Mass Effect 4 runs on Frostbite


Recommended Posts

Mass Effect 4 runs on Frostbite

BioWare confirms next entry in space RPG series will run on Battlefield tech, says game will be respectful of history, but also explore new story and gameplay fronts.

BioWare has opened up on the next entry in the Mass Effect series. BioWare Montreal studio director Yanick Roy explained in a blog posttoday that the next new Mass Effect game will run on the Frostbite game engine. This proprietary Electronic Arts technology has been used in a range franchises, including Battlefield, Need for Speed, and Medal of Honor.

With regards to the next Mass Effect, BioWare will take advantage of "many of the systems" that the Dragon Age III: Inquisition team has spent time developing for Frostbite. These were not named specifically.

Roy also said that while the new Mass Effect game will be "very respectful" of the franchise's history, BioWare is pursuing "new directions" for the series with regards to gameplay and story. BioWare had previously confirmed that Commander Shepard would not return.

"You can still expect the pillars the franchise is known for to be fully intact though, including diverse alien races, a huge galaxy to explore, and of course rich, cinematic storytelling," Roy said.

Roy did not share what stage of development the new Mass Effect game is in, but did say BioWare Montreal is planning to staff up over the course of the next year. The studio currently has 16 open positions posted to its website.

Gamers excited for more Mass Effect news may want to temper their eagerness. Roy said it is "probably going to be quite a while before you hear from us again."

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1119058-mass-effect-4-runs-on-frostbite/
Share on other sites

Sounds good to me! They did a fantastic job with Unreal Engine but it's time to move on. Look forward to what they can do with Frostbite 2! (Y) Also glad the new game will be new, Shepard (and the Reapers) had their time in the limelight, time to shake things up with something new :happy:

  • Like 1

It makes sense for them to use a more advanced game engine. Unreal Engine 3 is great; however, it's archaic compared to engines like Frostbite 2 and CryENGINE 3. Both those engines have the potential to be scaled up for next-gen consoles.

I look forward to Dragon Age 3: Inquisition and Mass Effect 4.

It makes sense for them to use a more advanced game engine. Unreal Engine 3 is great; however, it's archaic compared to engines like Frostbite 2 and CryENGINE 3. Both those engines have the potential to be scaled up for next-gen consoles. I look forward to Dragon Age 3: Inquisition and Mass Effect 4.

The irony is that UE3 is fully capable of games with the features people are expecting, so I'm really not sure why the studios using it haven't bothered to update their ****.

The irony is that UE3 is fully capable of games with the features people are expecting, so I'm really not sure why the studios using it haven't bothered to update their ****.

Though I suppose they did just add the support in 2011 from what I can tell, so probably just not enough time to properly implement it. It's possible that's what soured people on UE as well.

I'm kinda annoyed that they're making a fourth one. I got the impression that Mass Effect 3 would be the final one. :s

The first 3 games were the Commander Shepard story arc and they said it would span 3 games and no more, on that they delivered. They never promised they wouldn't make another game based in the Mass Effect universe. So not sure why your annoyed?

The irony is that UE3 is fully capable of games with the features people are expecting, so I'm really not sure why the studios using it haven't bothered to update their ****.

Though I suppose they did just add the support in 2011 from what I can tell, so probably just not enough time to properly implement it. It's possible that's what soured people on UE as well.

A lot of the recent features are PC-specific so it's no surprise that we don't see a lot of developers utilizing them. There are some exceptions like certain PC-only titles or games like Batman: Arkham City (DX11 support) and Star Wars 1313 (possible DX11 support).

Remember the Samaritan tech demo? The features used to make that demo were made available in the March 2011 release. I don't think a single developer out there has made use of those features in a finished game though. As for the fate of UE3, it's likely that Epic Games has stopped updating it with major features. It's no secret that they're working on UE4. They've already shown a tech demo and announced a UE4 title for PC called Fortnite. Also, Crytek believes that CryENGINE 3 is next-gen ready. So far, it looks pretty damn good in Crysis 3.

Anyway, I hope they make Frostbite 2 look even better in Mass Effect 4. It seems like they haven't updated it in Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Dead Space 3.

The first 3 games were the Commander Shepard story arc and they said it would span 3 games and no more, on that they delivered. They never promised they wouldn't make another game based in the Mass Effect universe. So not sure why your annoyed?

I just got the distinct impression that ME3 was going to be the last game in the series, and I'm sure many others would probably agree. However I was not aware that they intended to carry on the series with different characters. I don't think I'll be following it until the reviews come in though.. as far as I'm concerned I've had enough of it for now. :p

I just got the distinct impression that ME3 was going to be the last game in the series, and I'm sure many others would probably agree. However I was not aware that they intended to carry on the series with different characters. I don't think I'll be following it until the reviews come in though.. as far as I'm concerned I've had enough of it for now. :p

Fair enough I guess. To be honest though, considering it's owned by EA and was very successful it was pretty much a given it would be on the "milk list" :laugh: Games seem to suffer one of two fates with EA; a one hit wonder (like Mirror's Edge) that was a commercial flop (but well loved by it's fans) or it's successful enough to be milked forever more (like C&C, Need for Speed etc).

