Honestly I would have no problem shelling out money for third party games on launch, but I will not do it if the games are lazy ports. Thats the reason why I didn't buy Arkham Origins or Assassin's Creed IV on launch, I want to get a full product when I pay for these games.

Hey at least they're giving you something, which you don't buy.

Assassin's Creed 4 wasnt a full product? LOL please
And lets be real nobody cares about Batman MP nothing was lost there.

I agree with a/b, Sony has a very large and strong fanbase and Sony hasent really ever had a failure of a console from a game standpoint(maybe Vita, but I think it will do well)

On to C: The demograph is also there on Wii U. Most people buying the U are people that are general gamers, and companies are doing no favors to their Wii U sales by half assing their U versions. With that said I think companies were under the impression that U owners were Wii only people that upgraded and this is their only console(which I am sure makes up a small % of U owners). It is not powerful enough to play/port current gen games, and does not have the install base to put resources into making versions of games as good/better than PS360. Nintendo put themselves in the same position as the Wii, but now they are lacking the sales to keep it viable. It doesnt explain why 3rd parties never tried with the Wii, but it is certainly no conspiracy and all about the bottom line.

i would argue that the demograph is different adn they arent really there on Wii U i would argue that the people buying Wii U are Ninty fans. Just like GC before it. Numbers back that up. OR i could be wrong but as you say there arent alot of WIi U only owners. That is an issue as people will just keep buying those games for the other systems. IMHO i dont think half assed ports are a problem. Even the ones that are on par (Tekken) still flop pretty badly. No the WIi U version would ahve to be WAY better for it to make a difference in sales. And even then its iffy (Rayman Legends). Lets not forget that games like COD are played for online doesnt matter how much better it is on WiiU people will go with the crowd on that one. 

This brings me back to the WIi 3rd parties did try on Wii, they put games on the system that they thought would sell and they did. Shovelware. Its not a popular thing but it is what it is. When Jillian Micheals exercise game does as well or better than say Conduit you can possible say that their isnt a difference in demograph. Aunty Petunia doesnt care about COD or whatever no matter how good they were and Ninty didnt do themselves any favors by putting out a system so far behind the competition. What should 3rd parties have done?

The shitty ports on Wii U weren't from Xbone/PS4 though, they were from PS3/360, so there's no legit reason for them to be shitty.

COD on Wii U generally runs in the 30-50fps range.

But but but....    having all ports make use of the hardware would defeat the purpose of those bad ports (having an excuse to not make good ports and to boycott Nintendo)

If all you do is make good games it doesnt work anymore. If 50% of the games you make are good and the other are shit the userbase still does not trust you so you can keep saying "see even our good game doesnt sell" and you hope people forget that you have to regain trust after burning the customers so often.

Activision also wants people to forget that not Nintendo users  but Activision itself is at fault when it comes to COD not selling "superb" on Nintendo platforms they delaying the most important COD ever for 1 year (modern warfare that made the series huge)  killed COD on Nintendo  not the userbase itself. (COD 3 sold almost identical on Wii as it did on 360 even tho there were more 360 consoles out during that time!)

EA stopped putting any kind of games on the WiiU about 3 months after its release...

How are Nintendo responsible for third parties failing to utilise a twice-as-large RAM pool, despite devs like Criterion and Frozenbyte showing that it can be done to produce better-than-PS360 results?