Support NeoGAF

[Nightstick11]

I don't think you understand that you are making the case for why people say that the situation Nintendo is in today had 20 years in the making. Ever since the 64 and letting third parties walk on over to Sony, GC and just being largely overshadowed by the PS2, ignoring gaming trends and the difficulty of HD development in the days of the Wii, not dedicating anything to expanding Western development, it all comes crashing today.

Nintendo used to be able to justify everything with the same excuse that you're using, they are still profitable, so they are doing fine. The game has changed right underneath them. The cost of one game has ballooned, it takes more manpower to get games out in a reasonable time frame, and the competition in the home console space is tougher than ever. The Nintendo of today is living with an operating loss.

If the Wii U is in the ball park of 150k this November, it's already over.

I don't think you understand the farcical absurdity of an opinion like what you just said.

When you say Nintendo was "profitable", you mean, in a single year, Nintendo made more profit than every other game manufacturer combined in history. This happened multiple times, including every year of the Wii generation and possibly the later years of the N64 generation.

Let me repeat that so it sinks in: there were multiple times so that in ONE year, Nintendo pulled in more profit than every other single hardware manufacturer combined.

An attitude where one points to a vague, unquantifiable statement like "Nintendo lost the core" because they were mean to third-parties since the N64 not only completely glosses over Nintendo's staggering profit-history, it begs this question: Is it your opinion that they should have given away 90% of their profit in their past 15 years just to keep up with the technological joneses so that the "core was not lost" (whatever that means)? That is absurd.

The fact that even IF the Wii U garnered 150,000 in November sales leaves Nintendo with many billions in cash and assets and zero debt speaks to the money they made. The Saturn plunged Sega into insolvency. The Vita forced Sony to bleed even more billions. Nintendo is "shit well we'll try again."

And THIS is the problem. Money isn't there for a rainy day or collected because it looks pretty. Nintendo could've invested 500 million EASY and opened up 5 studios in North America and 5 studios in Europe. They didn't.

Nintendo could have invested 500 million EASY to secure cross-ports and money-hat exclusives. They didn't (at least not for the Wii U.)

The Wii U is a console that, as far as I can see, isn't leveraging Nintendo's software strengths either. There is zero excuse for the shitty VC. Imagine if people could buy every NES, SNES, N64, GCN, and Wii game on the VC. Why has this not happened? If the reason is technological, why wasn't this a priority?

Call me crazy but I think a shitload of people would snap up these games for $5/$8/$10/$15/$25 tiered pricing per generation.

 

[hamchan]

The point is NOT to target the audience you are saying I'm confusing. It's targeting the person bringing in the new system. Its showing how the casual age has ended, and the last part says that you can still play wii games on the new console.

Who is the person bringing in the new system if not the casual crowd? The core already know about the Wii U.

 

[Y2Kev]

Here is my Wii U commercial:

The camera begins shooting facing the legs of a woman reclining near a pool in the summer. First person perspective of course. You can hear the water splashing in the background and children laughing. The camera slowly pans up and over to a nearby stand where she has a bottle of water. She takes a sip. "Ahhhhh, Wii u," is said in a French accent.

~end~

These should have been running all winter.

 

[ascii42]

Call me crazy but I think a shitload of people would snap up these games for $5/$8/$10/$15/$25 tiered pricing per generation.

I'd adjust a couple of those prices down a bit, particularly for Wii. I'd say $20 would work better. Otherwise, I completely agree.

 

[Like the hat?]

"Wii u! it's a brand new console, with brand new games. You can't play these on wii, you need a wii u! it's not an add on, people!"

Then show Mario 3d world

 

[Tookay]

Here is my Wii U commercial:

The camera begins shooting facing the legs of a woman reclining near a pool in the summer. First person perspective of course. You can hear the water splashing in the background and children laughing. The camera slowly pans up and over to a nearby stand where she has a bottle of water. She takes a sip. "Ahhhhh, Wii u," is said in a French accent.

~end~

These should have been running all winter.

"Is the water bottle a new controller?"

