EA Calls Nintendo Switch Hardware "Very Difficult"

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A producer for FIFA 18 has admitted that Nintendo’s handheld console is "very difficult" to work with: Andrei Lazarescu claims that it would take “an army of people” to translate some of the unique features offered in the PC and PS/Xbox versions of the title, such as the special animation system and more detailed stadium and crowds. The challenge of creating a consistent experience on the Switch may be why fewer publishers are bringing third-party games to the console.

The Switch version of FIFA 18 is a bit of an oddity. It's certainly the most fully-fledged FIFA we've had outside of the console and PC versions - Ultimate Team on a handheld console is quite something - but it's also, for obvious reasons, still a more limited version next to all their Frostbite-powered glory. What exactly is FIFA on Switch, then? It's probably closest to the games we had on the PS Vita: a console-like, feature near-complete version developed specifically for the platform, from just about the ground up.
 
Did game developers get spoiled already?

It's only been the current game gen for what, 4 or 5 years?

Last gen, all the consoles weren't x86 and had to be developed separately for each console.
 
I gotta admit what they are complaining about having a hard time implementing on the switch isn't something anyone cares about anyways.

Do you really care if the stadium crowd looks more realistic? Animations? Or gameplay.... if they get the gameplay right they'll sell copies.
 
scojer said:
Did game developers get spoiled already?

It's only been the current game gen for what, 4 or 5 years?

Last gen, all the consoles weren't x86 and had to be developed separately for each console.
Click to expand...
What it ultimately comes down to is how good the developer tools are for each console - Nintendo hasn't been known for having the easiest toolkit to worth with, similar to how the PS3 was notoriously bad to develop for, not only because of the system complexity but because Sony didn't initially provide a very good toolset.
 
Megalith said:
A producer for FIFA 18 has admitted that Nintendo’s handheld console is "very difficult" to work with: Andrei Lazarescu claims that it would take “an army of people” to translate some of the unique features offered in the PC and PS/Xbox versions of the title, such as the special animation system and more detailed stadium and crowds. The challenge of creating a consistent experience on the Switch may be why fewer publishers are bringing third-party games to the console.

The Switch version of FIFA 18 is a bit of an oddity. It's certainly the most fully-fledged FIFA we've had outside of the console and PC versions - Ultimate Team on a handheld console is quite something - but it's also, for obvious reasons, still a more limited version next to all their Frostbite-powered glory. What exactly is FIFA on Switch, then? It's probably closest to the games we had on the PS Vita: a console-like, feature near-complete version developed specifically for the platform, from just about the ground up.
Click to expand...

Nooo Nooo Porting to Nvidia tegra is easy

from https://www.developer-tech.com/news...mple-port-ps4-xbox-one-games-nintendo-switch/ :
Nvidia claims it's simple to port PS4, Xbox One games to Nintendo Switch
“The quality of games has grown significantly,” said Huang. “And one of the factors of production value of games that has been possible is because the PC and the two game consoles, Xbox and PlayStation, and — in the near-future — the Nintendo Switch, all of these architectures are common in the sense that they all use modern GPUs, they all use programmable shading, and they all have basically similar features.”
Click to expand...

Who would have thought that it might be more difficult .
 
Rizen said:
What it ultimately comes down to is how good the developer tools are for each console - Nintendo hasn't been known for having the easiest toolkit to worth with, similar to how the PS3 was notoriously bad to develop for, not only because of the system complexity but because Sony didn't initially provide a very good toolset.
Click to expand...

This EA dev is the only person I've heard so far say that the Switch is complicated to develop for. It might have more to do with how poorly put together Frostbite is then the Switch itself.
 
Last edited:
Considering how much of a joke Frostbite has been on FIFA 17, I'll go with EA being incompetent.
 
I feel the reason 3rd party developers don't like making games for Nintendo consoles is because Nintendo games kills them on sales. I still feel people like myself buy Nintendo consoles specifically for playing Nintendo made games. From the article, the developer mentions they are on a 1 year plan to make FIFA games:
"Every time we only have a year to do the game. You have to be very careful about the choices that we make and the features that we want to put in, because the date will not change. The date will not change in any way."