I just got the distinct impression that ME3 was going to be the last game in the series, and I'm sure many others would probably agree. However I was not aware that they intended to carry on the series with different characters. I don't think I'll be following it until the reviews come in though.. as far as I'm concerned I've had enough of it for now. :p

I believe that was true, BEFORE EA purchased them. You know EA, milk till there's blood, then milk it till it's dead and toss the limp lifeless corpse into the ditch and move on to the next studio.

I always thought it would be done after the trilogy. Oh well, I guess some people just don't know when to stop.

Might as well call it Mass Effect and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

you're confused - ME4 wont be about Shepard or his entourage at all. it's just set in the ME universe. there are zero details of the story or plot yet. that's like saying you cant make a good Star Wars game b/c it'll just continue the story of luke and han.

as for the graphics engine, Frostbite 2 will be outdated by the time ME4 comes out :p

A lot of the recent features are PC-specific so it's no surprise that we don't see a lot of developers utilizing them. There are some exceptions like certain PC-only titles or games like Batman: Arkham City (DX11 support) and Star Wars 1313 (possible DX11 support).

Anyway, I hope they make Frostbite 2 look even better in Mass Effect 4. It seems like they haven't updated it in Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Dead Space 3.

Considering the impressive amount of DX10/11 only games lately at least that chapter of gaming where we have a bunch of awesome games that look outdated on launch day should be almost over.

I don't think Frostbite 2 really needs an update given that they've pretty well maxed out current tech.

It makes sense for them to use a more advanced game engine. Unreal Engine 3 is great; however, it's archaic compared to engines like Frostbite 2 and CryENGINE 3. Both those engines have the potential to be scaled up for next-gen consoles. I look forward to Dragon Age 3: Inquisition and Mass Effect 4.

First and foremost, it's about money. Using Frostbite 2 is cheaper because its an EA owned engine. They could have used a later iteration of UE3 or even UE4, but it's owned by Epic Games and licensing money then goes outside EA.

As long as the game lives up to the quality of the rest of the Mass Effect games, and as long as the same people that did the endings for ME3 don't write the endings for ME4 i'll be happy. The scope for the Mass Effect universe is enormous, I'm not surprised they are deciding to carry it on.

  • Like 1

As long as the game lives up to the quality of the rest of the Mass Effect games, and as long as the same people that did the endings for ME3 don't write the endings for ME4 i'll be happy. The scope for the Mass Effect universe is enormous, I'm not surprised they are deciding to carry it on.

Sure as hell beats more licensed **** like Star Wars/Trek or more fantasy games. If they're still going past Mass Effect 6 I'll be disappointed.

The problem I have with them making another Mass Effect (other than the obvious: they butchered the end of ME3 and ruined the entire series) is continuing the universe based on your choices from the last game. Every ending in ME3 fundamentally changed the ME universe to the point that any sequal (direct or set long after the events of ME) won't be able to follow all three endings well enough.

For instance, if you took the synthesis ending, all life in the universe is now part organic and part synthetic. That opens the door for HUGE story-telling and plot differences versus, say, the ending where you just destroy the reapers. The back-stories, interactions between characters/species, technology, driving forces are all entirely different; and so the resulting story would be (should be) entirely different. Including continuations for all of the ME3 endings isn't as simple as connecting ME1 to ME2, or 2 to 3. The rules are completely different in each ending. It's not practical, from EA's standpoint, to develop three wholly-different stories.

So, as I see it EA can do one of four things. 1 - develop a prequel series that takes place before ME1 (lame, who cares?). 2 - develop a new series that takes place during the same time period as ME1-3. (again lame, we already have the multiplayer for something like that, and who cares about characters that aren't central to Shepard's plot?) 3 - develop three entirely different universes, and therefore entirely different stories, characters, and mechanics based each ending of the three endings from ME3. (impractical, not fiscally sound for EA; so it won't happen) 4 - pick a "canon" ending and go with that for the aftermath of ME3 (lame. renders the story of every player who played the originals and didn't pick that option moot)

I'm all for more Mass Effect, assuming they can keep the same level of detail and polish. But, I just don't see any good way of building off of ME3 in any meaningful way.

This. The gameplay is pretty damn derivative.

Also, calling this game/series an RPG is a bit of a stretch too.

Mass Effect is every bit an RPG as any other game you can name. In fact, it's more of an RPG than most other RPGs.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!