 

[d1rtn4p]

As a huge nintendo fan, seeing the Wii u bomb is saddening, but I can only hope that this will make them become better. They are so far behind on even the most simplest stuff. They still act like they can be vague when right now they need to show off anything and everything.

Don't count on it. If Nintendo was really worried about anything, they've would of made radical changes by now. Don't confuse the GAF negative spin with the entire gaming consumer market.

 

[Polo67]

This is a nightmare. I'm really hoping pach is wrong with this prediction. 500k seems like a sweet spot

 

[teh_pwn]

But to argue against the bolded is absurdist at best, delusional at worst.

The point of a corporation is to make profits.

During the N64, Gamecube, and especially the Wii generations, Nintendo made a lot of money. Certainly more money than every hardware manufacturer combined. A sizable chunk of the total profits made of every company involved in the console industry. To argue that Nintendo "lost the pulse" of whatever segment of the market flies in the face of reality just looking at the sheer money they made.

The problem in my opinion is where did that money go. Why wasn't Nintendo using that money to strengthen their position and kill competitors off like in the Yamauchi days. I'm not going to fault them for making money however they made it; that is absurd.

But the issue is why wasn't that money being used to build up an online infrastructure (I don't think this is even close to their biggest problem btw), why wasn't it used to secure exclusives, why wasn't it used to open a dozen western-oriented second-party developer studios in the US and Europe, etc.

Hell, why haven't they invested in a better VC channel? The Virtual Console should be something that blows PS+ straight out of the water. There is no excuse for why it is as shitty as it is right now.

The point of a corporation is to take a pool of investor ownership in stock to create a ongiong profitable cashflow. To some degree corporations may also have company cultures that try to benefit society in some way.

Not planning for a reliable revenue stream in the tech industry is a sign of incompetent management. They continue to insist their guidelines will be met, which is lunacy. I don't understand how people can feel safe holding money in Nintendo, at least short term.

Past success doesn't give anyone a free pass on this behavior. Just because RIMM (at the time) was really successful with smart phones didn't give them a free pass when Apple and Google rapidly consumed their marketshare.

 

[evilromero]

Ummm... yeah...

If it is that low then I feel sorry for the peeps that bought one. Because that thing isn't going to be alive too much longer.

Yearly performance like this would actually make my meager "realistic" projections of 15-20 million units almost impossible to hit. You're talking 10-15 million units in five years 85-90% loss of unit totals from one generation to the next. I doubt they'd ride that out.

If it turns out to be accurate then it'll be a miracle if the Wii U makes it to 2015. I imagine a Kirby game or two to get us there.

 

[ultratruman]

Here is my Wii U commercial:

The camera begins shooting facing the legs of a woman reclining near a pool in the summer. First person perspective of course. You can hear the water splashing in the background and children laughing. The camera slowly pans up and over to a nearby stand where she has a bottle of water. She takes a sip. "Ahhhhh, Wii u," is said in a French accent.

~end~

These should have been running all winter.

'Oui'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5aUMyYLvAI

 

[Coxy]

"Is the water bottle a new controller?"

Wii u is the new water bottle?

 

[Randolph Freelander]

My Nintendo commercial is a survival horror game called the New Super Macabre Brothers.

Mario with a shotgun, Luigi with an ax. Who's with me.

 

[eojoko]

Here is my Wii U commercial:

The camera begins shooting facing the legs of a woman reclining near a pool in the summer. First person perspective of course. You can hear the water splashing in the background and children laughing. The camera slowly pans up and over to a nearby stand where she has a bottle of water. She takes a sip. "Ahhhhh, Wii u," is said in a French accent.

~end~

These should have been running all winter.

This is genius. This should totally be the commercial.

 

[Shaqiri1287]

So the Wii U is doing worse than the Dreamcast and Gamecube?

Save us Cranky Kong!!!!!!!!

 

[Aquamarine]

The point of a corporation is to take a pool of investor ownership in stock to create a ongiong profitable cashflow. To some degree corporations may also have company cultures that try to benefit society in some way.

Not planning for a reliable revenue stream in the tech industry is a sign of incompetent management. They continue to insist their guidelines will be met, which is lunacy. I don't understand how people can feel safe holding money in Nintendo, at least short term.

