Ex-Sony Dev: Wii U Won't Last Another Christmas

[Ieyke]

What's with all these guys who used to work for Sony coming out of the woodwork to say negative things about Nintendo and the Wii-U? I really want to know. Did they have a traumatic experience with Nintendo and their consoles?

I think the fact that his studio is defunct tells you pretty much all you need to know about the value of his opinion.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Nintendo treats their customers with respect, a lot more than what I can say with the other guys.

Yeah. That's why they're the only console manufacturer left who still has region locking despite pleas by customers to abandon it. That's also why they're the only console manufacturer whose digital purchases are tied to the console, not an online account, in which case if said console dies and you didn't back up your purchases, you're S.O.L.

Yeah...um compared to the other practices that Sony and Microsoft allow third parties to indulge in these are minor inconveniences at worse.

If Region locking and a stupid digital account system (that they recently announced they just fixed anyway) is the only real problem you have with Nintendo then I would say they have a B+ in terms of consumer respect.

That wasn't the point. The point was saying that Nintendo respects its customer at all is disingenuous.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

"Nobody gives a s***" about Mario", eh... that sounds very professional mate.

An opinion doesn't always have to be professional sounding.

And the numbers don't lie.

The new Mario game's launch has shown something that Nintendo should be shitting its pants over right now. If Mario can't sell their consoles on name alone it there is next to no hope for that console until another first part title comes out. And their only announcing the new Legend of Zelda this upcoming year at E3. That announcement more than likely will not have a 2014 release date and disinterest for the Wii U will be at an all time high.

 

[NoeL]

Yes they spend their time targeting a new market. I'm not saying something contradictive. What I am saying is that by targeting this "other market" they stopped targeting the "default" market where the rest of the consoles are targeting.
And that "other market" they targeted is already fully covered with the Wii and they are never going to want to buy another machine like that until it breaks. Which means these people won't follow over to WiiU. And by releasing a new console that practically targets at a target audience that doesn't exist,they are not competitive. Competitive against who,their own self ?

They would buy another machine if it appealed to them in the same way the Wii did. The Wii U only kinda does, but the main problem is the fact most people with a Wii don't even know about the Wii U. That's a failure of marketing, not product.

Nope. Don't know how much the consoles costed at your country,but where I live XBOX360 was priced 300E at its first day,ps3 600E,and Wii 250E. In comparison to xbox360 the Wii wasn't value. It was a way weaker system and it only had a 50 dollars / euros difference. I disagree that Wii is the best thing Nintendo could have done.

The Wii was always the cheapest, and only got cheaper. This was never the main selling point, but it's a strong point nonetheless.

What are you talking about ? Check the facts. The casual gamers that bought a Wii didn't got a WiiU. They already lost this audience. These people don't follow game franchises like 'core' gamers do. These are the people that will buy a Chess board once and will play chess on it for their whole life.They won't be buying "Chess 2 with new artstyle".

Wii owners "didn't got" a Wii U because they don't know it exists! Those are the facts. Talk to anyone not in the gaming sphere - they're clueless about the product.

Games on 3ds and WiiU look so much the same

Wow, not even close...

I say one thing,and you reply me for another thing. I didn't said Mario Galaxy was the first game with motion controls,I said Mario Galaxy was the first MARIO game with motion controls.
It seems you skip reading chunks of test.

That's not what you said, but let's just pretend you did.

Noooope! Mario Bros on the NES had simultaneous multiplayer too.

True, although Mario Bros. doesn't really fit into the "Mario" genre that began with Super Mario Bros. I guess we can say it's the first "Super Mario" game with simultaneous multiplayer.

And 3d multiplayer isn't really much fresh either. It's been done by Doom since 1993.

Wait, I thought we were talking about Mario games? Talk about hypocrisy!

Explain me how from a business perspective it is a good thing if even I can make a game based on their copyrighted work and get money out of it,without ever even contacting them.

I'm pretty sure none of those fan games are making money off the property, and the ones that do get their asses sued off by Nintendo.

No I haven't noticed AAA studios closing.

I guess you're just ignorant about the state of the industry then. Here's a list [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131].

