[ninelven]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

No-one bought it just because it was cheap - it actually does stuff, you know.

Oh come on, that is just trolling. After that TL;DR.

[Shifty Geezer]

I think you misunderstand, as I wasn't saying the OUYA doesn't do anything, but there's no point trying to explain things if you can't be arsed to read them. Makes me wonder why you're part of a discussion forum if you've no interest in discussion beyond one-liners.

[ninelven]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Makes me wonder why you're part of a discussion forum if you've no interest in discussion beyond one-liners.

Yeah, I'm here for the discussion part and valuable insights. I'm not here to watch people tear down products and ideas they apparently know nothing about.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by ninelven

Yeah, I'm here for the discussion part and valuable insights. I'm not here to watch people tear down products and ideas they apparently know nothing about.

I presented my views on the product, have not in any way insulted the idea or torn anything down, and am open to be convinced otherwise by intelligent arguments to the contrary. Perhaps if you'd bothered reading the rest of the post you'd have seen that.

For clarity given your apparent misinterpretation of my above comment, I was not implying OUYA does nothing where Kindle Fire does. I said nothing sells on cheapness alone, with price only a factor in value. Kindle Fire offers value in portable functionality that's worth $99 to a lot of people; no-one bought it just because it's $99. The question is where is the value in OUYA, specifically regards USP in a market that is already very well served across consoles, PC and tablets? Is it going to be worth $99 to millions of people as an Android games machine? I question that. Will it have extended functionality providing value? Maybe it will. But it needs more than just a $99 price tag to sell, which was all you were presenting as a reason people would buy it. If I was to consider developing an expensive title for this platform (the AAA games that the kickstarter alludes to), a $99 price tag on its own won't be enough to convince me to back a potential failure (because most devices that have entered the console space have failed).

What makes this different from the likes of Gizmondo and GP32? What is the marketing strategy to reach the necessary milions of installed users needed for a healthy platform? If it's not much more than Android in a box, then why don't they pursue the idea of a controller for Android tablets, at least in addition to the console, and reach a far larger market from day 1? That strikes me as a much more sensible and safe move.

[ninelven]

The Kindle Fire was $199 not $99.


EDIT:

What makes this different from the likes of Gizmondo

For starters:

Not a handheld
1/5th the launch price
~16x more powerful
Network connected
Rootable out of the box
Android


Or I might ask how is it remotely similar to either of those devices?

What is the marketing strategy to reach the necessary milions of installed users needed for a healthy platform?

It already exists?

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by ninelven

Or I might ask how is it remotely similar to either of those devices?

In principle. Lots of companies have launched lots of gaming devices over the years, most of which have failed because they could not manage to establish a strong enough, game buying userbase to justify developer interest, meaning a lack of games leading to no consumer interest especially when there are viable alternatives.

It already exists?

The OUYA hasn't been released yet, and if it's just an Android box, see all my other concerns. Although TBH I won't bother discussing this with you further if you can't manage to string more than a few words together in the vaguest of sentences. You're interest in actual discussion clearly extends no further than "I have my opinion and that's that" without talking about where you and the opposition view may be right or wrong.

[ninelven]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

You're interest in actual discussion clearly extends no further than "I have my opinion and that's that" without talking about where you and the opposition view may be right or wrong.

Odd, that was my exact impression of you.


EDIT: Just for the record so that my opinion not be misinterpreted by others.... I do not know if the OUYA will be "successful" or not. I do not think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I do find it to be an interesting device at 99 dollars. I do believe it can certainly be profitable. And I have no interest in saying it will either be wildly popular or doomed to irrelevance. That REALLY doesn't matter to me. I simply like the device for what it is, at that price point. Anyone who doesn't like it, probably shouldn't buy it or concern themselves with it. Not everyone owns a kindle, or an iphone, or a PS3, or a Nook, or a Roku, or an Apple TV, or Wii, or DS, or Vita, or Nexus, nor should they.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I did not, and if they have decent game development on the boil then it'll have a fighting chance. Although $4 million won't fund a single AAA title.

They don't want AAA titles. They're both an indie game developer and an indie console developer. They want to make money from the low-budget games they make.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I mean if they make money from software sales, taking a small cut from every sale, they'll need developers to sell LOTS of software. That requires a large install base, or very high sales per customer. Android can just about manage it because there are so many Android devices out there, that reaching to 0.01% of the amrket is still a sizeable unmber of customers. An install base of 300k-1000k users is going to make funding high quality software difficult.

