i did say it multiple times. MS has exclusive advertisment. Now as for coverage? what do you mean? E3? who cares? in the grand scheme of things is it that important? Hell its getting coverage now technically, we KNOW its coming we are taking about it now. And the games do get announced. Its not like the wii U version is much different from other versions, when they cover the game, they cover the game regardless of platform

Doesn't explain why they say "coming to PS3, PS4" but don't add "Wii U", which would cost nothing to say.

?? what does annoucements have to do with advertisment? those are two different entities. Again MS has no reason to bury Nintendo versions because they sell the worse by FAR. Hell even when the wii was on top those versions sold worse.  Even if what you say is true, why keep doing it when it was clear the Nintendo versions were selling worse and worse as time went on. Hell the wii U ones cant even sell a quarter mil. So i have thought it through and it makes no finacial sense for MS to do this.

the Wii u versions remind me of TV shows that have low ratings, they get renewed or annouced at the last minute becasue frankly Acti themselves might be iffy on even putting the games on the system

are we talking announcements or advertisments? they are NOT the same thing. I have already answered ads part for announcements see my reply to Mr. Khan

You haven't yet given a viable answer for excluding it from the announcement, which mentioned other non-MS consoles like PS3/PS4.

Aye, but the games themselves are only announced about 6-7 months in advance, well beyond the timeframe where they would have to *know* whether they're at least making a Wii U version or not. Unless they're afraid of something like Watch Dogs where the other versions hit a development crunch and they have to pull staff to make sure they get out on time, but that wouldn't explain the persistent pattern for four years.

At least you're providing alternate explanations, though. This is discussion and not mere hot air.

You want me to prove there is no Bigfoot?  Your explanation is not viable or reasonable to assume -  the actual reason(s) could be one or more of many including the Wii u represents insignificant sales for them or they are waiting to see if Wii u hardware sales pick up enough to make a difference or waiting to see how active the current COD Wii u players are when it gets closer to release or it could have something to do that Ony Activision and Nintenndo are aware of that we may never find out -  it could be for many other reasons more reasonable than Sony or MSFT buying off Activision to delay, cancel or keep quiet keep the Wii u version-  

There will be a lot more wii u owners by the so it will do better than bo 2 or ghost. I doubt I will buy it though.

But what you're saying doesn't make sense.  The Wii U version of Ghosts was barely even announced and it was done so just before release.  The game was not developed in a month or two, the Wii U port team was surely working on it long before that, most likely since the last version was ported.  Not spending dollars advertizing the Nintendo version makes perfect sense, but not admitting its existence does not.  If Advanced Warfare is currently being ported for Wii U, it should be on the COD website with all the other versions.  But it's not, and the only reasonable explaination is MS paying for it not to be included so that a third potential option for COD players doesn't emgerge and eat into the XBox market as Playstation has done.  If Wii U versions were promoted - complete with free online - that market could potentiall grow.  Any smart company knows the best way to beat competition is to never let it begin.

I'm asking you to at least suggest that something other than Bigfoot made the noise: a deer, a bear, a hiker, mothman. What i keep hearing is "it wasn't bigfoot and that's all that's important."

TheLastStarFighter rebuts your other points appropriately.