This [http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa] is also worth reading. AAA games NEED to be smash hits to make any profit at all. Tomb Raider sold two million copies yet was a financial failure. That's insanity.

I've noticed Bethesda spending 65 millions on Skyrim and getting back 650 millions though.

Case in point - smash hit.

Once again,someone gives me an answer that I find it hard to believe. Basically what you are telling me is that everyone should drop their standards and make worse looking,worse sounding,smaller games.

Yes. Devote resources to creating solid gameplay rather than making things look and sound as good as they can. Dark Souls only sold 200,000 copies (compared to Tomb Raider's two million) but it was a critical AND financial success. Dark Souls turned a profit for the studio, Tomb Raider didn't. It was also a better game, despite looking and sounding worse.

Studios can still sink money into large scale Magnum Opuses but they simply can't afford to do that for EVERY game they make. This is what's making studios drop like flies. They sink all of their resources into games they can't afford to produce then pray to God it becomes a smash hit. If the game only sells "very well" as opposed to "exceptionally well" they collapse. This is a poor business model! It's also a model Nintendo is wise enough to avoid.

I'm sorry my friend,but I tend to have a different point of view. I want to see video games evolve and improve their quality at inifinum.

i.e. you want magic to be real. What you "want" isn't financially viable. What you "want" has led to the AAA industry pumping out the same watered down, by the numbers CRAP because they can't afford to lose tens of millions of dollars road testing a new concept. It's precisely why indie games have stolen the spotlight over the last six years or so - they can afford to fail.

Ironically, video games have been improving in quality, just not in the market you're pointing to. We're seeing new, innovative and fun mechanics come out of indies and smaller studios - the guys ACTUALLY driving the games industry. If all you care about is games that look and sound as close to real life as possible... why the fuck are you gaming in the first place? Just go outside!

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Well he contradicted his own statement that 'no one gives a shit' by stating the 150k who do.

It is sad though that quality got trumped by shiny mediocrity, I'm holding off on Xbox One and PS4 until something worthwhile comes out, though I don't disagree that Nintendo needs to have another look at their advertising strategies and getting some more games out that aren't part of their big series'.

In more than a year since release, Nintendo managed to shift fewer units to the region than the PS4 managed in a week. Given that the PS4 costs more than the WiiU and has an incredibly weak lineup (which is expected at launch), I'd say you've got a problem that goes well beyond advertising. Beyond a few Nintendo exclusives, there isn't much worth playing on the Wii U and third party support is virtually non-existent. That third party support problem won't reverse itself without a major increase in consumer interest in the platform (demonstrated by moving units into homes) which means it's up to Nintendo alone to make this happen. And if they can't even get people to buy Mario for the system, it's a grim sign to be sure.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Wii owners "didn't got" a Wii U because they don't know it exists! Those are the facts. Talk to anyone not in the gaming sphere - they're clueless about the product.

I would point out that there isn't much evidence that suggests they'd get a Wii U even if they knew it existed. The audience for the Wii, that is, the people that made it the staggering success that it was, have other devices in their homes right now that fill their gaming needs.

Dark Souls turned a profit for the studio, Tomb Raider didn't. It was also a better game, despite looking and sounding worse.

I'd say that, at best, it could be qualified as a different game. Most of the strong points that people point to in Dark Souls would be seen as god-awful design elsewhere. Hell, every one of the the things people pointed to caused rage and bile when it came from a different game. The fact the game doesn't explain anything to you was a major gripe with the opening hours of Witcher 2 causing the developers to go back after the fact and entirely remake the first few hours of the game. The lack of save points has been a cause of concern for people in games like Dead Rising. The minimalist storytelling style is often pointed to as a flaw in Bethesda games by people who want explicit story rather than world building. It's easy to point out how the two are different; attempting to categorically state that Dark Souls is better is an impossible task.

 

[Dragonbums]

Nintendo treats their customers with respect, a lot more than what I can say with the other guys.

Yeah. That's why they're the only console manufacturer left who still has region locking despite pleas by customers to abandon it. That's also why they're the only console manufacturer whose digital purchases are tied to the console, not an online account, in which case if said console dies and you didn't back up your purchases, you're S.O.L.

