Game Developers Are Still Lazy: “We Won’t be Working on Wii U Due to its Complexities”
How can a vast majority of developers from a recent survey claim Wii U is too complex if Darksiders II developers are claiming that the game took just a few minutes to get running on Wii U? Because they're lazy, that's why.
(Darksiders 2, Wii U)
I would like to know who is complaining about these developers? Actually I would like to know how many of these same people laughed when developers made similar remarks about the PS3.
With the ps3, the system itself was expensive and complicated to make games for. With the WiiU, Devs feel that they have to make original ideas and they don't know how. They also want to port everything everywhere, and are afraid the wiiu being completely unconventional will prevent them from doing this. So, for ps3 it was difficult, time consuming and expensive. For WiiU, it's just a little too inconvenient. Two completely different situations and reasons. One out of inability, and the other out of laziness.
So what you are saying is when devs don't wanted to work with PS3 it was the hardware fault, when the WiiU is at stake, it's devs fault?
Sorry, but just no. What happens in both cases is that the publishers and devs are too used with a mass-production process, which have a lot more to do with time/money than laziness.
Neither tech is really too hard or too new. Sony didn't invented CISC architecture, nor did Ninty invented the touchscreen.
PS3 had 3 main time consuming concerns at first:
1 - Time to port. Because RISC platforms use a completelly different set of commands from CISC devs had to do the "whole work again" (not really), which is not practical for ports, publishers wanted fast cash-ins. This stopped being a concern as new engines were created that worked with both RISC and CISC in mind, saving dev time/publisher money.
2 - New challenges. The usual tricks and shortcuts CISC allow can't be done in RISC, demanding extra work and testing to make sure everything was working properly. This is the laziness part as once this becames more usual it stops being a problem, other tricks are learned, but it was a time/money concern for publsihers none the less.
3 - Off-the-shelf solutions. PS3 came one year after 360 with unusual assets, so most engines weren't ready for it. Beyong the RISC vs CISC, Sony also had a different approach for the whole OS and Online, while MS supported devs with the infrastructure ready to add on the disc (and mandatory to do so), devs had to do it by themselves in PS3. It meant as much freedom as it meant more work time.
Wii U is now facing the very same situation. What most devs are currently working on are not ready to port. Devs have yet to learn ways to work with it (it's not just "be creative", it needs to be functional too, it's not just laziness). And there's probably no commercial engine out there ready to work with both controllers and touchscreen at the same time with so many different functionalities allowed.
Developing all of this will cost time and, as so, cost money. Publishers are not always willing to properly invest money for devs, that should be pumping out games, to learn the new stuff. This probably will also cause a good chunk of subpar ports and first year games in general. Think of the Wii all over again, the motion controls were just too new, even through this kind of controls already existed before.
The good news is: sooner or later this stuff pass.
I find it odd to call them lazy when they're not under any obligation to develop for the platform to begin with.
Their job is to make games, and selling games earns them a living (it's a simplified way of looking at things). If they don't want to work on a certain platform, then they'll be losing out on those potential sales. It's their loss essentially.
A lazy developer would be one that makes a half-assed port. A developer that doesn't want to work with a specific platform is just being honest about their preferences, not lazy.
At least give the comment context. I love how it's always "anonymous developers" saying this kind of thing about the Wii U.
I want to know what the reason for it is. There are plenty of developers who worked on the PS3 exclusively back when its reputation was that it was notably difficult to develop games on.
If you just say "It's too complex" which is contradictory to previous comments from some of the known developers who have said the exact opposite, then I want an explanation so as to understand the reasoning. It also urkes me that people will accept this comment without asking any questions about it.
Laziness of yet another one of these anonymous developers is irrelevant; the nature of the comment is far too shady to take simply at face value. What company do these developers work for? Are they indie? What games have they made, if any? Were they good games?
I don't think it's that they are lazy, I think it's just a matter of the fact that at launch the Wii U will of course have 0 install base and we have no idea how fast it will grow from there.
So they can target 2 platforms which by then will have a combined install base in excess of 150 million, or also add in an entirely new platform with a tiny fraction of the install base. And then there is the issue of 3rd party titles having done rather poorly on the Wii.
What this comes down to is that a curtain number of developers just refuse to work on any Nintendo based hardware due to their personal bias or in some cases poor software sales in the past that hurt their bottom line (profits).
