• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Black_Stride

Avenger
Oct 28, 2017
7,388
I'm just gonna repost something I said in the other Frostbite thread comparing how other big studios handle engines.

EA seems to be just about the only one with this issue -- where all its studios are taking one engine that was apparently originally made for one type of game and trying to apply it to different genres.
  • Big Japanese publishers like Square Enix and Namco just use Unreal now.
  • Bethesda has most of its studios use idTech or forks of it, but almost all its games are first person. It lets Bethesda Game Studios keep using its own tech (GameBryo forks right?), let RAGE 2 use Avalanche's engine, and let Arkane use CryEngine for Prey. Doom, Wolfenstein, and Dishonored 2 are first person games that run on idTech -- an engine made mainly for FPSs. The only real outlier there is Evil Within -- a third person game, using idTech.
  • Ubisoft I think is still basically using different engines for each of its franchises: Creed and Wildlands are Anvil, Division is Snowdrop, Far Cry is Dunia (CryEngine 1 fork), Splinter Cell was on an Unreal 2.5 fork, etc. They probably all share tech where they need to though. The only outlier there is R6 Siege being Anvil, which mostly seems to be used for Ubisoft's third person open-world games.
  • Activision lets each COD studio run its own fork of Quake III.
  • With Sony, it looks like Guerrilla is sort of their "DICE" but to a lesser degree. Other studios have used Guerrilla's Decima engine but I think they mostly just share stuff from it with other Sony teams. They let Bend use Unreal 4 for Days Gone.

Ubisoft basically only has 2 AAA engines.
Dunia and AnvilNext
They both seem to be great engines cept for the processor thing with Assassins Creed Origins/Odyssey. And they managed to turn AnvilNext into an RPG engine. (Talented Devs I always respect them for what thye did to Assassins Creed)
SnowDrop i guess was specialized so the studio would see no reason to move to one of the other engines.
If Ubi try their hand at a new Looter Shooter IP you can bet its gonna be running on SnowDrop.
I dont know where Disrupt engine is now, didnt a bunch of it get merged with Dunia?

Pretty much all of Sonys Studios have their own incredible engines already so they have no need to use each others engines. Those that dont have their own engines like Bend go with an established engine like UE4.

EAs smaller studios didnt have their own engines, so them jumping on an engine that EA has seen works in this case Frostbite actually makes sense. Instead of hoping Epic will give you the support you need, you have one of your own studios providing support.

I dont think we can put SO much blame on the engine.
 

Shawcroft

Member
Oct 29, 2017
361
Eh, I can easily see how someone near the top arrived at that decision.

Frostbite games were mostly very pretty and ran well, and like you mentioned, all studios working on shared tech sounds like a great idea on paper.

But yeah, it apparently being such a huge undertaking getting basic non-FPS features into the engine is a big oversight that should have come up at some point.

Guess we'll never really know with the engine being EA exclusive. But it's a curious thing how it all worked out for sure.
 

Patapuf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,408
The last Need for speed is using Frotsbite? I remember one of the series (The Run I believe) using it and running not too good...

I don't know if it was an EA decision or a BioWare decision, but after problems with the engine for two games why giving it a third chance? It's beyond my understanding.

Usually teams get better at using an engine, the tools become more mature and thus, development goes quicker. It's why you often see a clear progression as a console generation goes on and significant improvments in sequels. Switching engines isn't a small thing, sticking with what you know, even if it's not the latest tech, can be much better for productivity.

Both, Anthem and Adromeda have also had long dev times. It's possible that they underestimated how much time it would take to implement the stuff they needed.
 

Dan Thunder

Member
Nov 2, 2017
14,020
As I mentioned in another thread I really don't understand why they didn't make Renderware their default engine. It was a phenomenal engine and had a proven track record across different platforms and genres.

You only had to look at the likes of Black and Burnout 3 on PS2 to see how great an engine it was.
 

Switch

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,021
Wales
I think at this point it's safe to say this decision by EA was easily one of the worst they've ever made.