Yeah...um compared to the other practices that Sony and Microsoft allow third parties to indulge in these are minor inconveniences at worse.

If Region locking and a stupid digital account system (that they recently announced they just fixed anyway) is the only real problem you have with Nintendo then I would say they have a B+ in terms of consumer respect.

That wasn't the point. The point was saying that Nintendo respects its customer at all is disingenuous.

To you of course. But they sure as hell are a lot better in many aspects compared to Sony and Microsoft.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Nintendo treats their customers with respect, a lot more than what I can say with the other guys.

Yeah. That's why they're the only console manufacturer left who still has region locking despite pleas by customers to abandon it. That's also why they're the only console manufacturer whose digital purchases are tied to the console, not an online account, in which case if said console dies and you didn't back up your purchases, you're S.O.L.

Yeah...um compared to the other practices that Sony and Microsoft allow third parties to indulge in these are minor inconveniences at worse.

If Region locking and a stupid digital account system (that they recently announced they just fixed anyway) is the only real problem you have with Nintendo then I would say they have a B+ in terms of consumer respect.

That wasn't the point. The point was saying that Nintendo respects its customer at all is disingenuous.

To you of course. But they sure as hell are a lot better in many aspects compared to Sony and Microsoft.

To you of course.

It works both ways.

I did not once say that Sony and Microsoft aren't out for my cash. But to act like Nintendo respects its customers more so than the other two companies is foolish. All 3 companies have their BS and Nintendo has just as much as the others. They are at the end of the day, a company first.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

They would buy another machine if it appealed to them in the same way the Wii did. The Wii U only kinda does, but the main problem is the fact most people with a Wii don't even know about the Wii U. That's a failure of marketing, not product.

While many people who bought a WiiU are from this crowd of people,there where also a few others that bought it so they can play their 'core' games like Mario and Zelda. It isn't a problem of marketing for Nintendo I think.
Where I live Nintendo is the most active on marketing. There are WiiUs hooked on TVs on various stores,and they even rent space of stores to host scenery with real-life sized Mario pipes and boxes,so people can get in them and take photos,to market NSMBU. In America they even have people dressed as Mario to hand out WiiUs for FREE. No one else publisher does. Nintendo have the most active marketing for their new console than any of the other companies.
Yet people on the stores just skip the WiiU. Even on demo stands the thing doesn't attract people,while GTAV had a big line of people waiting for their turn to play. Marketing is everywhere. It's just that people ignore it.

The Wii was always the cheapest, and only got cheaper. This was never the main selling point, but it's a strong point nonetheless.

Yes it was always the cheapest. But it was just 50$/E cheaper than XBOX360 and XBOX360 was a way more powerful system.

Wii owners "didn't got" a Wii U because they don't know it exists! Those are the facts. Talk to anyone not in the gaming sphere - they're clueless about the product.

They know it exist,they are not living in caves they are living on the same cities we live,and they casually visit the stores,and the stores are full of Nintendo commercials.And they ignore all the posters and demo stands and skip them and go to other things.

Wow, not even close...

Not even close ? Really ? Then why the new Super Smash Bros will be released on both platforms ? The exact same game,with nothing changed ?

That's not what you said, but let's just pretend you did.

Are you kidding me ? For God's shake,my post is still on this forum,check it to see what I actually wrote before replying me on something I never wrote about.

True, although Mario Bros. doesn't really fit into the "Mario" genre that began with Super Mario Bros. I guess we can say it's the first "Super Mario" game with simultaneous multiplayer.

So an official Mario game is not a Mario game. OK...

Wait, I thought we were talking about Mario games? Talk about hypocrisy!

