No, the RAM is not an issue, just a quick example:
BF3 still kicks most next-gen games graphically and never used more than 2Gb.

You can manage to show a lot of detailed textures with only 1Gb available.

How so? They have less cache and aren't RISC.

Comparing pc requirements with consoles makes no sense.

Actually, Nintendo's crazy rules were pretty much the reason the 3rd parties existed after the 80's crash, as the reason for the crash in the first place was the lack of quality control - a little like the market today. With the N64, Nintendo had the belief that only a handful of developers would survive the rising development costs of 3D grafics, which is why they needed to limit the devs more, otherwise them too would go down the gutter as well - and looking at todays market, they were right (albeit a decade too early). Ironically, 3rd parties accuse Nintendo for the problems the 3rd parties created themselves.

Imo, It has little to nothing to do with the difference in tech.  It has everything to do with sales.  If every U owner actually invested in 3rd party as well as 1st party, we would still be seeing 3rd part games regardless if they were dumbed down slightly if need be.  Had ac3 and ac4 sold well we would see more coming, likewise with the Call of Duty titles.  Wii got how many COD titles that got better and better because devs put time into them because they were million sellers, and Wii was ridiculously underpowered.  I blame many of the now 8.5 user base for this debacle, not Nintendo and not the publishers.  Money is king, and if the titles were selling, they would have no choice but to jump on board where possible.

Please....explain.

 Look up the developers of Rage and why they decided to invest in consoles over PC as a priority. I believe they are the same guys who created Doom. The plans to support the PS3 and 360 were already in full swing because at the time they were considered on par with PC. Also, valve wasnt where it is today. It was still growing.

This too - but also the big publishers want's to ramp the dev cost sky high, as that would either bankrupt or force the devs to sell themselves to the big boys, as only the ones with huge pockets would survive.

Besides - considering the cost of development, Wii should have had a game that took 2 years to develop on PS360 a year early, when the opposite happened, and this is the issue what people were complaining about.

I can guarantee you that The Witcher 3 won't use more than 4gb of my 8gb of system ram. And AC Unity only uses about 3.25 gb - 3.5 gb for most PC's on maxed resolutions and maxed settings. Of course you aren't considering vram, but that is besides the point. If they wanted either of these games to run on Wii U they can do it. Console developers learned really quickly how to manage ram last generation, as it was the biggest bottleneck.

Also I don't blame Wii U gamers for not buying shitty ports. I wouldn't either. That is why I haven't bought AC Unity for PC. That is why I haven't bought Watch Dogs for PC. That is why I haven't bought many "AAA" games for PC. They are shitty ports. Nobody is to blame but the publishers, and in some instances the developers.

No the problem is 3rds not releasing games. AC not selling much is an excuse for not releasing AC but it's completely irrelevant for other franchises. and there are many companies that never released a single game on wii u and don't plan to.

It's amazing how the game industry manages to blame the users for the companies mistakes. the worst part is making other users believe that.