Frostbite is a fab game engine, it's only really hurt the Need For Speed series imo. Bioware games always have issues at the start, it's not like Star Wars, Jade didn't have issues and bugs and Mass Effect had issues with the use of Unreal 3. Madden and Fifa games all look and run fab now too
 

Patitoloco

Member
Oct 27, 2017
23,614
The last Need for speed is using Frotsbite? I remember one of the series (The Run I believe) using it and running not too good...

I don't know if it was an EA decision or a BioWare decision, but after problems with the engine for two games why giving it a third chance? It's beyond my understanding.
The last 5 Need for Speed have been using Frostbite (you're right, they started with The Run, all the following games have used it).
 

Mockerre

Story Director
Verified
Oct 30, 2017
630
I think at this point it's safe to say this decision by EA was easily one of the worst they've ever made.

BioWare has been severely affected by this decisions, siting it to be a major cause of the flaws found in Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda, and now seemingly Anthem.

Stories of EA's Star Wars game by Amy Hennig called Ragtag also site issues with Frostbite being part of the reason the game ended up being cancelled.

So far, the only dev team to not have issues with the engine is Dice themselves and it begs the question of why this decision was ever made in the first place.

The idea of having all teams working on a shared engine makes sense so that skills and tools between teams can be shared. What doesn't make sense is the engine chosen is a pre-existing one that was developed with only first person shooters in mind.

The benefits from this decision have yet to be seen as the issues caused by it become more and more prevalent, and I'm wondering if this will EVER end up being a good decision in the long run.

In the realm of on paper cost reduction.
 

dumbo11

Member
Apr 29, 2018
226
The problem has never been Frostbite but the lack of technical expertise at EA development studios.

Creating a UI for your game is something you 'get mostly right' on your first game with an engine. Anthem was bioware's third game with frostbite.
 

Polk

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
4,215
As I mentioned in another thread I really don't understand why they didn't make Renderware their default engine. It was a phenomenal engine and had a proven track record across different platforms and genres.

You only had to look at the likes of Black and Burnout 3 on PS2 to see how great an engine it was.
AFAIR uprgading engine to run on 360/PS3 would be very time consuming so EA like most of companies turned to Unreal.
 
Oct 27, 2017
15,020
The idea itself was incredibly sound. Have a single, internal engine that all studios can contribute to and help each other with when necessary. It eliminates the need to license out a 3rd party engine and the fees that come with that. They just picked a really bad engine to do this with.

The smarter move would've been to spin out an engine development division and build a new, all-purpose engine for future titles instead of reusing an relatively restrictive FPS engine and then forcing some existing projects to switch mid-development.

Yeah, setting up a new team to develop Frostbite some more and give them another few years to iron out wrinkles before shipping out to developers as a unified engine would have probably been the smart thing to do. Basically make it like their own mini-Unreal Engine with a dedicated development & optimisation team.
 

monmagman

Member
Dec 6, 2018
4,126
England,UK
I imagine they made them all use it because of £££££££££££££.........the thing that informs every decision EA make.If they were to actually start caring about making good games then they probably would,they have all the resources.
 

Dan Thunder

Member
Nov 2, 2017
14,020
AFAIR uprgading engine to run on 360/PS3 would be very time consuming so EA like most of companies turned to Unreal.

But they had it running on PS3/360. Burnout Paradise was a Renderware title so it's not like they didn't have an engine for those platforms.

Out of their internal engines to develop for use across their titles it seems odd to me not to go for the one that already worked across multiple genres but instead the one that at the time was pretty much an FPS engine. Though given the popularity of FPS's both then and now it may have made sense to focus on the engine that prioritised that particular genre.
 
Dec 4, 2018
285
United Kingdom
It probably makes quite a lot Iof sense from ea...get your games on your engine. You don't have to pay fees to epic or other company to make your games. It also means as you move people around studios if one project is more important as they are all working in the same engine there is less to learn.

Conversely as EA are Ea, it also means when they close down your studio. Your knowledge in just frostbite is useless...and you'd need to learn some other engine at another company. So prob even more in their favour as you dont want to leave and risk having to learn another environment
 

Polk

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
4,215
But they had it running on PS3/360. Burnout Paradise was a Renderware title so it's not like they didn't have an engine for those platforms.
Sure, even Burnout Revenge and Crackdown used Renderware. But maybe porting was one thing, and making it future proof was something completly different.

