
Unravel Two, the co-op focused follow up to one the most charming platformers we've seen in quite some time, proved to be one of E3 2018's most memorable reveals, but that announcement would have been delayed by more than six months had a Nintendo Switch port been figured into developer Coldwood Interactive's plan.
Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, producer Michael Gill reveals development started on the sequel around two years ago, and while Switch would indeed make an ideal home for the multi-coloured Yarnies, it would have been a serious stretch for such a small team.
Even those controllers on the side are the same colours as the Yarnies - it's incredible. It's a machine made for Unravel Two. But we run at 60 frames per second, that's really important for us and we want to keep that framerate. To keep that on Switch, and to keep the graphical quality [would have been difficult].
For Gill, it all comes down to resource management and the Swedish developer would have struggled to maintain its 60fps goal and keep its graphical fidelity on Switch, at least in the time frame it was given.
We're also using a heavily extended version of [Sony's] PhyreEngine, and we had to port it to Xbox One ourselves. It doesn't have support for Switch yet, so we would have to do that port and the engine work ourselves, and we're a really small team. We only have two engine programmers across the whole team, and they mostly work on updates for the game so we just didn't have time.
"We really wanted to be able to release this week, but if we had to do a Switch port it would have taken another half a year or so.
So no Unravel Two, at least not yet, but it's comforting to know that so many developers want their games to appear on Switch, even if the feat of porting it seems a little daunting at first. Share your thoughts on this story in the comments below...
[source gamesindustry.biz]
Comments 45
PhyreEngine doesn't have Switch support he says?
http://www.siliconera.com/2018/01/18/sonys-phyreengine-now-supported-nintendo-switch/
I don't understand why they could have just delayed the game so they could launch it at the same time. I guess they have to cash in on E3...
@Knuckles-Fajita wonder if this has something to do with EA, considering they basically see the Switch as nothing but a FIFA machine.
This guy is a bigger liar than I originally thought... my goodness.
How many times will he keep lying to just keep stringing people along?
@Knuckles-Fajita I love it when devs butt pull and think nobody will check anything.
I don’t care how long it takes to come.
I. Want. This. Game. On. Switch.
Make it happen, devs. Outsource if needed. This game seems like it would have the biggest audience on Switch anyway.
@AxeltheBuizel Probably because they've invested several years of development time into it and need to start gaining revenue back in order to stay afloat. It costs money to keep people employed. Adding a year or so more cost of employing everyone, software licences, office and equipment rental is not cheap.
@AxeltheBuizel It has everything to do with EA. Small dev teams don't have the resources to do all the porting themselves, and small dev teams can't afford to delay games half a year--but major publishers do and can, so if the game isn't being ported it's because the publisher chooses not to, not because they're unable.
I hope the studio have the vision to be able to realise their game concept on lesser hardware. Games don't need to be state of the art to look good if the game is good. No Switch owner will moan at their models not having 200,000 polygons yada yada. That talk is for Xbox / Sony battle.
@PanurgeJr EA barely recognizes the Switch. They only have FIFA on it, and nothing more. It's almost like they think Nintendo gamers won't buy non-Nintendo games and then barely makes an effort. Then again, this is just one of many problems with EA these days...
@GrailUK I think the problem is that because the Switch uses inferior hardware, many devs don't want to take the time to port it to something with a smaller user base.
Could have just said, "and Switch sometime in the future."
Can't wait till melee gets over after this one, dev goes back after the bs excuse of oops well EA, I tried the game won't run bc of the game engine excuse, EA back to the big ole' bag of excuses well that's ok we have many, many more...heck we've been at this for decades and for some odd reason they all just keep coming back and buying our crummy incomplete games...
@Knuckles-Fajita That's what I was thinking! Maybe the version that they edited so heavily was from when it didn't support the Switch, they did start development 2 years ago after all...
Wow, lot of ignorance about game development here today.
The solution, however, is on EA: outsource.
the 60fps thing is probably the real reason.
the switch just isn't going to be capable for the quality some devs want to achieve. it is the new (since wii) "Nintendo Way".
N really should've waited for the x2 at the LEAST. they could've gotten by with phone games for the time being if needed.
If you need help ask the people who make gunvolt
@NewAdvent to be fair the reveal happened on the day it was released. So it would have delayed both the release and the reveal.
