s business in the industry. In addition to that, the two EA games released on the Wii U so far, Mass Effect 3 and Most Wanted, have sold less than 100,000 copies combined. Add into that mix that EA claims the engine that will drive most or all of their games going forward has trouble running on Nintendo’s new hardware, which may be thanks to the weak CPU, and you have EA staring down the barrel of a bad investment. Meanwhile, Nintendo’s competitors have platforms that can run your engine, have a good history of moving EA products, and are willing to work with them on their Origin service.

          If I was a businessman I’d make the same call that EA has at this point. I would not invest resources to put my products on a platform whose company refuses to assist in helping to solidify my company’s future in an evolving market, can’t move a couple popular products I already released for it, and might not be able to adequately run future products without requiring a significant investment on my part.

          • My mistake on the twitter part, I misread who the author was. Aside from that, I don’t see how I’m being a hypocrite.

            And it’s not that Nintendo didn’t want to promote Origin, it’s that they asked EA for online help, and when EA wanted them to use Origin, basically giving EA control over their network, they refused and went their own way. Mass Effect’s sales can be attributed to it being a terrible port, and a not-so-large install base. Most Wanted has been out two months, and again, the Wii U install base is not very large.

            On to your next point. Although I’m sure Frostbite 3 might not be able to run on the Wii U, I don’t buy it. The Wii U’s architecture is unique, so you just have to work differently to get things to work. I don’t doubt the Wii U’s power, but it is probable that it can’t run on Wii U.

            And are you seriously saying it’s Nintendo’s responsibility to help sell EA games? Wow. Okay then.

            “…and might not be able to adequately run future products without requiring a significant investment on my part…” So developers should just be lazy now? Who cares if they have to work hard, so long as the next Battlefield or Crysis is out by next year? Ever think that’s the reason why their games didn’t sell much? Hard work pays off. Unless the graphics are top notch, though. Because that’s all that matters.

          • I meant in regards to one person from EA being vocal about their opinion and you using that as some kind of point that it represents the attitude of the company as a whole. The hypocrite part being that you have never cared much for what someone had to say about the Wii U that wasn’t being supportive of it. If someone has something negative to say about it you act dismissive of them unless it somehow proves a point you’re trying to make.

            That EA attempted to convince Nintendo to allow them total control over Nintendo’s networks was a rumor that spread like wildfire across every Nintendo fansite and forum. As far as I know there has been no credible source or official announcement as to why that happened. Not even Nintendo has said why the deal went south. Don’t you find it a little unusual that such a big deal like that has not had a word of it breathed by either company?

            The install base was plenty large enough for other games to sell better. Hundreds of thousands of copies better. Lego City Undercover sold 10 times as many copies as Most Wanted did and they came out the same month. Mass Effect 3 is the highest rated game for the console and Most Wanted is not far behind yet they combined for only 70,000 units moved. I also accidentally overlooked the two sports games they released for it. Madden and FIFA which only managed to sell 100,000 combined which was less than half of what Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing Transformed did. Some of EA’s most popular franchises were getting put to shame in sales by new IPs and titles that would have likely never managed to outsell them on other platforms. The sales were showing that those who owned the Wii U just weren’t interested in EA games.

            The Wii U having a weak CPU even by current gen standards is pretty much not a question from what I’ve read so I’m inclined to believe that EA’s Frostbite 3 engine would not work out well on the Wii U. It may sound like an excuse but unfortunately for anyone who believes it is there is enough there to give it credibility.

            I’m not saying Nintendo is responsible for selling EA games. I don’t know how you even came to that conclusion. I’m saying that if EA’s games aren’t selling on the system anyways, that the console can’t run EA’s preferred engine, and will not utilize EA’s Origin service (their future) in any way then it’s not a good business decision for EA to continue producing games for that console. It will be more trouble for them than it’s worth.

            Companies are not bottomless wells of cash and resources. They have a bottomline they need to consider. If they find that spending time, money, and resources on a Wii U version of a game they’re making will not be anywhere as lucrative as using them to instead build new games for platforms they know will move their product then as a business they’re going to go in that direction. At least if they have good business sense they would. EA doesn’t owe Nintendo anything. They’re not a non-profit charity organization.

            Just because they view the Wii U as a bad investment does not automatically make them lazy. That is a conceit of a fanboy. “If the company doesn’t make games for my preferred platform but they do for others then they obviously just don’t want to work hard enough”. Come on. Do you honestly believe that crap? There are so many amazing games that people sank so much into. That companies spent so much on. Are you going to tell me that none of that means a damn thing if it didn’t end up on your preferred platform?