Past success doesn't give anyone a free pass on this behavior. Just because RIMM (at the time) was really successful with smart phones didn't give them a free pass when Apple and Google rapidly consumed their marketshare.

Nintendo's stock will rise when the reality of FY3/2014 will come crashing down and management will be forced to change direction.

If you anticipate this future, Nintendo is actually not that bad of a company to have money in at the moment. As the Wii generation demonstrated, the potential is there for rapid "lightning in a bottle" growth.

It is definitely a bit precarious, though.

 

[Tookay]

My Nintendo commercial is a survival horror game called the New Super Macabre Brothers.

Mario with a shotgun, Luigi with an ax. Who's with me.

Nintendo's got the survival horror genre covered already with the Wii U's life story.

 

[teh_pwn]

Nintendo's stock will rise when the reality of FY3/2014 will come crashing down and management will be forced to change direction.

If you anticipate this future, Nintendo is actually not that bad of a company to have money in at the moment. As the Wii generation demonstrated, the potential is there for rapid "lightning in a bottle" growth.

It is definitely a bit precarious, though.

That's risky though.

If Nintendo makes another console, can they compete in time? I don't see Nintendo having a history of practicing efficient software development, nor a history of developing accounts and online infrastructure needed for modern consoles. When Sony and Microsoft start planning their next consoles, they'll probably internally fork branches of various internal components to a new rev and change some things. In Sony's case some Unix based OS and in Microsoft's case a variant of the Windows kernel. The online infrastructure for PSN and Xbox Live is continually updated. How much experience does Nintendo have with OSes? With x86? Do they even have a staff of software engineers needed to do it, or do they have to hire a couple of hundred people, train them, and then develop it?

Considering how few old consoles to Wii U ports there are, does Nintendo understand code reuse? They seem to have trouble creating engines for new systems, but if you look at EA/2K/Bethesda/Ubisoft, they're releasing for 6 platforms simultaneously right now. So how long does it take Nintendo to learn what everyone else mastered years ago?

If I were Nintendo I would focus on handheld, mobile, and start investing heavily in modern console/PC development and aim to release Mario Kart, Smash, and 3D Mario on all systems while becoming proficient for new franchises and ideas.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I'm not sure why the thread has turned to talk of EA's [entirely prudent] decision to forgo Wii U investment and development, but it's pretty simple: EA goes where they see the money going.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/196509/

And the money for EA hasn't historically been big on Nintendo. Nintendo's Wii U, from the outset and even prior, wasn't in its conception or execution something that fits well with EA's properties.
Really Nintendo as a whole doesn't fit well with EA's properties.

Well, if you look your own data you provided you'll notice, in fact, EA had a significant boost of sales in Nintendo during the Wii days while it's pinnacle was in 2009-2010, so your claim about EA hasn't been big on Nintendo isn't really accurate. If this was from 2000 or 95, could be old data, but is actually recent.

And before people ask why don't they try and make it fit, why should they?

For the same reason they managed to create an active userbase on the Wii.

 

[teh_pwn]

I don't think you understand the farcical absurdity of an opinion like what you just said.

When you say Nintendo was "profitable", you mean, in a single year, Nintendo made more profit than every other game manufacturer combined in history. This happened multiple times, including every year of the Wii generation and possibly the later years of the N64 generation.

Let me repeat that so it sinks in: there were multiple times so that in ONE year, Nintendo pulled in more profit than every other single hardware manufacturer combined. .

Nintendo is competing with Microsoft. Microsoft's annual profit could purchase Nintendo every year. Sure they're making silly mistakes with XboxOne (DDR3), but companies are competing here not departments.

Sony has made hits and blunders in equal numbers it seems. I'd wager PS4 will be a hit. Reminds me a lot of PSX.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Nintendo needs to cut bait and release a new console within three years. Either an Occulus Rift, or a handheld that outputs to tv.

 

[maxcriden]

Wii u is the new water bottle?

 

[Dash Kappei]

"Wii u! it's a brand new console, with brand new games. You can't play these on wii, you need a wii u! it's not an add on, people!"

