lol bayo 2 was on hold cuz SEGA wasn't funding it anymore. Nintendo is backing the project now. They arleady said that without Nintendo the game wouldn't exist. Ninty basically brought the project back to life with funding. It's not like they would have gone just with wiiu if they had the funding to do the project on their own anyways..it would have been a multiplat

Not sure what you mean by "THERE dev studio", but Activision owns Infinity Ward. More importantly, Activision doesn't have a problem with bringing in secondary studios to work on other versions of games - they could easily have gotten Eurocom, Treyarch, or one of a variety of other studios to work on the Wii version of Modern Warfare. They didn't do it. The lack of motivation wasn't just on Infinity Ward's part, but also Activision's part. When IW said "We want to make this new CoD, called Modern Warfare, for the PS3 and 360", Activision didn't go "Would you be able to make a Wii version, too?", they went "Sounds good, do it".

Yet Treyarch were more than happy to make a Wii version of World at War. Why? What was different? Do you really think that Activision would intentionally allow IW to not make a Wii version of MW, and then tell Treyarch that they HAD to make a Wii version of WaW? It just doesn't fit.

they find every possible way to make an excuse to not make games for Nintendo... now its about the business drive? whatever the fuck that is.

The topic of this thread isn't "Crysis 3 not coming to Wii U due to it already coming to PS3 and 360". The issue at hand is whether companies consider the Wii U to be something worthy of "business drive". Also, Platinum Games have another Wii U game on the way, as well. Clearly they consider the Wii U to be worthy of development.

sure but Bayo is not an example that can be used for it when Ninty is basically 'funding' it. It's not a business choice it's the ONLY choice for that game. W101 can definitely be used as a valid example for your argument, I'm not disputing that.

Nintendo's funding The Wonderful 101 as well.

More importantly, like I said, it's about Platinum Games, not Nintendo. It's a business choice by Platinum Games to actually make it for the Wii U. Nintendo is the way that they're able to afford it, but if Platinum Games didn't consider it a worthwhile place to put the game, they wouldn't have put it on the Wii U at all. They could easily have said "no thanks, we'll wait until we've got a little more cachet with a publisher, and then push for it on the systems we want it on". It's not like they're struggling for projects, with W101 and MGR:Revengeance both set for release in 2013.

ugh I actually didn't know that, then no you can't use W101 as an example either.

That's like saying if Nintendo spent some money EA and others would port their games or make em...well duh. 

and who in their right minds would say no when someone offers to fund a project that's in trouble? That makes absolutely no sense.  Not sure what your point is here to be frank. The fact is no one was funding or offering to help the project until ninty came along. If any of the other publisher may it be sony/ms/ea or whoever wanted to fund it they would have done so too, especially given there was a fanbase for the game already built on the ps360..no one did. Most probably cuz the game didn't sell well enough for them or something

LOL they did get Treyarch to do MW for Wii thats my whole point and surprise they were a secondary studio.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. You have absolutely no proof that Treyarch was happy to make a Wii version of anything from the interviews ive seen from Treyarch they are indifferent at best. I didnt say that Acti didnt allow them to do it, Im saying IW didnt WANT to do it for whatever reason and they gave it to someone else. IE Treyarch

Treyarch is NOT a secondary studio. They don't make secondary versions of games. They make their own games.

A secondary studio is, for instance, n-Space, who made the DS version of Modern Warfare, or nStigate Games, who made the PSVita version of Black Ops 2. They are secondary studios because they're tasked with making the games for "lesser" platforms than the main ones. And by the way, n-Space's work on the DS versions of Modern Warfare 1 and 2 demonstrate that Activision had no problem with having a secondary studio make a version of IW's game... they just didn't feel like organising a Wii version.

As for Treyarch...

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/joystiq-interviews-mark-lamia-of-treyarch-and-call-of-duty-the-f/

Treyarch had dedicated Wii teams by the time of WaW. And by 2010, they were promising to blow people away with the quality of Black Ops:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/248983/cod-black-ops-wii-version-will-blow-you-away/

Also in 2010, Treyarch's head made the explicit statement that the studio was "committed" to the Wii:

http://www.vg247.com/2010/05/31/treyarch-remain-commited-to-wii/

And even in 2012, with no further Wii games coming from Treyarch, it still got positive mentions:

http://mp1st.com/2012/07/18/black-ops-ii-treyarch-dev-responds-to-xbox-360-favoritism-claims-from-ps3-camp/

There's plenty of evidence that Treyarch consider the Wii to be a worthy system, and that they care about it (again, I don't mean "care" in the emotional attachment sense).

I said it months ago, and I'll say it again: if you bought a Wii U for anything other than Nintendo 1st party games and a few, rare third party gems, I'm deeply sorry. But hey, it's not worth your time arguing about the actions third parties make. They'll do what they'll do.