You can let him run with it.  I mean Ubisoft Montreal created a Rayman game in 1995 that sold well and Ubisoft Montpellier is creating a new Assassin's Creed game this year for the Xbox one and PS4.  Is Montpellier now on the same level as Montreal since im sure the new AC game wil sell gangbusters? Ubisoft spreads out its game development to multiple studios that it owns.  And no end user is going to be concerned which studio created what.

sure they are. but lets use some sense. THe average gamer doesnt KNOW those games are made by Montreal. Hell you just said they are bigger becasue that is the MAIN dev house. OF course they are going to be bigger thats just common sense. Ive never seen a UBI Montreal logo on any AC game. or anything theyve ever done.

The way he said it doesn't sound like a demand:
"We also have another game on the shelves that we expect to come at some point when there will be more machines,” “That game is waiting for more machines to be available"

haahahaha. the despertation is almost funny. See i didnt even know any of this and i consider myself a fan. So i know most end users have no idea, or dont care. At this point the game will sell on the name alone. Much like all big franchises, hell even the Vita one managed a million and that was handled by a team who never even made an action game i believe. let alone an AC one

Third parties are not in a position to demand anything from a console maker, for one. And for another, while Wii U needs all the games it can get, and that is not a disputable fact, Ubisoft if so full of their own shit lately it's not even funny. They are actually making Activision look good by comparison.

Spending the time and money to make a ground up Wii U title (which costs far more, by the way, than porting something to Wii U), and then sitting on it, is actually COSTING them money, and is an incredibly foolish decision. If whatever they've made is a GOOD game, so long as Ubisoft actually bothers advertising it, then people will most likely buy it. Case in point: Zombi U. By all accounts, it's a DECENT game. But it's not a great game. Perhaps if Ubisoft wouldn't have rushed it to make sure it was a launch title, and had put more polish on it, it might have been a better game, and thus might've sold better. Just an idea.

Have you considered he's simply sending message to Nintendo that since their AAA game (ACIV) had less than 3% attach on their console and even Rayman had only around 5%, Ubi needs much, much more WiiU users to make their games profitable?

Nintendo isn't forced to listen to Ubi (or any other 3rd party), but, likewise, Ubi is not obligated to publish anything on WiiU.

he was wrong about what? the end users not caring? no he's right about that. Most people dont even know who made what. Numbers dont make this untrue, they dont prove anything.

you know the game they are sitting on is some shovelware crap? best case its some raving rabbids nonsense.

ok, i dont know what that has to do with what was intially being discussed, but you got to take your victories where you can get them i guess.

They contradict what I had quoted:

"And no they don't, as I've already showed Nintendo is very well capable of selling on the U, Ubisoft's low sales are their work."

I've told you why Nintendo is well capable of selling on WiiU and why it's not fair to compare it to 3rd parties like Ubisoft.

I've also explained why Ubisoft's low sales are not just their work.

My conclusion follows because Ubisoft did their part, Nintendo hasn't.

Ubisoft knows how to make games. And maybe you're right. Maybe they don't know how to sell on Nintendo consoles. Like most 3rd parties didn't know how to sell on PS3 when it was at 600€ and all of a sudden they learned to sell a lot of games when the console became at 300€.

Now Ubisoft is rather on a "wait and see" strategy. WiiU is just another channel. If it fails, more focus on PlayStation and Xbox. Nintendo has much more to lose so they better start doing something about their system.