This generation the excuse was "The Wii just have inferior hardware", the current excuse is "Too complex to work on the Wii U" and when the PS4 and Xbox720 release the next excuse will be "The Wii U is not as powerful as these other consoles so our games will not work on it". There will be some developers that will never make games for a Nintendo console fueled party by their personal bias to the company and that's just how it will be. That's why we now live in a era of owning at least two different consoles to satisfy your gaming needs. I personally have a PS3 and will be getting the Wii U.
We already know many devs are gonna be usin this excuse, and of course we know that it's silly. And you don't HAVE to do something amazing with the screen.....just port your game over and let us choose which HUD elements we want on the controller, it's as simple as that.
I didn't disagree with you but the problem--I think I read--was that it's the exact opposite. They feel it's a problem porting Wii U games over to the other consoles because of the controller. Either way, it's still a cop-out.
I think in this age of ballooning development costs console makers should make their platforms as easy as possible to develop for. I don't want devs spending all their time trying to get games running properly, I rather they spend it on content, polish and gameplay refinement.
@ mocha Just because it's easy doesn't mean dev are going to hit the ground running and produce beautiful games, it'll allow them to have a easier time making ports or the engine won't be finicky with the console and if anybody wants to see lazy dev work check out ps move implementation in ghost recon by iwaggle3d on YouTube .
But that was the consensus, a lot of 3rd party devs said the PS3 was hard to work with and they didn't do this behind closed doors, they stated this openly.
It dosen't matter...they are still being called lazy by gamers when the last time they said this with the PS3 gamers called Sony for making it hard for them, basicaly sticking up for developers. Now they change their tune because it's Nintendo....thats not fair
If it's hard to work with then maybe Nintendo should of learnt from Sonys mistake and make it developer friendly.
this isn't a power issue like ps3, it deals with "I don't know how to make something cool with the controller, so what ever"
That is just lazy. Thats why the sales have fallen for a lot recently for 3rd parties. They think they can just copy the cod formula and be good with it, and its just not how it works.
@Khordchange "this isn't a power issue like ps3, it deals with I don't know how to make something cool with the controller, so what ever"
you cannot have it both way's
saying that the PS3 was a power issue , but say that the extra screen would not pose a development problem is like saying just ignore the complex nature of how you design a game. both offer their own complex nature in development.
@joeoorc Several devs have already said how easy it is to utilize the tablet. It literally takes a couple of minutes an a few line of code and it works. The problem is that devs are lazy and creatively bankrupt, and can't conceptualize any interesting ideas for how to utilize the interface. They also want to be able to make a quick buck on multiplatform ports, which would be difficult if the control is originally utilized: which is just more laziness in an attempt to maximize profits with as few games as possible.
It may make sense financially for devs who want assured steady gains. But it sucks for gamers, who will have fewer games overall. Which in turn leads to fewer sales in the future and less money overall, actually... meaning it is bad for everyone.
Is this just gonna happen every generation now? This generation was PS3, then next its Wii U, are they gonna complain about the PS4 and Xbox 720 as well
Yes. That's pretty much it. But it is laziness, in that they won't put forth effort to make original games or products for consumers. And when coming up with good, interesting ideas for something has become too difficult for someone in a creative profession, then they are either bad at what they do or are simply lazy.
No where did they say anything about "original" games/products. This was regarding a new system that they do not find appealing. It's irrelevant whether they make good games or not. Cause even if they did make a game for it, it can still be bad regardless of how much effort they put in it.
FatOldMan said is already, they are not obligated to do it. It's their money, their choice.
wow, callling developers lazy is just... Most of these bloggers dont even know what object oriented means. The thing is, time is money and money is hard to make if there is no install base wanting to buy your game.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy though. If there are more 3rd party games the install base will be bigger. But if they say they won't support the system because there is no install base, they are part of the reason there is no install base, so they are only hurting themselves.
all development studious should learn something from Crytek, DICE, Naughty Dog, irrational games, criterion and quite a few others which never complain and always innovate the gaming scene.
You're both right. Those devs innovate visuals, that is all. That IS innovation though, just not the type of innovation that will sustain the industry.
If developers are really claiming this due to the fact that the architecture itself is pretty similar to the 360, makes me question what their claims on the PS3 really is.
Oh, also if you look at the source article from IGN, 80% of the devs favor the Xbox. Really? 80%? That is a VERY high number. And an Xbox editor made it on top of that... There has to be discrepancies in there.
I would LOVE to see the poll on top of the devs that took the survey because that sounds extremely fishy to me... Who did they ask? Only third party devs? Because if it wasn't, they would obviously pick their own company.
