Every game that EA makes doesn't necessary target just the "established Western Core Market". For example, why is the Sims 4 skipping the Switch? Why couldn't EA have PopCap port some of their games onto the Switch? Despite Nintendo's focus, there is opportunities to make money on Nintendo platforms. Why does, what seem like the entire, gaming industry seem to miss that point? Better yet, why does it seem like folks such as Söderlund IQ seems to drop by dozens of points when it comes to Nintendo? The only way that I can interpret that statement is if also part of the crowd that thinks portable console/ dedicated handheld gaming is dead, despite the 3DS in the West still ahead Xbox One with the 3DS having only first party support at the retail level. In all honesty, the only games that EA that doesn't fit on Nintendo platforms are the super hyper violence and possible the hardcore simulation type games. One doesn't have to see eye to eye to make money with partner; especially, when that partner is providing you with a customer base.
Could you even blame Nintendo from "leading from the front"? Taking a brief look at the Japanese market You have Capcom (with Monster Hunter World) and Square Enix (Dragon Quest XI initially planning to be PS4 only!) and Bamco ( hand waving away the sales of Digimon game on the Vita selling 10x as much as the PS4 version to make a PS4 only sequel) straight up ignoring their market demand for portable games and still releasing them on home consoles despite the majority Japanese market saying hell no to home consoles. How else can Nintendo do it?
I'm not sure Nintendo can do much else.
One thing ideally would be to make sure people like this guy don't walk away confused and like "oh Nintendo will make it work somehow or they won't but I certainly don't get it." His reaction says a lot about Nintendo's ability to pitch their vision to western third parties. How much of that is on Nintendo doing a poor unconvincing job and how much of that is on these companies just not trusting Nintendo's sales potential or uninterested in trying their alternative platforms much is unclear. Perhaps Nintendo could do better and change things, perhaps there is some degree, to which doing better changes nothing.
(A notable counterpoint is Skyrim Switch, which Nintendo does seem to have successfully courted Bethesda to do).
I also don't think leading from the front helps them much in the west. Just look at Wii/DS. I think Switch will get your Fifas and CoDs if it does well, as well as things like the Lego games, which also continued on Wii U. Ubisoft will also probably try some things out, like Rabbids.
With Japan, you've got a shrinking domestic console market that is significantly divergent from global console trends and a mobile market that is the true dominant domestic force. Switch changes that situation by making PS4/Switch much more viable than PS4/3DS and you can reach a global and domestic audience with one game, so long as it isn't pushing PS4 to its limits, which hardly any Japanese game is doing.
When Nintendo is doing well, it is doing particularly well in Japan, so it can be made attractive to an extent by leading from the front. I do think 3DS vs. DS and DQXI (initial decision) and MHW are indicative of it being the case that Nintendo is in that uncomfortable in-between zone discussed above. So I do think, in the end, Switch being what it is, will alleviate that negative effect to a noticeable degree.
Big 3DS partners like Capcom and Level-5 being so "wait-and-see," at least in public, about Switch does paint a picture of Nintendo having trouble reaching out about Switch much like the quotes in the OP. It is an open question if Nintendo could have convinced them to be more invested in Switch in some way before the Switch started doing well.
