"There is no evidence of a market for our games on this Nintendo console. We need Nintendo to prove that the market exists, first." - Third party publisher

"Really? Because look at game X from Nintendo, which demonstrates a demand for that sort of game." - Gamers who own Nintendo console

"How are we supposed to compete against Nintendo at their own game? Nintendo gamers only buy games from Nintendo!" - Third party publisher

"Oh? Because games Y and Z from <other publisher> seemed to do fine." - Gamers who own Nintendo console

"But those aren't OUR games. There's no evidence of a market for OUR games on this Nintendo console." - Third party publisher

"What evidence do you have otherwise?" - Gamers who own Nintendo console

"Game W, which sold poorly on the Nintendo console." - Third party publisher

"Didn't you release that like a year earlier on other consoles, and then announce a sequel on other platforms a few weeks before that game released on the Nintendo console." - Gamers who own Nintendo console

"So there's no evidence of a market for our games on this Nintendo console." - Third party publisher

It just keeps continuing. They keep moving the goalposts, and people like you let them get away with it. Just like how people like you let Capcom get away with repeatedly putting spinoff Resident Evil titles on the Wii and the "real" titles on other platforms after Wii owners proved the presence of a strong market for Resident Evil games on the Wii. Just like how people like you let FPS developers get away with claims that there was no market for FPS games on the Wii even after Goldeneye for Wii far outsold the PS3 and 360 versions combined. Just like how people like you let third parties put out low quality spinoff "test" titles on Wii, and then used it to justify putting out more low quality spinoffs if it passed the test, and to refuse to put out more games in the franchise at all if it failed the test.

It has to stop. Mind you, I don't give a crap about EA failing to support the Wii U, because all of the games I got on the Wii that were from EA are games in franchises that they're not planning on releasing on consoles in the next year, anyway. But gamers giving third parties a pass when they repeatedly demonstrate that they hold gamers in contempt is the biggest problem with the industry at the moment. And I'm not just referring to Nintendo console treatment, either. I'm referring to always-on DRM. I'm referring to release of shoddy games with the argument that it can be patched later. I'm referring to the use of online passes. I'm referring to developers making hundreds of FPS titles while practically ignoring any other franchise, just because it's the "most popular" at the moment.

I'm referring to publishers openly making disparaging comments about sections of the market. I'm referring to the blatant sexism. I'm referring to the rigging of review scores and the controlled process of reviewing. I'm referring to trailers for games that are found to be completely fabricated misrepresentations of the game. I'm referring to the removal of features from games so that they can be served as paid DLC.

Third parties, especially, are constantly flipping the bird at gamers, and people like you give them a pass for it. It has to stop.

It's the same thing with the 3DS, in terms of support.

3rd parties were all too eager to bail when Nintendo delayed their 1st party titles so 3rd parties had a chance, and then when sales flopped, they were just all too giddy to claim "slow sales". That lead to a software drought during late 2011 and 2012.

Then Nintendo realized they screwed up and shouldn't have let 3rd parties take the reigns. Thankfully for 3DS Vita flopped, and 3rd parties (Japanese ones) albeit begrudgingly had to release software for it. Which leads us to this situation.

Though not saying the situation is reversible a la 3DS, but it's strikingly parallel.

Whatever happened to that 3rd party direct we were promised? Likely fizzled out, under the claim of slow sales again. But this time 3rd parties have an alternative in Xbox and PS.

It seems Nintendo is just better off catering to their own crowd. So instead of trying to appease 3rd party Madden and FIFA better off making Mario clones of it. I mean FIFA 11 the best selling FIFA game on Wii sold 1 million, and Mario Strikers Charged sold 2 million. There's a market for sports, just not anything except Mario Sports.

Instead of trying to cater to 3rd parties, just cater to the demands of your own audience. It might piss off 3rd parties but they aren't going to support Nintendo no matter what Nintendo does. Even if Nintendo's the market leader. Maybe less so if they are due to spite.

Make more studios and release mountains upon mountains of profitable 1st party software. I mean seriously how much does a Mario Football clone cost? Those things are awesome to play either way.

EA released Tiger Woods 08 for Wii, and saw better sales on Wii than on the other platforms, better sales than for any Tiger Woods title since 2004 (Tiger Woods 2005, that is). This was repeated with Tiger Woods 09, and Tiger Woods 10 sold better than Tiger Woods 08. Tiger Woods 11 didn't sell quite as well, but still outsold the 360 version.

Then Tiger Woods 12: The Masters didn't do quite as well, and so EA immediately decided not to release Tiger Woods 13 for the system.

Fifa didn't sell massively on Wii, but it typically sold about a million copies each year. Fifa 12 sold just a little less. Know what EA did? They released Fifa 13... a literal roster update version of the game. To be clear - I don't mean "they failed to introduce anything noteworthy", I mean "they just replaced the roster, replaced the number '12' with '13'", and called it a new game. They didn't even bother to change the background of the title screen.

This is the kind of attitude EA took to the Wii. And it continued with the Wii U, too. Quite simply, it was EA that treated Nintendo owners with callous disregard from the very start. And not a single bit of it can be laid at the feet of Nintendo gamers, it was 100% EA's doing. When things were successful on the Wii, they went out of their way to screw it up. MySims sold really well... so they made a heap of spinoffs that were more and more niche, targeted more heavily towards children who were too young to play them. MySims sold well in 2007. In 2008, they rushed out MySims Kingdoms. Then they rushed out THREE more MySims titles, all spinoffs, in 2009. Total sales across MySims games released in each of the three years stayed about the same, but of course, the 2009 ones split the sales. Then they had another two in 2010, both spinoffs. This is called "milking". We never saw a MySims title that was designed to be an improved sequel to the original.

