Crysis 3 For Wii U was Canceled Due to Poor Business Support Between Nintendo and EA

Sunday, March 3rd, 2013

Share this page

Libra Sale!

We are proudly a Play-Asia Partner


Ads support the website by covering server and domain costs. We're just a group of gamers here, like you, doing what we love to do: playing video games and bringing y'all niche goodness. So, if you like what we do and want to help us out, make an exception by turning off AdBlock for our website. In return, we promise to keep intrusive ads, such as pop-ups, off oprainfall. Thanks, everyone!


Crysis 3

Crytek, the developer of Crysis 3, had their game running on the Wii U and it was pretty close to launching as well. So I bet you’re wondering why it did not see the light of day? Well Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli stated that “there was a lack of  business support between Nintendo and EA”.  So eventually the game was canceled for Wii U since Crytek wasn’t in a position to publish the game.

Here is the full quote “We did have Crysis 3 running on the Wii U. 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.”

My opinion on all of this is that this is an utter disappointment.  This game could have been a great addition to Nintendo’s third party support and it is a shame that Nintendo and EA couldn’t work out a deal of some sort.  Let us know what you think in the comments below.


Crysis 3 for the PS3 on Amazon!

About Theophilus Fox

Former Volunteer- My name is Theophilus Fox, I've been a gamer since as long as I can remember, and I also enjoy manga and anime. I'm a Nintendo fan, although I do not discriminate between franchises. I'm a guy who just loves to make jokes and generally have a fun time.

  • I suspect EA is at fault here. Nintendo has been shown to be very eager to gain and maintain support from the big name third party publishers since the launch of the system, so I can’t see any reason why they wouldn’t try to get this game released on the Wii U.

    • RicardJulianti

      Posted this in the Joystiq article about this. It’s a pretty long post, so I apologize in advance for that:

      The blame is almost certainly 100% on EA at this point.

      In June of last year, they said this, “We’ve got a couple of more games in development for Wii U and we’ll have a bigger line-up for Wii U than we did on the Wii. It is the first next-generation platform coming out so we’re really supporting it. Just looking at E3 and where we’re at, we wanted to hold our fire a little bit on a couple of the other games that we’re working on.”

      In January, “Ours is an industry where a lot of devices come in and represent themselves as the next generation, or the next generation after that. In many ways we would argue that the what we’re describing as “gen 4″ is yet to come. It’s that that we’re excited about, and that’s what we’re investing in.”

      EA wanted Nintendo to have ALL of its online stuff run through Origin’s interface and netcode, essentially handing over online control to EA. This would allow EA to overprice DLC to an insane extent, give CoD and other competitors the worst possible netcode so they abandon the game and go to Battlefield or what have you instead. Nintendo said, “Fat chance.” and now EA is all pissed off and whiny about it. They severely gimped their ports, sabotaged the Wii U version of Mass Effect 3 by announcing the Trilogy and providing 0 DLC support, and pulled crap like this.

      There is no reason for them to yank support like that, especially since they had dev kits for the other 2 systems way back. EA just wants control and are trying to “Dreamcast” the Wii U….which isn’t going to happen.

      Other 3rd parties are pretty happy that it played out like this, they are just a little miffed about the current sales, but will change their tone once they pick up in the next couple months. Ubisoft is still providing quite a bit of support even though they messed up with Rayman (which I’m pretty much over at this point).

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      …I almost pity you.

  • HPN

    I’m sure it was an EA decision to pull the plug, and more than likely because of horrible Wii U console and 3rd party game sales figures, in conjunction with the fact that the Wii U would be a far from optimal platform to show off the Crysis 3 engine.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      “in conjunction with the fact that the Wii U would be a far from optimal platform to show off the Crysis 3 engine.”
      Way to troll up your comment at the end there.

    • RicardJulianti

      Other than the fact that Crytek said that CryEngine 3 “runs beautifully” on Wii U. On PS3/360 it just kind of…..runs.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      link to that “runs beautifully” comment. Bet you can’t.

