During the EA Play conference a couple of days ago, one of the stand-out games was undoubtedly Unravel Two - a sequel to 2016's Unravel which launched immediately after the show on other platforms. The co-op platforming nature of the game, the cuddly and adorable aesthetic, and the fact that the two characters are the exact same colours as the Joy-Con controllers had Switch owners wondering why Nintendo's console had been left out.
The Creative Director of Coldwood Interactive, Martin Sahlin (the man who passionately presented the new game on stage at E3), is aware of the comments surrounding this question and has addressed the issue via Twitter. Apparently, the game's absence is not one that the studio wanted, but rather a result of a lack of resources thanks to its relatively small size.
Sahlin goes on to say that the studio hasn't given up hope on bringing the game to Switch, and if a way to do so presents itself, it could well become a reality.
Questions will once again be asked of EA - the publisher behind the Unravel series - as a lack of resources and funding within Coldwood Interactive could easily be supported by the company if it saw a Switch port as being worthwhile. After recent comments from the game's producer stating that Madden 19 won't appear on Switch because it's "what's best" for the game, and this lack of desire to fund a seemingly perfect fit for the console in Unravel Two, it seems EA is still strangely hesitant to support Nintendo's system.
Would you like to see Unravel Two arrive on Switch? Do you think EA is missing a trick by ignoring the system all too often? Let us know your thoughts below.
[source twitter.com]
Comments 49
Pitiful excuse, they should try the truth!
I'd support them on a kickstarter if that's possible.
@dew12333 I don't think it is an excuse. Why should it be? They really are a small team. The blame is on EA.
Collaborate then - find a team trustworthy based on past quality porting success, and have a contact giving the team power to gold standard the final product so as to control the quality. The creativity is complete - what creatives would want to do the donkey work of the port themselves anyway. Sure, they have those skills, but there are more techie based minds who specialise in that area - so contact it out for goodness sake. It's crazy they are even considering it themselves. Clearly there time would be better spent on their next creative venture. I just don't understand the problem here.
Can't wait for the Switch to oversell the Xbox. We'd have some much better support.
Yeah, looks like a perfect fit for the Switch! Hopefully EA hires someone competent to port it.
I’d be curious to see how big a market there is for a game like this on the PS4 and XB1, because it seems far more suited to the Nintendo install base. If anything EA’s investment has actually hindered the game more than helping it.
@dew12333
What would the truth be?
That they DON'T want to do it and that they DON'T think it would be a nice game to have on Switch, but it really ISN'T a lot of work, and they DO have the time and money to make it happen?
This Swedish dev should asked Image and Form (also Swedish) how much they earned from Switch. Letting EA published your game is the dumbest thing. Look at Popcap, now dead and buried.
Since when is Switch so hard to port to?
Hundreds of people have already said that the work to port a game is super easy.
Shoulsnt be hard with EA at your back...
EA is just the publisher they don't even get any extra money believe it or not, the guy from a Way out confirmed it, EA keeps NOTHING they just publish the game.
The don't put or take money out nor interfere with the development of the game.
If you keep reading the whole tweet conversation, the developer mentions is an inhouse engine and it will require a lot of engineering to put it on switch, he mentions at least 12 months of work to make it work.
Not even bethesda with all the money the have has released wolfenstein on switch after more than 8 months of being released on other systems, and it is a Opengl/Vulkan title and you expect a small indi team to release this as if it was easy? come on people.
Ea doesn't decide were the games release, is the developer.
Clearly there is still some kind of bad blood between Nintendo and EA. This is EA leaving money on the table plain and simple.
Too bad for them as well ! It could have sold a few times on the Switch than on any other platforms !!!
A good idea for an article? Just what does a publisher do? Don't they fund or purchase the rights to a game for a cut (or all) of the profits?
Like Stardew Valley, they should find an outside party to port the game. Kickstart the project if they don't sell enough on ps4 or Xbox (their shortsightedness, since most indie developers have greater success on the Switch than the other platforms).
Any idea how Fe is doing? EA would judge the demand on the Switch based on that.
