Well, I can't say I'm the part of the Wii U audience that will prove him wrong.

I find that particular series very uninteresting.

Only if you suck at it really bad :)

I'm not saying you have to like Dark Souls, everyone is entitled to have its own tastes.

Still I think you're conisdering DS too much like the generic jrpg and you didn't really get how the game is meant to be played.

DS is not about redoing tha same shit again and again until you do it right (of course if you play it this way it will get tedious), the game is about getting prepared and finding the best strategy according to your character and your skills as a player to beat dungeons and bosses. Diyng is almost never useless in DS because almost every time you can learn something, losing exps is not even that relevant during the 1st run (for example, I've managed to get to final boss on level 1). Some deaths may be chap but it's like 1 out of 10 times.

If, on the contrary, you didn't lose exps when you die you wouldn't be compelled to find different strategies and approaches, the game would just be about redoing the same stuff again and again until you build up your character enough to beat the game with ease.

So what you're saying is the game is too hardcore for the casual Nintendo platforms?

I should clarify - when I say "major selling point", I don't so much mean "it's why it sells", but "it's why people are choosing one version over another", as in "why would you buy the version that the developers openly said isn't supported for future content?" Gamers don't generally take dismissive attitudes well, and Wii U gamers are no exception. Especially when they were able to support in terms of future content with the previous game; so they can't claim lack of infrastructure, only lack of willingness.

And I never said that sales are a barometer for quality. What they are, though, is a way to get some insight into quality. Quality is just one of the factors in sales - another, for instance, is awareness (marketing being a major driver in this instance). And then there's appeal - I'm guessing that Zumba is something that more people know than "Jillian Michaels"; It is noteworthy that Jillian Michaels sold far better in America than Europe, whereas the numbers were much closer for Zumba. What I've said is that Metacritic doesn't indicate quality, and never has. That Super Mario 3D World is highest on Metacritic reflects the fact that some reviewers liked the game, not that the game is necessarily higher quality (although I do believe it is).

Nobody was "bragging" that "Blops2" was better on Wii U. Indeed, Blops2 didn't even get DLC. Some were saying it was the best version in their opinions. Indeed, Jim Sterling, who described it as the best console version, had this to say: "The game mostly looks on par with the Xbox 360 version, albeit with the removal of dynamic shadows and a slight roughness to the edges of distant NPCs."

Simply put, there was nothing in Blops2 to justify people moving over to it over the other versions. Thus, fans didn't buy a Wii U for the game.

When you put out a product on even slightly superior hardware (and the Wii U hardware is superior to the 360 and PS3, that part is without any reasonable doubt from any person capable of reasonable thought) that is even slightly worse in performance (and Jim Sterling's description fits that), and don't actually leverage the unique features of the hardware, and then fail to support the game with future content that all the other versions get, that's an inferior port. Note that I don't blame Treyarch for this - I have no doubt whatsoever that the issues were due to Activision's higher-ups refusing to allow them to spend the necessary time and energy on it.

The issue, by the way, with lack of DLC support isn't that people don't get to buy DLC - it's that the developers, or the publishers, are treating the owners of the Wii U like nuisances rather than customers; when you fail to treat your customers with respect, you can't be surprised when they choose not to be customers. And it's an inferior product as a result of lack of DLC because it means that you miss out on things that the other versions get, even if they have to pay to get it.

I only countered your claim, that it would've been impossible. Possible yes. Visually downgraded: sure. Gameplay intact: possible. Makes sense in the market: probably not, and that's why it didn't happened.

"you said yourself "why would I limit myself to inferior stuff?"
With inferior stuff I talk about gameplay and "bang for your buck" not visuals.  I dont care about having medium or ultra settings. in terms of visuals  the most important thing next to art style  is framerate and then to some extend resolution because frames directly affect the gameplay and the resolution gives better overall vision (even stuff like Ratchet&Clank Tools of Destruction's 960x704 is good enough) Its not important if the ball is a cube or well a ball as long as people can understand what is being shown because as soon as you stop playing the actual image your eyes saw gets replaced with a flawed memory. ( playing with cube soccer balls even has a posiive effect it trains your imagination xD)

Hell I still prefer
International Super Star Soccer 64    over even Fifa14
VS
(the visuals are sufficient. Shadows are a emulator bug)

" PS3 and 360 versions of multiplats would be inferior but theres still a problem. For some reason they perform on par with the 360 and PS3 which are still by standards last gen tech. "

What do you mean by PS360 versions sell on par with PS360 versions?