Known developers have openly come out and stated that WiiU is as easy to develop for as the 360 is... So it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that it's a hard console to work on. THQ stated they had the tablet controller working with a few lines of code. So how hard is it to remove a few lines of code to make a game compatible with more traditional consoles. Not to mention that the only thing that makes WiiU's TabController different is the screen! It has all of the same controls as a regular controller. I call BS on this article!
I never thought of this before....but it makes a lot of sense. Porting to the WiiU might be easy. But games made for WiiU that are not paid exclusives - the costs of limiting the game to just one console is not a viable option anymore.
Just another real reason why making a controller radically different can be a mistake.
why is he getting disagree's? "But games made for WiiU that are not paid exclusives - the costs of limiting the game to just one console is not a viable option anymore."
How is what he said not a viable statement why?
I mean currently both Nintendo and Sony have such a device that can offer such control design of a controller interaction with the Game system. the Closeest thing Microsoft has currently known is a Windows Tablet with xboxlive connection. which is not as robust yet as a dedicated device made for connection with the System.
Many developer's may not want to Exclude the next xbox720 or what ever Microsoft may call it's system to how well the xbox360 did this generation for software sales.Once again you cannot have it both way's expecting a 3rd party studio from making an exclusive outright for your game system anymore is a bit of a stretch.
The complex nature of the change in industry has turned more complex in the design and production of games due to the advancement's in online and complex of hardware development with direct connection to that online structure.
The systems are less static due to that very nature. And one complaint is Nintendo's online structure is not as well developed as both Sony's and Microsoft's so calling out them being lazy is not quite right in my opinion because we do not have all the fact's to go by. Walk a little bit in their shoes before pointing the finger @ them. Without them there would be less games for you to enjoy think about that next time.
I agree. But when an industry won't even try to take chances or make more diverse the landscape it is made of, it is quite depressing. Sure, it's all about the money, and I would never doom a company by demanding they do something that will damage them financially. But that risk always exists anyway, and the fact that so many would be satisfied to barely glide along shoveling the same crap at us year after year and system after system because it is safe instead of actually working hard and trying to make more innovative worthwhile products is damning to the industry in the long run, and to the average capitalistic consumer just smacks of laziness.
Multiple consoles exist for a reason, and devs should try to make use of each one individually.
-So WiiU, eh? ·Yep -Two screens, can you imagine what we can do whit this? I mean, the video Nintendo show was amazing. ·Yeah, just imagine; we can put there.... a menu! or even a map! and more! the possibilities are endless! -Yes! Endless!!! like.. like... amm... ·... -I'm tired, wanna go back to our old 25th years controllers? ·Yes, WiiU is too complex.
The only retarded person is the IGN Editor vindictive enough to sample this one quote from a whole bunch of other quotes, that probably in all likely hood actually praised the Wii U and Nintendo.
"This information is based on survey responses from 35 video game developers IGN trusts. Look for more information on next generation consoles at IGN soon."
Mitch Dyer is an Associate Editor for IGN's Xbox 360 team. He’s also quite Canadian. Read his ramblings on Twitter and follow him on IGN.
"35 Developers" - Great sample there buddy, did you maybe choose devs. you personally know, especially since you're the XBOX 360 Associate Editor?
IGN is a joke, its no wonder Murdoch sold you off, and half your staff left.
The big developers (even those not working on projects for Wii U) have said that it's virtually a supercharged 360. So, I'm sorry, but this is complete crap. It's possible it's still not as "easy" as the 360, but Nintendo worked closely with third parties to make everyone as happy as possible. There is just no way there is any truth to this.
We already know the architecture of the system for the most part, just not specifics. Modern quad core IBM CPU with an AMD GPU and probably shared RAM... aka almost standard PC architecture (a freaking xbox). What a load.
Thinking up a way to utilize the controller should be kids work. If you're real lazy, just put the HUD there. Done.
Now - Join us on Filmwatch as we celebrate the release of Star Trek Into Darkness this month with a must-have collectible for Star Trek fans! | Promoted post
Now - Join us on Filmwatch as we celebrate the release of Star Trek Into Darkness this month with a must-have collectible for Star Trek fans! | Promoted post
40°
20°
20°
130°
Ad 
110°
20°
40°
20°
20°
20°
I would like to know who said that??
Shoe, meet other foot.
So, for ps3 it was difficult, time consuming and expensive. For WiiU, it's just a little too inconvenient.
Two completely different situations and reasons. One out of inability, and the other out of laziness.
