Women and young girls who do not keep up with the gaming scene.  As much as I enjoy the attention high-information gamers are getting from Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft they are ignoring a huge market.  I submit that the PSX, PS2, Wii and DS audiences were composed of many female gamers with limited interest in this hobby that boosted the totals for each platform. I also believe that it is very likely that without this group of low-information gamers the industry will contract to levels from the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis era.

The claim could be made that they have moved on to Apple and Samsung products which is true.  But they can be lured back to consoles like the Wii U if they aim some of their products at this group with an effective marketing campaign.  Just as in sports you need a balanced attack to win, so too in this case a balanced group of gamers should be sought-after. Console makers and Third Parties that ignore this group will never achieve the sales they've enjoyed in the past. 

Ubisoft's strategy in a nutshell.

"The console itself has no real identity. Its not aimed at any particular market, with Nintendo as a company seemingly not knowing what market theyre wanting. "

This is what people don't seem to get. Nintendo does have a market[s] that they want to target. (Hint: It's all of them.) And that's what is wrong with the Wii U. Nintendo is trying to please all the crowds, which is something they just can't do. They need to be Nintendo, they need to make their games, and they need to make great HW.
Something they haven't done for the Wii U.

The more I think about the Rayman delay, the more I begin to think that it was a good idea. It would essentially be released at the time Nintendo is "relaunching" the system, and could be one of the first games that new Wii U owners would pick up throughout the fall and in the holiday season.

I'm going to be honest. For the big guys? Not a whole lot of incentive. But for smaller devs the Wii U provides a platform that's likely much cheaper and easier to develop for. And I know a lot of people write off the gamepad, but it really is a neat way to interact with a game. It's not too much of a game-changer for big shooters and stuff, but as far as more creative and non-traditional games go there's a lot of design space to explore. Once the install base grows it will be a great platform for smaller, more unique games.

But it's true that as far as AAA multiplats there's really no reason to support it. Especially once the price goes down, we'll probably have the same situation we did this generation; lots of people have the Microsoft/Sony system for the big games and the cheaper Nintendo system for the Nintendo games. I've got a Wii and an Xbox 360, and all my needs are met. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Great post, hard to disagree with anything there, though is there a real "average" cost of ports? We would also have to include the extra dev-time and resources needed to add Wii U Gamepad functionality. 

There is no real big risk, but there is no guarantee of profits at the minute. I like the idea of "having presence" on the platform ready for the future.

Its actually the future where Im seeing the problem. Developers will (I assume) now be making games with new game engines optimised for PS4/Nextbox, like with what we saw with Wii > PS360. The Wii was left out 'cause of the sheer tech differences. Obviously, Wii still got the Call of Duty's and FIFA's but with them came the Wii missing out on the mainline Resident Evils. The Battlefields. Assassin's Creeds. Batman Arkhams. Now, were seeing the Wii U not getting games that it really should be getting, that the console can handle (Even though the majority of these are EA games).

The Wii continued to get support because the userbase was so large. The Wii U is currently the exact opposite of what Wii was after 6 Months.

I guess the Wii U could always get the spinoffs if things go sour, but really... Whats the incentive for them? We now have handhelds (Well, one at least) that are capable of putting high quality titles out to Millions of gamers. The 3DS is now a viable platform for the spinoff titles, like what we saw with RE: Revelations. Granted, this is being ported to Wii U, but ports of handheld games are hardly going to do anything serious.

Obviously they want everyone, but theyre not doing a very good job at getting anyone. They have alienated the market that made Wii so popular and theyre doing very little to entice the everyday gamer.

People are ignoring the redundancy factor. The Wii U cannot compete with the PS3/360 for PS3/360 ports. It's not simply the idea that the Wii U will have drastically lower sales of those ports, it's the idea that you would have sold that game to that Wii U owner anyway, considering the high odds that they already own a PS3/360. In those cases, the developer is basically paying extra overhead without reason. How many Wii U owner who are interested in the next Battlefield, for instance, won't have another console to play it on? That's a very real consideration for publishers.

Really, in the present situation, outside of platformers, which might appeal to the Nintendo-only crowd, there isn't much money to be made with the Wii U. For the short-term, it probably isn't worth investing in with most genres.

Only in the long-term would it have a shot at paying off, if you think that the Wii U will ever have enough unique gamers who only own the Wii U. Even then, with PS3/360 ports, it really won't be worth the cost. It's only when we reach next-gen-only software that the Wii U's installed base might have some significance.

So the two philosophies regarding the Wii are probably 1) sit back and watch it sink or swim, then jump aboard if things begin to look favorable, or 2) attempt to help develop the Wii U's installed base with the hope that you can break even or make a small profit now and make a much more substantial profit in the future. Honestly, they're probably both valid.