It is easy to develop compared to the Wii but since the games have effects, high resolution textures and more objects on the screen it takes more time to create a game for the Wii U.

Wii U CPU is a bit odd because one of its cores has more cache, but at the same time this makes it more suited for single thread algorithms because a program running on it can have a good performance without the need of parallelization. From this point of view, it is easy to code than the PS4/X1 CPU where a developer has to parallelize the code to archive a good performance. But of course there are other features on PS4/X1 CPU that makes the development simple and easy (probably even more easy than the Wii U CPU).

easy does not mean faster development. faster development needs more people and they have already stated that they needed more people than the people they added for HD development

even if you have the game programmed and ready you still need to build models and add textures which takes longer the more detailed they are

Excellent.


Now train new developers in the ways of Nintendo and put an end to this drought.

It may be easier to develop for compared to earlier consoles. I remember the Saturn, SNES, PS3, PS2, and possibly N64 having a reputation of being hard to develop for. I think Sony even went on record saying that the PS3 was difficult to develop on by design. They wanted devs to have to work to get results.

Maybe the Wii U is easy to develop for and you can make a title like Wii Sports or Twilight Princess in half the time. I guess the challenge comes from making games in HD with a level of detail previously non-existent in Nintendo console. They'll hit their stride soon. They always do.

He's known to be a pain in the ass to work with. Some call him the "Steve Jobs" of gaming.

True; I've heard he's known for "upending the tea table".

He does seem like a real nice guy off the job, though. He's likely just a perfectionist.

There's been mixed messages about how easy Wii U is to develop for.

Frozenbyte and Shin'en have called it "easy" and "accessible" while other devs like Criterion hav called it hard to work with.

The main problem seems to be that's its very different from either the PS3/360 or the PS4/X1 architecturally, so you can't just easily transfer a game across and have it run well, and devs don't have experience with getting the most out of it.

You mean Wii U? Or was "Wii" on purpose?

Retro is struggling big time? Why, because their Wii U game isn't a technical marvel?

Coming from TEV and complex memory system of the Wii to a modern programmable shader GPU and unified RAM must be a huge improvement. But being more powerful also means that the demands on the quality and amount of assets also increases exponentially from what they were doing before which they have struggled with. Also it's no surprise that developers that have spent 7 years with the X360/PS3 (the early learning curve may have been steep but that was a long time ago) and Windows development would have issues with the immature tools and esoteric platform quirks of the Wii U.

The PS4 and Xbone are said to be far easier than any previous generation thanks to their standard "off the shelf" architecture and great tools (Sony especially has apparently invested heavily into it's dev tools, which is a nice change from the sending technical manuals in Japanese the size of a large phone book and saying good luck of the PS3). But again the increased power will of course mean that the standard of assets will increase which will cause many developers to increase manpower to compensate.

What's wrong with what he said? After he has figured out how the system works, then of course you can pass judgement on whether it's easy to develop for. He still needed to get through the hurdle of first-timer HD development. Now that he went through that, he claimed that it is easy to work with since he gets it now. Where's the problem?