Google is making a videogame console.

[shredenvain]

That is the only relevant part of your post, whenever I lived in the US or here France it is always games that are topping the charts on Google Play. Lots of people play different games than what hardcore gamers do.
Google is trying to offer a proper platform, a software one, to gather lots of modern differents usages of TV. Imo Android TV has potential because they took in account how fragmented the market (and broadcast solutions) is and offer a software platform that has the potential to attract ISP around the world (for the ref in France SFR STB already offers access to the playstore, I don't think they use Android TV). I believe that there could be a trend here, ultimately the Nexus Player is only Google's take on hardware and the underlying OS is the broader part of their push toward the living room.

A better, if not proper, remote would have allow easier ports (motion control) of some games, kids loves motions control, parents like cheap things, mobile games are cheap, often free, etc.

Edit, the beginning of my post than harsher than it really is, take it easy

It's all good man. Thats why I put TO ME at the beginning. I love android so dont take it like I am anti android or something. Infact this is being typed and sent from android. I think the Os has tremendous potential for a cheap console. They just need to offer different content from what google play provides. I guess something like the exclusives that you can find on other consoled like the Wii U or Ps3. It has to be different other wise your just hooking up a cell phone to your tv.

 

[tuna]

Somebody has to invest in those exclusives. And I can't really see who would do that....

 

[Graham]

I don't think you can take the success of phone games and translate it to the TV. A console platform will never have the mass appeal of a phone. The reason to buy a phone is not media content, it is because only a phone can provide so many fundamental communication services in an unmatched level of convenience and accessibility.
I believe the success of the mobile game industry is entirely due to riding the wave of device popularity, and that the games themselves do not justify (in the slightest) the purchase of the device or their own success - which shows as the vast, vast majority of these games are total failures.

A TV device doesn't have the fundamental usefulness of a phone, so it has to rely on content to be the draw. And reality is, without huge investment that won't happen because the existing content is mostly crap. I suspect Amazon realizes this, but even they don't have the necessary scale to build compelling exclusive content.

The only way for the platform to become a success without massive content investment, IMO, is through sheer brute force. Google do what they do and force it down everyone throats by getting manufacturers integrating it into TVs directly. Google do this all the time, just I imagine the price would be much higher than usual. Funny thing is, in this case they have already tried once and it was a spectacular failure

 

[tuna]

I think you are wrong. Everyone wants streaming video, and a nice box that can offer this cheaply will be successful. But I have no idea why Google, Amazon and similar try to put games on the boxes.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

But I have no idea why Google, Amazon and similar try to put games on the boxes.

I think because games represent a considerable volume of App Store downloads for which the ecosystem owner gets a nice slice of the profit.

I don't know if the type of games that do well on mobile will appeal on the TV but Google think it's worth a punt.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My game will be better on TV than mobile, and there are other games like that, such as the COD clones and racing games. As mentioned before, the depth of titles on mobile is immense. They aren't all tap fests, endless runners and puzzle games. If there there is an opportunity to produce Spelunky or whatever indie console game on a mobile console, it'll attract devs (very low cost of entry), and that'll propagate the platform.

What's needed is a strong platform. Ouya wanted to achieve that but there was no point to the platform outside of games of which there weren't any, so it died. But a Google console that provides services (whether a dongle, box, or integrated into TV) will attract the content. It might be ropey at first with dubious ports of ill-fitting games, but it's inevitable. PC weren't invented for games, but that's what appeared on them. Mobile phones weren't invented for games, but that's what appeared on them. Why think that other programmable hardwares won't attract suitable content?

 

[liolio]

It's all good man. Thats why I put TO ME at the beginning. I love android so dont take it like I am anti android or something. Infact this is being typed and sent from android. I think the Os has tremendous potential for a cheap console. They just need to offer different content from what google play provides. I guess something like the exclusives that you can find on other consoled like the Wii U or Ps3. It has to be different other wise your just hooking up a cell phone to your tv.

We agree
I think they needed a less generic input method to create incentive for developers so they do more than ports. The TV offers a bigger screen which is nice by self but it also mean being in a living room, more than often with other human => there is a need for local MP games.
For example I'm sure that a (local) MP version of the extremely addictive and fun "Subways Surfers" would have done great with "wiimote" type of device and motion controls.

EDIT
I also think they made a mistake wrt to pricing. 99$ is an extremely attractive price, I understand that they went for this low to trigger impulse buy with their previous effort and also to match competition. Now the Nexus Player is part of significantly broader push than Google TV, Apple TV or Roku, which were all "self centered devices".
As with the remote Google should have thought outside the box, they could (should) have aimed higher wrt to the device price, 129$ or 149$ would have open more possibilities for the design:
a proper "universal" input
integrated camera and microphones.
More RAM, more storage.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

My game will be better on TV than mobile, and there are other games like that, such as the COD clones and racing games.