Why not run a kickstarter for software and a OUYA controller for existing tablets then? It'd be a lot cheaper and serve the same market pretty much. Whatever games they are making for their console they could make for other Tegra devices with an already large install base. Ring up Epic and EA and get them on board - Android already provides an open publishing platform; it jsut needs the software.

Shifty, it's really hard to argue either its concept will work or not if you apparently haven't read/watched what the OUYA really is..

It's a home console, to be connected to a large TV.
It's the first thing they stress, it's that they all grew up playing in home consoles, and now the most simple and innovative games have only been focused on smartphones and tablets. They want to change that.
They want to make indie games for home consoles, but there's no console out there with an admission system adequate for indie developers. So they're creating the console first, and the games later.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

I'm very hesitant. It's easy to sing praises. Actually putting in the hours to create titles is something else. I recall many high-profile consoles that talked about 100+ games in their launch window, and yet they only get about a quarter of that. How many indie developers will actually finish their products for this OUYA as opposed to those who are saying their in favour and will start looking but will eventually give up and release something else on something else?

Well, free marketing to games-console owners. Now if OUYA were creating a controller standard that I could use on my ASUS tablet and back it up with relevant software, I may be interested. But buying a new console to play similar games I already have with the highest production values on my PS3, it's not serving a great purpose. The only way that'll change is the library becomes something amazing, with indies creating fabulous titles not hampered by the limits of publishers and restrictive console companies. That'll be proven after time though - I won't be an early adopter, who'd have to be very optimisitic IMO to buy this early on.

Android's game library is already quite decent. Take away a couple of AAA titles, I'd say it's comparable to the 3DS and PS Vita (and look at the games with the best reviews for those consoles, they're not AAA games).

The problem with releasing indie games for the Wii, X360 and PS3 is that the system is built for publishers. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft take a way too big percentage of each game's sales, the admission process is way too long and expensive.

As they said, they were inspired by the Indie Game documentary. It's way too risky for a single person or small team to develop a game for the current consoles, even if they come up with a brilliant idea, because of the large initial investment (without certainty that the game will even be accepted) and time that it takes to get to the virtual distribution channels.


I think it's more like:
The Indie developers will flock to OUYA like bees to honey because the console looks - by far - like their best chance to survive and see their dreams come true.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Can that really be relied on? If they are running Android, sure. But PS3 never had any interest from the open source or homebrew communities despite Sony specifically targeting them. The homebrew bunch seem pretty fickle to me. They'll start a great, new, exciting project, and then drop it when they get bored or some new project comes along.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK PS3's homebrew died because of Sony's disinterest, not the other way around.
Homebrewerd couldn't even have access to the GPU, and even then there were many interesting things like Folding@Home and media players being developed for it, before Sony axed the whole thing with a software update.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

The general quality of the Android apps I've looked at has been poor. I don't see how this box will change that, meaning it won't offer a high-quality experience.

Look at the best-selling games in Android's library. Take away a couple of games from EA and Rockstar and you have many games that are simple yet really fun to play.

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Now if they have top-tier, professional developers involved, like Epic, and they can show high-quality, real games, then my opinion will change. Without the software though, up front and ready to go, I doubt it'll survive past launch any more than other startup console homebrew devices.

As I've said above: OUYA isn't looking for that.
It can't anyway, the thing is weaker than a PS Vita.

[deathindustrial]

Most of the talk I have seen about people interested in OUYA view it as a media box first, game box second. Personally, if it is quiet and I can do Netflix and browse the web on it I am already sold at that price point.

Also hackable, FOSS friendly hardware tends to stay useful - lots of folks still using WRT54GL routers because of the ability to install Linux on them for example.

Cheers

[tuna]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK PS3's homebrew died because of Sony's disinterest, not the other way around.
Homebrewerd couldn't even have access to the GPU, and even then there were many interesting things like Folding@Home and media players being developed for it, before Sony axed the whole thing with a software update.

The whole homebrew scene on the PS3 was pretty dead before Sony removed the otherOS functionality.

[tuna]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

Android's game library is already quite decent. Take away a couple of AAA titles, I'd say it's comparable to the 3DS and PS Vita (and look at the games with the best reviews for those consoles, they're not AAA games).

And very few are designed to be played without a touch screen that you are looking at.

And the games with the best reviews for PSV are probably Gravity rush and Uncharted, and those are definitely high content games.

[ERP]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

I think it's more like:
The Indie developers will flock to OUYA like bees to honey because the console looks - by far - like their best chance to survive and see their dreams come true.