EA don't deserve sympathy because of some imagined slight by Nintendo gamers. They deserve contempt from all gamers for their attitude, both to Nintendo gamers and all other gamers.

What does nintendo has to lose here? Some "core" games... besides Fifa, madden and maybe battlefield, there is nothing else here...

What does EA lose here? A lot of quick cash-ins to fund their so called AAA games...

Ot: Fifa and madden are a big lost yes, but at the end of the day EA is shooting their own feet here...

That's not quite true. There's a market for sports when the games are made well. Tiger Woods for Wii sold better than any of the other versions for years in a row. Shaun White Snowboarding sold far better on Wii than on any other platform. Tony Hawk: Ride and Tony Hawk: Shred, too. Grand Slam Tennis sold 4x better on Wii than its sequel did on PS3 and 360 combined.

A more accurate statement would be "Nintendo owners are less interested in roster-update sports games". Which just happens to be what EA excels at - convincing gamers to buy Madden (x+1) when it's mostly just Madden (x) with a few minor gameplay modifications and a roster update.

The funniest part in all this is that simultaneously, so-called "hardcore gamers" are going "See, EA aren't supporting the Wii U, it's going to die" and "EA are right because it's not like owners of Nintendo consoles buy many EA titles anyway".

You can't have it both ways - either the loss of EA means the Wii U has lost an important set of franchises that would have sold well and sold the Wii U strongly, which means that EA are making a major mistake by not releasing them, or it has lost a few games that wouldn't have sold all that well anyway, and their weak sales on Wii proves that they aren't important for Nintendo console survivability.

To those using those arguments - it's your call. Are EA right to not make them, and they don't matter to the Wii U, or is it a major blow to the Wii U, and EA were idiots to not make them?

The poll is stupid, there is no 'Fair or unfair' in business, in business it's all about money, and making a return on an investment. So Far the Wii U's install base is low and it's sales pathetic, So of course EA hasn't got anything planned yet, theirs also the fact that the CEO stepped down so they're reevaluating their portfolios.

Having said this, the blame falls squarely on Nintendo and it's management team. I know allot of fans defend Nintendo and they will do so again in this thread, read below as to why I put the blame squarely on Nintendo. Also lets not forget the the PS3 this generation

-The PS3 launched 1 year after the 360
-The PS3 cost way more than the 360, $599!!!
-Multiplat games where inferior on the PS3
-The PS3 was a bitch to program games for
-It's install base was low and it's sales was pathetic.
-PS3 was the successor to the PS2, the king of it's generation but didn't seem to help PS3 sales.

Yet Sony was able to keep 3rd party developers making games for their console despite the horrible situation the PS3 was in at launch, now with the PS4 looming, 3rd parties are all wetting their panties in anticipation.

Now we have Nintendo's Wii U,

-It launched first having almost 1 year to it's self before the competition release their
-The Wii U launched with a competitive price for a next gen machine, only slightly above current-gen machines, but definitely cheaper than when it's competition launches.
-It's 3rd party games that it did get are on par with PS3/360 or if not better
-The Wii U is on the level of 360 easy to program for, plus it can leverage technologies and engines that already exist for the PS3/360
-Like the PS3 at launch, it's install base is low and it's sales pathetic.
-Wii U is the successor to the Wii, the king of it's generation but didn't seem to help Wii U sales.

As one can see, their are parallels between the PS3 and the Wii U, with the PS3 having a much much worse starting point, and yet Sony did all it could to support 3rd parties, encourage 3rd parties, and help 3rd parties. Sony even had a special programing team designed to assist 3rd parties help optimize their code for no extra cost. Hell Sony even developed the 'PhyreEngine' which any developer could use for either PS3/360 games, but the key aspect of the engine was that it was CELL optimized, Why would Sony do this? simple to get developers to just make the games with out having to care about the engine side of things to much and it worked.

Nintendo has yet to make any strides like Sony have to try get 3rd parties on board, despite the Wii U launching in a much better situation when compared to the PS3, Nintendo need to be proactive, Nintendo just can't keep relying on first party, they need to realize that 3rd parties are extremely important, a concept both Sony and Microsoft clearly understand.

So in the end their is none of this 'unfair' BS, Nintendo fans should stop looking over the fence to blame others, instead they should look in their own back yard, look at Nintendo and blame them for their actions, or lack their off, as to why 3rd parties are skipping the Wii U. Until Nintendo change their philosophy with 3rd parties, until Nintendo breaks out of their own mold, Nintendo home consoles as it seems, will perpetually be missing out on 3rd party games, and threads like this will be the norm.

My 2 cents.

We all now the about the fact that EA was pissed because Nintendo didnt integrated Origin as the eShop, this was the end of the partnership.

At least they're being slightly honest about it, rather than the "we still have a good relationship with Nintendo" passive-aggressive rhetoric. This might hurt WiiU's uptake with the casuals (the FIFA + COD only crowd) but by itself I don't know if it is going to have a significant effect on the console's fortunes.

What remains to be seen is whether this is a portent of how the other big third parties are going to go, or simply a symptom of EA throwing a hissy fit. If the latter, it might simply open the doors for Ubisoft and some of the others to take a slightly bigger piece of the pie.

I've always been a fan of the FIFA and NFS series but one thing's for certain, if sales of the WiiU do take off and EA capitulates they are going to struggle to sell any games to the WiiU crowd. Although never their biggest market, they are burning bridges they can't un-burn all the while forgetting that many WiiU owners are, or will become, multi-console owners.

Totally fair. Nintendo has not changed is attitude towards things like third party developpers and marketing since the super nes. If big publishers don't react then they can keep going on like this forever. There we have a console that have a small install base, so it's a good way to force them being nicer to third parties.