Listen, devs

It's okay

You don't have to yank our chains, shovel shit in our mouths, or other figurative language

You can make a game - just a regular game - and shove an inventory screen or something onto the controller. Really. It's okay. We won't mind. I'll buy it and play it. It will be good times.

If what I'm reading, the issue is innovating games for the Wii U then trying to make those games work for the Xbox and PlayStation.  If you do something to take advantage of the Wii U controller that is anything more than a tacked on feature, you won't be able to replicate it for the Xbox and PlayStation.  You then have some of the difficulties of the current generation.  Is it financially worth it to do a version that takes advantage of the Wii U controller if those features are anything more then just ancillary. 

"Fallout 4" for example.  Would it make sense to use the Wii U for the Pipboy 3000 or just make the same game across all three platforms?  It certainly would be cool if the Pipboy was on the Wii U, but it may not make sense financially to do that unless it sells remarkably more on that platform than on the Xbox or PlayStation consoles.

Bottom-line, difficulty can be measured in many ways.  The Wii U may be easy to develop on in terms of coding, but learning new hardware technologies (i.e. dual displays and alternative input controls) aren't always easy, that is they take time to master.  Whereas with the next Xbox, the way .Net works is, 99% of what developers need to know they already know.  There's just that 1% of new stuff they have to take the time to master and Microsoft tends to make that extremely easy with code samples, developer resources (online documentation) and on-site developers.

"After the self-destructive launch of the PlayStation Vita"

Here is a fine example of IGN and their trolling ways.

Transferring the display to the controller is probably easy.  Having both the TV and controller have individual displays of different content, probably not.  Not only that but it is resource intensive.

I thought that Wii U architecture was similar to Xbox 360, so that games could easily be ported over to Wii U. Is that no longer the case? Maybe they're speaking just of the added work necessary to do "unique" things with the controller.

Yeah, I thought the same thing.  How was the Vita's launch self-destructive? lol.  Silly IGN, Tricks are for kids...

Perhaps it has a Intel processor while Wii U is rumored tot have an IBM Power PC like CPU, this would make the NextBox architecture basically equals to a modern PC.

Now I'm also wondering if there is something in the NextBox GPU or in its SDK (Software Development Kit) that would make it easy to develop.

That may be true, but I remember Iwata said at some point that Nintendo wants the third party back on board on their consoles, he even said they would invest money in other to make so. If that's the case then I would assume that Nintendo made the Wii U as easy as possible for developers to work. 

I don't know much about game developing (so sorry if what I'm about to say doesn't make sense) but I imagine that the dev kit for the Wii U is somewhat similar to the DS (with more functions and power of course) which developers are already familiar with.

No, what makes the next Xbox easier to develop on is .Net.

.Net is designed to remove the developer from the hardware, providing them with a simple and consistent interface to hardware, regardless of what the hardware is.  When new functionality to the hardware is added or the capabilities expanded, the only requirement is learning the new features.  You don't have to relearn how to develop your game just to move it from one platform to the next.  Everything developers learned to develop a game on the Xbox 360 will be applicable on the next Xbox.  They can code it for the Xbox 360 and the next Xbox, and when they compile it, they'll get two separate builds.  One for each platform.  It makes developing super simple.

Compare that to the PS3 and PS4, and Wii and Wii U, where developers talk to the hardware directly and will have to relearn APIs (libraries) from one platform to the next, relearning how to develop for each new platform.  They won't be able to share code.  They'll have to develop for each platform, where as (again) on the Xbox 360 and next Xbox they will be able to share code between games for both platforms.

What is easier?  To write game code once, then tweak for each platform, or write code for each platform?  If developers can write once and tweak the code for a different platform they will gladly do it, and with .Net, the Xbox 360 and next Xbox they can.

Are these more invisible devs like most of the people prefer or ones with actual names?