I said nothing about sales.  I'm talking about the complete lack of logic in the video.  He starts off with a rumor, a Reddit post, for the love of cats, then attempts to validate it with complete conjecture.  Also, I wish he'd say "butt-hurt" one more time.

The only thing that he can prove is that EA and Nintendo had a falling out.  As I've said before, my guess is that EA wanted Origin to launch from within their games.  That was the problem Valve and EA had before, where Valve was angry that Steam was being bypassed and they weren't getting a cut of DLC profits.  The rumor that EA wanted total control over Nintendo's eShop is absurd and everyone with a brain knows it.  

I'm betting that EA has reached a deal with Sony and Microsoft over that very issue.  Does Nintendo have a right to turn them down?  Absolutely.  Does EA have a right to look elsewhere for business partners?  Absolutely.  The term "butt-hurt" is for children.

That's just a guess, though.  There could be other things EA is unhappy about with Nintendo.  Even UbiSoft is unhappy with Nintendo, if other rumors are correct.

Huh, there's pretty definitive proof of EA being dicks.

I dont think you understand the video. He is basically saying what you just said about Origin had nothing to do with getting total control of the eshop. I was just further supporting his point that it had no other reason than pointing towards EA and Nintendo having a bad relationship. They couldnt use the sales excuse because they treated Wii U games bad at launch. You started off stating he is using rumors and ended off with a rumor omg.

My use of a rumor was intentional.  My point being, if you're going to absolutely believe one random post then why not the others?

As for there being "no other reason", we have no idea.  It could easily be something none of us knows about.  The guy had no proof of anything except that Nintendo and EA don't have much of a business relationship right now.  From that, his conclusion was that EA is "butt-hurt".  What the hell does that even mean in a business context?  He made himself look childish, stupid, and "butt-hurt" himself.

This is simple.  The guy is a Nintendo fan and it's pretty obvious that he would never hold them responsible for anything.  Every company in the world could come out tomorrow and say that Nintendo is hard to work with and he'd still blame everyone except Nintendo.  How do we know that Nintendo didn't back out of an agreement with EA?  It seemed like they had some kind of deal after E3 but something obviously went wrong, so why is no one holding Nintendo accountable?  The same thing when Amazon got pissed off at Nintendo and stopped selling their consoles, all anyone does is blame Amazon.  Why?

I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my times, though.  Nintendo will always get that free pass.

So now youre ranting about someone you know nothing about. Youre just like the person youre complaining about in the end. Ok you obviously seem like you want to hold Nintendo responsible so lets assume Nintendo is responsible. Why would EA port FIFA 2012 instead of FIFA 2013 then? Why port over the last year version and just change the logo? If you dont think theres anything fishy about that you obviously dont think logically.

I'm doubting EA would have made much money on the wiiu anyways. And anyone complaining about the microtransactions is an idiot. They don't hinder your experience if you choose not to use them.

I found his deductive reasoning to be severely lacking. Specifically the motivations he applied to Electronic Arts. In all that vitriol he spewed. He never once produced any evidence that supported his claim that Electronic Arts is doing what it is doing purely out of spite. Even if the rumor he cites were true. It still doesn't mean that Electronic Arts was acting solely out of spite. There are alternate equally valid possibilities. For instance what if the offer wasn't just something that Electronic Arts wanted, but something they absolutely needed to happen to justify developing games for the platform.

What if owning a part of the console was the only way that Electronic arts could compensate for losses on software. Really it doesn't require any malevolence on their part to justify their actions. If a company cannot make a profit doing business on a platform. Then a company just doesn't do business there. The company doesn't have to actively hate the platform, or the owner of that platform. The logic just doesn't hold.

I mean look at it like this. Let us say that Sony isn't selling consoles in Ethiopia. Does that mean that Sony hates Ethiopia, the government of Ethiopia, or the people of Ethiopia. The answer is absolutely not. It just means that selling consoles there would lose Sony more money then it would gain by doing so.

Which is probably the same position Electronic Arts is in when it comes to the Wii U. They could put games out on the Wii U, but given the market. They would probably lose more money then they would make, and frankly it needs to be said. Fans of Nintendo bitching all day about it will not do a damn thing. You after all cannot withhold support from a company that you never supported to begin with.

The only person butt hurt by all of this is the commentator. If Electronic Arts was actually able to make a consistent good profit on the platform. They would be supporting it, and the argument that Electronic Arts is just being greedy ignores the fact entirely that Nintendo itself is greedy. According to the rumor Electronic Arts was seemingly offering to share with Nintendo. It wasn't like the deal would have undermined Nintendo as far as profit from hardware, or software sales were concerned, and Electronic Arts might have helped Nintendo to spread its base enough so that both sides could find more profit.