I think the headline and article should reflect that to give greater clarity.
I still don’t buy his excuse though. EA wanted a surprise for E3 and don’t care about Switch owners. This guy is making excuses.
@PanurgeJr lol, you know absolutely nothing about software development. Just because you have more resources does not mean it will be done faster. If you have a custom engine, putting more devs on the job would delay it even more.
Gamers are quite dumb compared to developed, my God. And judging by the comments they think they outsmart them. Sad to see.
You got a small indie dev team trying to make an awesome game... Only to get bashed by immature whiney gamers because it isn't made for their underpowered platform of choice. And then they suggest it's the publishers fault. Because FIFA.
Holy Christ.
@BigKing So you say I know nothing about game development, but then tell me things that a) I already know, and b) don't contradict my point, which is that this isn't related to the developer but to the publisher. To paraphrase someone I once talked with:
lol you know absolutely nothing about commenting.
Shaking my head at everyone here who missed the whole "Custom version of the engine that had to be ported to XB1" portion of the explanation for why it would need to be ported to Switch.
I like these articles because comments are either mad at the developer for saying "No Switch version planned" with no explanation or they're mad at the developers for being honest and even detailing exactly why they can't port it right now. Then suddenly the whining switches to "Well you guys are just lying, obviously porting is super easy and I know exactly how it works".
These devs really can't win
Panic Button !
I’m reading that he would love to have the game on Switch and imagine what a big hit that could be (surpassing the popularity on other platforms) but he can’t make it happen due some legal/contractual stuff he is tied into. Nevertheless he will continue making references to the game on NS because they will definitely cash in as soon as they can.
@sword_9mm Considering X2 is still nowhere near close to mass market ready and may never be, I really don't think Nintendo was going to sit on WiiU + 3DS until 2021 for some magic mobile chip to be ready. And the success of Switch proves they were correct in doing so.
Devs not wanting to scale graphics to meet the platform is silly. If they insisted on that they'd skip the consoles, include no settings sliders and target Geforce Titans running SLI. Can't run it? Better upgrade! Want 60fps? Turn off shaders and texture depth until it's 60fps. It's a 2D platformer, not Skyrim.....and Skyrim runs fine. Their Steam customers are likely already including people running on laptops running it worse than a Switch would.
@AxeltheBuizel Because tons of people have other platforms they play on. And we bought it on day one.
If they don't want to do the port then don't do the port. But another example of Nintendo makes hardware for their franchises and not third parties.
I'm certain that this game would have sold very well had they released it on Switch. As a software developer, I know that's it's not super simple to compile your game for a different platform (and that's in the best case scenario of using a supported engine) but I have no doubts that this game could run well on Switch. To me, this just sounds like the team being caught out by the Switch's success mid development (and after the budgets had been finalised). Unfortunately, they launch at a time when indies are thriving on our little hybrid.
After just doing Super Chariot, which is also a co-op game that you can supposedly play on your own, I have reservations. The very end of the game was a bit too hard to complete alone (at least without it becoming un-fun).
@Ogbert
I completely understand that. I'm personnaly a bit fed up with all that "lazy devs" or "devs spewing out bs again" type of comments. Many people don't know all the intricacies involved in developping a game, let alone running a profitable company. It may have been possible that the engine the guy speaks about, while now available on Switch, wasn't available during the planning stages of development. Also, people think that if an engine is available on a platform, it means "instant port", which is far (very far) from the truth. A lot of work still need to be done. And work means employees to pay, and all the costs associated with running a business.
@JamesR, I completely agree with your statement I don't see Unravel 2 being to much for the Switch to handle in any way also I feel this is a HUGE missed opportunity on their part, Unravel would fit the Nintendo Switch's ecosystem perfectly I have no doubt the game would have sold double if not triple on Nintendo Switch compared to the other platforms it's getting released on.
Yeah as others have said, not only is PhyreEngine already ported to Switch, but there's at least ONE major game already out that uses it, Dragon Quest Builders, with the sequel also coming to it that also uses it. Ridiculous.
But then you read: a lone engineer at Vicarious Visions spent his weekend trying to get the first level of the remaster up and running on Nintendo’s latest device. He managed to succeed, and it was at this point the company realised a port to the hybrid device was feasible.https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2018/06/one_guy_got_crash_bandicoot_n_sane_trilogy_up_and_running_on_switch, and seems EA just happens to be a multi Billion dollar company...