From a business standpoint, what advantage does it offer over self published browser games, or just tablet/phone games fro an indie developer?

The concept of shipping a $99 arm based console is fine, putting the hardware in a box and shipping units is just the first step though.
What I don't understand and what the kickstarted campaign didn't explain at all is what their business model is.

Do they just make money on the hardware?
Do they charge a fee for a game to be available for the Ouya store?
How many game will they have in the store?
How will they highlight/filter the "good" content?

It all contributes to what is critical mass interms of sold units, if you have say 100K units in the wild, how many sales does that translate to for an Indie game? and does that justify whatever the developers cost is to publish on the platform?

I'm interested in it to see what their approach is.

I guess the advantage of Kickstarter if you can raise $3M+ is you don't give away any ownership and you don't owe anything to the investors, I just have to wonder how long before one of these big projects turns out to be a scam and the lawsuits start flying.

[ToTTenTranz]

Originally Posted by tuna

And very few are designed to be played without a touch screen that you are looking at.

Very few games couldn't be played without a touchscreen.. take away Cut-the-Rope and a couple more and most would play just as well with a gamepad.

Originally Posted by tuna

And the games with the best reviews for PSV are probably Gravity rush and Uncharted, and those are definitely high content games.

Look at the top 6 games in PS Vita:
http://uk.ign.com/games/reviews/vita...sortOrder=desc

How many would be unplayable on a Tegra 3?

Originally Posted by ERP

From a business standpoint, what advantage does it offer over self published browser games, or just tablet/phone games fro an indie developer?

It's much cheaper than a high-end smartphone/tablet or PC, has a gamepad for playing games and it connects to a large screen.

And most probably, nothing stops you from purchasing a game in the smartphone and then keep playing it on the OUYA when you get home.

[ERP]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

It's much cheaper than a high-end smartphone/tablet or PC, has a gamepad for playing games and it connects to a large screen.

That's an end user benefit, not a developer benefit.
I'm asking if they are trying to attract Indie developers to their platform how they are doing that, other than advertising the console as hackable, which being as cynical as I am to me implies easy piracy.
There is some cost to supporting the platform for any developer, even if that cost is as simple as adding controller support, what's the upside to doing it?

There are many things it could be, I'm just saying that the kickstarter centers entirely around simple android box connects to TV anyone can write software for. I can go buy a PI today and do that for 1/3 their price.
To be interesting it needs a workable business model.

[ninelven]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

How many would be unplayable on a Tegra 3?

Honestly, by March 2013 Tegra 3 will be pretty long in the tooth. It uses an archaic GPU architecture, lacks the performance for 1080p games, and would be a platform that the market would be growing away from.

If they could delay the launch to April or May and launch with Tegra 4 at 119.99 or 124.99, that would be a much better option IMHO. Then they would actually have a platform the market is growing into, without any worries of being able to play existing Android games at 1080p with a decent framerate. By the end of 2013 (or maybe even before they launch), Tegra 3 will be a 2nd tier SoC, and I don't think that is what their potential customers want. It would also put them out of sync for any sort of upgrade path.

Originally Posted by ERP

I can go buy a PI today and do that for 1/3 their price.

And much less than 1/3rd the performance...

[joker454]

Originally Posted by ERP

That's an end user benefit, not a developer benefit.
I'm asking if they are trying to attract Indie developers to their platform how they are doing that, other than advertising the console as hackable, which being as cynical as I am to me implies easy piracy.
There is some cost to supporting the platform for any developer, even if that cost is as simple as adding controller support, what's the upside to doing it?

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out the same thing. Even Indie games cost money to make, with this platform basically being fully piratable on day 1 why would someone take all the time and risk to make a product and put it on this device? For those that support this device, would you be willing to front an Indie developer $50,000 to make a game for this device and expect to be able to make your money back?

[ninelven]

Are indie games largely pirated on the PC today?

I could be wrong, but it just doesn't seem like that big of an issue (for games $10 or less). I mean what % of Android users actually root their phone, and out of that how many engage in widespread piracy?

But, the nice thing is we will probably find out one way or the other... I prefer to hope for the best.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

They don't want AAA titles.

Well, their kickstarter page says:

That doesn't mean OUYA is an Android port. You can create the next big title in your bedroom – just like the good old days! Who needs pants!?
OUYA could change AAA game development, too. Forget about licensing fees, retail fees, and publishing fees.

I guess that's not directly their intention though, so my bad.

