The technical director's exact words were, "We did some tests with not too promising results with FB2 & chose not to go down that path." 

Which says to me, we threw it on there like we would the 360, it didn't run so well.....so we gave up trying. If they can take the time to figure out how to get Frostbite on mobiles, they have time to figure out how to get it on Wii U. It's not that hard. 

It's not that it can't. It's that they don't want to bother. If CryEngine can run, if Unreal 4 could run (they've said it can, Epic just won't be making anything themselves), then frostbite certainly could.

What annoys Nintendo fans about EA is that they don't bring Frostbite and its games to Wii U for corporate strategy reasons, but try to imply it's because the hardware is sucky.

I doubt they're just sitting around with nothing to do.  They got it working on mobile because they decided it was worth the time and money.  They likely found out that it wouldn't run well on the Wii U without work and decided that it was not worth the time and money.  This is a business, resources are invested in the areas with the highest projected returns.

Actually, the comparison between CryEngine and Frostbite doesn't make a lot of sense, as one is designed to make money by being licensed out, while the other is for internal projects.  It makes a lot of business sense for CryEngine to work with as many platforms as possible, as it makes sense for Frostbite to only work with platforms EA intends to develop for.

However, I know this thread is about Nintendo and EA, and thus not really the place for logic.

You can not claim logic by saying CryEngine should work on as much as possible to make money, but FB is internal, they are both made to make money and to do so should typically operate on as many platforms as possible. The day a company like EA goes down in flames will be a good day for any gamer, and not just for what they do becuase Nintendo is Nintendo, but because of what they do in nearly every aspect of their company.

However you were just trying to troll a Nintendo based thread by saying there was no logic found because it was about Nintendo and EA so, what does it matter what you think?

I agree with the first part. Return on investment is everything.  

Yet your second part makes no sense as an argument per the guy who posted right after you. So the question is if cry sees the ROI, why doesn't EA? 

Still laughing even as I type this.

Probably not worth it for them. The Frostbite engine is about to go next-gen only in a few years. Why port it over to Wii U when its about to become useless? Also, like other people said, EA isn't interested supporting the Wii U. There are no upcoming games for it. Why is CryEngine 3 even supported on Wii U? Are there any games using that engine coming to the platform?

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

Man, I know this Pedro Pellicano, he's a brazillian blogger, it's funny to see him here on VGChartz.

OT: Wii U has much more power than 3rds say it has, looks like it will be nintendo's role to show it...

If you had a product that was intended for business-to-business use, like CryEngine, you wouldn't be able to predict every project that people wanted to use it for, so you'd make it as multi-use as possible.

On the other hand, with a product for internal use, you can pick and chose where you want to use it based on where you project the greatest potential profit.  Let's say you estimate very little profit on the PSP in terms of games where you might want to invest your resources.  In that case, the time and money to optimize your internal tools for PSP development would have to be deducted from any projected profit; if the projected profit was insignificant, then you'd most likely not want to sink resources into that area.  Some people act as though there is no cost involved in this kind of thing, when any time you have employees working on something, that's overhead, and it must be accounted for.

If EA decided that Wii U development is not a high yield investment, then they might weigh all the costs of putting their titles on the system against it.  My guess is that they went into testing Frostbite on the Wii U with the idea in mind that if it required extensive modification, then it wouldn't be worth the investment, as they didn't expect much revenue from Wii U versions of their games.  They probably also concluded that most Wii U owners who buy EA games probably already own a PS3/360, which would make much of that investment redundant, and thus a waste of resources. 

As I've said before, it's pretty clear to me that EA is cutting costs and eliminating superfluous spending.  Unfortunately for the Wii U, I think they consider potential profits on that console too low in relation to the costs.