It's slightly more understandable that the bias would be stronger from people who develop in the downloadable games space.

slightly

Wii U IS DOOMED!

*RUNS STRAIGHT TO UNDER THE BED*

"Someone still believe that 3rd parties don't do well on Nintendo platform. LOL."

Well, it's true. The only 3rd party games that sell well on Wii are dance/party games.

If you're going to be a semantics nazi, try looking up the word "tend".

And yeah, if you wanna have a debate about cod vs mw3, show me one title that even comes close to those games. Dude the games are just bad, and on top of it, the whole draw of MW is the hardcore gamers. There's never even been a game remotely like MW on Nintendo going back ten years, and even then, goldeneye is probably the closest thing. CoD was a different type of game than modern warfare. Anyone who has played both can attest. They're completely different. CoD3 was able to sell on wii because it had a certain audience. Modern warfare didn't because of the audience. To top it off, MW is very much an online game, and I'm sure you understand the extent of the Nitnendo Online ability.

On a side note

“Well, we’ve already announced versions of Stranger and Munch for the Vita"

Does this mean that Strangers Wrath that I bought on PS3 wont play on my Vita?

Yes he said tend, so I provided some clear cut examples of how he is wrong. There is no tendency. You said this isn't a fair comparison. I could list out the huge amount of other examples, but it would simply take too long. So I used the best examples. THQ with De blob, sonic, no more heroes, lego series bla bla bla. 

I'm sorry you are totally changing the issue. You said and I quote ''and MW did as well on wii as COD3 did.'' I demonstrably showed that this statement was completely and utterly untrue. And your argument now is errr well let's take a look. You are saying ''CoD was able to sell well on wii'' and ''Modern warefare didn't'' so I'm sorry are you going to stick with your original point that MW did as well as CoD3 did or are you going to go with your second and completely opposite point that CoD3 sold well and MW didn't? You know the second point which totally agrees with me, who you disagreed with =)

So yea you should probably decide if you want to stick with your point that ''MW did as well on wii as CoD3 did'' or your point that ''CoD was able to sell well on wii.......... MW didn't.''

Okay, i'm on board.

You showed some clear cut "exceptions" to the rule. Tendency refers to the most part, and for the most part, third parties haven't done well on wii. Factual statement. I'm also sorry you're getting all bent out of shape about it that it's distorting your view.

I'm not changing the issue, you are missing the point. 2m vs ~1.5m is huge? It's only huge in your eyes because you look at the difference between HD CoD and MW, and translate it to the wii. Sure it's 25% difference but lot's of games do that from sequel to sequel. Look at resistance 1 to 2, 4m vs 2m, and then to R3, it's 2m to 1m! Drops of 50%. There's a long list of games that drop like that. Most wii game sequels have that drop. Look it up.

What you're confusing yourself on, or misunderstanding me on, is that comparitively across platforms MW didn't do as well on wii as CoD. But on the same platform, it did about normal. I illustrated why a game like MW was able to do so well on HD, and why it couldn't on Wii, and so starting with the idea that MW is just a normal game without that strength,...it did as well as CoD.

When I said "able to sell", I was referring to "able to sell like HD", hence all the comparisons to HD and strengths on HD.

I agree. It's an exception when it goes against my belief.

Yeah! Right! they DO NOT WANT to work with Nintendo and not the other way around!!!

Well Done!!!