For a game like this, no Switch version is like waving goodbye to 50% of your sales.
Honestly I think that this game would sell better on the Switch than FIFA.
I do remember the developers saying it would take lot of work to get first game on the Wii U at the time..
Hopefully they get the resource to develop a switch version
This is why I hate videogame journalism and communities. Everybody just copy pastes opinions these days without even thinking for themselves.
I'm pretty sure most of the gamers who complain about this not being on the switch didn't even play the first one, which was never released on a Nintendo console in the first place. Besides that, why does everybody all of a suddenly acts like it was a masterpiece and a must have on he Switch? It was a decent platformer with a fun gimmick, nothing more. Nobody cared about Unravel until this fabricated controversy.
@FrenchieNoah012
Apparently Nintendo is too busy swimming in cash to help this small developer bring this game over.
Guys just work for a publisher that will let you release your games on Switch. Problem solved.
“The two characters are the exact same colours as the Joy-Con controllers”?
So they’re both charcoal coloured? Sweet.
@AlbertXi You talk complete sense but no one has listened.
@BigKing The worst part is that everyone still believes this is EA's doing. They have to understand that EA is simply publishing this game, and they get no money out of this.
@techdude How well Fe did on Switch won't matter to EA because they didn't earn anything from it. Through they're EA partners program (I believe that's what it is called) EA only publishes the game for the smaller developers, and they get no cut of the profit.
@Rhaoulos I don't think this would be the case.
Nintendo should buy out EA, then rename and close it.
@AlbertXi Where on earth did you hear that? Are you actually trying to tell everyone that EA publishes games out of the kindness of their hearts? A typical publisher cut is around 30%. EA would be out of business if it published games for free. EA being EA may take even more, depending on the contract. Regardless, the publisher usually gets the biggest cut. But I like your world better, where giant corporations do things out of pure love, expecting nothing in return. (ps. EA also gets royalties for any licensed products, including stuff like official strategy guides as part of the publishing deal).
They most certainly DO make money from publishing.
This game seems to be good fit for the Switch audience but it sounds like it's more of a challenge to over to the Switch than most of us realize. I'm not sure how the EA partners program works but they must have very little involvement other than showing it off and publishing it.
@Tsusasi Check out the EA partners.progr before jumping to conclusions and spouting number like 30% or whatever you think the cut maybe. They clearly announced a program to help indie devs publish games for next to if not nothing.
@Bizzyb Honestly, EA is a disgusting anachronism that needs to go away. They are a dark stain on the industry. Not the studios they steam roll and collect, EA the corporate assclowns. They are arrogant, spiteful and a dark parody of the prototypical evil corporate giant. They always throw backhanded compliments and thinly veiled snark and insults directed at Nintendo. Nintendo aren't saints, but screw EA.
And give me 2K sports any day.
I do believe the developers assessment, but EA could make that a non-issue if they wanted to.
It's a shame that they let EA publish the game.
@Tsusasi Did you catch their "streaming" promotional segment of the future of play and how they promoted it as "play anytime, anywhere", the Switch's slogan? They're directly taking on Nintendo's handheld market via streaming and they're snarkily openly declaring that war. Which is kind of funny, because streaming is prettymuch anything BUT "anytime, anywhere". More like "any time there is a strong enough signal with minimal interference, during times of low congestion, with a sufficient data access plans, anywhere that is within line of sight of an antenna without obstructions, for the continuous duration of your play, or within hard wired local WiFi covered facilities."
Then again Microsoft went right for Sony with parroting "best place to play". I was waiting for "the wait for greatness is over" or something like that.
@AlbertXi Part of the role of publisher is to foot the bill for development either in full or in percentage. If the studio wants to do it, it's on EA to agree to the business case to fund it. Clearly they haven't decided to do so. Arguably a wise choice depending on cost, but the game would have been a great fit.
