Bingo. Treyarch's also the wrong guy to ask here.

But I would think SH who are making the main game would have to know who to give assets to to make a port. If they didn't give anyone any assets or had any meetings about a port being done for the game they themselves are building in the first place (which must be done for a port to happen), I think they would know if a port was being made.

Since it makes us feel better, that is obviously the correct answer.

Crap, I am selling my Wii U this november, and I will be buying something else, also suggesting my friends to do the same.

Again, that doesn't make any sense unless you're expecting it to be a different CoD...

It's on now! Nintendo vs. the rest of the world!

May the best game maker win.

Why? Ports don't sell on the Wii U and paying for them sets a bad precident (third parties will get used to it and expect all their games to be paid for). 

What I would consider if I were Nintendo would be to simply waive all third party licensing fees up until a game ships over 300,000 copies. 

Since they're not getting very many third party titles as is I think that would encourage some devs to take a chance on the machine.

They should have clarified that earlier.

I know some people that are really disappointed now because they had high hopes after the Nuketown DLC a few weeks ago.
It's like they made fun of the Wii U CoD community with that last DLC.

I'm pretty sure the battle has already been decided

I guess this is the end. Or so. but what could Nintendo do about it? It's not like the Wii U could get more support. Maybe it's time to start thinking in the succesor, one developed with first party and third parties in mind.