Then show Mario 3d world

I assumed the new Italian WiiU commercial I'm seeing these days was the same worldwide?
It says:

"game blablabla only available on WiiU, the NEW console from Nintendo (shows the full console not only the gamepad) in High Definition and you can also play the games of the OLD Wii on it -it actually calls it "OLD"! lol-

 

[shinra-bansho]

Blackberry sure was making a lot of money when it was making a lot of money.

Well, if you look your own data you provided you'll notice, in fact, EA had a significant boost of sales in Nintendo during the Wii days while it's pinnacle was in 2009-2010, so your claim about EA hasn't been big on Nintendo isn't really accurate. If this was from 2000 or 95, could be old data, but is actually recent.

Firstly, taking the Wii as exemplary of anything is folly. It was anomalous. And even at the height of the Wii and NDS, their Nintendo platform revenue has not matched their revenue on Sony or Microsoft's systems.

Also it's 2013. Whatever was being earned from the Wii whittled away to negligible amounts, while their Xbox, PC and Mobile revenue continued to grow, and their PlayStation revenues were stable.

I really don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that 1) Nintendo, by and large, does not cultivate a receptive audience to the types of games that a company like EA, by and large, makes; and 2) a company like EA will not cultivate that audience for them. And 3) the situation with third parties will not change unless something changes with (1) because (2) isn't changing.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Firstly, taking the Wii as exemplary of anything is folly. It was anomalous. And even at the height of the Wii and NDS, their Nintendo platform revenue has not matched their revenue on Sony or Microsoft's systems.

Why do you think the most lucrative and one of the most succesful system of the history of gaming biz, no matter how detractors try say otherwise, shouldn't be taken into consideration? Don't be silly.

Although not matched the Sony/Microsoft numbers, it was pretty close by that time.

Also it's 2013. Whatever was being earned from the Wii whittled away to negligible amounts, while their Xbox, PC and Mobile revenue continued to grow, and their PlayStation revenues were stable.

Obviously, because EA shafted their support for Nintendo platforms mostly.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I don't see how Nintendo gets out of their rut without going third party or converging console/handheld, and the latter position only seems to be kicking the can down the road since 3DS won't track as well as the DS did and their marketshare and revenue will continue to get eroded by mobile platforms.

Nintendo's biggest strength has always been their IPs, and now that they aren't making hardly any money off the hardware, I don't see any reason why they should continue down that path.

What's really discouraging is that Iwata continues to believe that Mario Kart and Smash Bros are going to turn things around, when they're not. We've had NSMB and now Mario 3D World to prove that without the massive casual appeal of the platform they are on, these titles won't be system sellers or go on to do big numbers so long as they're anchored to unappealing Nintendo hardware. However, if these properties were on multiple platforms, the sky is the limit in terms of their sales potential.

Plenty of the same casual gamers that picked up a Wii and are now on tablets and mobile would absolutely pick up the great nintendo properties on the hardware they've now found most appealing thanks to the incredible IP and brand strength of Nintendo properties.

 

[Imperfected]

Why do you think the most lucrative and one of the most succesful system of the history of gaming biz, no matter how detractors try say otherwise, shouldn't be taken into consideration? Don't be silly.

Lucrative for Nintendo, a decent lark for shovelware makers, and legitimately profitable for one or two publishers who hit it big with casual titles (why hallo thar Just Dance!), but otherwise not actually very good for the rest of the industry. The major third party publishers actually didn't see that much of an increase in sales, certainly nowhere near in proportion to the size of the install base.

As a result, it's only natural that most of them couldn't care less about Nintendo: Nintendo consoles have been on a downward trend for the entire history of the company, and the one time they actually bucked the trend and outsold previous consoles it still wasn't particularly lucrative for the major publishers. As far as they're concerned, there's no set of circumstances where a Nintendo console becomes their first choice destination for flagship franchises.

For the parts of the industry that are not Nintendo the Wii was tipping toward becoming an Atari situation, though thankfully the mobile market has since absorbed the makings of that particular debacle, along with the Wii's audience.

