The NES and SNES sold well because they were the dominant consoles on the market.  Nintendo strong armed developers with threats that if they didn't remain Nintendo exclusive they wouldn't be allowed to develop future titles on Nintendo consoles.  This is the reason Sega licensed many games from developers like Capcom and ported the games themselves.

The Playstation was released and while it wasn't supported much in the start, it sold very well.  Developers jumped ship from Nintendo's monopoly on the market and went with Sony.  That's where the third party support faltered and Nintendo really only has themselves to blame.  Because Squaresoft wanted to develop Final Fantasy 7 on the Playstation, Nintendo tried their strong arm tactic on them and that's the reason that Squaresoft didn't release games on Nintendo consoles for such a long time and why you saw them give good support to Bandai's Wonderswan.    

Developers started to support Nintendo again late that gen or during the following gen.  The Gamecube received a lot of console exclusives, but none of them sold very well.  The Wii had a lot of console support from developers like Sega, EA, and Activision, and a little bit of support from everyone else.  A few good exclusives from multiple companies that also didn't sell well.

So regardless if developers gave Nintendo the middle finger, there was still support of good Gamecube exclusives and good Wii U exclusives which didn't get sales from the fanbase.  As Nintendo fans if you're telling the developers that you're not going to buy their games, what do you expect them to do?  You still expect them to release games in the future for you continue not buying them?

*edit*

I forgot to add this, but Nintendo fans barely support third party developers on the handhelds as well.  There's more third party support so you would come across that assumption, but the fact of the matter is that across all current Nintendo consoles, there's very little third party support, especially compared to how much support first party titles get. 

Here are the sales of games from the original DS.  I'll point out first off that New Super Mario Bros sold just over 29 million copies, but look at how many games until the sales drop below a million?  The DS has 130 games that broke a million while the Wii has 141.  The 360 has 173 games and the PS3 has 171 games.  Without even going through the list, I can guarantee that there are far more first party titles in the DS and Wii lists than there are in the PS360 lists.  The PS360 games cost more at launch as well.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/

I'd be more surprised if they announced it was coming to Wii U.

Never played Battlefield before and never will. They can go fuck themselves.

Here's the real reason that Battlefield 4 isn't going to be on the Wii U, and it's not that EA just doesn't want to support the Wii U, even though the game was in development after the Wii U was announced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDciDLweCso

This. 

The PS3 version had a mandatory install which more than likely included all the high res textures and little else.  The 360 could run using low res textures, but they included the ability to download the high res textures so they could stream from the harddrive.  Most Wii U consoles come without any sort of decent sized hard drive.  With potentially half of the current Wii owners having no space available due to the 8GB standard model, these people would be forced to run the SD version.   

Most Wii U owners would rage at EA if Battlefield 4 was released.  They go out and buy Battlefield 4 expecting it to look as good as the PS360 versions.  Sure they could also install the texture pack, but this means that not only do Wii U gamers have to purchase Battlefield 4, those who don't have an external hard drive would have to also go out and purchase one.  So you're spending $100+ for one game.  I'm sure EA figures, as I would as well, that once everyone catches wind of this, then it would quickly hit the bargain bin and almost no one would purchase the game.  They'd do nothing more than waste their money by porting it over to the Wii U.

I don't think EA should take the blame at all.  I think Nintendo should take the blame for not including a hard drive.  We're in an age where  digital is such a big thing, where the Next Box is rumored to fully install all games to the harddrive to be played from there, etc.  Nintendo could have still passed the cost of the harddrive onto the consumer, but they wanted to take the cheap way out with a much cheaper looking priced console.  It would have been better if Nintendo included a harddrive because they would have been able to make a deal to get the harddrives in bulk, so instead of customers paying $50, Nintendo may have got them for around $20-30 per console.

I still think that people who own Nintendo consoles don't purchase third party games is also another part of the reason, but this is as well.  If you add both low third party support and this factor in, then Battlefield 4 would sell far less than the average third party title.

Oh, well I took it that they would be following the same path as Activision who will be going full next gen on the PS4 and 720 only.

Its the best military shooter money can buy plus it lets you play the way its meant to be done which is in squads in land or air.

Oh, 3rds hate Nintendo - surprise, surprise. They would not even bringt it to WiiU if it had exactly the same hardware as PS4.

So Nintendo didn't want Battlefield 4 on Wii U?
I have no evidence to substantiate this claim, but oh well. Down with Nintendo!

This only supports my "DICE is not a good console developer" theory.

Yeah, just 3 of them. And besides, Namco & SquareEnix have merely delivered some ports, this is hardly called support. They have 0 known project on WiiU. Atlus is just collaborating on a first-party game, very far from the great deal of effort they're spending on 3DS.