I think Watch Dogs will come out just because Ubi Soft probably passed the point of no return on that port a while ago, might as well release it, even if you only ship 100k ... that recoups some of the dev budget. Better than getting nothing back.

Are you really saying that PS2 owners would have bought yet another reskinned version (there's no sign that they even did that, by the way - VGChartz doesn't even have any numbers for the PS2 version of Fifa 13 or 14, suggesting it didn't even sell well enough to register), but Wii U owners wouldn't?

I find it funny that you suggest that they kept selling the PS2 version despite its dramatic plummet in sales, yet they couldn't do the same thing for Wii U, for which it was nothing but a launch title lacking in features.

"EA didn't choose not to release FIFA 14 out of spite is the reality of the matter" is something you have to back up, at this point. EA announced Mass Effect Trilogy just a couple of months before release of the Wii U, thus sabotaging Mass Effect 3 on the system. They announced major new innovations in Madden and Fifa, and then announced that the Wii U versions wouldn't get those innovations (and review scores for Fifa were around 90 for PS3/360, and around 70 for Wii U - think about that). They delayed only the Wii U version of Need for Speed, and announced before its release that it was going to be EA's last title (I give props to the devs for putting so much effort into the game, but EA themselves sent it to die).

As your own argument has pointed out, EA doesn't shy away from just releasing reskinned versions of their sports games for systems where the games are less popular. Chicken-and-egg issues aside, there is no reason why EA couldn't have continued this trend with Wii U. But they didn't. No rational businessperson would assert that performance of a single instance of a title, that was lacking in features and released late, would be indicative of long-term trends. But EA cut off all support well before they could even know how their titles would perform.

You don't just have to explain them ceasing support for Fifa titles. You have to explain their nonexistant support from the launch of the system onwards. They couldn't possibly have known before end of 2012 how Wii U sales would go, and yet they'd already cancelled all of their later titles for the system. Or they hadn't been developing them in the first place... which has the same effect.

Anyway, back to the actual topic... I think that there are mixed messages going on. Activision refuses to announce CoD:AW for Wii U, but releases an update to Black Ops 2 adding a new map and hinting at another one? Announcing that Skylanders Wii would include a code for Skylanders Wii U? They finally release the map they promised for Ghosts? Capcom don't announce RE1 Remaster for Wii U, but they're pumping Mega Man onto the VC like there's no tomorrow? Even EA, despite having cut off all support for Wii U, insists on denying the suggestion that Nintendo are "dead to them", and keep repeating that Nintendo is "a great partner", etc. And then there's cases like Bandai Namco announcing a title for release on PS3 and Wii U only.

FIFA on PS2, PSP, Wii etc. for years after those systems have been "retired" as it were is because soccer is so popular in Latin American and poorer European markets.

Not every kid has the luxury of a $300+ Wii U or $400 PS4 in the world, FIFA on those platforms is for that portion of the market.

That's all there is to it that has nothing to do with Nintendo and Nintendo fans need to get over that. That's just EA filling a market need. When Nintendo sells 100+ million Wii Us they can expect the same treatment. 

Megaman on VC makes sense ... he's going to be in Smash Brothers, pushing Megaman games simply is smart. 

There is going to be like 6-10 retail third party games for the Wii U *total* next year. I'd say there is no mixed message here. 

Do you think Capcom and Nintendo might team up for an exclusive WiiU Mega Man game or something like that?

If Nintendo is willing to pay for the development of the game, maybe. 

I don't think Capcom has interest in making Wii U games on their own dime. 

Wii U has already had better third party support than the entire N64 lifespan.

It has a fair amount of eShop support and to be honest I dig those indie games more than the next re-re-remake or lame port. But it's true, the retail third party support is limited to some Lego games and Dance Dance stuff...

It's hardly conspiracy. It's good business sense. It's not "dislike" on EA's part. It's logical that they would purposefully avoid Nintendo and give people reason not to buy a console due to the fact that, if people buy it and even if their games were successful on it, they would then "HAVE" to put their games onto the Nintendo console for profit purposes.

A real silly thing is that Fifa will be on the Wii which technically means it will be on the Wii U anyway through backward compatibility. So why didn't they release that as a Wii/Wii U game? One sticker is all it would have taken.

well they clearly did, however the levels the most recent one sold were the cut off point. Development costs for the reskins are far cheaper for a standard definition console than the HD of the Wii U. I'd wager also that Nintendo want far more royalties per unit for a Wii U title, than Sony were asking for a PS2 game.

Also as you say, they got enough flack for releasing a "substandard" FIFA in the first place, yet then you advocate reskinning said "gimped" release? I don't blame EA tbh.

As for backing it up. Not really, it's not my job to back up that a company deliberately chooses not to release products because they would lose money. The onus would be on you to prove that it was viable for EA to release FIFA 14 on Wii U. Which I don't think it would have been, and my evidence of this is based on the abysmal sales of FIFA 13 on Wii U combined with EA choosing not to bother.

If you have evidence to suggest EA are deliberately turning profits down however, feel free.

I won't derail anymore, but you have to realise that your argument really is saying a major multinational is turning down profit out of spite. I guess they were spiting SEGA too when they didn't release any games on the Dreamcast, which incidentally, was performing better in the marketplace in the same timespan.

Actually, the onus was on EA to prove that it wasn't viable by making a real attempt first, rather than putting out a weak effort and then cutting support when people chose to get games that had heart and soul put into them. Abysmal sales of Fifa 13 on Wii U is a reflection of the fact that Fifa 13 on Wii U was abysmal. Metacritic has it at 69 (compared with 90 for PS3/360). EA announced before launch that the game wasn't going to include any of the innovations that had been brought in with the other versions, despite the fact that many of the innovations were functional (that is, they were basic logic, not system-specific type stuff, and thus could simply be copy-pasted). Their big usage of the Gamepad was "shake the gamepad to go into first-person view, kick goal from there"... as though that's something sensible in a game where you get a top-down view and there's a touchpad.

And I'm not saying that EA is turning down profit out of spite. I'm saying that profits would require some work, and they're refusing to put in the effort out of spite. And if you're not willing to put in the effort, in business, it's often better to not do it at all.

Also, EA didn't support Dreamcast at all, not from the start. And yes, I'd say that's another example of spite. Sega had, in the past, had rather draconian rules regarding their developers/publishers abilities to publish on other systems, as did Nintendo. Once Sony came along, they dramatically scaled back their support for both, and by the time of Gen 6, it had dropped dramatically. Dreamcast got no support, Gamecube got none of the regular sports titles and not a whole lot of other titles (they got the "FIFA Street" and "NBA Street" titles).