Actually in that other thread I asked you to provide evidence for your claims of a specific kind of malicious intent. You claimed that Electronic Arts took this stance expressly to force Nintendo out of the console market. That is a strong claim, and you stated it as if it were a proven fact. Which it isn't at all. What it qualifies as is libel. Your response to my request was to dodge the issue entirely, and not provide any evidence that expressly supports this claim. I don't have a problem if you qualify what you said as your opinion, your theory, your gut feeling, or presenting a argument that supports your supposition.

I can say I think my neighbor poisoned my dog, I believe my neighbor poisoned my dog, or I suspect my neighbor poisoned my dog. However the moment I go out in public, and say hey my neighbor poisoned my dog. I have crossed the line between expressing my opinion, and entered into the realm of character assassination. If someone takes my claims seriously, and acts upon them in a way that hurts my neighbor. Then I am not only responsible, but I am also reprehensible. Especially since I don't know for a fact that my neighbor poisoned my dog. If I did, and had this little thing called evidence. I would have called the cops to come arrest them.

Others are behaving logically. It is you who is not. They aren't treating facts and conjectures as if they are interchangeable. The only people who know what has gone down are the people that are directly involved. Namely the employees of Nintendo and Electronic Arts. Frankly given our complete ignorance. It could be entirely the doing of Nintendo. Maybe Nintendo promised Electronic Arts something for that support, and reneged on their committments. Did you ever stop to think about that for one moment. I am not saying it is, but it could be the case, and as long as that could be the case. How is it remotely just to imply that EA did this out of a grand conspiracy to destroy Nintendo. Hell it doesn't even matter if that is the net effect.

What so many have pointed out while discussing this topic. Is that there are a lot of logical, rational, and entirely believable reasons why Electronic Arts might have pulled out. You however don't want to even contemplate those very reasonable explanations. As for your gaming habits while I do feel for you. You aren't ignorant about precedent. Nintendo third party relationships have been tenuous for many years. On some level you had to know you were gambling on that when you bought the console. That was your choice, and you were obviously willing to live with the consequences. So don't take that out on us. Now if the Wii U consoles started exploding. Then yeah I would have a lot of sympathy for you, because that would be pretty unprecedented. I mean Nintendo consoles tend to be nigh indestructible.

So what would you call EA purposefully 

1) putting out a $60 ME Trilogy at the same time as the $60 ME3 WiiU game and only advertising the trilogy?

2) putting out a Madden 13 and FIFA 13 that were both missing 100% of the upgrades for the 2013 versions of these games, essentially making them 2012 games with a newer roster?

3) putting zero marketing behind the NFS game.

All the while every other late port from the other companies accompanied extra DLC (standard practice) among other upgrades. 

Is that the unprecedented support EAs CEO promised on Nintendo's E3 stage? Is that even remotely close to what you'd consider proper business strategy if you wanted the best ROI you could get? EA stated it wasn't putting any future effort into WiiU in January. That's BEFORE its console sales slowed down and BEFORE NFS had released... the only EA title to actually be a solid port.

I don't see how you could possibly come to any decision but the one I and others have been saying all along. Its clear that between E3 2012 and Nintendo's launch, something happened and everything EA was planning for WiiU went out the window and even the highly successful 3DS isn't getting support beyond what is mandated by contract.

In the end EA is doing what it did to SEGA. Removing all support in the attempt to get rid of Nintendo.

EA wasn't they voted the worst company in America 2 years running, EA pulling support for Nintendo wont do a thing as there games sell like sh** on Nintendo systems anyway, rather have support from SEGA and ubisoft than anything from EA

@superchunk

Do you honestly think I am going to let you change the subject. Do you think I am going to let up on you when I've got you by the throat. You really only have two options here. Skulk away from the thread, or admit that you got caught talking out of your ass. That is after all what you have been doing. You claimed to know something for a fact, and then when somebody called you on your outlandish claim you doubled down with more rhetoric.

So whats it going to be. Are you going to fess up, and just admit that what you said was just your opinion, or are you going to keep playing this stupid game. I am plenty persistent, and I will stick with it till you own up to what you did. You are guilty of spreading a lie, and saying it was a fact. Which is a pretty shameless, and you should feel ashamed that you did it.

You know you did it. Just admit it. By the way as for the timing. What rock have you been living under. There really has been a almost unanimous consensus that the console totally blows. Even the die hard supporters of the brand. Have been reduced to offering up apologies, and terribly contrived excuses. All the timing proves is Electronic Arts has been paying attention.

man sometimes I love your reponses 

@OP

Anyone making the claim that EA's lack of support for DC doomed the console is a moron.

EA didn't support the console for the simple and selfish reason that their EA Sports line was in DIRECT competition with Sega's 2K Sports line. Notice how EA didn't manage to weasel their way into exclusive NFL rites, for example, until long after Sega had folded and went 3rd party. The Dreamcast was doomed because Sega of America, most especially, was rather inept when it came to business decisions. They just didn't manage shit properly, much like they abandoned the Saturn too early, and never provided it with enough TRUE system seller games, like, I don't know, a REAL Sonic game. The DC was similarly shat upon by it's own company's lack of fore-site. They put too much focus on oddball games like Seaman, and not nearly enough on bigger titles that would actually sell the system.

Regardless, EA's lack of support didn't hurt the system THAT much, and implying that Wii U is going to fail because EA is currently not developing their big titles for it, is also rather absurd. Nintendo is alive and well today, while Sega is not (as a console developer), for good reason.

Someone reported this thread in a manner which has convinced me that this is indeed a flamebait thread, and I am going to lock it.

Dodece, we have much the same weakness as users, so i'll clue you in that the key to not getting over your head in a thread: the law of large numbers states that the longer you argue, the more likely you are to throw something objectionable out there. Your verbosity only lends to this tending to happen quicker, to the detriment of this thread.