@Bizzyb Mostly I think EA is just going after the big money, and working on changing the business model of the industry to an online/cloud/subscription/a-la-carte system with continuous revenue on a game via microtransations. Since Nintendo as a platform works against that industry conversion, Nintendo is an obstacle standing in their way and thus it's to their advantage to damage/marginalize Nintendo's influence. Not "bad blood" just "eliminating a roadblock" to what they want, and ignoring it the rest of the time. Ironically with Re7 in Japan, Capcom is beating EA to that "future"....and doing it on Switch first.
Though they've always been blow the belt. The Sega cart blackmail shows a deeply manipulative company that is more into the boardroom politics of the industry than they are their product line.
@Tsusasi "Where on earth did you hear that? Are you actually trying to tell everyone that EA publishes games out of the kindness of their hearts? "
No, no. It's called laundering. I woudldn't doubt they file it under philanthropy and get the tax payers to subsidize it to a positive gain.
@MaSSiVeRiCaN With that program, which I really don't see this game falling under, EA still gets every last penny of their investment before the developer sees any money from game sales. So if a game doesn't cover EA's costs, they don't make money. EA is a publicly held company with investors it has to answer to and a board who would never sign off on a program that is a money pit.
And you're referring to the 'Originals' program.
@NEStalgia They get every penny they invest back. Then the indies get the sales revenue. But that's just for the 'Originals' program.
Used to be every time I'd see something written about a shift in EA's corporate culture, I'd cross my fingers and hope it worked out. But truth is, as long as there are investors/stock holders to answer to even if there are initiatives, they don't have much time to prove the value of such changes. So even if some within EA want these sort of changes or want to be a different company, that's a difficult sell to people who only want to see the green. They eventually have to show how it helps the company's bottom line.
Also, I hope the developers find some way to support resources to get this game on the Switch. I played the first and it was a lot of fun and felt quirky and fresh.
Basically, EA hasn't approved the resources for a port. So we're stuck with Fifa 19 at the moment.... Why doesn't that surprise me?
@Tsusasi The investors are certainly driving that problem, though I think the management culture is at the root. It's very much the Good Ole' Boys Club through the revolving door. They're not entertainment leaders, they're distribution executives. The kingpin is Probst. He's been with them in one capacity or another since the start. He's Hawkins' Steve Balmer. Background was J&J & Clorix....colorful history. Interesting, while it's easy to blame "the investors" of a publicly traded company, EA is special, Probst is the largest single investor. And he's the chairman. And one of the founding team. So the whole company is kind of Probst's personal little empire. He just moved into the shadows of chairmanship to control from behind after his stint as CEO a while back.
He's also the chairman of the US Olympic Committee. Because that's not an organization infamous for deep corruption or anything.
When I think of EA, I think of a while building full of Reggies, with one evil Reggie guiding them like the emperor in Star Wars.
It does seem a perfect fit for Switch....as long as its better than the first one, which was a barrel of toss.
Well, you gotta spend money to make money. The fact of the matter is, this game will sell better on Switch. Period. Especially with it being a side scrolling, colorful game, it just screams Nintendo. There have been countless reports from indie devs saying that the vast amount of their sales are on Switch. It just seems financially foolish on their part if they don't.
Other reasons being because EA said no. lol
Does EA not realize that the Switch is successful and isn't going to stop anytime soon??? I mean people really need to stop judging Nintendo on the Wii U, things have changed now.
Hopefully they figure something out. To me it looks like a perfect fit. Little Nightmares was never spoken about as coming to switch but they worked on it in the end and it’s fantastic on this platform.
The more teams that work on bringing things over the better, then hopefully this fear factor will start to disappear
Do they even have a devkit for the Switch? I feel like "lack of resources" is the PR way of saying "We never got a devkit and we're not sure when/if we will. The suits only want FIFA on there. Please stop asking for ports we can't make".
I got it that same day - Great game. It should be on Switch but if you have another option go get it. Well worth the 20 bucks. Puts a smile on your face.
@MrMac
After XBox One X, which acronym is XBOX, we'll have... the XBoy!
(I'll show myself out)
Well, maybe one day. And the first one.
Tap here to load 49 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...