I dunno, I have a feeling disc size wasn't a consideration when it came to third parties skipping the system; Xbox 360 got a lot of ports Wii U didn't and that uses DVDs that only hold 1/3 as much data as a Wii U disc.

But when the 360 was out, 9GB was the norm. PS3 was the only console that supported more, and bluray was a developing technology. 

With the Wii U, it's the only console to support less than 50GB, and structurally very different from the others. All of that combines to make it a hard sell for developers, not just the storage available. It's kinda like the N64 vs the PS1: N64 carts held much less storage and the two consoles were way too structurally different, so many devs just gave up on the N64. It's happening again, just replace the PS1 with the PS4 and XB1. In today's gaming market, it's better to be a copycat with the hardware and then sell using software than it is to do your own thing.

But even after the released of PS4/Xbone, 360 still got ports. I very much doubt disc storage is a significant factor in Wii U not getting ports. That's a more a matter of the hostile relationship between third parties and Nintendo fans, combined with processing power, memory, and architecture disparity.

360 gets ports because of the install base. There are fewer and fewer games out now anyway that still port to 360, though.

But yes, I won't disagree that power, memory, and architecture play much bigger roles than storage. I still, however, think that storage is a part of the equation, no matter how small.

Wii U Game of the Year! XD But in all seriousness that's crazy. Odd gripe: The game's faces still look really off compared to the rest of the gorgeous environments and models.

While PS3 did not have any multi disc games X360 had a few without alienating third party developers. I guess the extra disc does not really cost that much to produce.   http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_console_games_spanning_multiple_discs