Alright, I've been lurking here for awhile now, but I just had to respond to this finally.
I've been reading this over and over again, how EA is an evil company and they just hate nintendo. Let's be honest. There are about 150 million ps360 owners out there. There are about 4 million Wii U owners.
Nintendo fans do not historically enjoy realistic violent first person shooters like the Battlefield series. However, realistic first person shooters do very well on Sony/Microsoft consoles.
The decision to leave the Wii U out is purely business. If they thought they could sell 2 million copies of Battlefield 4 on the Wii U, have no doubt that they would do whatever they could to bring it to the Wii U.
Oh, and who in their right mind would believe that a company whose CEO stepped down because of finance trouble is going to take a risk on an unproven console with a small install base!! EA is going to be keeping it as risk free as possible.
It wasn't about sales at all. Read into the history of Nintendo and EA's relationship. If it was purely business EA would not have had Crytek discard finished code for Crysis3 on the Wii U. They had already spent all of the resources on development of the game. They had Medal of Honor Warfighter running on WIi U with the Frostbite2 engine. Madden 14 was in development for Wii U. They have now wasted all of the resources they were putting into the platform over a failed services deal.
Don't underestimate what an Origin based Nintendo Network would have meant for EA. Imagine one publisher collecting a royalty for every game published digitally for a platform (other than the console manufacturer). Imagine Activision, Ubisoft, Square, having to pay 30% to EA when they publish for Wii U digitally. This would have kept EA afloat while other publishers struggle to remain relevant. Now, they lost that deal, which could cost them big going forward. Do you really think it was just Sim City that caused a CEO to get fired? That would have been the deal of a lifetime for a publisher.
