Activision supported in terms of volume, but not in terms of quality. The absence of Modern Warfare on Wii at first release is a good demonstration of that - the fact that Activision couldn't even be bothered telling Infinity Ward to make a single game for the Wii emphasises it further. Keep in mind that Activision owns Infinity Ward, so if Activision said "make a Wii version", IW would have had to do so.

The only part of Activision that truly cared about the Wii was Treyarch (and maybe, MAYBE, Vicarious Visions) - and I see that continuing with the Wii U, at this point. In other cases, where Activision did put games on the Wii, they almost always had a different developer handle the Wii version. That Wii versions did as well as they did is testament to how much potential the Wii actually had.

And there were a lot of other titles that Activision released for PS3 and 360, but not Wii, too. For instance, Blur, Wolfenstein, Prototype, Singularity, 007 Blood Stone (DS got a version, Wii didn't), Transformers: War for Cybertron, Family Guy: Back to the Multiverse, and Angry Birds Trilogy. And many other games, Activision did such a poor job of advertising the existence of Wii versions, I didn't even know of them, despite being an avid Wii gamer. Most notably, almost all Call of Duty titles after World at War.

Meanwhile, Activision's three announced 2013 games are all set for release on PS3 and 360, but not Wii U.

But Nintendo has not yet blazed that trail, so it cannot be done.

Why the qualifier re: VV?

Given Black Ops 2 sales, it probably couldn't be justified from a revenue perspective.

Not sure I completely agree, especially if you take the long view. First, I doubt a port would fail to break even after a few tens of thousands of units sold: if I'm wrong, then Nintendo completely dropped the ball in its strategy.* Second, there's a lot of value in getting your foot in the door early. The 360 and PS3 are going to get replaced, and soon. They're not going to host huge sellers in their first year or two either. With that in mind...

*As an aside, this would amuse me to no end.

So many people have said this in countless threads.

Rather then make a generic statement how about you say what your expectations are for a console that just launched with a user base of what about 1.5million (Japan excluded as they don't buy COD anyway)?

Factor in that it is also a late port and most would already own the game on PS3/360. So to me 160K sold to 1.5million WiiU owners is a approx 10% tie ratio.

Now tell me this when the PS4 and nextbox launches at the same time the next COD is due out, shoudl Activision not support the system as there is "not enough users" from a revenue perspective.

yeah right, have you not read Steve Job's biography?  He was fighting with people all the time and yes they make decisions off of their emotions.  It affects business, the book talks about it quite a bit

Call of Duty 2 sold almost twice as many units first week on the X360 as Black Ops 2 has in ~2 months on the WiiU. Add in the fact that DLC will likely arrive to a very lukewarm reception on the platform (for lack of significant HDD space), and its not a very rosy picture.

You can make all of the excuses you like for the WiiU, but when your top selling 3rd party game has sold 350,000 units in 2 months, with those following at 160k among three titles, you aren't making a very good case for publishers to latch on to your platform with core titles. Especially when the console is (allegedly) not meeting sales expectations.

making a port cannot be that expensive, I'm actually curious if anyone knows the ball park figure here.  Publishers also need to think about branding their ip's even if it doesn't do breakthrough numbers on a particular console.

crysis 2 on the xbox 360 1.19mill
'' ''ps3 1.10mill
crysis 3 will probably do something like 1.5mill on each if it's lucky, so imagine what the number might be on wii U, they might not even break the 250k if they release it