What I'm saying is that with a few exceptions,for decades every new Mario game would come with a feature that is generally considered "fresh" at its era.Even if this feature has been seen on another game before,Mario games where of the most adoptive series of games when it came to using new technologies.I'm not hypocritical,you just can't distinguish between simple things. I am talking about the evolution of Mario games and their adaptability of new technologies,and the first time you completely changed the subject to not Mario games,and on the second time told me that the WiiU Mario is inovative because it did something other games have been doing for 20 years. I'm sorry but if you can't realise a simple thing that I'm writing,which is that usually each new Mario game would have a feature that is considered fresh in its age,then then it's not me the hypocrit. Saying that a 2013 Mario game is inovative for having a 1993 gameplay feature is much more suited to be called hypocrisy.

I'm pretty sure none of those fan games are making money off the property, and the ones that do get their asses sued off by Nintendo.

Use Google. Check how many Mario games you will find playable on websites. If on the website you visited there is a commercial,then the site is making money off the Mario game. Simple as that.

I guess you're just ignorant about the state of the industry then. Here's a list [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131].

With about 4-5 exceptions like Team Bondi,the most of these studios weren't qualified as AAA. I took time to check on the most of the studios of that list,and most of them had less than 30 employees. In fact I never even heard most of them or their games. That's not AAA. For a studio to be considered AAA in this age it should be on the range of 70 to 150+ people. A team of 8 people making 3-month games that they release on Facebook isn't considered "AAA". Again,it's not me the ignorant.

This [http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa] is also worth reading. AAA games NEED to be smash hits to make any profit at all. Tomb Raider sold two million copies yet was a financial failure. That's insanity.

What this article shows to me is that just spending more money on making a game doesn't mean it will also sale more. You also have to make a good game come out of it. The article presents the fact that Mass Effect 3 made 13 million dollars more than it costed as a negative thing. While earning more than spending is what is needed to raise your capital,a small earning is better than no earning at all.But Mass Effect 3 is a bad example. The reason it didn't brought in more money is because EA took central parts of the game's story and gameplay and decided to sell them as extras,thus selling a defective by design product. If the product you are going to sell is defective and consumers consider it's not a good deal,no matter how money you spend on it,it won't sell as good as products that are working right. Because just spending money doesn't gurranty you that you will get more money,you also have to have the knowledge to spend the money the right way. If I hold 1000 dollars and go give them to a goat to eat them,I can't expect the goat to give me my money back. The reason games like the ones on the article on the link you posted didn't sold well is because of bad design decisions.
The amount of money someone invests is irrelevant if the person that is making the decions is a fool and drives the studio to the wrong way with his decisions.

Case in point - smash hit.

That's the point. To make a smash hit.

Devote resources to creating solid gameplay rather than making things look and sound as good as they can. Dark Souls only sold 200,000 copies (compared to Tomb Raider's two million) but it was a critical AND financial success. Dark Souls turned a profit for the studio, Tomb Raider didn't. It was also a better game, despite looking and sounding worse.

You have no idea how games are made,do you ? I can program you all the gameplay mechanics of a Mario game in a single weekend,and a week on testing + tweaking them,and I'll have all the gameplay functions of a Mario game like jumping, extra life powerups etc on just a weekend. And then I can save the script files and re-import them on the next Mario game without having to code all that again. For simple games like Mario this is something that can be done in just a weekend.
For more complex games like an FPS it can take a few weeks. Yet what needs months to be made is the 3d models, animations, and levels of the games. Gameplay prototyping is like 5% of total development. There is also about 5% for sound,10% spend on bug fixing,30% for level design,and 50% for making graphics.
And judging by how much the same the gameplay of Mario games have been for the last decade,they could as well move code from one project to another,and just have people work on a single day to make new gameplay mechanics,from which only one will be chosen. Now if a game did something for the first time ever,a feature never ever implemented in the past,then yes,it could take weeks or even months of testing and polishing. But in the case of simple games like Mario,it's hardly it can take more than a week to write its gameplay code. Except if there is not concrete idea of how the gameplay will be and you have a team spending time to R&D. R&D for new stuff can take too much time. But again,we aren't talking about Portal here,or the construction of a unique state of the art AI system,we are talking about jumping and crouching.
Allow me to have a different taste than you,and not liking Dark Souls please.

