No business sabotages their own products. These companies have shareholders and they aren't fanboys of any system. They exist soley to make profit. They have no faith in the U because of how multiplats performed on the Cube, Wii and WiiU. Thats why most dont even bother with Nintendo and focus soley on PC, Playstation and XBox. Its not rocket science.

There weren't that many multiplatform titles for the Wii, and those that were did well - CoD, Guitar Hero, Rock Band.

For companies existing solely to make a profit they're certainly running their businesses very strangely. Most Wii U titles from third parties have been late ports, more expensive, gimped in some way including having whole sections of multiplayer missing, no DLC and have had bugger all marketing.

As I've mentioned on the last page the publishers putting effort into their Wii U games have been rewarded with profits.

I don't know why they're doing it but plenty of publishers appear to be releasing their games to die. It's very odd tbh.

First of all, rocket science isn't nearly as hard as you think.

Second of all, most of the third party titles released on the Cube, Wii, and Wii U all suffer from this same issue. In the instances where third parties actually put in the effort comparable to the effort put into the other platforms, they get comparable (if not superior) results. For instance, Call of Duty 3. For instance, Rayman Legends. For instance, Goldeneye 007. Resident Evil 4, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Okami, Sonic Unleashed, Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing, the LEGO games, the Guitar Hero games, Epic Mickey 2, Monster Hunter Tri, the Tiger Woods games, No More Heroes, SoulCalibur II... you get the idea, I think.

When publishers have put the appropriate effort behind the Nintendo versions of titles, they have gotten results. Heck, even when they put out what they call "test games", they do well - Umbrella Chronicles is the best example of it - as long as they actually market the game.

And no business really means to sabotage their own products... but many businesses sabotage their own products through ignorance, arrogance, or error. And there are exceptional cases - unless you can offer an explanation for EA releasing Mass Effect Trilogy for PS3 and 360 JUST BEFORE they released Mass Effect 3 for Wii U, at practically the same price.

So I'm sorry, but your apologist attitude is just plain misguided.

The gulf in power between the Wii and the 7th gen consoles was too big for most to bother with multiplatforms. If Call of Duty, a huge franchise always hovered around a million units sold on Wii while its HD siblings scored about 5m+ each why would devs of moderately successful games like Street Fighter IV, RedDead Redemption, Sleeping Dogs, LA Noire, Dirt 2, Bioshock or Vanquish even bother? A brand new engine and team would be needed specifically fo the Wii.  A single team and engine would cater just fine for PC, 360 and PS3 ports with minimal changes to assets or code. Case in point is Capcoms MT Framework which did great accross all 3, and not a single one of its games came to the Wii for obvious reasons. It will probably be the same with Capcoms Panther Rei this gen. It didnt make any financial sense then and doesnt make any financial sense now, just look at Ubisofts revenue for Q3/4 2013.

As for marketting, most games clearly have the Wii or Wii U logo on their banners, promo videos and advertiesment. Anything that shows a specific company or logo is paid for by that company alone. Things like Kinect integration, Move/PS Eye integration, 6 axis, timed exclusivity or exclusive DLC are pushed by Sony or MS themselves. If Nintendo isnt interested in such partnerships or thinks mentioning it in a Direct is enough then too bad, again its business not a charity. Sony and Microsoft always provide incentives for such where as Nintendo does not. Notice how AC IV showed off its offplay at Sonys PS4 announcement event? Or how CoD always features at Micrsofts E3 presentations? Thats how it works.

The late ports around the Wii Us launch where basically the only high profile games available at the time. Most included all the DLC (Most Wanted/Tekken) or where GOTY (Batman/Deus EX) or had Wii U specific modes (Tekken Ball Mode / Co Driver) for example. The only game which I know of that dropped multiplayer was Arkham Origins and despite that the game was cheaper. DLC is driven by demand, low sales from launch and beyond gives ZERO incentive to port over. Late, full priced and inferior ports on the PS3 in its infancy still sold much better than the same on the Wii U enough to warrant better support from devs, not the case here.

Thats my opinion anyway

I disagree.

1. Most of the games you mentioned as successes target a particular "demographic", Im sure you can figure out which. Thus 3rd partys ignoring the U makes even more sense as that isnt their crowd.

2. Soul calibur II still ended up selling beter on the PS2. Rayman Legends the PS3. Resident Evil 4 sold better on the PS2 than the Wii and GameCube version. Okami is higher on PS2. Youre right on Call of Duty 3 though, shame it hasnt been replicated since.

3. You ignore tons of AAA multiplatform GameCube games that did significantly worse than the PS2 or XBox despite being virtually equal in everyway (content, release date, price, features, graphics). These are the type of games most western 3rd parts make today. 