    • RicardJulianti
    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      a slow clap. Now find a reputable source for any of the other conspiracy theory garbage you’ve been spewing…and find me ONE article on the entire internet, doesn’t matter from where, that says 3rd party WiiU support is good.

    • Guest
    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      …that article said nothing about third party support…

  • FrancisUnderwood0482

    even though I have little interest in the franchise this is a huge blow. What the hell is Nintendo doing?

    • TwinTails

      They refused to be EA’s puppet. Nintendo made a smart decision not letting Origin be the Wii U’s online service with all the problems that could have caused for them.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      likely, still stings that a (by the sounds of it) near-finished big (ish) title gets cancelled with WiiU’s well-documented 3rd-party woes.

    • RicardJulianti

      Wii U’s well-documented 3rd party woes:

      EA pulls support and sabotages Mass Effect 3 by announcing the Trilogy (except for Wii U) and removes DLC support/Criterion announces best version of NFSMW is Wii U and all future NFS titles will have a simul. release on Wii U

      Ubisoft delays Rayman in order to make more money (but best version still on Wii U)/Exclusive launch title, confirms Watch_Dogs ACIV, Splinter Cell:Blacklist showing signs of confirmation

      Platinum games develops 2 exclusive Wii U titles

      TT Fusion creates exclusive Lego City title

      Capcom brings definitive version of Monster Hunter 3 to Wii U, listens to fans on what to include

      Namco/Bandai assists in the development of Super Smash Bros.

      Hardly seems like “woes” to me. EA can shove it….especially since 3rd parties are pretty stoked that Nintendo didn’t let EA control the online.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      Someone’s in denial.

      Platinum, in the case of the two titles they are making, are essentially acting as a 2nd party as Nintendo is publishing both games.

      Wow, one Lego game that’s a kiddy knock-off of GTA, which we/Wii won’t be getting

      Whoa! An upscaled 3DS game (with embarrassing graphics) which is an expansion of a PSP/Wii title. And what else is Capcom bringing to WiiU? Nothing so far.

      Where’s Konami?

      Where’s Take Two?

      Without EA there will be NO Sports Games worth playing that don’t have “Mario” in the title. Be pissed off about the Micro-trans and Origins all you want, the last console that EA totally washed their hands of was the Dreamcast.

      Namco is assisting the development of a Nintendo Franchise we would have gotten anyway. And besides fighters what does Namco bring to the table anyway.

      Square seems to be supporting the WiiU a *little* but where’s Tomb Raider.

      On that last note where’s any cross-platform game worth noting that has come out for PS3/360 since the WiiU launch. Dev’s have been saying their titles WON’T be coming to Wiiu left and right.

      You’re living in a fantasy land my friend.

    • RicardJulianti

      I’m not even going to respond to most of this, because you clearly can’t have a reasonable discussion without calling someone a child. I’m 25. I will comment in your other post.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      I read your other post. You just make the same claims with no evidence.
      The reason you won’t reply to me specifically is because using facts and logic I got you dead to rights on each and every “point” you made.

    • RicardJulianti

      No, you haven’t. It hasn’t even been posted yet. I am typing in reply to your “salt in the wound” post.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      oh, so you just posted your same made up retarded garbage in reply to the comment at the top…gotcha.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      Don’t bother. You bore me.

    • RicardJulianti

      Apparently not considering you searched out every single one of my posts and replied with some snarky comment. You obviously have a problem.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      P.S.: At the risk of rubbing salt in the wound…if I did a bullet point synopsis of games coming to both PS3 and the 360 but NOT WiiU it would be several times as large as your post…how is that excellent 3rd party support. Seriously dude. You named a whopping 5 (!!!!) titles coming to WiiU (once again the Platinum games are Nintendo titles, so they don’t count…that’s like calling Retro and Monolith games 3rd party titles.)
      Anyway, I look forward to your retort where you’ll likely rage at me because I made Hamburger at your ill-reasoned thoughts on the subject.