@NewAdvent The reveal and the release of the game were at the same time...
@Ogbert it is being published by EA. Money is not the issue EA had buttloads of it. Either the devs didn't want to and they are trying to justify it or EA doesn't want to and they're just not dumb enough to "bite the hand that feeds them" or throw EA under the bus when EA tuition paying the bills
To me the devs are doing a great job... Hopefully EA will grow a brain and realize that this game probably sells best on Switch and they fund a Switch port. If they had been smart they would have funded the port awhile ago and at the reveal the devs could have said "Available on PS4 & Xbone today and Switch eventually"
@sword_9mm
So Nintendo should have delayed the launch of their flagship product, costing themselves over 18 million hardware sales and 70 million software sales, to fit in a chipset currently only used in cars that would theoretically make some ports easier.
Uh-huuuuuuuuuh.
@PanurgeJr It's built on a custom engine by two people, so if you put new developers on the job it takes months before they know the ins and outs of the engine. You won't speed up the process by throwing more money at it. Plus that money needs to be recouped. You think publishers are just going to throw money at stuff that won't earn them anything? That's not how they became a big publisher to begin with, that is how big publishers in the past went bankrupt.
Delaying the PS4/Xbox versions just for the sake of it does not make any sense businesswise. Unravel 1 was never on a Nintendo console to begin with.
@BigKing Can you please respond to what I actually said, not what you want me to have said?
Of course getting a new team up to speed takes time.
EA has time.
Of course money needs to be recouped.
Nintendo fans would buy the game, and it would be recouped.
Of course publishers shouldn't throw money at projects that wouldn't earn any money.
This isn't one of those projects.
This game is perfect for the Switch. Porting the original as well--which takes care of your concern that it wasn't on the Switch--is perfect for the Switch. The publisher is refusing to make money by making bad decisions. If you don't understand that, please stop telling me I don't understand development, and start believing that just maybe the ignorance is yours.
No sweat. We all want cool new games on Switch, but if they need to focus on what they need to focus on, then they gotta focus on that.
@PanurgeJr You still don't understand it. The whole point is that EA does nothing besides publishing when it comes to indie games, nothing more nothing less. The whole idea is that those indie studios work fully independent. EA does publishing and probably some promotion. I don't see any developer from that studio blaming EA for anything. They are free to do whatever they want. If they want to make a PS4 version, that's on them. If EA had more input, then it wouldn't have been an indie studio anymore. That's what everybody is trying to avoid. If a publisher invests more money, they demand more control. That is what everybody is trying to avoid. The publisher does not make bad decisions, they don't make any decision at all.
The studio obviously didn't even start working on the Switch version to begin with. But did they know there was demand, which is exaggerated any way, because I never heard gamers begging for Unravel 1 to be on the Switch. That was just an ok game. It wasnt that great.
But now all of a suddenly everybody is upset. And gamers are just bashing stuff for no reason. EA does a lot of things wrong, but not in this case.
I still don't see why they would delay an announcement until they ported both games to the switch. Sounds like a terrible business move. They don't even know if they will get it up and running on the Switch to begin with.
@NEStalgia
maybe, maybe not but people should quit complaining about games not coming to it.
if devs either A: don't want to compromise whatever, or B: don't want to mess with porting games to a phone then it is what it is.
if you buy N stuff after about the N64 then you did it for N games. They lost the big 3rd party houses decades ago and they won't come back just because N released a shield tablet.
were people complaining that all these types of games were not coming to the gameboy, ds, 3ds? just buy a cheapo PS4 or a used xb1 (probably get those dumb things for pennies on the dollar).
@sword_9mm Heck it's not even about "losing 3rd party" decades ago. Yeah, they did with N64, but most of those 3rd parties no longer even exist anymore, or are of little consequence. Between N64 and GCN era it was what was previously PC studios/publishers that took over console on Sony and eventually MS....studios that NEVER had any association with Nintendo and also kind of snickered at the mention of any console including PS and XBox because PC was the one true platform. It's just a whole other industry and Nintendo is the last one left playing host to the old form of console games/developers.
Looking back on this article is interesting because they were actually telling the truth!
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...