Let's just air this all out in the open shall we:

Systematic Bias against Nintendo in the videogame market is easy to see is your claim.

Your evidence: Is various developer statements despite the fact that many publisher can overwrite developer decisions. E.G. Respawn wanted to develop for one platform, EA released the game on 3. Regardless of what these devs say, how exactly do you know whether these are the reason the wii u is not getting ports? How do you know whether any of these claims are either false or true. Especially, concerning last gen as many multiplats that made it to the Wii were significantly downgraded. But they still were ported to the Wii despite its lower end hardware. Obviously that Anti-Nintendo bias wasn't enough to stop them then. 

Furthemore, you claim that the Wii U's free year was its only year on the market. Despite the fact, that it was competing with PS360, consoles that we're not only much cheaper but much better understood then the Wii U. Nintendo designed the system the way they wanted, which was why they didn't get the fcking memo that nobody uses PowerPC any more. Why would third parties take a risk on a  system whose power they would only be able to understand after PS4/xb1.

As I've already told you, just because a decission is not made based on rational though, but rather on an illusion of rational thought clouded by bias, doesn't mean that decission is not 'right'.

What are you arbitrarily defining as right? Pro-Nintendo? Can Nintendo do no wrong? None of that is objective, so it is useless insofar as analysis goes. We are talking about biases which are strong enough to harm to company that has them. If you bring an impartial observer who know nothing about gaming, how in the hell would they know that 3rd parties were biased against Nintendo if the decision to refuse porting was made out of bias/fear/or any other irrational idea if it is in fact rational to avoid the system?

Did it turn out to be the right decission? yes. Was it a rational decission? No. It was a decission built on bias and assumption, and quite possibly a uniform bias that created a self reinforcing feedback loop.

How do you know this? Surely, its not proven by your inconclusive evidence? 

You can't possibly be trying to argue bias from a clearly biased point of view. You will prove nothing this way, only air out your frustations and leave having learned nothing or improved at all. If you are not objective, then how can you call out companies for being biased against Nintendo when the only thing you can see are the Nintendo Googles plastered to your eyes.

Obviously, you do not understand my biases because you incorrectly assume that I am biased against Nintendo, because I am disagreeing with your method of analysis. NOT your assertion. I have never said, 3rd parties have no bias for or against Nintendo. Simply, that unless you prove it, which you refuse to do because you cannot comprehend how any doubt could possibly exist, your claim is unverified.

Prove it. 

Show me the bias that is strong enough to make a company harm themselves just to spite Nintendo. All the money, they lost ignoring the Wii U while removing the porting and advertising costs. If you find 1 example, this is enough to disprove the counterargument.

However, your claim is not the contrapositive of such a 3rd parties being biased in favor of Nintendo, so it cannot be proven with contradiction.

1 example contradicting your claim is enough to disprove it as well.

You can chose to ramble as much as you like try as you might to utilize your biases to teardown my objective argument. It is futile however, I am simply repeating myself so that you understand, my stance has not changed at all.

If a decision benfits the company, regardless of whatever the decision consisted of whether or not it was rational thought, bias, fear, some combination of these things, it is impossible to prove unless you where actually in those boardrooms.

If a decision harms a company, then any rational thought was wrong, and only then biases and fear come to the surface and can be observed by an outsider.

Please consider this short list of assumptions and biases in your post that are getting away of what you are trying to say:

1. That there is a systematic bias against Nintendo in the video game industry doesn't mean that all actors in the market are biased against Nintendo

You have not defined what you think a systematic bias is. You also beleive there is signficant bias against Nintendo as a fact, coming from the jump in logic of people having biases.

2. Your assumption that I think a decission is wrong if it goes against the interests of Nintendo

Where is this assumption?

3. Your assumption that if a decission can not be proven to be harmful to the company, it can't be said to have been biased

So you have the magical ability to discern bias despite not actually attending any of the meetings. You must have an amazing ability to see into the hearts of men and women and lay out there desires before them

4. Your failure to consider the examples of bias that has already been provided in this thread by myself and others.

Your examples are inconclusive and prove nothing. The fact that you beleive that these decisions are indicative of the things that devs "say" shows that. I am always suprised by how much people believe PR statements to be true.

5. Your incorrect assumptions on how my personal bias relates to what you are trying to say.

Your personal bias is why you refuse to examine the question in an objective lens.

I'll make this real easy:

You either accept that bias plays a part in every single decission that is made in any company or individual in the world at any time, or you hold on to the classic economy theory that the market is made up of rational agents acting in their best interest.

Oh your giving me ultimatums now? I'll repeat my stament again so that you aren't confused. I have never said that bias has no effect in decisions. So I am not even arguing against the idea that bias plays a part. I'm talking about in this specific circumstances considering Nintendo and Multiplat Developers, that (any bias that isn't significant enough to override the rationality of the decision, NOT the rationale behind the decision, cannot be observed by outsiders) <- a definition. This is something that can be used to back up claims.

The past 20 years has shown that the classic understanding of the market is incorrect, in fact recent research shows that even our very perception of things are highly subject to bias. It is inescapable.

