Links?
I never claimed stockholder have absolute power. The board of directors will do what is most profitable. Clearly porting Crysis 3 will not be profitable and any other reasoning is just humanising a company. 

If Nintendo isn't serious about creating a shooter base on their console it isn't EA's job to do it. Sony and MS both cater to those demographics and because of that these types of games thrive. So if the game will do more than fine on just those (2), why lose money to *try* and create that audience on the WiiU?

Want more of those games on WiiU? Tell Nintendo to start catering to that audience as well.

It isn't EAs job to lose money to create something Nintendo should be also trying to do themselves. Nobody owes Nintendo anything.

Also, Kyliedog isn't cherry picking because there is nothing right now to prove that these games will have legs on the WiiU. He is seeing the same thing the guys at EA are and that is that if CoD finishes a holiday season with 160k, what is Crysis3 going to do releasing in February?

The answer is that it will be a bad use of company resources. Better to wait for the userbase to grow and a shooter base to get large enough to support a game like Crysis, which doesn't sell 10M per console like a CoD.

Now we're back to an argument that i thought was put to bed over the course of the last generation. Third party games don't sell on Nintendo consoles not because the audience isn't there, but because third parties assume Nintendo gamers need to be treated with kid gloves or that third parties just don't make good games for Nintendo consoles. When third parties really try, they get results. The issue is that they usually don't really try. And then justify their lack of trying by throwing up their hands, saying "the market isn't there," and leaving a hell of a lot of money on the table while they shut down developers left and right.

Nobody should be expected to buy anything just to earn third party support. As i said earlier in the thread, i bought Ninja Gaiden 3 and Batman Arkham City, because Team Ninja listened to gamers and addressed the flaws of NG3 for the Wii U's RE edition, and because Arkham City is just a good game, put on the Wii U with no obtrusive gimmicks (combat mode just helps you disable bad guys quicker). I will buy Monster Hunter Tri U because that will be a good game, well worth the investment.

Am i going to buy all the games that i complain aren't coming to Wii U? No. Are PS360 gamers expected to buy *every* game that's worth playing? No. We buy the games we want to play, and to speak otherwise is to promote a double standard.

Are we bitter? Hell yes, and with good reason.

what happened after E3? do you know? or saying that something might have happened?

It isn't about owing Nintendo anything. It's about investing, and promoting growth in the future.

Imagine if a company were so bold as to put high-quality games on Nintendo platforms that complemented Nintendo's games and did not directly compete with them. That company would be immensely successful. But no third party has the foresight to do anything but play follow the leader, leaving the burden for innovation and leadership on Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

@bolded yeah they didnt want their game to sell and make them money.

do you listen to yourself?

It's a very front-loaded game that released on a console that had a very small install base after everyone who wanted it had already bought it.

Give me a synchonized release, when the Wii U has a compable install base and then we'll talk.

That's interesting. I was thinking it was due to the game's high demand of a strong CPU.

Fuck you EA!!!! Rant over, sad truth is this is hardly surprising. FUCK YOU EA!!!!!!!! (I lied)

Sony and MS both worked to establish their shooter bases, it wasn't all due to 3rd parties.

Sony launched with Resistance. They bundled it, they got it out there. They followed up with Killzone and the rest is history.

MS launched the 360 with Perfect Dark Zero. MS though already had an established shooter base so they didn't need to work as hard as Sony as they built it up with Halo the gen before.

Why won't Nintendo help to establish that base on their consoles and instead expect 3rd parties to lay out all the work and money to do so?

EA, Activision, Epic, etc... did establish growth last gen for their shooters. They did so with MS and Sony helping them to establish that growth by putting the effort in as well with franchises like Resistance, Halo, Killzone, Uncharted, etc... and funding the development of others such as Gears of War.

Want to blame anyone? Blame Nintendo.

Instead of sitting on their enormous piles of of cash they could just as easily do what MS and Sony did.