That all seems reasonable and all - until you take a look who supports the console: Ubisoft, Activision, Capcom, Warner, Namco, Atlus, Sega. Are these companies all unable too calculate or is the stuff said here so different for them then for Bethesda and Gearbox?

That's okay. Nintendo consoles don't need developers with such a "holier-than-thou" attitude...especially considering that the level of polish that Nintendo manages with their own games/franchises is something Bethesda could only dream of achieving. You can keep your buggy, grey/brown, bland, "westernized RPG," DLC-infested Skyrim et. al. I'll take Zelda and the epic JRPG's from Monolith Soft. Thanks.

Microsoft has only one console on sales, the XBOX 360. The online system is working only with this one console. That is pretty much comparable to the WiiU. So why is Microsoft superior in this regard? And how would Bethesda and Gearbox profit, if you had an unified account on 3DS and WiiU? Companies that actually do create games for both systems are not complaining. Bethesda and gearbox would probably never create a game for a moile, so what do they care for centralitzed accounts.

Awful shop setup is very subjective, what would you improve?

Well, which game on WiiU since the start wasn't digital available day one? How many of them? Three, two, even one game? Not one game comes to my mind, but I might overlook something.

On 3DS games were not available digital from the beginning of the handheld. But these days pretty mmuch every title was available day one on the eshop. Can  you name games, that were released in 2013 and were not available day one digital?

You pretty much sound like these people who declare, that the Vita has no games.

So essentially the Nintendo demographic doesn't suit the games that Gearbox and Bethesda publish/develop.
I mean if the demographic isn't there than perhaps the profitability isn't there either and that's why both companies are in business they aren't simply trying to break even.

That doesn't invalidate what I said.  I said that most developers have finite resources--that obviously is less of a consideration to Activision or Ubisoft than it is to Bethesda or Gearbox.

You've listed Japanese publishers/developers, as well, which often have a different audience than a Bethesda or a Gearbox, which was one of the points they spoke about.  I mean, a Hunter game is sure to do better on a Nintendo console than an FPS, right?  In addition to that, I think part of the problem is that Nintendo's communication structure pretty much ignores everyone who isn't either Japanese or a massive publisher.

Even beyond that, people are going to see investment opportunities differently.  If not, everyone would be buying the exact same stocks.  We can't even say which path is smart and which isn't.  Have Ubisoft's Wii U projects been worth the investments?  Activision's probably will be but not everyone has a CoD.  Would it have been worth the resources for some of these other games to build a Wii U version?  None of us really knows, though I bet the margins will be close either way--and that's what it really comes down to, how much of a margin they can expect.

You're right about COD, I agree. You're wrong about Resident Evil. Resident Evil 4 sold 2.15M on 100M Wii against 3.62M on 150M PS2. That is comparable. And the two Chronicles were spinoffs of the main series. To be more, they were rail-shooters with way smaller budget than RE5 or RE6. For that they sold impressive.

That's certainly true.  Of course, when those kids are old enough, they can tell dear ol' dad that he can take his unwillingness to think of anyone else and shove off.  There are other places they can live, and quite comfortably.

This really even shouldn't be an issue.  Some of these companies feel that they don't need to be on Nintendo, while Nintendo doesn't feel they need to make any effort to get them on their devices.  Seems fair.  

Point, you're right with what you said in this post, not in the post before. It's not the hardware and not the online. It's simply that they never cared and will not care in the future about Nintendo-systems - and that the probability that they will lose much money because they ignore the WiiU is small. If they would expect that profit on the system would be big, they wouldn't miss it. But hardware is good enough that Ubisoft claimed porting the multiplats was incredibly easy. And look, WiiU get's all the Ubisoft multiplats. So the hardware is a reason they pulled out of their behind, because they didn't wanted to be honest with us: they simply don't care. Not that anything is wrong with it, they aren't obliged to support any system in existence.

Anyways, the reason is the same as the reason Rockstar isn't supoprting the WiiU. And only in the case of Rockstar I feel like I miss something (I will decide later which console I get to get GTA for). But Rockstar has the decency to avoid talking some bullshit-reasons. They simply are quiet on the thing.

it would be comparable had the WIi version not been a budget priced game and the PS2 one full price. Funny how people always forget RE4 Wii was sold cheaply out the gate

It was also a gen late. But maybe. Do you think the three RE-games on Wii sold bad, seeing that they were rail-shooter-spinoffs or very, very late ports? Maybe, but that is again personal opinion on this one and the conclusion may differ from person to person.