It's inevitable that Durango is the easiest to develop for, it's being made by a company that has specialized in developing software on PCs for decades. Also, DX11.

Sony can try their hardest, and from what I've heard about developing for PSV, making games for Orbis won't be anywhere near as hard as conquering th3 c3ll was.

As for the Wii U? I'm sure the hardware itself isn't terribly difficult to program for, it's just as others have said, making games that take advantage of the tablet controller is probably a little difficult and time consuming.

Between some of those lines I read "We just don't want to makes games for Nintendo because they are poopy heads."

sometimes i have the feeling they say it because they fear nintendos own games as competition. just look at sony or microsoft. they have plenty of exclusives as well (yes even microsoft has a lot, most games are just not talked about) but only a few of both are real competition for ea or activision or whatever. only maybe halo, fable, uncharted, gran turismo and 2-3 more. but on nintendo consoles you have every freaking game from nintendo as competition because most sell so damn well and if all nintendo owners use their money for nintendo games, they have less for ea or activision games.

and sure, like some said, they wouldn't have to have great ideas for the tablet and could make games only with a map on the tablet or so but if nintendo will develop great ideas for that tablet, would people really buy games of other developers without that, seeing that it is possible to make great things with the tablet? i believe many would think "hmm nintendo games use the tv and the tablet very good, ea and activision games only use the tv screen, i get a better experience with nintendo games" and i can imagine that reviewers would see it as well like this and would give worse ratings for games not using the tablet very good.

Sadly, I think that there is a lot of truth to this.  Imagine a world where 3rd party developers actually tried to make games as good as Nintendo.  Sorry, I'm dreaming again.

ms paying cash to developers again so they talk trash :D

To be honest - Just fire all those noob developers,build a university and hire the Naughty Dog,Guerilla,Santa Monica Studio and so on Developers as teachers.

They showed with every game how much superior PS3 Exclusives can be compared to 360 Games.
The Hardware of the PS3 is easy to understand if you have the skill....Most Developers are just bad and don't understand their job.
Fire them,get them a job at McDonalds and teach new people the way how you have to do it.
Cause there is no other reason for the mess those bad developers did in this Gen while Naughty Dog pushed and still is able to push the PS3 even further.

And if they can't adapt to even better and easier to understandable hardware they really should try an other job.
Cause what else should Sony do?They change their architecture again completely so those unskilled Devs can at least do something with it but they
already start to cry again.

The Wii U the hardest?2 weeks ago it was the easiest.
So we don't can be sure either if IGN is involved..They are known Microsoft Fanboys...Those 35 Developers probably were 35 people at 343 Studios.

Sort of but not really. Let's use an RPG for an exaple. When setting up the display for a game you can set up a number of different canvases to send the information to. So the inventory screen would be on one and the game on another. In normal games you would dump the inventory canvas into reserve memory until need. With the Wii U you would have it update but by using threading you can throattle down the update of the second canvas so it doesn't use as much memory. So if it is an inventory screen ala LoZ you can have it update when either the client or the game uses it. (A new item added, changing) So the only time the contoller is using resources is when it updatesy. For things like FPS radar HUD it would be updated a little more fequently then a stationary, but not as often as the main screen.

The thing is when the TV is being used the information displayed on the controllers will never be graphically intensive. Unless you are doing some parascope type stuff with the controller screen. But at that time you can troatle down the updates to the main screen to give extra resources to the controller.

The problem here is what most developers complained about the PSP vs the DS. It is hard to make games that make use of "all" the bells and whistles of the tech the console has. The thing is you don't have to.

Sorry if this wasn't word correctly I just got off of work and didn't have enough sleep yesterday so my thinking is a little more abstract than it usually is.

and first party should get much better tools and always the best and newest informations directly from sony about new ways to program for that thing. it is the hardest to develop for, everyone should know that and this costs money. noone will put much more effort in a game to get graphics like uncharted if it will cost too much. only first party studios will do this.

All the reasons you shit on were justifiable ones that were given at the time. Your problem isn't that they are wrong, but that they didn't serve your purposes. It is funny how you ignore the fact that Carts not only had less storage space, but cost a hell of a lot more to manufacture. Nintendo didn't care, because it was their proprietary format, and they didn't have to license from others to manufacture them. Same problem to a lesser extent with the GC media discs. When it comes to the Wii how does a market position dictate what a developer must do. Obviously that player base wasn't inducive enough to overcome all of the other associated costs and shortfalls.

Nintendo likes to flaunt industry standards, and dictate their own terms. It is no wonder really that the industry pushes back, and refuses to change its own tune to be in lock step with Nintendo. You talk about what Nintendo needs to do, but here is a idea. Nintendo should give the developers what they want, and they should make a wider variety of games to make their market more dynamic. It isn't the developers at fault, because frankly they don't care where they put the games they are making. Just that those games make them money. Nintendo are the ones at fault for not making a platform that can be profitable for studios that are not Nintendo.

You point to the larger install base, but the truth of the matter is this. That install base was a toxic dead zone. Developers would walk in, and come back totally poisoned from one side to the next. Nintendo had created a platform where core/hardcore games had no real chance for success. I am going to say something harsh now. The Wii was really just a fad. People bought the machine. Played a couple games on it. Then shoved it in a closet to be forgotten. What good is any game console where the vast majority of owners don't play for more then a few months.