    • no one wants to support a system that no one has… simple as that. waste of money

  4. I’m glad nintendo won’t give in to origin

  5. It’s simple, EA thought they’d have their hands in Nintendo’s new system. They found out that Nintendo only wanted advice and then went on their way. Honestly they’re doing this because Nintendo didn’t want EA’s Origin bs on their system. So in a form of revenge Nintendo won’t get any new games. And reasony why no one wants to buy the wii u is because sony and microsoft have brain washed gamers into believeing that amazingly realistic graphics make games. If you want realistic graphics then go the hell outside. And don’t give me the whole “its a gimmick” bs Many gamers are just lazy and refuse to adapt to change thus you get a new consle that has been using the SAME EXACT REMOTE STYLE since the 90s (sony) and early 00s (microsoft) only difference is that you can now see more individual hair follicles on someones eye brow. The only ones that care about graphic power are the stupid little fps babies that have never played an original 8bit game in their life. Games with the worst graphics but with an amazing story and tight control/ mechannics WON everytime. But if call games start to push towards crap like heavy rain and the past two final fantsies, they should be call interactive movies, not games.
    well I’ve gone and gotten off topic so i’ll just get off this soap box here and get back to playing monster hunter

    • Or… The wii U is just a terrible gimmicky game system and no one wants a sega game gear as a controller and false advertisement that you can use said Sega game gear controller any were in the house when family members takes over the tv. It has nothing to do with Wii u’s terrible graphics performance and everything to do with the fact its all false promises.

    • Sounds like we got a mad Nintendo fangirl on our hands.

      • girls play video games?

  6. EA did the same thing to Sega. EA wanted Sega to give them a FIVE YEAR exclusivity deal for rights to publish their sports games on Dreamcast. Sega, of course, said no and in retribution EA pulled ALL support from the Dreamcast. Sega knowing that EA was a powerful player and wanting their support for their fledgling system, offered EA a deal that would give them a hefty discount on all their publishing fees. EA, being.. well, EA, said absolutely not, they wanted it all or nothing.

    EA told Sega “You will die without us.”

    EA wants Nintendo to die. It makes good business sense for them. Less hardware offers less consumer choice. The less hardware they have to develop for, the more money they can make. EA is a terrible, vindictive company. If you don’t play by their rules or you show a sign of weakness they will do everything in their power to destroy you. It’s not all just microtransactions and DRM that make them the most hated company in America.

    IMHO this is the reason why Sega has offered Nintendo exclusive contracts for the next Sonic games. They did it in spite. EA pulls support from a company, Sega offers theirs. That is fantastic. I have a new found respect for Sega and their decision shows that they are a stand up company worthy of my dollars.

    • As far as I can tell, the story about why EA never supported the Dreamcast was a rumor as well. There don’t appear to be any official statements made about why that happened. Just hearsay and supposed interviews that weren’t verified plus an IGN article that was more angry, unprofessional ranting than some illuminating story. It could have very well gone down that way. It was indeed odd that EA did not support the console at all. A shame, because I loved the Dreamcast. However, as far as I can tell it was never publicly explained.

      Pretty much every company would love to find themselves at the top with virtually no one to stand in their way. To have free reign over the market. To be in a position where they’re making money no matter what. Business is business and a company that will do something altruistic for another company in the same market is exceptionally rare. There’s always a catch and every one of them is looking to use the other or crush them for their own gain. I can assure you that virtually every major player today has done some quite shady things no one will ever know about. Calling EA out for their practices is like standing in a room full of monsters and singling out the ugliest among them and screaming, “you’re a monster!”.

      Please explain to me how Sega making three games exclusive to Nintendo is somehow sticking it to EA. If EA made the decision to not develop anymore games for the Wii U then they did so knowing that other companies would still develop for them. EA doesn’t lose anything by Sega making a whopping three exclusive games for a particular console. EA is not in some console race themselves. Sega isn’t doing anything that would make EA think they just made a foolish decision. If Sega’s announcement even managed to show up on EA’s radar at all the only thing that they likely would say is, “…good luck with that”. When you want to do something to spite someone you do it knowing it’s seriously going to affect them. It sounds more to me like Nintendo made a hell of an offer to Sega to help get some exclusives and spur Wii U sales. Also, Sega and EA have been in a partnership for a little while now.