 

[Otakumegane]

Lucrative for Nintendo, a decent lark for shovelware makers, and legitimately profitable for one or two publishers who hit it big with casual titles (why hallo thar Just Dance!), but otherwise not actually very good for the rest of the industry. The major third party publishers actually didn't see that much of an increase in sales, certainly nowhere near in proportion to the size of the install base.

As a result, it's only natural that most of them couldn't care less about Nintendo: Nintendo consoles have been on a downward trend for the entire history of the company, and the one time they actually bucked the trend and outsold previous consoles it still wasn't particularly lucrative for the major publishers. As far as they're concerned, there's no set of circumstances where a Nintendo console becomes their first choice destination for flagship franchises.

For the parts of the industry that are not Nintendo the Wii was tipping toward becoming an Atari situation, though thankfully the mobile market has since absorbed the makings of that particular debacle, along with the Wii's audience.

The shovelware was what killed it in the end. It really did turn into an Atari.

 

[Christopher]

"Wii u! it's a brand new console, with brand new games. You can't play these on wii, you need a wii u! it's not an add on, people!"

Then show Mario 3d world

No one thins the Xbox one is an add on to the Xbox 360.

Lack of ibterst and people speaking with their wallets

 

[Ninja Scooter]

No one thins the Xbox one is an add on to the Xbox 360.

Lack of ibterst and people speaking with their wallets

Because your average Xbox 360 consumer is probably a lot more informed about the gaming industry than a majority of the 100 million people that bought a Wii. Confusion was absolutely an issue. Not the only one. And not even the biggest, but lets not deny the obvious.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Why do you think the most lucrative and one of the most succesful system of the history of gaming biz, no matter how detractors try say otherwise, shouldn't be taken into consideration? Don't be silly.

Although not matched the Sony/Microsoft numbers, it was pretty close by that time.

Because, as I already wrote, it was anomalous. And expectation of another anomaly to occur is folly; by their nature anomalies are unexpected. And the Wii U is no Wii, and well prior to its release skepticism that it would be anything close to it was entirely warranted.

These are EA's major franchises:
Battlefield
Madden NFL
FIFA
Need for Speed
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
The Sims

These are their stalwart stable. With the exception of The Sims, a PC franchise, they are targeted towards a demographic that Nintendo simply hasn't been strong with in recent (circa the last decade at least) history. Because they have migrated.
For a time Rock Band was also among them, in particular the time in which you cite with the Wii at the fore of the industry.

The plastic music peripheral market collapsed. The Wii faded into obsolescence.

It required an industry dominant Nintendo and a now collapsed music game market, for EA's Nintendo revenues to only briefly reach its transient peak at around half or less of what they earned from the PS2 peak, and around 65% or so of their consistent PlayStation and Xbox revenues separately in recent years.

Still, you assume they didn't take this anomalous occurrence into account, when even taking it into account and seeing what type of system Nintendo planned to put out it was still entirely prudent to forgo investment in Wii U development.

The Wii U as a product is not, and has never been, adequately positioned as a platform upon which EA's properties would thrive.
And the simple reality is that EA does not need Nintendo.

Obviously, because EA shafted their support for Nintendo platforms mostly.

Nintendo "shafted" support for Nintendo platforms.

 

[cafemomo]

It needs to survive long enough for zelda and metroid to get released, atleast then I'll have my moneys worth. Two of my favourite systems struggling badly (Vita, Wii U)

Dont worry, the Vita will end up fine.

Hell, it will probably do better than the WiiU by the end of the gen.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Dont worry, the Vita will end up fine.

Hell, it will probably do better than the WiiU by the end of the gen.

If both are given at least four years I think they might be neck and neck for 10 million units.

This will be the battle to watch in the coming years.

 

[theprodigy]

Dont worry, the Vita will end up fine.

Hell, it will probably do better than the WiiU by the end of the gen.

the most exciting race in next-gen for SalesGAF, folks
it's like watching a bunch of trainwrecks, you can't look away

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

The wii u commercial I keep seeing often on TV here is the one where you never really see a wii u until the end. It's a little girl playing tennis with Agassi with wiimotes....

There may or may not have been a gamepad in the background of the scene.