Sorry, but just no. What happens in both cases is that the publishers and devs are too used with a mass-production process, which have a lot more to do with time/money than laziness.
Neither tech is really too hard or too new. Sony didn't invented CISC architecture, nor did Ninty invented the touchscreen.
PS3 had 3 main time consuming concerns at first:
1 - Time to port.
Because RISC platforms use a completelly different set of commands from CISC devs had to do the "whole work again" (not really), which is not practical for ports, publishers wanted fast cash-ins. This stopped being a concern as new engines were created that worked with both RISC and CISC in mind, saving dev time/publisher money.
2 - New challenges.
The usual tricks and shortcuts CISC allow can't be done in RISC, demanding extra work and testing to make sure everything was working properly. This is the laziness part as once this becames more usual it stops being a problem, other tricks are learned, but it was a time/money concern for publsihers none the less.
3 - Off-the-shelf solutions.
PS3 came one year after 360 with unusual assets, so most engines weren't ready for it. Beyong the RISC vs CISC, Sony also had a different approach for the whole OS and Online, while MS supported devs with the infrastructure ready to add on the disc (and mandatory to do so), devs had to do it by themselves in PS3. It meant as much freedom as it meant more work time.
Wii U is now facing the very same situation. What most devs are currently working on are not ready to port. Devs have yet to learn ways to work with it (it's not just "be creative", it needs to be functional too, it's not just laziness). And there's probably no commercial engine out there ready to work with both controllers and touchscreen at the same time with so many different functionalities allowed.
Developing all of this will cost time and, as so, cost money. Publishers are not always willing to properly invest money for devs, that should be pumping out games, to learn the new stuff. This probably will also cause a good chunk of subpar ports and first year games in general. Think of the Wii all over again, the motion controls were just too new, even through this kind of controls already existed before.
The good news is: sooner or later this stuff pass.
Their job is to make games, and selling games earns them a living (it's a simplified way of looking at things).
If they don't want to work on a certain platform, then they'll be losing out on those potential sales. It's their loss essentially.
A lazy developer would be one that makes a half-assed port. A developer that doesn't want to work with a specific platform is just being honest about their preferences, not lazy.
I want to know what the reason for it is. There are plenty of developers who worked on the PS3 exclusively back when its reputation was that it was notably difficult to develop games on.
If you just say "It's too complex" which is contradictory to previous comments from some of the known developers who have said the exact opposite, then I want an explanation so as to understand the reasoning. It also urkes me that people will accept this comment without asking any questions about it.
Laziness of yet another one of these anonymous developers is irrelevant; the nature of the comment is far too shady to take simply at face value. What company do these developers work for? Are they indie? What games have they made, if any? Were they good games?
So they can target 2 platforms which by then will have a combined install base in excess of 150 million, or also add in an entirely new platform with a tiny fraction of the install base. And then there is the issue of 3rd party titles having done rather poorly on the Wii.
This generation the excuse was "The Wii just have inferior hardware", the current excuse is "Too complex to work on the Wii U" and when the PS4 and Xbox720 release the next excuse will be "The Wii U is not as powerful as these other consoles so our games will not work on it". There will be some developers that will never make games for a Nintendo console fueled party by their personal bias to the company and that's just how it will be. That's why we now live in a era of owning at least two different consoles to satisfy your gaming needs. I personally have a PS3 and will be getting the Wii U.
I'm pretty sure developers were like this with the PS3
Yet you know what most gamers responses were then instead of the whole "developers are lazy" thing
"Jeez...maybe Sony should of not made it hard to develop for"
It seems a little wrong to call developers for being lazy when Sony was called non stop for making a hard console to work with.
Behind closed doors....saying it openly
It dosen't matter...they are still being called lazy by gamers when the last time they said this with the PS3 gamers called Sony for making it hard for them, basicaly sticking up for developers. Now they change their tune because it's Nintendo....thats not fair
If it's hard to work with then maybe Nintendo should of learnt from Sonys mistake and make it developer friendly.
That is just lazy. Thats why the sales have fallen for a lot recently for 3rd parties. They think they can just copy the cod formula and be good with it, and its just not how it works.
"this isn't a power issue like ps3, it deals with I don't know how to make something cool with the controller, so what ever"
you cannot have it both way's
saying that the PS3 was a power issue , but say that the extra screen would not pose a development problem is like saying just ignore the complex nature of how you design a game. both offer their own complex nature in development.
Several devs have already said how easy it is to utilize the tablet. It literally takes a couple of minutes an a few line of code and it works.
