True, Square Enix did engage in price protection rebates but Ubisoft has not.  SE engaged in that pricing scheme because they believed they would make up the difference via DLC.  Definitely a gamble that didn't pay off.

"The two games that are original are ZombiU and Rayman Legends, so those ones of course are more expensive but we are not talking about games today, like we were spending on Ghost Recon or Assassin's Creed. So they are much smaller of cost."
-Yves Guillemot, 23.06.2012

Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-23-ubisoft-says-wii-u-ports-costing-under-USD1-3-million

....again, they probably lost some money, but I think their "far from profitable" claim is exagerated (less than 1 year development time, not a visual stunning game, not much advertising etc.)

You either haven't played the game or you have questionable taste mate. ZombiU, Lego City Undercover, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate and Batman Arkham City are all excellent games and worth buying a Wii U for.

It isn't perfect by any means but it demonstrates good use of the GamePad, as do the games I've listed above.

But we don't know if Ubisoft had price protection or not.  Assassin's Creed doesn't need it, nor do most of their bigger titles, but that's not to say they don't have protection in place.  Or maybe they had to with Zombie U since it's a new IP on an uncertain console.  I doubt Gamestop would just take large volume of copies without the safety net of discounting.  We ultimately don't know and if the title has been discounted soon after launch, they most likely did.

So we don't have an actual number of sold copies for this game? Nor do we seem to know if this claim is right about ZombiU "not being profitable"? What a big mess of a story.

I get the feeling that someone over-exaggerated ZombiU's sales situation, but if someone said it didn't return profit, then it didn't. End of story.

SE is an exception, not a rule.  As I noted before, retail consignment policies are incredibly rare.  Why would ZombiU be an exclusion for Ubisoft?  Why would they not apply it to all their titles as SE did?

You also need to realize that most publishers are not the direct distributors of their games to retailers.  Or they will often distribute for other publishers.  SE, for instance, distrubutes Ubisoft titles in Japan.   That means that any consignment or price protection deals would actually go through...SE.   And who is the only publisher currently known to engage in that practice?  SE.  And in turn Ubisoft often distributes SE games in Europe and Australia.

Ubisoft distrubtes titles for many other publishers too. 

It should also be noted that Gem Logistics distributes all Ubisoft titles in the UK.  They also distribute for Take-Two and Microsoft.

Finally, it should be understood that many distrbution methods work on monthly invoices or even quarterly.   Meaning that a retailer gets a bill for all products supplied for the previous month/quarter   Doesn't matter how they ended up selling from the retailers point of view, they still get charged for the initial delivery of product.

They canceled Assassin Creed for 3DS with some crazy excuses

"[The cancellation] was a decision made back in September 2010," Martinez (Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez) said. "It wasn't due to anything that took place. We felt the machine already had a number of hardcore games for its release."

Their excuses are just mind blowing

What's somwhat interesting, is that apparently Rayman became multiplatform because of "demand" from PS360 fans according to Ubisoft. But now they claim it was due to ZombiU not being profitable?

I also mentioned that Ubisoft may have to have it for all their titles, but for the most part, their titles sell through their shipments.  I also mentioned that if the opposite is true, retailers might have demanded insurance for Zombie U, which is an exclusive for an uncertain platform.  Retailers may have been scared about being able to have a sell through of their shipments.  Other publishers most likely offer insurance, I honestly don't believe Capcom would have wanted Resident Evil 6's price to drop down within a few months of release and I doubt retailers would want to loose that much money to clear out inventory considering how small their profit margins are on games.  We honestly don't know what goes behind the scenes with publishers and retailers.  I mentioned Square since they mentioned shipping insurance on on their financial report as a reason for not making money.

If it was profitable, they would do a sequel to gain more money, to even doubt that makes no sense at all.
That said, what a shame, this game is the only thing that makes the WiiU remotely atractive to me, since I am a horror fan.