I think that's a bit too dismissive. Developers have had a method of working and distributing that work for a long time now (CPU for physics, graphics on GPU obviously) and it seems Wii U has gimped a well used part under the assumption devs will now use another part for this work. This has two implications.
1) It means that what benefit the GPU has over current GPU's is diminished because it now has to do the work of the CPU.
2) Developers have to retool and rework their pipelines and code.
If Nintendo had made the RAM and CPU equal to current gen then I think it's likely developers would have had an easier time. That's a good thing.
When Orbis/Durango come around, even though those will be GPU centric as well, as I understand it they will have processors and RAM that will make it possible to brute force 360/PS3 ports. This means their ports will be better and they can transition more easily to their new GPU centric way of working.
I'm sure there's some term for it (Dickhead maybe?
) but in a way when I start to feel like a company has made unnecessary sacrifices out of arrogance or extreme cheapness, part of me wants them to fall, and fall hard. I'll still get a Wii U and enjoy what games I get, but my hope for the console as a third party port target is slowly fading.