Amy Hennig Talks More About Struggling With EA's Frostbite Engine

That's creating games on Frostbite, not swapping engines. If Respawn were to swap from UE4 to FB, what are the gains for the game? Or for Respawn?
And swapping engines to Frostbite wouldn't mean creating the game on Frostbite?
This is going in circles.

Look Shifty I'm not defending a case or the other. I don't work for EA or its competition. This isn't all that important to me.
All I did was reference EA's CEO explanations for pushing Frostbite across their dev teams, but it seems I somehow need to answer for the guy. I don't.

I never thought a completely casual sentence like "EA is letting one of them devs release a game on something other than Frostbite" would be the cause of so much discussion and I honestly regret it already.
 
Because to some of us, EA letting Respawn release a game on UE4 isn't anything of note and have just asked for the perspective that thinks it is something of note (missing from Tottentranz's self quote is the "it's an important mark" part). In a thread about devs complaining about Frostbite, does the fact the next game from Respawn uses UE4 instead of Frostbite mean something or not? That seems to be a very sensible discussion point. If someone feels it is significant, is it that odd to ask them to explain it so the rest of us can understand that perspective, and then of course either agree or disagree?

*shrug*
 
Indeed. And as discussed here, asking if it's an important point, still seems (to me anyhow) that it isn't and it has no baring on the Frostbite story. I just think these reporters haven't joined the dots in the right order, starting instead with the current popular topic of Frostbite and recent very public criticism of it, instead of starting with the story of how J:FO began and was later acquired.

If there hadn't been all the anti-Frostbite sentiment, no-one would have batted an eye-lid at a UE4 game coming from an EA studio seeing as it was started long before the acquisition.
 
Back
Top