It's a home console, to be connected to a large TV.
It's the first thing they stress, it's that they all grew up playing in home consoles, and now the most simple and innovative games have only been focused on smartphones and tablets. They want to change that.

Okay, that makes sense in that respect. But it doesn't answer the business questions I have that ERP is having too. A console, any console, is a chicken-and-egg affair. You need software to sell hardware, and you need hardware to attract software. The idea of moving modern tablet games onto the TV is a fair one (and one I agree with, and one I expect the tablet to do), but I'm not seeing this bridging the gap in one step because the current Android library doesn't suit the TV experience. You'll need OUYA exclusives.

Android's game library is already quite decent. Take away a couple of AAA titles, I'd say it's comparable to the 3DS and PS Vita (and look at the games with the best reviews for those consoles, they're not AAA games).

I haven't found anything on Android that I value, whereas I can appreciate Sony and Nintendo games even though I don't care for their handhelds. Most stuff I've seen is either in-your-face merchandising ('free' game of running chores based on psychological exploitation requiring $15 worth of extras to be playable) or extremely dull touch stuff, quite often both, and the good stuff can get old pretty quickly. Touch puzzlers and ball rollers and various good games can be fun, but they aren't very meaty and nothing something I'd buy a device to play; they are an added bonus to devices with other particular functions. Now I'm not an extensive Android game player (because I've found little I like!), so I might well be missing stuff. It's probably not a coincidence though that the Eurogamer mobile game-of-the-day rarely features an Android game, and there have been numerous reports over year of devs starting to avoid Android due to fragmentation and development difficulties/costs.

The problem with releasing indie games for the Wii, X360 and PS3 is that the system is built for publishers. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft take a way too big percentage of each game's sales, the admission process is way too long and expensive.

I absolutely agree (in principle anyhow, as we don't know what their takings per title are, but I know SDKs can be expensive). But what's stopping these indies releasing on PC? Okay, I guess the argument here is to move the gaming back to the TV, which is fair, but people have really been able to do that for ages with PC. Perhaps packaging it up in a user-friendly box is what's needed to make that happen, but their box isn't going to be any cheaper to develop for than Android or PC, and iOS development doesn't cost that much either.

I think it's more like:
The Indie developers will flock to OUYA like bees to honey because the console looks - by far - like their best chance to survive and see their dreams come true.

Only if 1) There's a significant install base; 2) those people are spending worthwhile amounts of money (the Kickstarter video makes an explicit note all games being free to play); 3) You aren't lost under a deluge of thousands and thousands of indie games all vying for attention. I can tell you this - the developers that pay the OUYA company significant amounts of money for front-page advertising of their games are the one's who'll typically make the most money from the market. It's still going to cost to be successful in this biz.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK PS3's homebrew died because of Sony's disinterest, not the other way around.

I very much disagree. The GPU was unavailable, but homebrew devs had a new toy to play with offering amazing opportunities, and they just didn't bother. Cell could have powered amazing apps and I was shocked it was shunned considering homebrew has traditionally loved new, eccentric tech. Now Sony didn't really back and encourage homebrew, but it was there. Sony only axed OpenOS years after it was obviously dead. That's a whole other debate though.

Putting this all another way, the intention of this box is to get open game development and play away from tablets and back in front of the TV where it belongs. They effectively want to recreate the 8 bit experience. I can respect that. However, I'm unconvinced there's a market that wants to play Android games as they are on TV (one-button games where you just press X to jump), and I'm unconvinced developers will develop console-type, full controller games for this box if there isn't a significant userbase to support it. And I don't see who is going to spearhead sales to establish that userbase. At the moment it looks like the intenion is to sell OUYA to people who are playing Gameloft games on their tablets wishing they could play them on TV. These people will buy OUYA because it's cheap and enables that. That'll establish the userbase, and then devs will invest more in this specific segment of Android, which will encourage more adoption.

I think they should go ahead but also release the controller for Android devices, reducing the cost of entry for controller-based Android gaming dramatically ($30 instead of $100 for anyone with an Android tablet) and offering a much stronger market for devs. Devs could then develop touch and controller based interfaces to help with the transition. Once there's a clear market for Android games on the TV, then specific boxes will make more sense along with Android TVs.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by ninelven

EDIT: Just for the record so that my opinion not be misinterpreted by others.... I do not know if the OUYA will be "successful" or not. I do not think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I do find it to be an interesting device at 99 dollars. I do believe it can certainly be profitable. And I have no interest in saying it will either be wildly popular or doomed to irrelevance. That REALLY doesn't matter to me. I simply like the device for what it is, at that price point. Anyone who doesn't like it, probably shouldn't buy it or concern themselves with it. Not everyone owns a kindle, or an iphone, or a PS3, or a Nook, or a Roku, or an Apple TV, or Wii, or DS, or Vita, or Nexus, nor should they.