I found interview with EA's COO:
What made you guys take up the Unreal engine? What happened with Renderware?

WG: Renderware didn't get the next-gen parts that we needed. We actually underestimated Epic early on. They told us, "We're going to do this, this, and this," and we thought, "Eh, it's going to be kind of hard." We also overestimated our team, then we looked up three months, six months, and nine months later and said, "Whoops, we underestimated Epic. Again. And overestimated our own team." We had a couple of teams that were waiting on Renderware. We probably stuck with it too long.
 

Goron2000

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
542
they didn't learn from Capcom tried this with MT Framework
MT Framework was incredibly successful for Capcom. It helped them get an early foothold on HD development when other Japanese devs were struggling. They made a lot of games on that engine, it was was very versatile and looked fantastic. Capcom's problems came when they had to follow it up.
 

SantaC

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,763
cLBLHio.png


This is not frostbites fault
 
Oct 29, 2017
458
I guess the interesting thing for me is that this strategy isn't necessarily all broken for other companies.

Capcom relied on MT Framework and now the RE Engine for drastically different genres of games and it seems to be making a big difference for them, as an example.
 

Detail

Member
Dec 30, 2018
2,947
The sports games have really suffered because of it, they were already janky beforehand but have got significantly worse since using FB.
 

Haze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,776
Detroit, MI
The sports games have really suffered because of it, they were already janky beforehand but have got significantly worse since using FB.

Fifa has been pretty unplayable this gen. I legit stopped playing soccer games because as good as Pro Evo is, it's been the same game every year for 3 years and Konami won't put any money into it so no features get added and it loses licenses.

Fifa just plays like fucking shit and is basically RNG/Fifa Street.
 

Nostremitus

Member
Nov 15, 2017
7,772
Alabama
Little known fact, Bioware is the reason Battlefront was able to include AT-ATs.

They modified Frostbite to allow for quadrupedal models for the mounts in DA:I.

That modification was what allowed Dice to include AT-ATs, they were basically giant reskinned Dragon Age horses.

This type of cross game and cross team engine improvement is why they want everyone on the same engine...
 

OléGunner

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,275
Airborne Aquarium
It actually was a sound and solid plan in concept.
Management across EA just executed it with about all the grace of Lukaku's first touch.

The sports games have really suffered because of it, they were already janky beforehand but have got significantly worse since using FB.

I remember hearing or seeing something last week that even just getting replays to work in Frostbite for FIFA was a nightmare
 

Fafalada

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,065
Ubisoft basically only has 2 AAA engines.
Dunia and AnvilNext
Aside for that not being really true(there were always at least 3 'named' engines) - Ubi basically operated on a 1 engine per game model more than anything. Eg. see Watchdogs vs Farcry for the most obvious example, although the same thing applies to most of their releases in this decade.
To Ubi's credit - their teams have managed to turn around the most unlikeliest of tech-choices into something of a success, unlike the narrative currently going around about EA teams.

As I mentioned in another thread I really don't understand why they didn't make Renderware their default engine.
Oh believe me they #tried. And RW wasn't even the first time EA tried unifying their tech-stack either.
Anyway if I were to list every reason why tech-monoliths never worked as unified solutions for large companies we'd be here until 2020. But for all the faults people see with FrostBite - Renderware was by far the least likely chance of success in unifying tech, and anyone could have predicted 'that' outcome.
 

Adamska

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,042
I think the problem was a lack of investment in sharing technologies, like having something akin to Playstation's ICE team. At least that's my conclusion from all the accounts of people working with this engine. The games that make good use of it look great, too.
 

justiceiro

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
6,664
Isn't the dev that made athem that bioware studio that is not actually bioware, but another studio that got the name changed to BioWare so ea could benefit of the good name of the actual studio while promoting their games?

Because I recall that BioWare not making games really well received.

And let's also remember when ea tried to make a engine only for sports games(ignite). It last two years before going frostbite. However, the switch version still uses it. Guess which version if the game is the weakest?
 

Acorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,972
Scotland
Isn't the dev that made athem that bioware studio that is not actually bioware, but another studio that got the name changed to BioWare so ea could benefit of the good name of the actual studio while promoting their games?

Because I recall that BioWare not making games really well received.

And let's also remember when ea tried to make a engine only for sports games(ignite). It last two years before going frostbite. However, the switch version still uses it. Guess which version if the game is the weakest?
Nah, anthem is "real" bioware in Edmonton, the other one was the team that got canned after Andromeda.
 

EvilBoris

Prophet of Truth - HDTVtest
Verified
Oct 29, 2017
16,680
they didn't learn from Capcom tried this with MT Framework

EA successfully did it with Renderware for years before the tech and team was folded into the wider frostbite and fyre engine.

It just feels like an easy finger for the uninformed to point at the nebulous "engine"
The fact of the matter is the game looks incredible and we are approaching the end of the gen where tech starts to get stretched . From DF's breakdownknow there are some anomalies and perhaps bugs affecting performance rather than the fundamental engine being broken or unsuitable (with loading times perhaps an exception)
 

ffvorax

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,855
Frostbite engine is the last of their problems... I dont think it was such a bad decision that influenced the games too much.
Sure its not easy to use one engine for a big diversity of games, but you can make changes on it for the purpose.
 

Skade

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,851
Well, having everyone working on the same "in house" engine is not a bad idea on paper. And it works quite well for Ubisoft.

It only becomes a problem when the engine you choose is one purposedly built to do big scale FPS and nothing else. Especially when it also apparently lacks the tools to do a bunch of things.


They probably should have spent some time growing the functionnalities and tools of Frostbite before asking devs unfamiliar with it to do things it wasn't meant to do. But EA being EA, i suppose anything that isn't immediately lucrative on the short term is probably deemed irrelevant and they skipped that (very important) step.
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
I don't think this narrative that Frostbite is bad is true.
As ppl have already said DA:I was fine and the latest fifa games work well with it. Despite some issues with me:a it can be quite the good looking game.
Regarding ragtag it may have been missing things specific to that game but don't all engines need some custom work for specific games?
I would of thought Andromeda and Da:I would of provided some 3rd person tools.
Same goes for anthem too, its not like bioware were inexperienced with the engine.
 

j3d1j4m13

Member
Feb 24, 2019
577
Bioware's engine before frostbite was ancient. They needed a new engine and thought they could handle frostbite. Obviously there are still issues. The narrative that EA is making them do it is strange when you have Respawn using source and Bioware's stating they chose frostbite. I think if Bioware wanted to use an old engine that would make a decent game with less development cost and time EA would have loved it. I think bioware is struggling from a pure vision stand point and that's why their games are having issues. They probably rebooted Anthem just like they had to reboot Andromeda due to lack of vision for the end product or wanting to do to much.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,312
I've had more of a problem with the story structure and quest/mission design in these games than anything handled by the engine. I don't think anything in an engine says you must make another save the world story with a big bad evil guy.
 

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,026
You can dangle enough financial and other benefits to get people or a company to do something. It doesn't mean they arrived at the decision freely. Considering BioWare is a subsidiary the power dynamics would also be tilted against them

so without all the specifics of the decision process it's impossible to say if they were forced to all not. Based on wide adoption of the engine across various disparate studios it may be safe to say that it was heavily encouraged by management.

Pointing to Respawn doesn't work as the company was acquired recently
 
Last edited:

shoptroll

Member
May 29, 2018
3,680
I'm eagerly looking forward to hearing about any development horror stories with this engine for The Sims 5.
 

Astra Planeta

Member
Jan 26, 2018
668
From seeing how well BF1 & BFV look & runs on console I don't think frostbyte is the issue, the engine is pretty clearly capably of amazing things. Seems like the issues lie with developers.
 

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,026
From seeing how well BF1 & BFV look & runs on console I don't think frostbyte is the issue, the engine is pretty clearly capably of amazing things. Seems like the issues lie with developers.

This comment makes no sense
Reports about the engine pertains to difficulty using it and lack of functionality for non fps games. not that it to cant make good looking fps games