    • RicardJulianti

      You obviously do not know me if you think I will rage at you. I will not resort to calling you a child, or get extremely defensive because you have a different outlook on things. We are fundamentally 2 different people it seems. I am an optimist, you seem to be a pessimist.

      It is a safe bet that a majority of the titles on your bullet point synopsis started development when the studios had early/not final dev kits for the Wii U, so naturally they believed they didn’t have the time or resources to port it and make the most of the system. Criterion didn’t get final dev kits and support from Nintendo until LAUNCH DAY.

      It doesn’t mean they will never support the Wii U, just the games they are currently working on with announced release dates are not. Nintendo has said repeatedly that they are fostering ties with 3rd parties…they just know how to keep a secret.

      EA wanted full control of Nintendo’s online service. They wanted it to run on Origin’s interface and netcode, thus giving them full control of the online experience. Origin is notorious for taking tons of information off of a user’s PC, and it actually breaks privacy laws in Germany. Nintendo didn’t want that to run their system, so they said no. Nothing wrong with that.

      The difference between Nintendo and Sega with EA trying to “Dreamcast” them, is that Nintendo has the money to withstand a lack of mediocre iterations of the same sports franchises and derided microtransaction games from EA. They have about $20 billion in cash and assets. They could take losses of several hundred million a year and still be around in 2052, but with the lineup of first party games they have coming and the fact that they will likely make a profit on every Wii U sold, this isn’t going to happen for a while. Nintendo isn’t going anywhere. If you don’t believe those numbers, read through their end of the year financial report. It’s all right there in black and white.

      “2nd party” is a colloquial term, but they are in no way under contract from Nintendo. Nintendo doesn’t have them commissioned for a set number of games and the studio isn’t exclusive. Insomniac was a second party to Sony, but Platinum is third party with publishing help. Insomniac couldn’t make games for another platform until that deal was up, Platinum made MSG:R while still working on Nintendo exclusives.

      It doesn’t matter what the game is, it is not developed in-house by Nintendo. You also have no way of knowing that Nintendo WON’T get GTAV. Literally nothing has been said on the matter.

      Namco has plenty of titles other than fighters (which include Tekken, Naruto, and Soul Calibur). Dark Souls, Ace Combat, the “Tales” franchise, Gundam, Ridge Racer, the “.hack” series, Katamari, and of course, Pac-Man.

      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That goes for Konami, Take Two, 2K etc. If they have said that they will NEVER support Wii U, then you have a point. Until then, there is simply no way of knowing.

      My original post was to show more than just that there are third party developers working on games. It is about Nintendo fostering relationships with third party developers so that their next projects will be on Wii U or be made Wii U exclusive. Iwata is “eager to share what 3rd party developers are working on for the Wii U”. He wouldn’t say that if there weren’t games coming.

      I am FULLY aware of Nintendo’s past in dealing with 3rd parties. Hiroshi Yamauchi was one tough sonovabitch. Iwata has a massive uphill battle but he is doing a decent job. With the success of the 3DS, massive scalability of next gen engines (all of which Wii U can run quite well), and the ease of porting games to Wii U (especially since PS4/Durango have similar architectures), it won’t be anywhere near as bad as the Wii.

      The Wii U has sold more units than the 360 and PS3 did in the same amount of time since launch, and in a worse economy as well. Yes, there is a severe drought of games since launch, but it isn’t “embarrassingly slow” as you suggest. If it was, 360/PS3 should have failed miserably. The 3DS had similar struggles at launch and now it leads ALL hardware sales on a weekly basis. I’m not saying the Wii U will explode out of the gates and crush the competition, but it will do very well.

      You can spout off all you want and dismiss my claims, but it doesn’t change the fact that Nintendo isn’t failing, and that they are trying. I’m done with you.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      one again. You’re an idiot, you never provide reputable sources for your claim. Now fuck off child.

  • Jakeseter

    EA is a fault, and this is the reason.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      the guy in that vid is annoying.

  • I’m sure it’s EA’s fault, but I’m also pretty sure that $ony and Micro$oft might have thrown a few $$$ at EA to make life harder for Nintendo. Anyone expect anything less?

