lol, I was going to post that earlier.

Sure, there was a good amount of double ownership in households but most of those likely had different users.  For example, a house with a 360 and a Wii.  The 360 would be primarily be used by a male teenager and the Wii by the younger sibling and for family games.   In those households the mature games would be bought for the HD system only.  The only way to sell a mature game on the Wii would be to have an AMAZING different game.  EA did have the right approach, they made a different game for the Wii because a simple port would not have sold in that household.  The problem was that DS:Extraction was not an AMAZING game.  The other problem is that EA's theory only targets households that own two systems.  What was the market share of that group?  I presume it would be small compared to the total Wii ownership.

Overall though, the Wii was hard to develop for.  The audience was too divided, you had the Wii Sports only crowd, the secondary console crowd, the little kids, and the Nintendo loyals.

The WiiU though is different. EA cannot assume it will have the same audience problems, not yet anyways its too early to tell.  They cannot withdraw support based on the sales figures for the launch games.  Those would only be bought by Wii-only owners that missed out on those HD games.  But that crowd I think is just too small.  EA cannot reasonably expect good sales for those games. 

EA should have made an exclusive title to really see if developing for WiiU is worth the investment.  Or at the very least they should have made those titles SIGNIFICANTLY superior to the other versions. 

Really surprised by the moderation in this thread. I'll just leave it at that for now.

no matter what you wish for, those games sold pretty well considering the install base and must have made profits. now picture the wii u with a bigger install base and those kind of games will sell hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of copys.

Of course, I mean I have my prefrences, but I do not treat any company like they are all that is good in the industry. The problem is when Nintendo only gamers act like this all the time. "I buy Nintendo consoles for Nintendo games," 'I am not interested in buying third parties, but I would like them on my platform so it will be king of the industry." If Nintendo does not encourge third parties to make games for them, they by no means deserve to be even close tp kings of the industry . It is a two way street with everything in life and in business.

Just confirms what we all already kinda knew. Its a significant blow.

Well here is no surprise.

Current EA games sold terribly on the WiiU, and big publishers need big sales to cover their investment, thus the WiiU would have been a noose around the neck for any big publisher.

The question is how many publishers will follow suit, and where does that leave the WiiU? My bet - all will follow and the WiiU will sink like a stone as Nintendo exlcusives sell well to owners, but don't make people buy the console.

You mean censorship....as moderation would imply no biasing and rules being broken.

It occurs to me that if Nintendo were to become a third-party developer, the implications for EA might not be completely positive.

Supposedly this is dependant on the amount of negativity given over a period of time.

Perhaps said user(s) are being banned for their own protection, if we equate such activity with repeatedly hitting a beehive.

But really, I don't get it either.

Exactly. And since the general view in this thread is that Nintendo can do just fine without EA, I'm going to make a huge logical leap and say that EA feels likewise.