So while I can agree with him that maybe it is more difficult to make their first FIFA Switch game from the PS4/Xbox version, I would hope they actually learned stuff along the way to streamline and make it easier to make the 2018 or 2019 FIFA Switch games better going forward. All of this depends on if the Switch version sells enough to warrant a 2nd or 3rd year. I doubt it will sell high enough numbers to warrant a 2nd attempt next year on the Switch.
 
Noghri2 said:
I feel the reason 3rd party developers don't like making games for Nintendo consoles is because Nintendo games kills them on sales. I still feel people like myself buy Nintendo consoles specifically for playing Nintendo made games. From the article, the developer mentions they are on a 1 year plan to make FIFA games:
"Every time we only have a year to do the game. You have to be very careful about the choices that we make and the features that we want to put in, because the date will not change. The date will not change in any way."

So while I can agree with him that maybe it is more difficult to make their first FIFA Switch game from the PS4/Xbox version, I would hope they actually learned stuff along the way to streamline and make it easier to make the 2018 or 2019 FIFA Switch games better going forward. All of this depends on if the Switch version sells enough to warrant a 2nd or 3rd year. I doubt it will sell high enough numbers to warrant a 2nd attempt next year on the Switch.
Click to expand...

If the trend continues the Switch might become a system for Nintendo titles as well as a crap load of indie games. Nintendo is pushing indie stuff heavily right now.
 
Why the hell would there need to be a new soccer game every year?
Better ball physics... or what?

I mean there can't be new maps.
It's a soccer arena....
 
Inu said:
Why the hell would there need to be a new soccer game every year?
Better ball physics... or what?

I mean there can't be new maps.
It's a soccer arena....
Click to expand...

Updates rosters and EA shuts Fifa servers down after 3 years so you've got to be at least somewhat up to date.
 
Shouldn't be harder to work on than any other Phone SoC.
 
Derangel said:
This EA dev is the only person I've heard so far say that the Switch is complicated to develop for. It might have more to do with how poorly put together Frostbite is then the Switch itself.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wasn't refering to the Switch per se, but I heard that the tools available for the Wii U weren't great initially. I would imagine given that the Switch is running a Tegra chipset that it would be pretty straight forward now.
 
lilbabycat said:
*cough* diversity agenda hurting their talent pool *cough*
Click to expand...

B_I_N_G_O! American software developers (the kind that wear T-shirts/flip-flops to work), that have been writing code since their early teens are usually pretty darn good. Heck, among the best. But, they're expensive. Software companies don't like paying American salaries so they turn to H1B's and outsource everything possible. End result; dealing with language barriers which translates into miscommunication, sub-par code, having to wait 12 hours for emergency code updates because your developers are now on the other side of the planet, sub-par employees because they know there's a LONG, LONG list of American employers chomping at the bit to hire them so no vested interest in the company they're currently working for, etc.

Hate me all you want, but it's the simple truth of the matter. This outsourced labor is adding to the decay of our society.
 
EA's argument breaks down to something very key with the company: every single game EA makes now...every single one in their game catalog from 2017 going forward will all use the Frostbite engine (Frostbite 3.0 until the next Battlefield comes out when it'll then become 4.0). Madden NFL, Battlefront, Mass Effect, Dead Space, Titanfall, NBA Live, Anthem, NHL...all of EA big franchises will only use Frostbite for the rest of EA's company's lifespan. That's how good DICE makes graphics engines. However; DICE does not make engines for the Switch. Never has, never will. They made Frostbite to work with everything except Nintendo consoles deliberately because EA could care less about Nintendo in reality. Key talking point is, EA's comments comes from 1 thing: Switch can't do Frostbite, not even 2.0 (which gave us BF3) and they had to make a different custom engine for FIFA 18 and didn't like it one bit. FIFA 18 is a token game for the Switch because it'll sell everywhere except in the US and Japan. So even though sales numbers will be big worldwide, EA isn't gonna pay attention to how FIFA on the Switch sold in England or Spain or Brazil. They're going to pay attention to the US and Japan's sales numbers only, see that it failed in those 2 markets, admit publically, "Well...we tried." and in the next breath say, "Goodbye Nintendo!" and be done with the Switch on a one and done. All EA has said about loving the Switch and wanting to work with Nintendo is 3 words: Marketing PR Spin. That's how much face value their words have when it comes to that company. My $.02. Out!
 