 

[gigantor21]

Because your average Xbox 360 consumer is probably a lot more informed about the gaming industry than a majority of the 100 million people that bought a Wii. Confusion was absolutely an issue. Not the only one. And not even the biggest, but lets not deny the obvious.

Indeed. The comparison would only make sense if MS had barely shown the Xone itself in promotional footage, focusing almost exclusively on the new Kinect and it's functionality, and called the new console the "Xbox Kinect 2" or something.

That the Xone was a new system was never in doubt.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Dont worry, the Vita will end up fine.

Hell, it will probably do better than the WiiU by the end of the gen.

What are you defining as "fine" here?

 

[Aquamarine]

Never mind.

 

[shink]

What are you defining as "fine" here?

I'd say it's fine if it's not discontinued within the next two/three years.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'd say it's fine if it's not discontinued within the next two/three years.

Hmm, when people envisage a product being discontinued what exactly does that entail?

The Vita isn't necessarily going to be pulled from shelves immediately, but retailers aren't going to be ordering much more than 1 or 2 a month per store, they may be ordering none right now if they have sufficient inventory to meet the meager demand from earlier allotments.

How long does this situation remain tenable? At what point does production of a product that's only moving maybe 2M units a year become less worthwhile than other potential uses of those resources?

How long until production is quietly slowed, and eventually ceased? I think within two years is actually plausible. Especially considering Sony will in all likelihood not produce another dedicated gaming handheld.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

How long does this situation remain tenable? At what point does production of a product that's only moving maybe 2M units a year become less worthwhile than other potential uses of those resources?

How long until production is quietly slowed, and eventually ceased?

How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?

 

[shinra-bansho]

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?

How many months must the Vita fail, before it sleeps in the sand?

 

[Radec]

"Wii u! it's a brand new console, with brand new games. You can't play these on wii, you need a wii u! it's not an add on, people!"

Then show Mario 3d world

Or..

This is Wii 2.

Shows any games available.

 

[Aquamarine]

Hmm, when people envisage a product being discontinued what exactly does that entail?

The Vita isn't necessarily going to be pulled from shelves immediately, but retailers aren't going to be ordering much more than 1 or 2 a month per store, they may be ordering none right now if they have sufficient inventory to meet the meager demand from earlier allotments.

How long does this situation remain tenable? At what point does production of a product that's only moving maybe 2M units a year become less worthwhile than other potential uses of those resources?

How long until production is quietly slowed, and eventually ceased? I think within two years is actually plausible. Especially considering Sony will in all likelihood not produce another dedicated gaming handheld.

One professional estimate places the amount of retail stores that sell video game consoles in the USA as ~25,000.

Considering current Vita sales, that prediction is very reasonable.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

Lucrative for Nintendo, a decent lark for shovelware makers, and legitimately profitable for one or two publishers who hit it big with casual titles (why hallo thar Just Dance!), but otherwise not actually very good for the rest of the industry. The major third party publishers actually didn't see that much of an increase in sales, certainly nowhere near in proportion to the size of the install base.

As a result, it's only natural that most of them couldn't care less about Nintendo: Nintendo consoles have been on a downward trend for the entire history of the company, and the one time they actually bucked the trend and outsold previous consoles it still wasn't particularly lucrative for the major publishers. As far as they're concerned, there's no set of circumstances where a Nintendo console becomes their first choice destination for flagship franchises.

For the parts of the industry that are not Nintendo the Wii was tipping toward becoming an Atari situation, though thankfully the mobile market has since absorbed the makings of that particular debacle, along with the Wii's audience.

Err... bullshit. Third-parties did had strong sales with Wii, not just Ubisoft, but Capcom, Sega, Activision... with core targeted titles. Take a read in this article: http://www.gengame.net/2013/05/anot...d-third-party-sales-actually-improved-on-wii/

Because, as I already wrote, it was anomalous. And expectation of another anomaly to occur is folly; by their nature anomalies are unexpected. And the Wii U is no Wii, and well prior to its release skepticism that it would be anything close to it was entirely warranted.

