Final Fantasy was a very important series, Metro is not and will not be nearly as important.

If 50% of console A owners also own console B and console B and A have sold the same quantity of total consoles then if you're comparing the potential release of a game on console A only versus console A and B what is the difference in the total addressable market? If people can already buy your title anyway there is really no point in releasing it on a different platform. If the total new market for a game is too low then it doesn't warrant a port, end of story.

So tell me again why THQ would spend a couple of million dollars on porting a game for a series they don't hold rights to? Besides if you really want to make a stink about games not being ported you really should be focusing on Franchises which actually do have potential like for instance Bioshock or Metal Gear Solid which haven't go announced ports.

Well if they are focusing on next gen I am guessing Wii U will be getting many future unannouced games instead of these current gen games in development.

If we look at generations in terms of hardware, then the Wii U is not next-gen as it is not capable of producing much more then the existing consoles. 

As a developer if you are looking to significantly increase what your games can technically do, as in go fromt his gen to the next, you will be looking at the dev kits for the next xbox and playstation. 

The logic applies equally to all franchises. Bigger franchises are just a matter of scale, in this context.

Your console A vs console B comparison ignores three major points:
- that if there's more competition against your game on console A than console B, you have a better chance on console B, assuming equal quality,
- that serving games to new markets is often what makes the difference between a minor franchise and a major franchise, and
- that the cost of porting is far less than the cost of developing the original, as assets and basic code can be reused. If the cost of porting is 10% of the cost of developing, and lets you target 50% more audience, then you've got about 36% more chance of making a profit (or equivalently, an opportunity to make 36% more profit), even assuming that the additional 50% acts just like the initial market.

Anyway, I'll note again that I don't actually think Metro: Last Light is going to be a worthy investment, even on 360 and PS3. My comments are about the thought process that leads THQ to go "this game is worth our investment on 360 and PS3... but lets not bother with Wii U". And please don't try to tell me that they hold no sway over 4A Games, as their own wordings imply otherwise.

I'd rather be correct than concise, and a detailed argument is better than a flawed but short one.

I didn't once use "fanboy" or "anti-fanboy" as an ad hominem. Please do not use terms if you don't actually understand them. My use of those terms was not as part of an argument against anything you said. "Ad hominem" means to attack the person instead of their argument, or to argue against them by attacking the person. My comments about fanboyism served the purpose of emphasising that your argument is the same one trotted out by many other people who have exactly the same mindset as you do, and that perhaps there would be value in trying to look at things from other perspectives.

I gave a detailed explanation of why you should develop for the Wii U. You ignored it. I gave a more detailed explanation, with examples of games demonstrating why developing core games for a console can pay off in the long term, even on consoles that are seen as "inferior" or "for teh casualz". You ignored it.

Consider this. The Wii was seen as not much more powerful than the PS2. The PS2 was still being sold. By your reasoning, a console with well over 100 million units sold is the competition for a new console... why bother supporting it? Well, it turned out that that new console was a megahit, and that large sales were seen for third parties when they actually put in serious effort. Resident Evil 4 sold well over 2 million copies on the Wii, despite being a port of a two and a half year old title that had already sold on both the immediate predecessor of the Wii and on the biggest-selling console of the previous generation, which was meant to be in competition with the Wii according to people like you.

By your reasoning, who did it sell Resident Evil 4 to? I mean, any core gamer who owned a Wii had to own a PS2 or a Gamecube already, right? So what was the value in releasing the game for the Wii? And yet, Resident Evil 4 laid the groundwork that allowed Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles to sell exceptionally well. And that game then also allowed games like House of the Dead to flourish. It laid the groundwork for Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. One could even argue that it laid the groundwork for MadWorld, a title that just about every anti-fanboy that hated Nintendo said wouldn't sell on the Wii, yet managed a rather noteworthy 700,000 copies.

Until you can reasonably explain why situations like that are different from the Wii U, your argument remains nothing but a fanboy argument.

The Wii U isn't even close to a tenth of the addressable audience of even the PS3 and the devs already said due to how the game uses the CPU the Wii U version would show the game in an unfavorable light.

Metro 2033 sold twice as much on PC as 360, adding the PS3 may add upto (most likely less) an extra 25% more addressable market (gamers interested in this type of game that own a PS3 and not a PC or X360) the 360 version will be the best selling console version by far so 15% is probably more acurate. But the Wii U currently has an almost nonexistant market share, so the gain in addressable market would be negligable to nonexistant. I can't see how diverting the resources from the Wii U port into making the 3 versions with the largest market share better, is a bad business decision for a company that might not exist to see any potential rewards from establishing a market on an unproven platform.

what gives you the idea that the next gen xbox and playstation will have a power gap large enough to make the wii u irrelevent? 

we have not had any confirmation of next gen xbox or playstation hardware at all. if you are looking at ports and launch titles of the wii u to determine its full capability then you should take a look at the launch games on 360 and ps3.

i do agree that there is not much use to putting a lot of resources into porting current gen games to wii u. on the other hand i believe some resources should be put into new titles, be they spinoff, new ip, or sequel, onto the wii u to establish a fanbase.

hardware power wont be as noticable next gen as we are reaching the end of whats feasible to develop do to budget or developer talent.

The dev has since said that that wasn't true, that Metro wasn't ever actually tested on the Wii U, so they couldn't tell you whether the CPU could handle it.

The Wii U has practically nonexistant market share *now*. It launched three weeks ago, of course it doesn't. Guess what - every platform has been in exactly the same position. Did developers refuse to develop for the 360 because it had only sold a couple of million, after a few months? No, they put their games on the system. And taking risks is also known as doing business. THQ are in a hole that is deep enough that continuing to do what they've always done, and playing things safe, is pretty much a guaranteed death sentence.

I guessed you missed the part where I stated that the 360 version of COD3 still outsold the Wii one. Im not saying MW not being on it didnt hurt, but im sure that the result would have been the same anyway. the only difference is the WIi version would have sold more but still would have been far behind the PS360/PC versions

I am glad if I wait long enough you write what I wanted to write haha. Saves me the effort. In particular the bold underlined part. Developers in general need to realise that part of selling hardware is their software. Without the software the hardware doesnt sell and support for sequels doesn't grow as their is no audience for it. They too are responsible for growing the gaming audience. 

On  a sidenote about the 3DS, what I find funny is that some audiences say Nintendo needs to sell their hardware in order to entice western 3rd parties to spport 3DS better, however Vita doesn't sell because it hasn't got enough good 3rd party games to justify a purchase.  Shouldn't it be up to Sony to sell the Vita liek it is upto Nintendo to sell the 3DS?