EA's still sad and butthurt that Nintendo didn't pay them to use Origin as the basis for Wii U's online.

Actually that's incredibly naive to think that management of such companies get "huffish" and would make decisions which would make the lose money because two things keep them in check:

a) profits and
b) stock holders

EA will be dissapointed that Origin isn't the store on the Wii U, but that isn't going to make them take adopt a juvenile attitude towards Nintendo. Big business doesn't work like that and ultimately this also is hardly the first case of a multiplat not being ported to the wii u. I think making out it's just EA having an attitude problem is Wii U owners trying to sugar coat a more serious issue. 

Companies don't get "butthurt". It's not as if this is the only multiplatform not to be coming to the Wii U. 

I've said it before, but some seem to have trouble comprehending it...

A company that looks at the current install base and judges their decisions based purely on that is backwards-thinking and on their way to bankruptcy. Companies must look at future potential, competition, and potential fanbase. Games sell on systems because developers and publishers develop fanbases on those systems. It is not enough to just throw a game at a system with a high install base, you have to make people want your games on the system. And the argument of "there's no interest in the game on that system" is just as ludicrous, because lack of interest comes from lack of support, not the other way around.

In short, if any company thinks the way you do, then they're going to get decimated by the next generation.

Meanwhile, we know they were already working on the port, that porting games to Wii U is relatively cheap, and that there aren't that many shooting games on the Wii U, while the PS3 and 360 have a glut of them to compete against. EA have proven time and again that they don't actually understand gaming, and that's why the only way they ever make a profit is by buying out successful developers... who, after a few years, end up becoming crap, at which point EA has to buy out more developers. Fortunate for Crytek that they're just partners with EA, not owned by them.

lolwut

I'd like to see if EA will ever decide to renounce porting a new game on Ps4/Xbox3 beacuse there aren't enough users on of them.

If so, why does Google block GMaps on Windows Phone? Why does Samsung stop producing new chips for Apple? Companies are still led by people and thus CAN be mad at each other.

That's rediculous. A company looks at a market of 140+ million consoles. The Wii U isn't even 2% of that market. It simply isn't profitable to make the exact same game for the Wii U as it is for the PS3 and 360. Also they probably realise that if someone wants Crysis 2, they already own either a PS3 or 360, and therefore developing for the Wii U isn't profitable. 

We've yet to see any future potential from the Wii U - where is it's PGR3? Until it truly defines itself as an 8th gen console and sets itself apart from the 360/PS3, it will be directly compared to the 360/PS3 in everyway - customers, potential, lifespan. 

If the PS4/Nextbox show proper 8th gen potential, then actually we may see very little ports to them as publishers will realise that if someone has a nextbox, they probably already own a 360. This was not the case with the Xbox or GC due to much lower install bases, therefore it was quite reasonable to presume someone with a 360/PS3 may not actually have another console. 

It's called market competition.....Google blocks a popular service in order to boost android sales. Samsung stops producing chips to increase Galaxy sales. This is basic economic competition and absolutely nothing to do with anger. 

Read some of KungKras' posts. EA has a history of bullying and generally being a bunch of brats.

Under that mindset, when will it be right for them to start making games for Wii U? You can either invest in the future, or suffer.

Is this the only multiplatform not to be ported to the Wii U? No, therefore why are people trying to dismiss this as EA having an attitude problem which is rediculous for a company of such a size which has stockholders. 
Companies may try to influence other companies decisions, but companies are not a bunch of schoolyard bullies looking to ruin another persons day for the hell of it. 

Because a lot of Western third parties are as short-sighted as infants, as proven by their delightful financial track records. Companies like Take Two and EA are either malicious, incompetent, or a healthy mixture of both. Certainly not smart or successful businesses.

Because a lot of Western third parties are as short-sighted as infants, as proven by their delightful financial track records. Companies like Take Two and EA are either malicious, incompetent, or a healthy mixture of both. Certainly not smart or successful businesses.