I am certain the reason why they didnt support them was because EA was the publisher. Unfair, but understandable. EA has stabbed Nintendo in the back repeatidly for not surrendering to their whims.

I believe that if he aproaches Nintendo as an independent, things might turn out differently. His comments were disrespectful though. "yawn"? The other guy was making a perfectly viable case.

Bolded are second party, not third party.  Nintendo funded LEGO City Undercover, and I don't know the logistics of their Sonic deal but if it's anything like their Bayonetta deal, then they've also funded the development of those games.

I never saw any of the Resident Evil promotion in Europe by the way, certainly there was none in the UK.  So I'll have to take your word for that.

I also don't think ZombiU is really a good example of anything since it was an exclusive.  If the message they wanted to send out is "make your game exclusive to our platform and we'll do some marketing for it!" then they're going to have their work cut out.

Regarding the rest of them - there's a few fair ones in there.  I think Bravely Default; Layton & Ninja Gaiden just go to show that Nintendo has good relationships with Japanese third parties, and I wouldn't argue that.  3DS gets a lot of support.  I was mostly talking from a WiiU point of view, though.  Again, I didn't see any WiiU advertising for Skylanders or Just Dance in the UK but I'm aware of the bundles, so that's something.

Why not?  I would say that none of the Japanese third parties had any interest in developing for the Xbox 360 at the start of the generation (I'm talking Square Enix; Capcom; Konami; Namco Bandai etc.) after they'd had a generation of working across mostly PS2 & somewhat on Gamecube as well.  So Microsoft provided every incentive they could to get Final Fantasy; Tales; Resident Evil etc. on the 360.  Even went after a few exclusives (i.e. Star Ocean).  Sure, not all of them worked out - Tales reverted back to PS3 exclusivity in the end, but some of them did work out in the long term.  Final Fantasy; Metal Gear Solid & Resident Evil are now firmly multi-platform franchises going forward.

And that was the point.  A "short-term" sacrifice for a longer-term gain.

i never ever blamed Criterion for NFS MWU fiasco. EA are the ones to blame.as always because they suck, they dont care about the games they publish, always lookin at everything with that moneymaking mentality.
i actually bought the game twice. great game btw,nice job on it. its probably the best port WiiU will evrr get.

The real responsability lied on EA, not on Nintendo.
I think they were caught in the middle of EA and Nintendo`s fallout and thus, they didn`t receive support from Nintendo.
Had it been another company and maybe Nintendo would have helped a bit - if that was part of their policies.

Given the situation between Nintendo and Indies, i think there`s a chance that the relationship between Nintendo and his new studio can really improve and be benefitial to both parties.

advertise a NFS game? I don't think I have ever seen NFS adds on TV, perhaps in stores with EAs logo on it but that is about it

At the end of the day you're fully responsible for your products. Nintendo has 100% responsibility for the Wii U and EA has 100% responsibility for their games.

In this case EA is the one to blame for the lack of marketing behind the game as it was their product, their team, and therefore their responsibility to support it. However, Nintendo could've shown some interest in the title in order to support the Wii U as it's not EA's (or any third party's) responsibility to make the Wii U a profitable and successful platform.

The man says he complained when the publisher didn't bother to press discs. In response to the late port statement, the guy says that they just did the coding and had no control over when it releases. It sounds like one of two things happened here:

1) They had the game ready around the same time as the other systems and neither Nintendo nor EA care to get it out there at that time.
2) The game was finished significantly later than the other platforms, but still at the time that they were asked to deliver it. Meaning they were told to let the WiiU version take less priority than the other versions. Once it was done, there was still some delay on the Publisher's side due to a lack of interest.

Either way, the late release seemed completely out of their control and they did talk to both Nintendo and EA to try to get it out more timely.

EDITED

What I was trying to point out that "Nintendo's attitude towards third parties seems to be "if you want to put your games on our platform, that's great" and leave it at that" is simply not true with the evidence i provided. They have done things for 3rd party partners - sure they could do a lot more - but it is a start. 

@ Bold

Simply - in this CASE there was no benefit at all promoting the game. The game had been out on other platform months ahead and the game was going to fail commercially - so it was smart to not promote the game - Nintendo has nothing to gain (long term or shor term) as  EA position has been made clear about their support on the Wii U months befor the release of need for speed most wanted u:

"Having said that, I wouldn’t say that we see much correlation between the results that Nintendo have just shown with the console debut of the Wii U and what we see coming. We see a pretty sharp distinction and unfortunately I’m unable to go any further than that. Ours is an industry where a lot of devices come in and represent themselves as the next generation or the next generation after that. You know in many ways, we would argue that the gen— what we’re describing as “Gen 4*”, is yet to come — and it’s that we’re excited about, and that’s what we’re investing in, and frankly we’ve been quite consistent with that for some time, recognising the frustration our inability to articulate precisely why, causes for you. "

http://www.zeldainformer.com/news/ea-wii-u-is-not-a-next-gen-console-but-dont-count-nintendo-out#.UxsoBT-1ZcQ

Oh here is the UK commercial for Revelations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g9PcS4oOHw

Australian commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RQg54FUQVg

I have to say that I feel bad about the developers. While the big boys fight it out the devs more often than not get to pay the bill for the bar that was wrecked. Alex Ward seems to blame EA first and foremost but he's disappointed in Nintendo for not showing more interest. I see no reason to hate on the guy.

Oh.  I thought you were talking about the WiiU version of Revelations since I thought you knew the discussion in here was pretty much focused on the WiiU side of things, not 3DS :P

Having thought about it some more, I think the games you listed (Skylanders; Disney Infinity; Just Dance), if they did indeed get Nintendo-funded-advertising, cater to a certain demographic of gamers.  Comparatively, I'd say that Sony/Microsoft's advertising caters to a completely different demographic (for example, I've been watching videos on youtube this morning and on 4-5 occassions I've seen PlayStation advertisements for Watch Dogs).

So perhaps i was wrong, and Nintendo do offer assistance for third parties if they make... "family friendly" titles, whereas they won't offer any help for anything else.  And I suppose there's nothing wrong with that, but again, I don't think that gives grounds for Nintendo fans to say "but Nintendo are doing nothing wrong!" if they're actively trying to cater for one fanbase while completely ignoring another; if games from the other side of the spectrum then choose to withdraw.