If most planets do not evolve sapient life, then the planets will be full of wildlife, which doesn't live very good lives.

That assumes that on most planets life will evolve to have wildlife but not sapient life, as opposed to e.g. only evolving single-celled life. Basically you're assuming that the most likely hard step for intelligence is between "wildlife" and "sapient life" instead of coming earlier, which seems unjustified without supporting evidence, since there are earlier candidates for hard steps that come after life has already began on the world. For example, from Hanson's paper:

consider a set of four major transitions in the traditional fossil record identified by J. William Schopf [17]. Schopf labels these transitions “Filamentous Prokaryotes,” “Uni- cellular Eukaryotes,” “Sexual(?) Eukaryotes,” and “Metazoans,” at 3.5, 1.8, 1.1, and 0.6 billion years ago, respectively