@RancidVomit86
I think it's fine, but it still affects perception of the Wii U's ability.

This wouldn't be an issue if not nearly every 3rd party game was an insanely lazy and sloppy kind of port of insulting quality. They blindly expected to sell on the name alone, but porting old games with audiences far away from WiiU simply doesn't work out. So the actual issue is bad marketing from 3rd party devs.

It's not 3rd parties fault that the demographic who buys Wii U is not buying 3rd party games. The is no incentive for them to invest in Wii U when every game put out on it under performs in sales compared to its counter part on other consoles. Ubisoft had openly said it cost them around 1.2 million to port games to Wii U and if they don't make a profit on any of the titles ported to Wii U then what drive do they have to continue throwing money away?

I agree, not every developer (especially small studios) can gamble on a platform. But just assuming bad sales figures based on badly marketed (and badly produced) ports is pretty unprofessional from their end. But it's still their fault that nobody buys their crude ports. You reap what you sow.

And @kyuubikid213 why is it 3rd parties responsibility to sell Wii U consoles? Its Nintendo's system not EA, Activision, or any other 3rd parties console. It's all on Nintendo's shoulders to get the console into consumers hands.

That's a difficult point. Sony and Microsoft are completely dependant of 3rd parties to keep their consoles in business, since they never develop games themselves (they support some games financially at best, and barely any of them sold really well). But Nintendo serves both hard- and software, so of course it's to be expected from them to provide good stuff in the first place.
What many ignore, though, is that this means double duty for Nintendo. They can't just focus on games alone - they also need to maintain, expand, and observe the many services they offer. That takes loads of manpower, regardless of Nintendo's riches.

Edit: it looks like people are using their own personal feelings for Nintendo too much in this. It's a business and a business needs to make money to stay in business.

True, some people overtdramatize things in favor of Nintendo, and that's also where logic is ignored for the sake of whining. A lot.
But gaming business isn't the usual kind of business.
It's a market that is nearly impossible to figure out or calculate anything reliably. It's dependant of surprising the consumer with creativity beyond any possibilities other markets could possibly offer. But instead of balancing out both quality and profit, most developers (especialy the big ones) do everything solely for maximizing profit while disregarding quality.

@SCAR392 I can agree with that. But that's not the 3rd parties problem. Just an unfortunate side affect.

It's Nintendo's problem, but not in the sense that they released an incapable machine. It gets thrown into the PowerPC crowd, as I mentioned, and Xbox 360/PS3 can't run Child of Light, CoD, AC, Splintercell, etc. at 1080p.

EDIT: It's definitely a side effect of a transitional period, along with budgets.

@Kaze_Memaryu

1. Need for Speed Most Wanted U best version of a big name franchise. Still didn't sell well.
2. See #1
3. Sony and Microsoft don't make any in house games? They financially back games that don't sell well? What planet are you on? A planet where Halo, Uncharted, Rachet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Gears of War, Forza, Gran Turismo don't exist?
4. Problem is that game quality all comes down to opinion.

As I stated, not all ports were bad, but most of them. But Need for Speed was still too well-established on Playstation family to become instantly successful.
Besides, NFSMWU wasn't well-advertised at all, not to speak of the fact that EA barely mentioned the WiiU version being the most advanced one.

2. See #1

Covered above.

3. Sony and Microsoft don't make any in house games? They financially back games that don't sell well? What planet are you on? A planet where Halo, Uncharted, Rachet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Gears of War, Forza, Gran Turismo don't exist?

None of those were system sellers, except for Halo. Rachet & Clank was Naughty Dog without any active Sony ivolvement (second shot at establishing a Sony mascot, didn't work again), Jak & Daxter was Insomniac under the same circumstances. Sly, GoW, Forza and GT sales figures were underwhelming. And just throwing out money to developers so they make games is simply ordering exclusives, they still didn't develop a single game themselves.

4. Problem is that game quality all comes down to opinion.

Stability, balancing and logical storytelling have no opinion. Add to that the mindless increase in microtransactions, on-disc DLC and developers who are too lazy to make 60fps games nowadays (as well as lying developers everywhere), and you can see what I mean.