"You have to admit that 1M+ Plus sales for COD on a 100 million selling platform is pathetic though. ;p"

Well it seems pathetic but not when you think about why it just sells 1m units. 

• Wii versions dont get mentioned in commercials. (COD is a mainstream game. Mainstream =  commercial victims)
• Wii customers are verbally attacked (sounds harsh but I mean stuff like  "they dont buy it anyways") and the games dont come so they simply get used to living without the other stuff.
• Then ports that could be better get low priority treatment. Well my money is worth the same as other peoples money you dont offer a good product I dont buy it. The COD is FullHD lie just to find out it is sub 720p did not help. (I skipped it because of that. The resolution is good enough but they lied and as a matter of principle I did not support that. Like I dont suppoert EA at all)
• Then devs dont understand that 100m Wii owners are not Wii-only owners. Alot of them dont even buy NIntendo games they just bought Wii Sports. Alot of them play on PC like I do. Alot of them also bought a 360 or PS3(or prior to that a PS2 because the games dont show up on Nintendo platforms. I did but only for exclusives)
  And especially in the case of COD. The userbase moved on to other systems because there was no COD Modern Warfare on Wii. Prior to that it sold extremely good.
  

  1	Call of Duty 3	X360	2006	Shooter	Activision	1.46	0.89	0.02	0.27	2.63
  2	Call of Duty 3	Wii	N/A	Shooter	Activision	1.15	0.83	0.00	0.22	2.20
  3	Call of Duty 3	PS3	2006	Shooter	Activision	0.56	0.59	0.03	0.24	1.42

  notice how the PS3 version sold just 1.42 even tho the PS1 and PS2 were the allegedly "hardcore" consoles?

The franchise fucked up because the next installement was not available. Every COD fan that waited moved on to another system and then word of mouth and commercials did the rest it became a sensation and there you have it. Only Activision is at fault here.

I see 2 possible reasons
A)
Devs/publishers have a problem they became lazy and used to games selling on their own without working for it. They forgot that you actually had to establish a franchise on a system. They especially forgot that the NIntendo fanbase is the most sceptical one because of all the past bullshit that happened. You cant just go and make a COD game or Dark Souls and expect it to sell on its own. And everytime there is a chance for a fanbase to grow the small new fanbase gets crushed by the next installment not showing up or by crippled ports and missing modes etc.

or

B) Devs actually want their games to come to WiiU but that cant happen because of stupid greedy shareholder assholes.
Most companies that get listed in whatever stock exchange are doomed. They drop their philosophy because shareholders constantly go "ME WANTZ SHORT TERM PROFIT $$$$$" For them SHORT TERM PROFIT is more important than LONG TERM PROFIT.
Just look at Nintendo how the stupid shareholders constantly want stupid things. Nintendo understands it  Microsoft understands it "INVEST TIME AND MONEY and make the XBOX brand huge." It worked out damn well.

I mean GTA 5 on WiiUwould be a no brainer. Rockstar has $$$$$$$$$$$ and porting is not that expensive. Adding cool stuff like  control your car radio and GPS (every ingame car manufacturer has its own dashboard/radio/GPS design etc on the gamepad.) Or every smartphone having its own operating system on the Wiiu gamepad would be cool.
And noone can tell me that GTA5 would not make profit on WiiU.  Even if its just $1 it would be 1 f***** dollar and the brand would have established itself (which is worth more than than money alone) so the successor can sell even better. But that would actually be work and focusing on long term profit  thats not how shareholders want it.
 

As a WiiU-owner, I certainly do care for cheap deaths (ZombiU) and tedious repitition (Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate).

With that mentality, XB1 and PS4 shouldn't get it as well because they have HALF the amount of consoles on the market.

We're perfectly allowed to have vocal disagreements with users over what we personally perceive as bad opinions. He just took issue with a specific part of your post (a different one than the one I felt was particularly well-conceived).