I don't know that anyone has yet expressed that they dislike the device. I certainly won't lose money or sleep over its success or failure. It's another gaming product in the gaming market warranting copnsideration, which is all it's getting from anyone here so far.

The only people who should be more concerned over its future are those considering funding early or developing a title. If it turns out to be a dead end then they'll lose their investment. That's where open discussion serves a useful purpose.

[pipo]

OUYA takes 30% from the app sales.

The PC argument is irrelevant IMO. Lots of gamers don't like 'm. Sales are going down. It's all about a simple plug and play TV experience.

If they get the market place and online experience right...

[pipo]

Originally Posted by joker454

I've been scratching my head trying to figure out the same thing. Even Indie games cost money to make, with this platform basically being fully piratable on day 1 why would someone take all the time and risk to make a product and put it on this device? For those that support this device, would you be willing to front an Indie developer $50,000 to make a game for this device and expect to be able to make your money back?

Dunno. You can run "backups" on every platform. The people who are jailbreaking their iPads and phones are a minority.

The circuit board will have well-documented test points. People can swap out chips, add, etc. We may even publish the hardware design if enough people are curious. Because Ouya will also have Bluetooth and a USB, hardware hobbyists can also make their own peripherals (someone already suggested pinball controls to us). Regarding the software, you'll be able to root the device easily. It won't void your warranty. Every unit has a debug console. We are even working on the idea of a "plant"—which will restore your profile after rooting your device (reverse your root). Because it's built on Android, you'll understand the source code well, too. (Obviously if a hacker roots the device, our integrated user experience and game store will no longer be available while the device is rooted — so there is, as always, a tradeoff between customizing your device and enjoying the benefits of standardization. We expect the true hackers to be an elite, but small proportion of the total number of people who buy the box. Most people will probably just use the standard setup.)

http://kotaku.com/5924657/an-all+sta...of-your-money/

I completely agree with this point of view.

[ninelven]

Eh, OT.

[scooby_dooby]

What's getting missed here is the middleware argument.

Already we see a large portion of dev's using Unity, Corona, AIR etc to create their games, (I thought I read 50% but can't find the link) this will likely grow pretty quick over the next couple years as Android market matures, and Windows Market gains steam (or not), indie developers really looking to maximize revenues will need to turn to middleware.

The cost to port to something like Ouya is negligible if you're on middleware, and if Ouya is successful it gives developers even more incentive to look outside Apple's wall's and see what's out there, could have a nice symbiotic relationship with Google Play really.

Google Play is maturing pretty well already IMO, most of the large iOS titles are there and there's a TON of really great games to play if you care to try and find some. I'm personally seeing pretty good revenue growth compared to a year ago.

I think the tipping point will be 2012/2013 for Android to really turn a corner as a profit generator for dev's. It really is building up steam, and for the first time with Android 4.0 they've got their whole ecosystem in place and they've done it right.

[egoless]

Originally Posted by pipo

Dunno. You can run "backups" on every platform. The people who are jailbreaking their iPads and phones are a minority.

It's not a minority when it's made easy to do. For example, Napster made it so simple to pirate content that we still haven't recovered from the aggressive DRM practices put into place to combat such rampant piracy. On this inexpensive hackable platform, create an update that nets you xbmc, a torrent client, and access to infinite storage... like people did when the PS3 keys leaked, or on jtag'd 360s. Look at what people are doing on those hacked boxes, and before other hacks were contained, and amplify it for this fundamentally hackable OUYA device. It doesn't seem like any legit business case can be made with a straight face.

[tuna]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

What's getting missed here is the middleware argument.

Already we see a large portion of dev's using Unity, Corona, AIR etc to create their games, (I thought I read 50% but can't find the link) this will likely grow pretty quick over the next couple years as Android market matures, and Windows Market gains steam (or not), indie developers really looking to maximize revenues will need to turn to middleware.

The cost to port to something like Ouya is negligible if you're on middleware, and if Ouya is successful it gives developers even more incentive to look outside Apple's wall's and see what's out there, could have a nice symbiotic relationship with Google Play really.

The thing is, if you want your game to play well, you will actually have to redesign if for the controller if you are coming from a touch screen environment. But then again, fun game mechanics seems to be pretty low on a lot of forum posters' priorities these days