RareAir23 said:
EA's argument breaks down to something very key with the company: every single game EA makes now...every single one in their game catalog from 2017 going forward will all use the Frostbite engine (Frostbite 3.0 until the next Battlefield comes out when it'll then become 4.0). Madden NFL, Battlefront, Mass Effect, Dead Space, Titanfall, NBA Live, Anthem, NHL...all of EA big franchises will only use Frostbite for the rest of EA's company's lifespan. That's how good DICE makes graphics engines. However; DICE does not make engines for the Switch. Never has, never will. They made Frostbite to work with everything except Nintendo consoles deliberately because EA could care less about Nintendo in reality. Key talking point is, EA's comments comes from 1 thing: Switch can't do Frostbite, not even 2.0 (which gave us BF3) and they had to make a different custom engine for FIFA 18 and didn't like it one bit. FIFA 18 is a token game for the Switch because it'll sell everywhere except in the US and Japan. So even though sales numbers will be big worldwide, EA isn't gonna pay attention to how FIFA on the Switch sold in England or Spain or Brazil. They're going to pay attention to the US and Japan's sales numbers only, see that it failed in those 2 markets, admit publically, "Well...we tried." and in the next breath say, "Goodbye Nintendo!" and be done with the Switch on a one and done. All EA has said about loving the Switch and wanting to work with Nintendo is 3 words: Marketing PR Spin. That's how much face value their words have when it comes to that company. My $.02. Out!
Click to expand...
You're way overthinking this. It just comes down to $$$. If it's profitable for them to release games on the Switch - which ultimately depends on how many Nintendo sells, because a larger install base = more customers - they they'll make games. Until that point, they'll either make some token efforts to gauge the platform, or give it lip service. The end.
 
Makes me laugh. Bethesda got skyrim running on the same thing. At reportedly a locked 30 fps. Skyrim!!!
 
I think new games in 2018 will be made for the switch, but nothing retroactively until it becomes profitable to do so. EA think in terms of millions of copies, not 100,000 to hardcore fans of certain franchises.
 
lilbabycat said:
*cough* diversity agenda hurting their talent pool *cough*
Click to expand...

You think it's diversity? lol

More like an oversaturation of CS majors that are lazy and don't know dick coming out of school.
The young talent replacing the aging workforce are in it because the US Job Outlook said it was a good field to go into with good pay.

This is why companies outsource.
 
Ghoststalker said:
Makes me laugh. Bethesda got skyrim running on the same thing. At reportedly a locked 30 fps. Skyrim!!!
Click to expand...

Not really sure if that's a fair comparison. Skyrim is running on Creation engine which is pretty old by now (released in 2011). Unmodded skyrim isn't really a very demanding game graphically compared with most of the things coming out now on Frostbite. For goodness sakes, the recommended requirements (not minimum) for vanilla Skryim is a graphics card with 1GB of RAM such as a GTX 260 or HD4890 or higher. Even if they do bring some of the visual improvements of the Special Edition to the Switch, I'm not really seeing how 720p locked 30 fps is an amazing technical achievement on Bethesda's part.

That said, the Switch GPU is about as powerful as integrated graphics found such as the HD 520/620 found in CoreM/Core i3 processors. Here's an article showing it barely beats the 2015 Core-M iGPU in graphics: (https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...porations-tegra-x1-how-does-it-compare-w.aspx). For people expecting mobile iGPU levels of power to run Frostbite engine games smoothly, I think you are expecting too much of EA. By comparison, the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X have GPUs more comparable to RX 570/580's which compare respectably to a mid-range gaming PC in terms of GPU power.
 
Derangel said:
This EA dev is the only person I've heard so far say that the Switch is complicated to develop for. It might have more to do with how poorly put together Frostbite is then the Switch itself.
Click to expand...

He's the only person to say anything because most developers want to keep their jobs, and won't air dirty laundry or neg a corporate partner on the internet.

As for Frostbite, it's actually highly optimized. They probably should have ported it to Vulkan and then the Switch might not have been as big a headache.
 
Any developer bitches about putting code some some new platform.

I'm sure it sucked in some way they were not expecting.
 