Studios can still sink money into large scale Magnum Opuses but they simply can't afford to do that for EVERY game they make. This is what's making studios drop like flies. They sink all of their resources into games they can't afford to produce then pray to God it becomes a smash hit. If the game only sells "very well" as opposed to "exceptionally well" they collapse. This is a poor business model! It's also a model Nintendo is wise enough to avoid.

I agree that not all studios can invest huge money on their games. But still most of the studios that close doesn't close because they invested more money than Nintendo. They close because their games weren't as good,or weren't marketed enough. But let's put that on perspective. No matter the amount of sales if a team of 16 jobless pals can make more impressive games than a multi-billion company,there is something wrong. Investing more money on a game can be an adding factor to the sales,but in order for there to be any sales at all,the game has to be good enough to begin with.
And since Nintendo themselves have shown that they can't make substantial enough changes to the design to keep their franchise relative for ever,and instead rehash the same gameplay and story,perhaps they should start making them more shiny. A product has to feel enough different from one the buyer already has to make him consider buying it.
If you have a car already,and you want to buy a new car,most probably you won't buy the exact same model. But one that looks different.Maybe even a completely different type of car,like for example having already a sedan and getting an SUV.
A reason Nintendo's WiiU isn't selling enough is because the software they have released for that up to that point feels stale. For God's shake,look at the facts: The game that managed to rise the sales of WiiU most (WindWaker)is a remake.
If a remake of a Nintendo game feels more fresh and have more things changed than a "new" Nintendo game,then there is really something wrong with Nintendo.

i.e. you want magic to be real. What you "want" isn't financially viable. What you "want" has led to the AAA industry pumping out the same watered down, by the numbers CRAP because they can't afford to lose tens of millions of dollars road testing a new concept. It's precisely why indie games have stolen the spotlight over the last six years or so - they can afford to fail.

I can't believe what I'm reading. I say that I want to see games evolve,and you are telling me that because AAA game studios also believe that games should evolve,they don't evolve their games and instead release the same games every year. I start wandering if the time I spend writing this post have any purpose.
HOW DO YOU ???
So you are basically telling me that they are not evolving their games because they evolve them ?
OMG. I'm speechless.

Ironically, video games have been improving in quality, just not in the market you're pointing to. We're seeing new, innovative and fun mechanics come out of indies and smaller studios - the guys ACTUALLY driving the games industry. If all you care about is games that look and sound as close to real life as possible... why the fuck are you gaming in the first place? Just go outside!

The success and booming of indie developers is just proving my point. The one and only point that I'm trying to make you understand with all those posts.
That we have reached a point where Indie developers,even one-man teams,with no budgets at all,can produce games as impressive or even more than the games a multibillion dollar company does.
If that's not incompetency from Nintendo's side,then I really don't know what it is.
But if I was the CEO of a company with billions and the products under my command were worse than the products that the average Joe does at his garage,I' would be feeling such a shame to walk around other people.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Oh and the latest news story is that PS4 on its fist week sold 2 million units.
That's 2/3 of what WiiU sold in a whole year.
Now you might say that this news story is irrelevant,because Nintendo is targeting another audience and blah blah blah...
The point is Nintendo have expenses as the other do too,and their product clearly shows that it is not selling enough,no matter what the target audience people think it is.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

proposing that Mario's poor performance was due to lack-of-interest in the red-hatted plumber.

Wait...what? He just lost confidence in himself?? A fictional character? Well, could be drugs. Ya know how these things go...

I don't know if this is trolling or not but...He means that people, the intended audience for Marion games don't care about Mario anymore, not that Mario is somehow going through some sort of crisis.

Ah, some clarity. I believe my head just interpreted it wrong the first time. This happens now and again.
Although a story involving Mario going through a horrendous personal crisis could be very interesting, and overdue, considering the amount of crap he has to go through. Perhaps a 'me, myself and Irene' style breakdown could occur with Killer 7 'esque' results

Also, i'm not sure what the boundaries of trolling is. I guess it's only a matter of perspective. I don't feel trolled, so that must be ok. Whatever it feels like to be trolled...