  7. That was the story directly from an interview with Sega of America President Bernie Stolar, who was in direct negotiations with then EA President Larry Probst. That would be like Reggie coming out and explaining what actually happened with EA/Origin. I would classify that as more than some random internet conjecture.

    This is an article on EA. So calling out other companies for their past transgressions would seem kinda out of place. However, I personally think EA is the chief offender when it comes to deceitful, industry harming business practices within the gaming community. Saying that EA is just a monster among monsters, is kind of like saying Hitler was a bad man.

    I never said Sega was “sticking it to EA”. I said they did it out of spite. In the “petty desire to annoy or humiliate someone” sense of the word and I did say that it was only my opinion.

    I think that it’s kind of like a child getting mad and packing up his toys and going home. Then another kid steps in and says “It’s OK. We don’t need him, here, you can play with my toys.” It’s Sega’s way of saying “We’ve been there before, they’re douches, you don’t need them, let’s be friends.” Which is fantastic. It’s also a sign to other devs and publishers that there are companies that still believe in the Wii U and are willing to take chances in creating exclusive content for it.

    I think a true collaboration between Sega and Nintendo could spur some glorious results. I hope these new games work out well for them and that it leads to a more “closer partnership” in the future.

    • If you can link me to the actual interview I’d love to read it. Regardless, I’ll assume what you say on that matter is true.

      Demonizing EA while painting Sega and Nintendo as victims is where it’s silly. Like I said, every major player in the industry is shady. EA just gets its dealings discovered a little more often than most. It’s more like saying Hitler screwed over Stalin so he is the d-bag and Stalin’s atrocities should be overlooked.

      As far as why Sega did that, I think you’re letting your imagination and wishful thinking get the better of you. Like I said, it’s more likely that Nintendo approached Sega with a deal to get exclusives. I’m willing to bet Nintendo paid a pretty penny. Like I also said, altruism for another company in your industry is exceptionally rare. There is always a catch.

      I do certainly agree that greater collaboration between Sega and Nintendo could produce some great things. Just remember, Sega is playing the field just like everyone else. They’ll do business with Nintendo as long as it’s profitable for them to do so. When it’s not… sayonara. Do you truly respect Sega or just for what they could do for Nintendo? A lot of Nintendo fans respected Squaresoft.

      • http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132517/the_rise_and_fall_of_the_dreamcast.php?page=1

        Here is a great article on the trials and tribulations of the Sega Dreamcast. Fascinating stuff. EA did not kill Sega. Sega died as a result of mismanagement, misappropriation of funds and general miscalculations of consumer want.

        I’m a huge vintage gaming fan(boy) and eat up this kind of “history”. I especially love learning about the stories/legends from the golden age of Atari. Those guys were insane. Coke and hookers and hot tubs, oh my!

        Nintendo and Sega both have their own “skeletons” and both have had some ruthless business practices in the past. Most of these involve some sort of licensing practices and/or their own types of DRM. However, when you are the ones making the hardware and everyone else is “working” for you, it’s not to hard to see where they are coming from. EA on the other hand is a software entity, trying to force their will upon the ones with the actual know-how. i.e. A bully.

        I think you may be reading to much into my comments or maybe I’m not explaining myself enough. It’s hard to express oneself over a keyboard. Ninty and Sega are not some kind of gaming saviors while EA is portrayed as the devil. They are all indeed businesses and their bottom lines are to make money, period. However, I don’t think it is hard to see that Nintendo still has a genuine love for gaming and they actually care about their characters and franchises and their customers. While EA is only concerned about how much money they can extract from their consumers.

        Of course Sega is getting P.A.I.D. for their exclusive Sonic content and they too are about the bottom dollar. I would imagine that they are in a great position to capitalize on Wii U’s current predicament. However, a Nintendo/Sega alliance, I think is in the best interest of BOTH companies. I believe the complete opposite of you. I think it was Sega, who approached Nintendo about the exclusive content and was offered a pretty penny for it. I could very well be mistaken, but with all the love Sega has been showing in recent days, I really find it hard to be the opposite. How easy and awesome would it be for Sega to enter in an agreement with Nintendo for Sega to develop/co-develop games and have Nintendo take on the publishing rights/responsibilities? There, I imagine, maybe your “catch”.

        But honestly, who really cares where the milk comes from? Exclusive Sonic games, Game Gear legacy games, YAKUZA 1&2 HD! The support from Sega is (hopefully) just getting warmed up. I just hope we get a Nintendo published, Shenmue and a grand Sonic/Mario crossover in the future. Now, who wouldn’t love that?

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.