What a terrible comparison.

It's better to say that you dont currently need to buy more beer for your party because it's just starting, and the room isnt filled with people. But once the party starts picking up, you can quickly drop by the store and buy more. The preffered option would be to buy enough beer at the beginning, but the other option is not the end of the world either.

I'm sorry, but the only reason that only Nintendo fans are buying the Wii U is because third party games are almost universally crap on the system. And it's a pattern that existed with the Wii, too (except that, at least there, there were plenty of third party exclusives also happening). For instance, as with the Wii, all of the CoD games on the Wii U have been lacking in features, unoptimised, and ignored in terms of advertising. Unsurprisingly, when people come to expect third party games on the system to be crap, they don't buy them. Hence why making such a deal is worth doing - it ensures top-quality titles from certain third parties, which addresses an issue with the image the Wii U (and the Wii, and the Gamecube, and the N64) has, and it boosts the sales capabilities of those third parties, at least, on the system.

And which "vastly superior 3rd party developers" have been making games for the Wii U? And which developers connected to the publishers I mentioned (Sega, Capcom, Tecmo Koei, and Namco Bandai) would be described as "vastly superior" to Nintendo's own developers? There's a reason why so many people want Nintendo to make a Mega Man game, a Sonic game, etc. People were highly disappointed with games like Resident Evil 5, Yakuza, etc.

In the meantime, multiple high-profile developers have quite openly embraced Nintendo - Ancel, Itagaki, Kamiya, Naka, Spector, Sakaguchi, for instance. A number of these developers have explicitly gone through, or are going through, Nintendo QA, and haven't had a single word of complaint.

Yes, the signs are everywhere.

Like CoD3 selling far worse on Wii than on the other systems... oh, right, it sold better than the PS3 and not much less than the 360 version.

So maybe it's more like that violence-fest, No More Heroes, which performed poorly on Wii and then great on PS3 and 360... oh, sorry, it was the other way around.

Perhaps you mean something like Goldeneye, which was far superior on PS3 and 360, which is reflected in sales... oh, what's that? Sold more than the PS3 and 360 versions combined?

The fact is, quality titles sell well on Nintendo systems when they're advertised. If GTA were put on Wii U, and made with the quality that other GTA games typically have, and it were actually advertised, it would sell well. When Nintendo systems get inferior ports of titles, as pretty much every title involving shooting, open world, etc, have been so far, they sell poorly. Of course, developer laziness on Nintendo systems results in this inferiority, which causes the lower sales, which is then used as justification for putting less effort into the next one.

You really need to stop using the Call of Duty 3/Goldeneye argument. CoD3 benefitted from people wanting to see how a shooter with motion controls was like, and Goldeneye was advertised as a Wii exclusive. People who wanted to play it bought a Wii, while people who weren't particularly interested waited for a port. In the end, 1.78 million people bought the Wii version while 1.13 bought a ported version. In fact, the ports were made because of the disappointing Wii version sales. If anything was proven, it would be that the "hardcore" audience wasn't interested in the title.

No more Heroes is a sub 600k franchise originating as a Wii exclusive. All Goldeneye points apply.

And the fact that you even imply that the Wii version of Call of Duty 3 is a quality title is downright laughable as it features no multiplayer modes at all. Imagine if the latest Wii U CoD had no multiplayer yet was heavily advertised. Would it be able to repeat the Wii's feat? The obvious answer is no. Because Wii U does not feature revolutionary controls.

Also, why would they create excuses to avoid making top tier ports if the ports can make money?

The point with CoD3 was that they made an effort with the game itself. It couldn't have had online, because the online infrastructure wasn't set up at the time. Meanwhile, the game itself proved that people were interested in FPS with Wiimote controls. So did Red Steel. Also, CoD 3's quality issue is part of why sales of the franchise declined rather than holding steady (combined with failure to release CoD4 in a timely manner, which meant that the fanbase for the franchise all moved to the other systems).

The whole point of that argument is that it proves that games of those sorts can sell well (either absolutely or relatively) on Nintendo systems. Other examples of the point include Resident Evil 4, House of the Dead, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, and Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. It demonstrates that the claim that games like GTA couldn't sell well on Nintendo systems is just plain false, and you haven't provided a single argument against what I've said. What you've done is argued for why the games sold as well as they did... but the key point is, they sold. They sold better or as well as they did on other systems, when the quality was there and the effort was put in. When they released low-quality ports that were ignored when it comes to advertising, the games unsurprisingly flopped.

Let me put it another way - you don't justify a claim that unicorns don't exist by looking only in your backyard, seeing no unicorns, and going "I have found evidence of no unicorns, therefore they don't exist". You need to be exhaustive - the claim needs to be general, to apply across the board. You have to check everywhere that you possibly can for unicorns before declaring that they don't exist. If you find unicorns in some other part of the world, you don't ignore them and declare that unicorns don't exist just because they don't fit the desire you had for them to exist in your backyard.

In exactly the same way, the fact that you can point to a heap of flops doesn't prove that GTA would flop, but the fact that I can point to some games that didn't proves that GTA could be successful (not that it would, but that it could).

Okay, I admit it. GTA could be successful on Wii U.

If Wii U had better online functionalities, revolutionary controls or if the title was exclusive to the platform.

Head in the sand mode commenced!

you still saying these half truths?

you cherry picked ONE COD game out of like 5. funny how they kept selling worse and worse on Wii. But just kept selling better and better on the HD twins.

NMH flopped on all systems lets not pretend it didnt. ANd it was two years late on PS3. was it even released on 360? are you just making stuff up now?

GE was a late port. nice try

Fact is you dont know this for sure. Pratically every 3rd party game on WIi U flopped. YOu can nitpick all you want, but the truth is that the audience isnt there for the system like they are on teh others. Otherwise the last COD and AC wouldnt have sold like crap on WIi U while they sold much better on PS4/x1 despite being launch titles for them.

He's still lying to himself. Ill add that GE is VERY overrated and that was by far my most played WIi game. BUt lets be real it had NO competition on the system at all. What game was touching that on WIi? only games close were COD and there were better versions on 3 other platforms. Why didnt it light the charts up on PS360. It was a  year late. MORE expensive than the WIi version and there are MUCH better FPS on the systems, Bioshock, Halo, KZ, Resistance, etc. If anything GE just showed how crappy the FPS library of WIi actually was. 

He uses these tired aruguments but always leaves out the actual biggest factors.

lol are you for real. COD 3 is effort to you. a game with NO MP at all and crap frame rate. That was easily the worst effort on the system ever. YOu are right that it lead to people saying screw the WIi version of those games. I think people put way too much into COD4 missing on Wii as the cause of the decline. Pretty sure it was mostly COD3 sucking.

The problem with your argument is you cherry picked the games that sold well, but there are probably just as much or more games that sold like crap on the system. YOu gonna sit there and say they all must have been "badly" made? How can you when COD games for instance did get better and better but sales got worst and worst. And if we really wanna talk quality the WIi U efforts have been far better but they still sell terrible.