These are EA's major franchises:
Battlefield
Madden NFL
FIFA
Need for Speed
Mass Effect
Dragon Age
The Sims

These are their stalwart stable. With the exception of The Sims, a PC franchise, they are targeted towards a demographic that Nintendo simply hasn't been strong with in recent (circa the last decade at least) history. Because they have migrated.
For a time Rock Band was also among them, in particular the time in which you cite with the Wii at the fore of the industry.

The plastic music peripheral market collapsed. The Wii faded into obsolescence.

It required an industry dominant Nintendo and a now collapsed music game market, for EA's Nintendo revenues to only briefly reach its transient peak at around half or less of what they earned from the PS2 peak, and around 65% or so of their consistent PlayStation and Xbox revenues separately in recent years.

Still, you assume they didn't take this anomalous occurrence into account, when even taking it into account and seeing what type of system Nintendo planned to put out it was still entirely prudent to forgo investment in Wii U development.

The Wii U as a product is not, and has never been, adequately positioned as a platform upon which EA's properties would thrive.
And the simple reality is that EA does not need Nintendo.
Nintendo "shafted" support for Nintendo platforms.

In 2007, EA announced they would increase their support for the Wii after a succesful initial performance: http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/02/01/ea-to-ramp-up-nintendo-support

Larry Probst made this statement:

We are pleased with the performance of our products on next-generation consoles. In the year ahead, we plan to build on our leadership position on both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3, and to significantly increase our support for the Nintendo platforms.

There was a time EA was even topping Nintendo itself, yes, you heard right, Nintendo. http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/07/17/ea-dominates-wii-sales

EA Sports Active and Bloom Blox were big hits. In 2009, John Riccitiello announced Nintendo would get majority of EA's console support. http://www.ign.com/articles/2009/02/04/performance-analysis-ea-on-wii

We’re bringing core intellectual property to the Wii. Wii is the market leader — they’re getting half of our emphasis in terms of title count.

They later tried to test the mature audience on the Wii with Extraction and didn't worked so good.

What happened between them and the unprecedented partnership were the reasons for the split, not because they couldn't find an audience on Nintendo systems.

 

[cafemomo]

How many months must the Vita fail, before it sleeps in the sand?

The Vita is bleeding, thus making it the victor

 

[theprodigy]

How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?

How many months must the Vita fail, before it sleeps in the sand?

I don't even know what's happening anymore

 

[Randolph Freelander]

I don't even know what's happening anymore

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

 

[shink]

Hmm, when people envisage a product being discontinued what exactly does that entail?

The Vita isn't necessarily going to be pulled from shelves immediately, but retailers aren't going to be ordering much more than 1 or 2 a month per store, they may be ordering none right now if they have sufficient inventory to meet the meager demand from earlier allotments.

How long does this situation remain tenable? At what point does production of a product that's only moving maybe 2M units a year become less worthwhile than other potential uses of those resources?

How long until production is quietly slowed, and eventually ceased? I think within two years is actually plausible. Especially considering Sony will in all likelihood not produce another dedicated gaming handheld.

I was kinda half joking. The Vita situation isn't great at all but it'll be interesting to see if their plan for the Vita now as a companion to the PS4 will change anything.

 

[shinra-bansho]

What happened between them and the unprecedented partnership were the reasons for the split, not because they couldn't find an audience on Nintendo systems.

EA Sports Active, Rock Band, Boom Blox; EA found success on the Wii largely by catering to the audience that Nintendo built.

They were late to the party, but saw opportunity and seized it. But they no longer seem to be actively pursuing that audience on console platforms.

If you build it, they will come.

Is a secret clandestine falling out so much better to stomach than simply accepting that the platform wasn't seen as sufficiently receptive to the "core" properties that they produce? Was there also a secret falling out between Bethesda and Nintendo? Did Take-Two want to take over the Nintendo network with their own storefront? When Ubisoft and Warner stop putting anything but Just Dance and Scribblenauts on the platform, respectively, will it also be because of some terrible slight they've imagined?

Although, I know there's little I can do to convince you that decisions to not put particular games on the Wii U are perfectly rational and reasonable. I'm sure we've been down this road before.