 

[MKGirlism]

I was randomly searching on Google, and look what I found:

#5 At the same time they are officially quite unfriendly to 3rd party developers and indies. The things they require from a developer to allow them to release a game for their console are responsible to a great part for the bad support of 3rd parties for WiiU,but Nintendo DOESN'T CARE.
For a developer to release a WiiU game he has to

a) Pay 10.000$ to Nintendo for the development kit and Developer License.
b) Already be in the business for at least a year,and have that last year at least 50.000$ per month profits.
c) Have the studio geared up with closed circuit cameras,keycards,and bulletproof windows because Nintendo is afraid someone will break into the studio and steal the development kit to find out its top secret hardware.
d) Have a publisher as a different legal entity.
e) Even after all of the above are done,there is still no gurranty that your game will be released on the system because it might not pass Nintendo's qualifications,and at least until now they don't have on their developer website a set of guidelines / rules of what element could make them cut a game.

A quote filled with bullshit.
Number A is entirely false, you don't need to be a millionaire to get a Dev Kit, it's 7 times less than what you claim, plus Developer Licenses are free of charge.
Number B is completely false too, we obtained a Developer License right after we registered a business, so we had absolutely no profits at all, when we started.
Number C is, just like Numbers A and B, false. Just a lock on the door is enough.
Number D is only true if you don't want to handle so many contracts, but it's not needed.
Number E is mostly true, except for the guidelines thing, which is available on the WarioWorld.com, after logging in.

I just came here to clear it up, I'm the living proof.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Then Nintendo should update their official developer site,because it proves what you say wrong:
http://www.warioworld.com/apply/

 

[MKGirlism]

You can trust me on my words, I am a 3rd Party Indie Developer for the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U systems, I simply know how all of this works.
To follow the NDA, I can't take Screenshots from the site, and such, but I can at least show you this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azOrJz0tuRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLRB5kNcDoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7jGYlqpgE

 

[Stavros Dimou]

You can trust me on my words, I am a 3rd Party Indie Developer for the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U systems, I simply know how all of this works.
To follow the NDA, I can't take Screenshots from the site, and such, but I can at least show you this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azOrJz0tuRM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLRB5kNcDoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX7jGYlqpgE

Well then,if you really make games for the machine and things are as you write,I'm happy for Nintendo.
It's good news to me. When I first read their official site,the scarce details got me wandering and I did a search on Google seeking more details, and what I've read here and there was overwhelming and left a very bad impression.
Of course there have been some months since I did my research,and currently I don't know if what I read was true back then and isn't now,or if what I read back then was false to begin with.
If things are as you say,then Nintendo should re-build the official site ASAP to clear things up and provide more details so developers who visit their site expecting to get a picture of Nintendo's policy don't get intimidated.
Perhaps there are other people who have in their mind Nintendo's 3rd party policy being about the same as I do,and these people might wanted to make games for Nintendo's platforms but haven't because they are misinformed about how Nintendo deals with 3rd parties. In that case it's a problem of communicating how things work,rather than having things work in a bad way.
I hope Nintendo fixes / updates their developer site soon so when someone visits their site,he gets a clear picture of how things actually work,so more people can start making games for the WiiU.

 

[MKGirlism]

It's actually not this bad, Developers can reach either Nintendo of Europe, or Nintendo of America, and make a Phone Appointment, which is what we did.
They're able to give you a better impression than what's written on the site.

The real problem is, however, most 3rd Party Wii U Developers (including us) make games for Wii U using Unity.
As far as I've been working with them, Nintendo kept refusing Master ROMs that were created in Unity, until last month (unless you make a Pre-Submission).
But it's still not over yet, because now they are 'in the process of verifying if they can allow Unity for Master Submission'.
Plus the Wii U Version of Unity is still based on Unity3D 4.2.2, which lacks all of the 2D tools, which is something most Indies like most.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

It's actually not this bad, Developers can reach either Nintendo of Europe, or Nintendo of America, and make a Phone Appointment, which is what we did.
They're able to give you a better impression than what's written on the site.

