i think it's more challening to keep up with what devs are saying...

Calm down, I wasn't serious. I was being sarcastic.

i believe 360 was easiest this gen. sure it was more expensive than wii games but only because of the better technique which you need more time and people for to psuh the graphics.. maybe i'm wrong but wasn't 360 like developing for pc?

Are you a programmer? (For me you seem to understand very well how .net works)

I have been programming in .net for years and I have also experience in gaming programing with .net. I remember when MS anounnced .net for XBox360 and they said basically everithing you sumarized above. I was in the middle of my graduation at that time and I started to study a lot about it with my colleagues. So what you just wrote was suposed to happen this gen.

However C and C++ (and Lua for scripting) are stil the industry patterns even for the XBox360. Why?  .net is still slow compared to C and C++ so demanding games cannot use it yet. Also most of the modern engines (like the Unreal Engine) provide those features that you said and many others. Currently game development is at a level where the language of the code generated by an engine is almost irrelevant.

But of course MS can try some sort of trick to make .net the most used language in the NextBox so lets wait and see!

I agree. 

Devs, don't feel the pressure, you can still be lazy as hell.

There is a difference between mandatory and obligatory. While developers may not be forced to build their games around the interface the implication is that they will be compelled to do so. By how Nintendo uses the interface themselves, and by the expectations that will generate in owners of the platform. Developers can and will be judged by how much they build their games around the unique interface. To put it in real simple terms they will be punished if they don't do what Nintendo does, and since Nintendo doesn't have to worry about porting games, or building games that will work on multiple platforms. They are free to take it to the extremes.

They did the exact same thing to developers with the Wii. Which was a console built around the needs and desires of what Nintendo wanted to do, and not necessarily what developers wanted to do. Remember it is naturally in the best interest of Nintendo to make their console the lead, and make it prohibitively expensive for developers to port their games. Sure Nintendo gives lip service to supporting a traditional controller setup, but they did have standard controller support on the Wii. Which they themselves hardly supported.

The developers aren't being lazy when it comes to this interface. They are being pragmatic with good reason, and fairly earnest about what it means they should do. You shouldn't think for a moment that good developers think they are going to get by with a redundant inventory screen, or leaving the screen blank. They know that isn't even a real choice they can afford to make. Since when has it ever been in good taste to let two thirds of the interface space go fallow.

I guarantee those on these forums that are complaining right now that they don't have to use the screen. Will be front and center bitching up a storm if some developer doesn't make real good use of that screen. You can put that comment in the bank, and I hope some have the foresight to bookmark this thread. So you can throw these comments right back in their faces when they try.

Using that touch screen is mandatory even though it isn't being stated explicitly. You can say that drinking water is not mandatory, but that doesn't change the fact that if you decided to stop drinking water you would die of thirst. There isn't a real choice being offered up here. Nintendo doesn't have to make developers use that screen. They are going to make it real hard to not do so. By their first party software alone.

Tablets aren't made for games. A AAA experience just isn't possible on them.

Analysts are wrong, plain and simple.

That's just your opinion.

The truth is that this E3 will be the worst yet. No Apple/Zynga or Facebook? E3 is as irrelevant as ever.

Alternatively, they could just use the touch screen as a map, or plain ol' leave it blank. This may not fly in the first few months, when people critics seem to expect every new feature of a system to be used in every game, but the DS and Wii have demonstrably proven that just because a system can do X, doesn't mean every game has to use X.

The 360's supposedly the easiest to develop for this gen, because most developers have been most extensively trained on those tools.

I don't consider myself a programmer, no.  Programmers are gifted in the art of coding.  I am challenged, though capable.  Some of the people I am acquainted with though were not only the first people to use .Net but the first to write about it.  I am, at the heart of the matter, a system administrator and well read.  My experience is working with developers to create efficient code.  So, while I suck at writing code, I'm reasonably good at finding bad code.

C# and VB.Net are the languages of XNA.  While I don't believe VB.Net is optimized for gaming, with XNA Microsoft did optimize C# for gaming.  In fact, anything available on XBLIG is most definitely developed using C# or VB.Net.  The challenge with C# is not speed, but memory.  Having said that, you are correct in that  C++ is the primary language for developing games by professional developers.  However, Microsoft still provides consistent libraries.  It may not mean a developer doesn't have to learn new properties or methods of an API, but they won't have to relearn what they already know.  You aren't going to get that going from an NVidia GPU to an AMD GPU, nor are you going to get that going from the Cell to an AMD processor. 

True, a game engine such as UE3 can significantly reduce the back-end work of development.  However, if a developer without the aid of any game engine wrote code on all six systems, by far the most significant amount of reusable code would be available to developers between the Xbox 360 and the next Xbox.  The only thing of significant merit changing are the referenced libraries* and any newer features available that a developer would want to take advantage of on the next Xbox.  I would be surprised if the Wii's APIs carried over to the Wii U, or the PS3's APIs carried over to the PS4.

I'm not sure what you mean by the language game engines generate is irrelevant?  Game engines are a framework, not a code generator.  They simply provide additional libraries for developers to reference so they don't have to develop that code on their own, and typically they provide consistent libraries between systems for code portability.  In that respect, they reduce the amount of coding necessary to that of the actual game code.  Developers would still write code in in a given language be it C# or C++ (as an example), and compile it referencing those libraries.  Ultimately, the language the game engine is developed in is irrelevant because it is the programming language that the game developer uses that matters. 

My guess is that with the next Xbox Microsoft will make C# the primary language for development.  This is what they are doing with Windows 8, and I suspect they'll make the push with the next Xbox as well.  Whether or not the larger studios use it, I don't know.  I doubt third-party developers would use anything but C++ because it provides the best code portability.  However, it won't mean Microsoft won't push for C#. 

 * For reference to non-developers, in compiled languages libraries must be referenced to use in coding and to compile.  A library cannot be referenced if it is not available on the system the code is being compiled on.  However, at runtime, if the calls made are supported by the API (compatible) then the application/game will run without issue.  Compatibility issues arise when a referenced library, property, or method does not exist.