Care to present some facts to go with your argument or are you just basing this on your own thoughts?

You could start with the porting costs, how much would it be to port a game which you haven't seen for a platform you know almost nothing about? When you have explained that with links or proper calculations done by yourself, you can move to part 2.

Prove that the game will sell enough to pay those costs several times over. You already have the costs, all you need is to know how much the game sells and how much of those sales are going to R*.

Surely that is easy, as you make it sound that those are facts.

We look first at the claim of the Darksiders II developers, who got a build of the game up and running in weeks, with a tiny team. Likely because of the Wii U's power-based CPU and more able GPU, which would provide no clear hurdles to anyone familiarized with 360 or PS3 development.

Obviously this was just a build, and that there are other things that need to be done with putting a game over, but there's copious testimony that porting to Wii U is cake. Certainly for a memory-intensive game like GTA, Rockstar should be stamping at the bit to move to a platform with fewer memory restrictions, or at the very least less memory restrictions should make for an easier experience. Either way, you're talking about a comparatively small amount of money for a port that would sell at least 2 million (as long as it wasn't feature-gimped), even if those are bad numbers for a GTA, it would give them 2 million more sales for very little work, which is only sensible busines.

Unless, of course, Rockstar (and a great many of the most celebrated third party developers) are less competent coders than the image they project, but that couldn't be, could it?

Well, we know Bethesda aren't very good at working outside their comfort zone, so maybe incompetence among others isn't so far-fetched.

I don't see (m)any facts, most of that is just your own assumptions. Some of those are based on a totally different game and without a link even on those comments, an uninformed reader like myself do not see those as facts.

Comparatively small amount of money is not an estimate. A number ending with $ is an estimate.

Those 2 million sales, what do you base that on? How did the best sandbox game do on a 90+ million selling wii? Do you expect Wii U to sell similar numbers?

A little research and you could have answered this for yourself:

http://wiiudaily.com/2012/07/ubisoft-wii-u-games-cost-less-1-million-port/

If Rockstar only made $10 on each game sold they would make $2.5m with only 250,000 units sold.

Now consider that COD for the Wii - a version that was technically inferior to the HD versions - still broke 1m sold...

Your link does not say much, only thing it quotes from developer is

“Out of the 7 games we have for launch, five are ports, so those are games for which there is a quite small re-investment to make. The two original games are ZombiU and Rayman, so those are more expensive.”

and

(ubisoft) “doesn’t have a huge investment in the Wii U”.

When I google'd a bit I found this.

"out of 7 games we are planning to launch, 5 games are ports, so those are games for which there is a quite small reinvestment to do. The two games that are original, are ZombiU of course and Rayman, 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. because as we've always said when there is such an innovation the need is not to have big production value but to concentrate on the innovation, this is what we are trying on Rayman and ZombieU. for the other five games, you are talking about small budget, I'd say of less than a million euro to make some of the ports, I'd estimate. so together I don't think we have a huge investment on the Wiiu"

Which states that porting some of those games, My guess is Just Dance, fitness evolved, and the  Rabbid game, costs less than million. There is no mention of costs of like assassins creed, which should be closer to what porting GT5 costs than those 3 games.

"out of 7 games we are planning to launch, 5 games are ports, so those are games for which there is a quite small reinvestment to do. The two games that are original, are ZombiU of course and Rayman, 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."

Assassin's Creed is one of those 5 games.  It's not being built from the ground up on WiiU, and from what we've heard, WiiU is pretty easy to port to, despite the different CPU architecture.

I believe that GTA5 will come to the WiiU eventually.

Of course it is, that is why I mentioned the game. You gave me a link where it says that porting a  game to wii u costs less than a million, which was obviously false information on the case of assassins creed. On that quote, or any other quote which I could get my dirty little hands on, there is absolutely no indication of how much does it actually cost to port assassins creed. Only that it is cheaper than building a game ground up.

As a bonus, you said that selling 250k copies would make R* a profit. You did not have literally anything to back up that claim.

I think it's gonna come out on may 28th 2013 only because in the trailer there is a the numbers 2805 on the edge of the pavement. Or just most R* games come out in may.. 

It costs in the neighborhood of a low number of millions. Let's say it cost $2.5 million to port GTAV (that's completely independent of what it costs to actually develop GTAV), and now let's say the publisher cut of the game is $10. $10 * 250,000 is 2.5 million. So the Wii U port would have to sell less than No More Heroes 2 to lose money.

Then we go on to think that this is the most it's ever going to cost to port to Wii U (because its your first time), and the fact that this is fucking Grand Theft Auto, (which, being roughly on the level of COD, would easily exceed archbrix' quote on CoD Wii sales, so long as its not feature-gimped).

Math. It's a useful thing.

No, it was not "obvious false information".  In fact, that sounds quite stubborn...

And, it's simple math how I arrived at R* making profit, not to mention other posters on this site (like Viper1) who actually know the industry far better than you do have said as much.  But your agenda is quite clear so I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge any of that.