The real problem is, however, most 3rd Party Wii U Developers (including us) make games for Wii U using Unity.
As far as I've been working with them, Nintendo kept refusing Master ROMs that were created in Unity, until last month (unless you make a Pre-Submission).
But it's still not over yet, because now they are 'in the process of verifying if they can allow Unity for Master Submission'.
Plus the Wii U Version of Unity is still based on Unity3D 4.2.2, which lacks all of the 2D tools, which is something most Indies like most.

I have experience with Unity myself!
The general concept of Unity rocks,I'm really suprprized of how much documentation and resources this engine is getting. Personally I think the reach of Unity will grow even more,as it keeps getting new features at a quite fast rate,while at the same time it has the BEST licensing policy when it comes to 3rd party engines.
Unity 4.3.1 though isn't much stable yet,there are a few technical issues that I'm sure the guys will fix ASAP,but for now it would be good to wait a little. While the 2d features enhance the workflow quite much and are very helpful, I've noticed that importing assets on 4.3 is taking much longer than it did on 4.2,and sometimes the application hangs. Once they fix that it will be quite a nice version,but for now I couldn't recommend upgrading on 4.3 yet,as the frustration that is generated from random app hangs and long import times IMO doesn't worth the optimization done on 2d workflow YET.
Now regarding WiiU development,things like what you just said is why I prefer platforms like PCs better.
On PC you know that things will just work.That there is no one "over your head" telling you how to do things and what you can do or not. You can just do what you want.But that is not only a WiiU thing,its generally a console thing.
Seeing as you delved right on to developing for consoles,I admire your courage and hesitation.
Personally I decided to use PC as the lead platform as its much more simple to get a game working on a PC.
Console development is something I don't even want to touch until I've made a few games on PC first to gain experience,and some money required for the extra development time needed for console development such as specialized optimizations,licenses etc.
Thank you for letting me know that Nintendo is friendlier than I thought it was.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

Monster snip

Can I just say thanks for giving me a massive laugh yes mate your one pro coder go on go make an engine and code it all in a weekend mate and post it up here on Tuesday I look forward to seeing it.....oh and be sure to make a model and control scheme so we can all test out your master piece

I didn't said I can make an engine from scratch in a weekend.
I said I can write simple basic gameplay scripts like those found in a Mario game in a weekend.
Don't take what I said out of proportion.

If a developer is writing their own engine instead of licensing an already existing one (i.e. Unity,Unreal,Cryengine) it will surely take them much more time to have a game prototype running.
That's why most studios use third party engines and stick with them for long.
That's why there are still games coming out with Unreal 3 Engine,even if its 7 years old.

 

[Dragonbums]

It's actually not this bad, Developers can reach either Nintendo of Europe, or Nintendo of America, and make a Phone Appointment, which is what we did.
They're able to give you a better impression than what's written on the site.

The real problem is, however, most 3rd Party Wii U Developers (including us) make games for Wii U using Unity.
As far as I've been working with them, Nintendo kept refusing Master ROMs that were created in Unity, until last month (unless you make a Pre-Submission).
But it's still not over yet, because now they are 'in the process of verifying if they can allow Unity for Master Submission'.
Plus the Wii U Version of Unity is still based on Unity3D 4.2.2, which lacks all of the 2D tools, which is something most Indies like most.

I know I will sound really fucking stupid but...what's a master ROM?

Is that like your original file of the game you made on unity?

 

[MKGirlism]

That there is no one "over your head" telling you how to do things and what you can do or not. You can just do what you want.But that is not only a WiiU thing,its generally a console thing.

This actually only happens with big AAA companies, or smaller Teams.
Where I work, I only have 2 more people to deal with, and we all decide what to do on our parts.
Nintendo doesn't have any influence over your Projects, and if you need more time, or want to release sooner, it's never a problem.

I know I will sound really fucking stupid but...what's a master ROM?

Is that like your original file of the game you made on unity?

It's okay, it's usually a Term that's unknown to non-Licensees.
But a Master ROM is the finalised game with all the required information attached to it, which you need to submit to Nintendo for a Lot Check, or to your Publisher, if you don't self-publish.
In addition, Master ROMs are what Age Rating companies and Localisation companies gather, to give your game an Age Rating or Translation respectively.