Does everyone forget E3 2011? John Ricitiello himself went on-stage at Nintendo's press conference, and announced that, with the Wii U, EA and Nintendo would be enjoying an "unprecedented partnership," implying a more intimate 3rd party/manufacturer relationship than has ever existed.

E3 2012: No EA on stage. Gimped Madden, gimped Mass Effect 3, promised Battlefield 3 port is gone.

In between is????

Now we have the "Origin" theory. While assuming that there is no "evidence" for any sort of large scale breakup, we have what Ricitiello talked up at E3 2011 to go by. Namely, he seemed to indicate that the great thing about Wii U was how Nintendo would allow third parties to use their own online networks in lieu of a centralized Nintendo experience. It's possible that EA pushed ahead from there, asking for Origin to be the very framework upon which the Wii U online experience was founded, a seeming win-win for EA and Nintendo: EA's struggling Steam alternative would be foisted upon an entire userbase (depending on how successful Wii U became, 40 to 80 million new users), while the online-noob Nintendo would get a mature network. The losers in this scenario being Activision (imagine, Call of Duty forced to run through Origin for Wii U players) and every other third party. Knowing that it would be bad for consumers and bad for other 3rd parties, Nintendo pulls back. So EA gets butthurt, cancels any Wii U project they can, and sends all other Wii U projects out to die (Mass Effect, NFS Most Wanted, Madden, FIFA)

And those familiar with EA's history know that butthurt and petty, spiteful revenge are not beyond EA. EA tried to threaten Sega to not make the 2K Sports series on Dreamcast, and when Sega proceeded to do so, EA refused to publish any games for Dreamcast period. EA *thinks* that their petulance had a role in bringing down the Dreamcast, and they think they're important enough to bring down the Wii U and Nintendo along with it.

No. Pick and choose which rumour best fits your narrative. 

No offense, but that is entirely and completely over the top with Nintendo-centric justifications.  You have to know how many assumptions you're making there, right?  And how far you're bending over backwards to make Nintendo look like the defenders of justice?

If there is any truth to EA believing that Nintendo would allow Origin on the Wii U, then it would be something closer to what is on PC, something minor that you can mostly ignore.  It most likely wouldn't have been a big deal.

Also, if Ricitiello went on stage believing that, and EA made plans for games based on that, then that would mean that Nintendo broke an agreement--again.  If they had something in place, and Nintendo changed their minds later, then it's no real surprise that EA pulled away--not because they're pouting, but because they would stand to make less money.  And, make no mistake, if Nintendo broke the agreement, it was because they came to the conclusion that THEY would make less money if they did not.  Nintendo is as cutthroat as anyone in the gaming industry.

You know when I was in school my english teacher always told me when we were reading poetry to read between the lines, it's quite handy sometimes.

But the idea is that the terms of the agreement were fundamentally unfair, tilted in EA's favor. Which, again, EA has a history of doing. Similar to why Nintendo broke the PS deal with Sony, because Sony was demanding control over Nintendo IP.

The fact of the matter is that EA's history is against them in this matter, moreso than Nintendo. EA is indeed out for money, but in an "all or nothing" sort of way.