Not debating that.

Even when people think they are crunching all the right numbers and doing all the right analysis to make a decission, the methods they use and what they see in the results, even what they remember is colored by bias. The best we can hope to do is to accept that we are biased and realize that we can not make a perfectly rational decission ever. There is the core of our discord, you are arguing based of a classical understanding of the market, but that understanding is pretty much outdated.

AGAIN not debating that.

So, in my dealings here I assume the exsistence of bias in every company as an axiomatic truth. Bias exsists, and it exsist at all levels of decission making. I haven't even bothered to engage you in the fruitless effort to try to claim that you have to show that a decission is subooptimal to prove that it exsists, that work is already done many times over and is clearly available for anyone to find. It has even been referenced for you earlier in the thread.

Are you suggesting that bias is the only force in making buisness decisions? I have NEVER questioned the existance of bias in any of my posts. I have only questioned its significance in this specific instantce.

Considering this, it's not hard to see that there exsist a systematic Nintendo bias in the videogame industry, from consumer to media outlets to publishers to developers there are clear anti Nintendo biases.

Clear to see if you already beleive it to be true

Just to make this very easy for comprehansion, there are also segments of the same market that have a pro Nintendo bias. You can keep pretending that you need proof of this, but you won't get it from me.

Because you don't have it

I know that you already have all the information available to you needed to see it,

Bullshit

I would even guess that you have frequently discussed the various expressions of bias from developers many times on these forums. 

More wrong assumptions

I have never said Companies have no bias, nor have I said that bias has no effect in a companies decision making process. However, with regard to the topic title. I have repeatidely stated that any specifically anti-nintendo bias cannot be observed unless the system in question is succesful enough that bias is the only thing preventing ports. The bias is not significant enough to overwrite and rational force that exists as well. We are biased actors trying to analyze the biases of a conglomeration of people who form a buisness which must make good decisions in order to survive. You cannot just claim that because biases exist and because 3rd parties didn't support the Wii U, that 3rd parties are biased against the Wii U, especially when it makes rational sense. 

Consider a company run by computers without any biases whatsoever. If they acted exactly like these human companies, how would you know whether or not bias had a significant effect on the human company. See the problem? You know the biases exist but you can't understand them if it is not obvious.

Everyone has Biases, but when your a AAA publisher, those biases are practically irrelevant.

1.@Bolded

You are saying that bias has no effect for AAA publishers right here. Though I wasn't referring to you directly, but instead to others in the thread who have stated it impossible for large companies to be biased.

practically irrelevant =/= no effect

practically irrelevant == not significant

 (not significant) in a companies decision making process  <- unfortunately this is a subjective claim as it depends on what I have defined significance to be luckily:

I've already defined significance as overwriting the rationality of a decision.

If a port to System A makes rational sense, then if its on system A then clearly any System A bias cannot be determined, even if the decision was made out of 100% bias. If the port does not make rational sense and its on System A, then we can say without a doubt that their is bias for System A. Conversely, the opposite scenario holds true. If a port makes rational sense on System A, and its not their. Then bias have overwritten rationality against System A. It holds true in every scenario regardless of whoever is observing or who it concerns. The fact that we are talking about Nintendo, 3rd parties, or even the gaming industry is irrelevant. If you can't apply the same method of thinking to any other company then clearly the method is relative and untrustworthy.

2. You assume that bias itself must be either extreme or have extreme consequences. Port prevention is not the only outcome of bias towards Nintendo and there are many forms of bias, which can affect decision making at many levels:

where?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

3. You assume these businesses always, and only, make good decisions, which is clearly not true. I provided a quote showing just that:

"Our candid conversations with senior executives behind closed doors reveal a similar unease with the quality of decision making and confirm the significant body of research indicating that cognitive biases affect the most important strategic decisions made by the smartest managers in the best companies"

Are you generalizing the quote to apply to every company, or at the very least all multiplat publishers? Where did I make the assumption that you claim I did in number 3? Wouldn't my whole argument necessitate that wrong decisions are made some times?

4. @Italicised. I never made this claim. Though is it not plausible that confirmation bias has played a role?

This is a generalized claim, it is not directed at you specifically. It is an assertion that attempting to describe bias on the grounds that it exists is not sufficient. 

5. I do agree that it is difficult to prove, completely and utterly, without any insider knowledge, but that does not mean it has been disproved. You admit that it's difficult to discern bias, but you are sure that it's not there.

Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. My entire argument is that without the right conditions one cannot observe the biases even though they exist.

6. Finally, back to my question which has been glossed over. What is a reasonable explanation (purely to maximise profits, and completely free from bias) for omitting any mention of a Wii U version alongside all of the others, for multiplat games in advertising?

How should I know. I never addressed that question in the first place. My concern is solely in the method of examing biases in decision to port to the Wii U.

how does the bolded relate to wii u? nintendo isn't lowering the standard and the console isn't radically different, or much different, or even moderately different. it's different simply because  consoles are different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

how does the bolded relate to wii u? nintendo isn't lowering the standard and the console isn't radically different, or much different, or even moderately different. it's different simply because  consoles are different.