Which is owned by Sony, thus they are Sony-developed games. Same with Gran Turismo (Polyphony digital is wholly owned by Sony), God of War (it's even called SONY Santa Monica Studios), Forza (Turn 10 is wholly owned by Microsoft), Sly Cooper (Sucker Punch is wholly owned by Sony).

Your argument would be like saying Kirby games are not Nintendo games since they are developed by HAL Laboratories.

Rahcet and Jake both had Sony invovment since Sony published them and owned both IP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment#Soft...

All aside from Insomniac (which made Ratchet & Clank not Jak & Daxter) are 1st Party brands from Sony, tho Ratchet & Clank is owned by Sony even tho Insomniac created it.

Okay, I wasn't aware of that ownership, but your example doesn't work. It would be more fitting to compare it to Monolithsoft or Camelot (both owned by Nintendo), who still make games by themselves, but exclusively work for Nintendo and Nintendo consoles.
Whether Sony owns these developers or not barely makes a difference. They still never developed a game on their own, instead requiring other companies to do the job. As such, Sony didn't do anything except dishing out money - the same applies to Microsoft (Microsoft Game Studios is merely a publisher, don't even try).
That's not even slightly the same thing as Nintendo's situation.

@Kaze_Memaryu All I can do at this point is LOL at your post. None of those were except Halo were system sellers? Sales of them were under performing? Now your just grasping at straws. They are all IP's owned by Sony or Microsoft and are either developed in house or had an outside company hired to make them. Point is they all still are owned by Sony or Microsoft and sell very well. Nintendo isn't the only company making good games that people buy the system to play.

But they're part of Sony. What department within Sony would have to develop software for you to consider it to be in-house?

SCEJ? They develop games - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE_Japan_Studio

Various US branches of SCE? They make games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE_Santa_Monica_Studio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE_San_Diego_Studio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE_Bend_Studio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE_Foster_City_Studio

SCE London? They develop games - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCE_London_Studio

SOE? They develop games - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Online_Entertainment

How does Nintendo get involved? Because Shiguru Miyamoto advises other Nintendo developers? PS people will work together. Does Kaz Hirai need to visit developers in his Chariot of Glory for Sony to be involved with making the games? Sony made the PS4 with its first-party developers in mind too.

Umm dude Microsoft owns about 20 studios in all man. Hell most of them were made either internally or though a aqustion.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Studios

@shingi_70 But it's not the same because they don't have Microsoft in the name even though they are owned entirely by Microsoft.

@Kodeen It's simply that it's not Sony themselves - not the same company which built the Playstation family, but external studios, workplaces that function independently to Sony headquarters. They get their projects, and how they handle them is completely outside of Sony's control. Not even concepts are created by Sony, but always by others.
No matter what game supposedly is from Sony, it's always an extra company with an own name developing it, not Sony's headquarters - not the same building where the hardware is designed and maintained. They create a distiction by giving those external studios explicitly different names. SCE London is SCE London, not Sony Computer Entertainment, period.
Nintendo did the same same several times (Metroid Prime, Golden Sun, Pokémon), and stricktly speaking, those are games from Retro Studios, Camelot, and GameFreak, respectively, NOT Nintendo.

@jaz007 Miyamoto's position isn't the same as in the past, but he's still an integral part of Nintendo's game development. Hirai is Sony's president, but not in any way involved in game development (well, maybe he was before, but I don't know), so the comparison should be Iwata and Hirai, if anything. But my point doesn't depend on single persons. It's about which company the development team(s) belong to.
Sony has no game developers in their main building, they entirely focus on the hardware, leaving games to other companies, even if they own them.

@Kaze_Memaryu Geez before insulting other companies do a bit of research.
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=god+of+war
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=gran+turismo
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=uncharted

@Kaze_Memaryu

First of all, SCEJ is the headquarters of SCE (in Tokyo), so you're wrong there. But maybe your very specific shifting argument is that the people who designed the consoles are not the same who design games, like Miyamoto or Yokoi. Well, you'd be wrong there as well.

I still wish KH3 was coming to Wii U. SE coulda seen how sales worked out if they released one of those KH remixes on Wii U. Just sucks

Or take the less risky move of making it digital only. Just an idea of getting it on Wii U that would be lot less cost. But as stated before I can't entirely blame them.