  • Goose

    Good riddance EA. I have a feeling they probably wanted to push Origin on the Wii U and Nintendo just wasn’t having any of that shit. Nintendo’s been pretty generous to third party supporters and indie developers, so I highly doubt Nintendo is at fault since they are so lenient. EA needs to die already.

  • InsaneChronos

    >> I suspect EA is at fault here <> EA is a fault <> I’m sure it’s EA’s fault <<

    No, guys. It's Nintendo's fault too, because the Wii U is Nintendo console.

    • LordKaizer

      EA refused to release crysis 3 on wii u because Nintendo didn’t want origin on their system.

    • InsaneChronos

      Maybe. But that’s business. If you want to receive something, you must give something instead.

    • thats not bussines trying to take something that isn’t yours by that logic they should take over xbox live and psn as well
      and if your talking about give and take if they release the games they would get money i don’t know what you think they should be getting beside that i think money is enough for them they shouldn’t have anything to say on a console or product they didn’t develop themselves

    • RicardJulianti

      EA supposedly wanted to take over Nintendo’s online entirely, run the netcode through Origin. That would be like Coke letting Pepsi handle their distribution. It makes no business sense to allow that, and none of EA’s games are worth giving up that amount of control.

    • FrancisUnderwood0482

      did you really post your made up “pulled out of a hat filled with conspiracy theories” bull shit on every post. Nobody cares, nor believes you because it’s blatantly hog-wash.
      *Unless I work for EA and am here to take over the OpRainfalll comment boards!!! OOOOOOHHHHH!*

    • Their point is that EA is the party who wanted something unreasonable.

    • Ibi Salmon

      He has a point too, though. Regardless of what EA was offering, had Nintedo allowed it this game would be coming to the Wii U.

    • Yes, the game would be on Wii U if Nintendo allowed it. However, when you’re determining “fault,” you have to look at which side did something to cause the problem in the first place. I seriously doubt Origin will be on MS’s or Sony’s consoles when Crysis 3 arrives on them, so why should Nintendo be expected to have it? This is total conjecture, but I suspect that EA saw a company that is obviously in need of some big name 3rd-party support and decided to try to use that as leverage to get Origin on a console. They were being greedy, and therefore the blame lies with them. (If the deal fell through because of anything else, then obviously I’m totally wrong.)

    • Ibi Salmon

      But that’s all this is: conjecture. We don’t know much about what happened aside from the developers’ words. And according to them:

      “…there was a lack of business support between Nintendo and EA on that.”

      As far as we know, both EA and Nintendo weren’t supporting the decision to bring the game to the Wii U. Until we get more information, it’s only natural that Nintendo should have just as much blame as EA. As the user pointed out, it is their console after all.

    • Fair enough. I thought we were talking under the assumption that EA’s push for Origin on the Wii U was what caused the cancellation.

    • Ibi Salmon

      Then let’s assume that EA did push Origin on the Wii U and Nintendo refused. Why did Nintendo say no? It certainly wouldn’t be the first something like this has happened. Surely, no one was complaining when the PS3 version of Portal 2 was Steam enabled. Or when every major Ubisoft game since Assassin’s Creed 2 was Uplay enabled.

      Heck, ZombiU is enabled for Uplay. So I highly doubt that the push for origin on Crysis 3 was the reason if they’re willing to let Ubisoft have Uplay for a Wii U exclusive.

    • I will admit that I don’t know much about either service, but from the little research I’ve done, the EULA for Origin allows EA an unhealthy amount of access to information on the machine running Origin, even if it has nothing to do with Origin. According to wikipedia, their EULA also violates several German laws, and has been ruled to be “null and void” by a judge there. I have never read anything negative about Uplay, so it seems like whatever Ubisoft is doing with it doesn’t piss off people the way Origin does.

    • Ibi Salmon

      Well, that’s no good. If I was Nintendo, I wouldn’t want a service with questionable actions either, even if only to keep the bad press away.

