Except that this is a Nintendo game, so a price drop isn't going to be much of a factor.  In general, Nintendo games do not frop in price for several years, if they ever do.  Even if a retailer takes a standard cut, the numbers still wouldn't work out. 

As for being 1.5x Bayonetta's budget, that's kind of irrelevant unless we can say what Bayonetta's budget is or how profitable it was.  The only thing we can say is that Bayonetta was popular enough for Sega to begin work on a sequel, but not profitable enough to follow through on it.  Other than that, we don't know much of anything.  What we do know is that the profit margin is completely different for Wonferful 101 based on the lack of a platform holder's fee.  7 dollars a console is a big deal.  So, Wonderful 101 would have to be 1.25x as successful as Bayonetta 2 to earn equal profits.

For more corollaries to other games, Capcom expected 2 million in sales from DMC.  We'd have to assume that Capcom's goal for DMC was well above the break even point of the game.  Resident Evil 6 had a target of 7 million.  This was a game with 600 people involved and a huge marketing budget.  If the goal was 100, what was the break even point?  Even if we assume that the break even point was 6 million, then Wonderful 101 cost a third of what RE6 did.  Gears of War 2 cost 12 million dollars for development of the game alone without marketing.  If we assume the 67 million figure from above, and assume Nintendo spent 27 million on marketing (lol) than the game cost more than 3x what Gears of War 2 made.  Gears of War 2 was made on an impressively modest budget, but it's still hard to imagine Wonderful 101 costing that much more.

Going back to the first point, even if Nintendo sold half of the copies at full price, and half at a half price, that still means about $40 million in margin or about 40% of what GTA IV cost to make and market, and about half of what Skyrim cost, and over 3x what Gears of War 2 cost (before marketing).  So, riddle me this.  Why is there any logical reason to think that a straightforward action game with linear progression, modest graphics, no extensive voice acting, no large open world, and very little marketing would cost such an large amount of money? 

They do price-cut if Nintendo overstocks. Other M and Spirit Tracks hit the bargain bin quickly as far as Nintendo games go, although i think it's clear that the bean-counter side of Nintendo has very little to no faith in Wonderful 101 given the amount of stock ordered by retailers and sent by Nintendo.

HAHA

According to the head of Onlive, a publisher takes inabout $27 of margin on a $60 game. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html) This is after factoring in unsold inventory, shipping, and platform fees.  In the case of first party software, platform fees are non-existant, so Nintendo is taking in 34 bucks per copy of Wonderful 101.

So, 34 bucks per copy of the game, and Nintendo needs to sell 2 million copies to break even.  So, the game costs 68 million dollars to make.  To see if this figure is realistic, lets compare it to other games.

The budget for GTA V is the biggest budget ever with 265 million dollars invested in marketing, development and so on.  So, 68 million is just about 1/4 of that.  Do you think Wonderful 101's budget is 1/4 of GTA V?  GTA IV was 100 million.  Do you think Wonderful 101 was more than half of that? (http://www.ibtimes.com/gta-5-costs-265-million-develop-market-making-it-most-expensive-video-game-ever-produced-report)

Skyrim's budget was estimated at 85 million dollars.  So, Wonderful 101's budget is more than 3/5 of Skyrim?  (http://www.statisticbrain.com/skyrim-the-elder-scrolls-v-statistics/)

Unforutnately, there's little date out there to find how much middle of the road games cost, and most budgets are estimates, so it's hard to give an exact number.  All the same, it's hard to see how a game made by a smallish team cost nearly 68 million.  There is no extensive voice acting, no cutting edge graphics, no huge marketing blitz, no hours of cutscenes, no huge open world, and nothing that would suggest an astronomical budget.  A little common sense would tell us that there is absolutely no reason that the fiscally conservative Nintendo would dump 68 million dollars into a game that doesn't seem to need it.