GreenOrbs said:
Not really sure if that's a fair comparison. Skyrim is running on Creation engine which is pretty old by now (released in 2011). Unmodded skyrim isn't really a very demanding game graphically compared with most of the things coming out now on Frostbite. For goodness sakes, the recommended requirements (not minimum) for vanilla Skryim is a graphics card with 1GB of RAM such as a GTX 260 or HD4890 or higher. Even if they do bring some of the visual improvements of the Special Edition to the Switch, I'm not really seeing how 720p locked 30 fps is an amazing technical achievement on Bethesda's part.

That said, the Switch GPU is about as powerful as integrated graphics found such as the HD 520/620 found in CoreM/Core i3 processors. Here's an article showing it barely beats the 2015 Core-M iGPU in graphics: (https://www.fool.com/investing/gene...porations-tegra-x1-how-does-it-compare-w.aspx). For people expecting mobile iGPU levels of power to run Frostbite engine games smoothly, I think you are expecting too much of EA. By comparison, the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X have GPUs more comparable to RX 570/580's which compare respectably to a mid-range gaming PC in terms of GPU power.
Click to expand...

It's running special edition, or a close match. They had frostbite running on ps360 so I'm confident if they put effort in they'd get it up and running. EA does this deal with Nintendo all the time. If anything, switch appears to be punching above it's weight often.
 
Ghoststalker said:
It's running special edition, or a close match. They had frostbite running on ps360 so I'm confident if they put effort in they'd get it up and running. EA does this deal with Nintendo all the time. If anything, switch appears to be punching above it's weight often.
Click to expand...

I'm not to sure about all of this. There are some trade off to be considered with the Switch. If you need another example take a look at Dragon Quest Heroes 1&2 with that game you could argue simple enough but it is not the best port on the platform.

Not the first time some of the content on Nintendo platform seems to be check mark based where if it runs it is good to go .
 
Ghoststalker said:
It's running special edition, or a close match. They had frostbite running on ps360 so I'm confident if they put effort in they'd get it up and running. EA does this deal with Nintendo all the time. If anything, switch appears to be punching above it's weight often.
Click to expand...

You mentioned the PS3 and Xbox 360 of examples of frostbite-compatible consoles are comparable to a Switch in performance. However, the PS3 and XBox 360 are both too weak to run the latest version of Frostbite with the newest features. EA ended up having to use the old IGNITE engine for the XBox 360 and PS3 versions.

From: https://www.dreamteamfc.com/c/gaming/241818/fifa-18-release-date-2/
Rivera confirmed the game will run on Ignite – which has been used since FIFA 16. This means it will be almost identical to last year’s game and look noticeably worse than FIFA 18 on the Xbox One, PS4 and PC. Bringing The Journey to last-gen consoles would require recreating the entire experience using Ignite – a move that makes no sense from either a technical or commercial perspective.
Click to expand...

I would guess that the same thing applied to FIFA 18 on the switch which was what required the "custom-built engine" on the Switch. I bet that EA ended up having to modify the IGNITE engine for Switch which was why the devs were complaining about the difficulty of developing for Switch. I think the "army of people" comment was referring to the effort it would take make the new features available in Frostbite work in the older engine. It makes little financial sense for a company to put new features into an engine they are abandoning (i.e. IGNITE) which is why the Switch, PS3, and 360 versions of FIFA 18 aren't getting the new features.

From: http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/fifa...cost-pre-order-and/1w8mlv9t3md9416sixtdh3tbs0
There was some doubt as to whether EA would bother with the older consoles this year. That's because the new Frostbite engine is too powerful for them to run, resulting in watered down versions of the game missing some key features such as The Journey. Once again, the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions will not match up to their PS4 and Xbox One counterparts and will not include The Journey, but they will, at least, exist.

The Nintendo Switch version of the game will not run on Frostbite either, which is a blow to FIFA fans who were hoping to finally be able to play the game at its full, comprehensive best on a Nintendo platform. EA are insistent, however, that they have built a worthy title for the new console and have revealed that in place of Frostbite, the Switch edition has its own, custom-built engine.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I do agree with people who hope that EA will make the effort to adapt their latest Frostbite engine to be compatible with the Switch. Developers supporting for all major consoles would be nice. That said, I think that it still does make sense that EA is unwilling to spend the money to update an older engine they are abandoning,
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top