      I’m not sure if the check up that origin does was EA’s intention or not, but if it was, then it’s no wonder how EA’s holds its current reputation.

    • RicardJulianti

      The rumor seems to be not only that EA wanted Origin on the console, but that EA wanted Nintendo to run its ENTIRE online through Origin’s interface and netcode. This is a problem.

      It would allow EA to overprice DLC, and possibly give competing games horrible netcode support in an attempt to make their games better looking to the consumer. That would be a pretty logical reason for Nintendo to say no.

      It’s completely illogical for EA to pull support how they did if that is actually true, but this is EA we’re talking about. They did something similar to the Dreamcast when Sega couldn’t afford to give them the licensing they had in the past. Only difference is that Nintendo has the money to survive the ridiculous snub.

    • Ibi Salmon

      Nice try. I can see them selling overpriced DLC(I wouldn’t expect anything less from them), but messing around with netcodes of other games on a system? No company would be able to do something like that. The outrage would be immense. I highly doubt that even EA would want to put up with that.

      How would that even work? Are there members of EA hackers that are able to look in to systems signed in to origin and mess around them? Will they look at what games people have and mess around with the data? That sounds laughably absurd. Especially when we’re talking about ONE origin-enabled game.

      In the end though, this is all pointless conjecture. Until we get more information, both Nintendo and EA are at fault here. Neither of them supported the game to have it come to the Wii U, so they both should share the blame in this.

    • RicardJulianti

      They would be able to do that because Nintendo would be running it’s entire online netcode through Origin, not just have an Origin application on the Wii U main menu. If Origin controls the entirety of the online service, they can do whatever they want with it.

      EA games on Wii U already have to use Origin to connect to the servers…EA wanted MORE control.

    • Ibi Salmon

      Again, how does that happen on Origin-enabled games? Aside from the questionable looking-into-the-system-for-games thing(which I don’t even know if it’s true or not), it’s not a whole lot different from games like ZombiU and Assassin’s Creed 3 on the Wii U that enable Uplay.

      You’re making it sound like they want to take the Wii U’s online service from under Nintendo’s grasp. You sound a lot like a conspiracy theorist,

    • RicardJulianti

      That is EXACTLY what they wanted to do. (key word wanted……past tense)

      It may be a “conspiracy” but that kind of thing takes way too much effort to make up.

    • Ibi Salmon

      Right. Well, this certainly is an interesting story. However, there’s no concrete proof of this. Just speculation and coincidences.

      That’s not to say that the story couldn’t be true, but these anonymous sources are usually far from credible. The last time this happened when an anonymous worker from Lucasarts said that Star Wars Battlefront 3 was canned despite being “99% complete”. That statement was questionable to say the least.

      I still have a hard time believing that EA tried to do what everyone’s suspecting them of doing. It would have taken both guts and arrogance on EA’s part to even suggest something like this and I’d like to think that EA lacks either.

    • RicardJulianti

      I feel like the recent deluge of leaks on the PS4 and neXtBox lends this a bit more credibility. PS4 more so than the neXtBox simply because we don’t know anything about the latter. Leaks are getting harder and harder to contain, but yeah, it could still just be a rumor.

      What’s weird though is the drastic change in attitude towards the Wii U from as recently as last June. They said they loved it and were excited to support it, seeing as it was the “first next-gen platform to come out” (their words, not mine.) Then all of a sudden, in January they claim that it isn’t a part of their “Gen 4” future. It’s not like they didn’t have dev kits for the PS4/720 back then so it’s not like hardware is a problem….

      Sony tried something similar with the SNES CD add-on They wanted full licensing of everything put on the add-on, which would allow them to license out Nintendo franchises. Ninty said no, went to Phillips (Sony’s main comp at the time) and now we have the Playstation, haha.

      To be honest, I wouldn’t put it past EA at this point. Former Bioware co-founder talked about their “bear hug” approach when they acquire a studio. “Well meaning, but vigorous” he called it…..and this rumor certainly fits the bill. Well meaning in that they were willing to help Nintendo step into the online gaming world in earnest, but vigorous by overstepping their bounds.

