I hate origin as much as anyone, especially on the PC, but as a backend for a consoles online multiplayer? I am not sure I hate it that much, its like seeing a PC game have "powered by gamespy" or something along those lines. 

How bad is Origin in terms of a console, where it can't do all the things that it does on the PC? Let alone how much control would EA have (little I would believe) after delivering the platform, same goes with Steam.

@Sal. Nice piece of news there! Thanks.

Is it just me or is the thought of Nintendo falling to the need of improving 3rd party relations seem like a bad move to choose Origin over Steam. It just seems to me that Valve is a much more respected 3rd party than EA is, but that's just my gut.

What are your thoughts?

P.S. Did you spot Nintendo cheating with someone again? smh      Bad Nintendo. Bad! *slap slap slap on the hand*

I need help because listening to what some devs have apparently said is something that requires medical attention?

Right....

Why would you buy a console for a catelogue of 2, maybe 3 games? How can you say this gen won't hurt it when probably most of it's games are on this gens consoles and will probably look exactly the same?

"What are you 12?"
Throwing around insults...shows the calibre of your argument. 

This sort of thing can be expected until the Wii U gets an established userbase. Why go through expense of making a port for a system that doesn't have many owners/buyers when you can sell the same game to the 100 million 360/PS3 owners? Yeah, there may be less competition from other titles in the early years of the Wii U but there's more competition from NINTENDO.

I can understand why some companies are going to wait......for now. When the next Xbox/Playstation is released, it will be interesting to see if third parties stay with the current gen, go with the Wii U, or charge blindly towards the next Microsoft/Sony platform.

^Reason is, D21, as Ubisoft very well knows, the sooner you make presence on a system (aka launch), the sooner you stretch and establish a market for your upcoming games, and set the trend for the platform in general.

Being absent can only be a bad move imho.

@happy

Not my news, the other guy posted and it's just a rumour apparently. 

But..it's hard to overstate the difference between a company like Valve and a company like EA, both in terms of the culture inside the company itself and, in this specific case, their knowledge of creating a good online service.

I'll just put it out there that Steam is the best online experience available to gamers, and it along with with Valve's consistently well-thought-of game releases is the product of their unorthodox corporate structure - as in, they have none. There is no formal hierarchy at Valve, game projects and new ideas for their online service are driven simply by individuals in the company...having good ideas. People will collaborate freely if they believe the idea to be worthwhile and an informal lead for the project is assigned by the team.

I remember a comment of theirs saying that the most important part of creating good experiences for the user these days is individual creativity; thousands of tech companies can now copy eachothers' products to a high degree of quality simply because of how many people there are in the field working today and how cheap labour is, so the only valuable asset to them is creativity - and a formal hierarchy in a tech company bottlenecks that creativity at the top of the chain. 

I could go on for a few pages about how EA is different, simply:

They are the opposite of this.

Creativity being bottlenecked is exactly the situation at EA, and a net result of the few at the top controlling the company is that business is always put before consumer (and employee..). They use draconian regulation on their online servcies...if your Origin account is banned due to an offense, you cannot play any of your games, not even singleplayer. If you are a member of a forum of an Origin game (Battlefield, Mass Effect etc) and a moderator bans you for offensive language, say bye bye to your games. They are also moving towards an always-online future with singleplayer games requiring a constant internet connection. They are possibly the worst offenders when it comes to abusing the customer with high digital prices and day 1 DLC. 

I need to stop now, I write too much. But you get the point! So if Nintendo is going to elope with someone, they should pick the creative rich free spirited partner, i.e. Valve, not the rich failing but narrow-minded and shallow partner, EA. 

^I sure hope they elope with valve. I hate draconians.

crisis 2 did 1.1mill on the xbox and 0.9mill on the ps3 if we follow the trend for shooters on Nintendo's platform compared to the competition I wouldn't be surprise if crisis 3 fail to reach half a mill if it was on wii U, maybe it's simply doesn't worth the effort and the time it would take to port it

I get the feeling some of this has been badly edited for headlines. Crytek were probably deep in development for Crysis 3 and didn't want the extra hassle of a third console, not to mention the extra work needed to do something clever with the tablet. I'd be surprised if Crytek never released a game on WiiU, but they'd probably want to devote the proper resources to making the WiiU version and to make use of the hardware and tablet.

So you are able to flawlessly predict the future? 
Nice way to kill a civil discussion and throw down the ultimate argument of "Well I know better then you *rasp*"

I stand by what I said. Why buy a console for 1 or 2 games? It's not even a bluray player which means it doesn't have the added media center touch of the PS3.