I don't understand these statements. Bundled sales count for everything else (Inlcuding having WiiSports as the Top selling video game of all time) yet not for this? Not that many people own a Vita anyway at the moment. Many of those people were waiting for more games such as AC:L to release before getting a Vita. Were they suppose to buy it seperately when that bundle was a steal? If anyone would be recieving less profits on it it would come from Sony's portion, they might simply wave their portion of profit for the games they would have normally gotten and sacrificed the profit made on each Vita sold. Nevertheless, Ubisoft would see all of this as good.

What about all the 3rd party Wii U titles?

I think you are losing sight of what is important. AC:L couldn't have cost that much to make in the first place. It was developed in tandum with ACIII proper and utilized the same engine as well. The developer footprint for the game is most likely very minimal so anything over 200k is pure gravy. And that is including advertising budget, which was decent but no where near as excessive as say....Halo3 big gulps at 7-11 :/

We must turn every thread in this site a Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft war?

We are people who ave debated video game sales on the internet for years. We clearly know best. 

A Ghost Recon game was rumoured a while back:

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/assassins-creed-iii-ghost-recon-final-mission-outed-for-vita-6378931

So that.

zombie vita?

I think for silly comments like that yes.  He is claming that 490k for a bundled game is poor (more of his knock on playstation/vita), but fails to  look at AC3 for the Wii U.  I am 100% certain that is a money losing venture for Ubisoft since it takes $1.3 million for the port and the games sales are barely registable.

I agree with your point. Thanks for your response.

would love to see a PoP game; would really love if they continued Prince and Elika's story!!!