Regardless of his words being twisted, I think people should not expect to see Elder Scrolls and Fallout on a Nintendo system.Western devs with PC background and Nintendo, a Japanese company with arcade gaming roots, usually don´t mix.

I will be amongst the first person to support their standpoint.

What they did completely WRONG with the PS3 was rushing into development, with the result that every PS3 game they make is a technical wreck. They haven't taken time to get used to the system.

On top of that, I think they are completely justified in waiting to see exactly what the Wii U is and what kind of games will sell to its audience. They have no moral duty to develop for any console.

From a historical bussiness standpoint, he's correct. But that's a one sided view. And this can be (a word that The 4rth Wiseman of Youtube, Archimedies123, love to use) a Double Edge Sword. The Wii is a hardware that can't be used for their potential, so the hardware after that doesn't have an install-base. But as others said before. If you wait for the console to be determined, their's a great chance that the opportunity has come and gone...

It's honestly one of those chicken or the egg problems, both sides are pretty valid.

Personally, while I would love to see more awesome games on my Nintendo consoles I side with the publishers on this one.  Like I said, making even a modest budget game is a massive risk with little reward.  You want to do everything possible to mitigate that risk.  If that means not developing for a console that likely will not sell well, you don't develop for it.

I'd argue that launch titles are essentially meaningless as far as the so-called "core" consoles have gone. With 360, it could have been "who's going to buy a $400 console for Perfect Dark Zero and a bunch of up-ressed ports when PS2 still has all this stuff going on," for instance.

You need to lead with the casual titles because the casuals are the picky customers. The core gamer will come, which is why the second generation of titles on a console is when the core support really has to show up (look at Nintendo's late 2007 lineup, or Gears of War which didn't show until 1 year into the 360's life, the run of games from Uncharted 1 to MGS4 that finally got PS3 off the ground), and that if it does not materialize by that point (and 2008 was when you could really see the writing on the wall for Wii 3rd party support) that the environment will never really materialize.

The multiplatting mitigates the risk on its own. Remember: it took a team of a few guys (under 10) from Vigil something like 5 weeks to get a build of Darksiders II running on Wii U. With that comparatively tiny amount of man-hours they just tacked on at least (lowball estimate) another 200,000 sales for the game, or another 10 million in revenue (less overhead and publisher/retailer cut and all, but still, that makes up for the porting effort by a huge factor)

They're creating *more* risk for themselves by *not* putting it on Wii U

I don't think I've ever played any of their games!

don't care!

It cost very little to port a game from the 360 to Wii-U on average.  So they shouldn't have much of a risk porting over to the Wii U

Different engines, different problems (Bethesda is great example of that idea).  We also don't know how well Darksiders II works on WiiU.  There's a *huge* difference between running and running well.  Again, thinking of Bethesda, Skyrim runs on the PS3 and I'm sure even Dawnguard runs on the PS3, it just doesn't really run at an acceptable quality level.  It will take a lot more effort to work that problem out.

It might have only taken 10 guys 5 weeks to get the game to work, but it would take more time and more staff (QA) to verify that it's shipping quality and pass TRC requirements.

Again, we don't know this.  The WiiU is new hardware and the TES engine was not built for that hardware.  Getting something running on different hardware isn't a huge deal, getting it running well and tested is.