      EA did something like this with the Dreamcast too. Bernie Stolar (Pres. and COO of Sega for the DC era) stated in an interview that EA would develop for the Dreamcast….giving Sega the support they so dearly needed after the Saturn…..but wanted 100% sports exclusivity. Stolar had just bought Visual Concepts for $10 million and said competing with them would be the only caviat. The deal fell through….obviously.

      EA definitely has the balls to try and pull something like this, and they have a history of doing so.

      As for BF3, the co-founder of Free Radical was the one who said the game was “99% complete”, while it was an anonymous insider source that said it was, to quote, “bullshit”. While the 99% claim was probably a bit exaggerated, I trust the co-founder that it was at least close to being done in relative terms.

      Either way though, Nintendo will be fine without EA. They certainly have the money.

    • Ibi Salmon

      I’m sure Nintendo will be fine without EA, but it does make you think. Before the Wii U came out, there were a decent number of third-parties that were going to support the system. Now, it seems the third-party developers are shying away.

      I don’t want the Wii U to be in the same predicament the Wii was, yet it seems history will be repeating itself.

    • RicardJulianti

      I feel like the whole “shying away” thing is a bit exaggerated in the media. Many/most developers didn’t receive final dev kits until launch day, so I’m thinking that the lack of big current titles (Tomb Raider, Bioshock, Metro, Lords of Shadow 2) coming to Wii U deals more with time/resource management rather than dev attrition. If they felt like they couldn’t do the game justice by quickly porting it with some minor gamepad features, it’s likely they just didn’t bother in order to save some cash.

      I wouldn’t be surprised one bit to find out that the next wave of multiplats would be coming to Wii U. Nintendo says they have been fostering relations with 3rd parties and while many of the things we know about are collaborations (Platinum, TT Fusion, Atlus, Namco Bandai); it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone else is absent or unwilling. Iwata said that he is “eager to share what 3rd party developers are working on” in that ND from January…he wouldn’t just make that up. As far as I know, and have found, nothing has been cancelled. There was a rumor that devs were “cancelling games left and right”, but that rumor has been proven to be untrue.

      Nintendo also has some really strict NDA’s and they are probably the best in the business at keeping secrets. I mean…..a main Mario game was completely unknown of until 3 months before it launched. That is crazy.

      I am a bit of an optimist, but I really cant see it being as bad as many are claiming. Sorry for my super posts…..I am a bit long-winded, haha.

    • Ibi Salmon

      I really do hope that you’re right. I guess in the end, only time will tell…

  • That’s messed up, EA’s business is very questionable…

  • I hate EA. This didn’t make me hate them any more, though. I’m beyond caring about Crysis in the slightest.

  • This is worsened by the fact EA was singing the Wii U’s praises at E3 2011. So much for that…

  • EA just wants everyone to lick their balls (sorry for the inappropriate reference but it’s a fitting statement). I’m not particularly fond of the Crysis series, there are far more engaging and better FPS titles out there.

    Also it’s a well known fact that EA has been trying to pimp out Origin for consoles, and Nintendo wasn’t keen on having it integrated into the Wii U.

    No offense but I don’t want Origin on ANY of my consoles, mucking things up.

  • Dreamcast 2 Electric Boogaloo

    Uh, Nintendo? If you don’t do something fast about this whole third party support thing you’re going to be out of the console business real fast.

    • RicardJulianti

      This is one publisher…and it’s EA who seem to be on the decline at least in overall popularity. Criterion has said that all future NFS games will launch simultaneously on Wii U. There are plenty of other developers out there and Nintendo can actually keep a secret.

      Nintendo has enough money in the bank to take losses of several hundred million every year and still be around for 30-50 years….not exactly “real fast.” Considering they posted a profit last quarter and the lineup they have for this year alone, that isn’t going to happen for a long time. Nintendo has survived without huge 3rd party support in the past, they can do it again if they have to.