The problem is that devs are lazy and creatively bankrupt, and can't conceptualize any interesting ideas for how to utilize the interface. They also want to be able to make a quick buck on multiplatform ports, which would be difficult if the control is originally utilized: which is just more laziness in an attempt to maximize profits with as few games as possible.
It may make sense financially for devs who want assured steady gains. But it sucks for gamers, who will have fewer games overall. Which in turn leads to fewer sales in the future and less money overall, actually... meaning it is bad for everyone.
I imagine that it's never easy to work with new tech, but at least get yourself a console for development before you start complaining.
Most developers do go for a quick buck. It's a way to keep themselves going.
I wonder if the developers meant that gamedesign around the tablet controller is complex.
But it is laziness, in that they won't put forth effort to make original games or products for consumers.
And when coming up with good, interesting ideas for something has become too difficult for someone in a creative profession, then they are either bad at what they do or are simply lazy.
This was regarding a new system that they do not find appealing. It's irrelevant whether they make good games or not. Cause even if they did make a game for it, it can still be bad regardless of how much effort they put in it.
FatOldMan said is already, they are not obligated to do it. It's their money, their choice.
So i guess developing for the Wii U isn't so easy after all.
Dang brah... that was hilarious! xD
all development studious should learn something from Crytek, DICE, Naughty Dog, irrational games, criterion and quite a few others which never complain and always innovate the gaming scene.
Crytek and nvidia developed a new kind of anti aliasing called SMAA T2X which enables consoles to have more PC-like graphics. (video)
naughty dog, is doing an amazing job unleashing the full power of the PS3 take a look at uncharted 3.
these companies are bringing new technologies and techniques to the gaming industry.
and guess what? they are not complaining of how difficult it is.
Related video
I would LOVE to see the poll on top of the devs that took the survey because that sounds extremely fishy to me... Who did they ask? Only third party devs? Because if it wasn't, they would obviously pick their own company.
I call BS on this article!
Just another real reason why making a controller radically different can be a mistake.
"But games made for WiiU that are not paid exclusives - the costs of limiting the game to just one console is not a viable option anymore."
How is what he said not a viable statement why?
I mean currently both Nintendo and Sony have such a device that can offer such control design of a controller interaction with the Game system. the Closeest thing Microsoft has currently known is a Windows Tablet with xboxlive connection. which is not as robust yet as a dedicated device made for connection with the System.
Many developer's may not want to Exclude the next xbox720 or what ever Microsoft may call it's system to how well the xbox360 did this generation for software sales.Once again you cannot have it both way's expecting a 3rd party studio from making an exclusive outright for your game system anymore is a bit of a stretch.
The complex nature of the change in industry has turned more complex in the design and production of games due to the advancement's in online and complex of hardware development with direct connection to that online structure.
The systems are less static due to that very nature. And one complaint is Nintendo's online structure is not as well developed as both Sony's and Microsoft's so calling out them being lazy is not quite right in my opinion because we do not have all the fact's to go by. Walk a little bit in their shoes before pointing the finger @ them. Without them there would be less games for you to enjoy think about that next time.
Multiple consoles exist for a reason, and devs should try to make use of each one individually.
·Yep
-Two screens, can you imagine what we can do whit this? I mean, the video Nintendo show was amazing.
·Yeah, just imagine; we can put there.... a menu! or even a map! and more! the possibilities are endless!
-Yes! Endless!!! like.. like... amm...
·...
-I'm tired, wanna go back to our old 25th years controllers?
·Yes, WiiU is too complex.
"This information is based on survey responses from 35 video game developers IGN trusts. Look for more information on next generation consoles at IGN soon."
Mitch Dyer is an Associate Editor for IGN's Xbox 360 team. He’s also quite Canadian. Read his ramblings on Twitter and follow him on IGN.
"35 Developers" - Great sample there buddy, did you maybe choose devs. you personally know, especially since you're the XBOX 360 Associate Editor?
IGN is a joke, its no wonder Murdoch sold you off, and half your staff left.
We already know the architecture of the system for the most part, just not specifics. Modern quad core IBM CPU with an AMD GPU and probably shared RAM... aka almost standard PC architecture (a freaking xbox). What a load.
Thinking up a way to utilize the controller should be kids work. If you're real lazy, just put the HUD there. Done.
So why are you sitting here nodding your head in agreement to this unsubstantiated BS?
I'm pretty sure we'd like less ports and more development.
It has just the right amount of anonymous sources.