How can you blame Microsoft and Sony or even Nintendo for the reception of a third party game that got terrible reception? I am just saying that your standards are low for survival on a Nintendo platform for third parties. There chances are higher elsewhere. 100 M in sales and you're using games that sold 1 and 2 million to vouche for the profitability of being on a Nintendo console? 

I'm not blaming anybody, I'm saying that IF you blame Nntendo, then MS and Sony must share that blame. You'rer right, both 007 Legends and Epic Mickey 2 flopped because they were terrible.

1-2 million sales is enough for developers to be profitable.

1 or 2 million in sales depends on the level of developmental resources and money put into the projects. Everyone knows the Wii was just above sixth generation, just like the Wii U is just about seventh generation tech. It was supposed to be low risk, high reward situation, but things went wrong. Those are very low expectations regardless. If these studios closed down someting went wrong.  

The "something that went wrong" had nothing to do with the Wii though. They made bombs that flopped on all systems.

No denying that, 007 Legends was on the Wii U though, not the Wii. I just looked it up. It's highly understandable why that game flopped besides sucking. No one wanted it on any platform. Yep, I can see why Epic mickey went under now, it was put on current gen platforms and the Wii U without adequate marketing even though it got underpar reviews. The profit level was raised on both games. They could've profited on if the games were on 6th generation tech, but not 7th. 007 Legends wouldn't even have profited on 6th generation tech.

1. I'm not a "bro".

2. Again, once again, I am well versed in Nintendo's history, and don't need to be told to "look it up".

3. Third parties may well have had to "bend to Nintendo's will" during the NES era, but the fact of the matter is, the NES also MADE companies like Capcom, Squaresoft, Enix, Konami, Hudson Soft, etc. as notable names in this industry. The NES was selling far above and beyond anything else on the market, mainly due to Nintendo's own groundbreaking games of the time, Mario, Zelda, and Metroid, etc. And the third party devs got to enjoy the fruit of that success, by having a wide audience that made famous such franchises as Mega Man, Castlevania, Adventure Island, Bomberman, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest/Warrior, etc. It works both ways. This largely continued in the SNES era. Third party devs didn't "leave Nintendo" until the cheaper-to-produce CD medium came into play. It wasn't the HD twins at all, in fact Nintendo had great success that generation.

4. Not every company is obligated to use the GamePad screen for anything more than off-tv play (which surely can't take THAT much time or money to throw in), or maybe a map screen (same deal). Not everyone HAS to make innovative use of it. Just the same as not everyone that developed games on Wii/DS/3DS HAD to make use of their special features. They're there to use, it's not an obligation. Some of the best Wii and DS games made no real use at all of the Wiimote or touch screen.

5. Everything you're trying to say (despite the condescending tone) is all well and good, except for the fact that you're ignoring what my comment you're replying to actually said. Gearbox by themselves are a fucking joke. Just look what they did (or paid someone else to do) with Aliens, a game I personally was highly anticipating until it turned out to be utter shit. And by the way, Gearbox played up the Wii U version the entire time during it's development cycle, saying it would be the best version, and they never once mentioned how horrible it was they had to spend extra resources doing the GamePad stuff, in fact, all they could talk about was how cool they thought the GamePad was, and how cool using it as a motion tracker, etc. was going to be awesome for Aliens. They WERE developing a Wii U title, which already puts the lie to their BS about "why we don't make Wii U games", but it got cancelled after the other versions of the game were such utter trash that it wasn't worth putting it out.

Gearbox have never been a very good developer, and that fiasco just pointed out the mess they really are. As for Bethesda, they have cred with PC gamers for being a long-time PC developer, but they have continually proven themselves incapable of making good console ports of their games. They also almost ruined the Fallout franchise with Fallout 3, it was the original-ish developers coming in and making the far superior New Vegas that saved it. Bethesda are far better than Gearbox, but they still don't exactly have clout as "great" developers, because their games always have so many goddamn bugs and issues that constantly need to be patched. All in all, you claimed they were "respected developers", but when it comes to home consoles, no, they're not. Which is why I said it was laughable to say that. They are the last two developers I would ever trust on any opinion of home console hardware.

And beyond that, I have heard far more developers, especially indie devs who aren't completely full of PR bullshit, claim that Wii U's hardware was just fine to work with. Of course it'll be weaker, but the devide between Wii and PS3 was FAR bigger than the divide between Wii U and PS4 will be. This gen is all about scalability, as the Xbox One is also weaker hardware than the PS4, so a developer making an engine and scaling it to each console, won't be ALL that much different than making a PC game with scalable graphics settings. It's not like the Wii where a developer would have to make an entirely separate SD version of the game. The Wii U's GPGPU is actually fairly modern and strong. It may be weaker than the PS4 or One's, but again, we're talking about a similar difference in PC graphics cards here. It's not going to be the issue you say it will. It's simply a matter of the console itself selling better and getting a wider audience, to bring that third party support back. Which is going to happen. That's not "blind fanboy logic", it's just common sense.

They dont really get it. nintendo is not interested in multi-platform games. They want exclusives. Thats why they give you a unique setting to work on. Its part of the strategy.

i dont know where you live but in New York at least Epic Mickey 2 got more than adequate advertisment. Ive seen commercials, and their were billboards. The game flopped cause it sucked. Matter of fact ill go one further, and say that the orginal Epic Mickey wasnt all that either, it got hyped by fans of the system cause it was exclusive and got more ads, people bought it in droves, wasnt what they wanted. Sequel time came around and they said "naw im good"

even if we say thats true. Thats a hell of a gamble, it worked on WIi...kinda to a certain point. But lets be real, WIi U is no WIi can they really expect 3rd parties to spend even more money on a system that isnt doing to hot install base wise to put out a Wii U exclusive? Nope and no one in the right mind could blame them. Hell there barely putting out multiplats. 

ITs their job to make it work by selling the system. They have blockbusters and a price cut for this christmas. The system should soar on sales.