Call of Duty 2: 

• PS2:  2.67 million
• Xbox:  1.12 million
• GameCube:  0.33 million

TimeSplitters 2:

• PS2:  0.70 million
• Xbox:   0.64 million
• GameCube:   0.44 million

Tomb Raider: Legend:

• PS2:   0.52 million
• Xbox:   0.13 million
• GameCube:   0.08 million

Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon:

• PS2:  1.94 million 
• Xbox:  1.76 million
• GC:  0.15 million(Not a typo)

Burnout2: Point of Impact:

• PS2:  0.85 million
• Xbox:  0.24 million
• GC:  0.15 million

 Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Vortex:

• PS2:  5.42 million
• Xbox:  1.23 million
• GC:  0.59 million

 Need for Speed Undergound:

• PS2:  7.20 million
• Xbox:  1.71 million
• GC:  1.21 million

As I explained in another thread there is nothing wrong with the number of sales those games got on the GC.

Considering that the ps2 sold about 7x the amount of the GC the sales are about on point just do the math and it's not that hard to see.

The Xbox does not factor in because it hardly had any big exclusive games to begin with, all I can remember were halo and ninja gaiden, so you were pretty much stuck with 3rd party games, and the ps2 had a whole heap of exculsives for it (albeit mostly 3rd party).

As for the sales on wii, 3rd parties got the sales they deserved, same goes for wiiU except this time they are following the course nintendo has set.

Im sorry but this doesnt hold otherwise Brawl should have sold 35 million units on the Wii seeing as Melee sold 7 million units on the cube, it didnt just crossed 10, a whopping 3 million difference despite an extra install base of roughly 80 million! I dont think its fair to dismiss sales on the xbox because of a lack of exclusives. Didnt stop 3rd partys on the PS2 either, and no the huge userbase alone isnt the reason, see my example with brawl vs melee above. 

the question should be is is really that difficult and/or expensive to put a WiiU logo on the bottom of posters? Or in the commercials? next to the others.

What that also says to the consumer is well hang on why isn't this game on the poster but it is on shelves? bad port that the publisher doesn't want associated with other versions?

Actually, with the Wii it wasn't the power of the console that caused problems with ports it was Hollywood, the Wii's GPU. If Nintendo had opted to do without backwards compatibility and chosen a GPU with traditional programmable shaders instead of fixed functions it would have easily been able to handle scaled down ports of all major titles. Treyarch proved this with Modern Warfare, a game that Infinity Ward said was impossible to do on the Wii's weaker hardware.

You'd have jaggies all over the place, 480p native resolution and lower quality textures but it would all have been possible if Nintendo had chosen a different GPU architecture.

1. Which "demographic" would that be? I don't see much inherent overlap between Resident Evil 4, Okami, Sonic, and Guitar Hero.

2. You mean that the version that was on a console with 100 million units (by end of 2006) sold more than the version that was on a console that barely made it to 20 million? Wow, I'm shocked. The PS2 version sold 2 million, the GC version sold 1.5 million... that's not exactly a huge difference. And the Xbox version sold 1 million - are you now going to claim that third party sales on the Xbox were bad? And yes, CoD3 relative sales haven't been replicated since... not surprising, given that the game that launched the franchise into the stratosphere, Modern Warfare, wasn't actually released on the Wii. Two years later, the Wii did get "Reflex Edition"... and it lacked Ground War, voice chat, and offline multiplayer (on the Wii!), and it was released simultaneously with Modern Warfare 2 on the other systems. The thing to note, though, is that CoD:WaW, while not doing exceptionally well, still managed nearly 2 million copies sold - this, despite it lacking the big new feature of WaW, Nazi Zombie mode.

3. I don't ignore them. The third-parties, on the other hand, did. They might have had equal features, but they certainly didn't receive equal marketing. The very first game on your list was CoD2... which lacked multiplayer on GC. Following this, you list Timesplitters 2 (about 30% lower than the other versions - not a huge difference), Tomb Raider: Legends was released on GC half a year late, Ghost Recon was released on GC a year late, Burnout 2 was released half a year late on GC and Xbox (explaining the low sales on both consoles), Crash Bandicoot was released half a year late on Xbox and a year late on GC (explaining both consoles' sales). This leaves just NFS: Underground... an EA title, and EA has an unmatched history of not putting effort into marketing their Nintendo system titles.

And in all of this, you've ignored my point - I didn't claim at any point that third party games generally do better on Nintendo consoles. I said that you generally get comparable sales when the company actually pushes the title. I particularly find it funny, though, that you look at Gamecube titles (20 million install base vs 100 million install base) and ignore Wii titles (100 million install base vs 80 million install base) and then call it a "completely equal slate" - because apparently, the only relevant factor in determining the theoretical capability of a system to sell games is system power.