I can think of lots of games that will, two of my personal favourites on iOS are Galaxy on Fire 2 and Real Racing 2, both of which will clearly benefit from a larger screen but he control method will be key and I don't know much about the controllers for these boxes.

I don't know how these games fair in profits, which I am sure is the real draw. The money makers like Clash of Clans, probably don't need a big screen.

What's making money in mobile right now?

 

[liolio]

On Google playstore, you have tabs presenting the top grossing games and apps (there are quite a few games in the top grossing apps)

https://play.google.com/store/apps/category/GAME/collection/topgrossing

I don't know if those results are regions base.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

On Google playstore, you have tabs presenting the top grossing games and apps (there are quite a few games in the top grossing apps)

Unsurprisingly a lot of freemium games there, that don't particularly benefit from a larger screen - relative to a shooter or racing game. This could be an interesting test to see if people do want to play these types of games on a TV.

 

[liolio]

Unsurprisingly a lot of freemium games there, that don't particularly benefit from a larger screen - relative to a shooter or racing game. This could be an interesting test to see if people do want to play these types of games on a TV.

Actually I see less of an issue in the extra screen real estate than in how to get the gameplay to work without a touchscreen. Motion controls only cover that much usages, it is pretty much the same challenge faced by Valve with their Steam Machine controller.

As a side note freemium covers pretty much every styles nowadays from FPS (dead trigger 2) to micromanagement type of game, passing by racers, fighting games, etc.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

As a side note freemium covers pretty much every styles nowadays from FPS (dead trigger 2) to micromanagement type of game, passing by racers, fighting games, etc.

I wasn't using 'freemium' to indicate a genre, just the form of monetisation. However if we're looking at genres, time-based strategy games look popular.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I can think of lots of games that will, two of my personal favourites on iOS are Galaxy on Fire 2 and Real Racing 2, both of which will clearly benefit from a larger screen but he control method will be key and I don't know much about the controllers for these boxes.

They support Bluetooth controllers presumably, meaning the TV experience should be very comparable to any other console. That said, I don't know how robust controller support is and whether there are issues with some titles, but I guess not. It's a simple IO protocol - no drivers involved.

I don't know how these games fair in profits, which I am sure is the real draw. The money makers like Clash of Clans, probably don't need a big screen.

What's making money in mobile right now?

That's the wrong view. What's making money on mobile now is obviously going to be what works well on touch screens - why would people be spending money on titles that don't work well?! I consider it a forgone conclusion that is there's a software platform out there in the several millions with a near zero cost of entry, people will target it. As a new platform, even more so as you'll stand out. That's one of the reasons why some devs are keen to get onto console, because it's a limited content platform with far greater visibility than mobile, though the price of entry is far higher.

Ultimately, Google TV et al just need a purpose to establish an install base. For phone, the purpose was communications, and then from that people added games. For computers, the purpose was numerical and data work, and then people added games. For TV, I guess some sort of media service thing, although there's so much competition there that they might not gain a foothold (they have tried in the past...). But a XB1-esque voice interface home computer I can see working. Instead of turning to your mobile, you talk to the TV as you do stuff, very sci-fi movie style. If that ends up being something people like and enough boxes sell, the games that suit the platform will come.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

What's making money on mobile now is obviously going to be what works well on touch screens - why would people be spending money on titles that don't work well?! I consider it a forgone conclusion that is there's a software platform out there in the several millions with a near zero cost of entry, people will target it.

As you said above, there is immense diversity on mobile - RTS, turn-based strategy, shooters, racers, 3rd person brawlers, 2D and 3D platformers, card games, word games - far more diversity than exists on consoles. Building a new market is incredibly difficult especially when there is entrenched competition, i.e. Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony.

As a new platform, even more so as you'll stand out. That's one of the reasons why some devs are keen to get onto console, because it's a limited content platform with far greater visibility than mobile, though the price of entry is far higher.

Maybe, maybe not. Google are a big launcher of new platforms but a quick destroyer when platforms don't work out. The first Google TV platform vanished in the blink of an eye, which sucks if you bought a TV incorporating that platform. They are looking for a nice little earner in the gaming space and yet the type of freemium making money on mobile are RTS/tap games like Clash of Clans which aren't going to benefit from a big screen. The games they do work well, fighters, shooters, racers have stiff competition in the entrenched competition.

But maybe they'll be happier with far more modest profits or perhaps they have a plan to monetise gaming for incorporating ads. It is Google and advertising is what they know.

Ultimately, Google TV et al just need a purpose to establish an install base.

And this will be the third attempt to make Google TV a viable commercial platform. The first generation is unsupported as are some of the earlier second generation devices. I'm not convinced games is what's missing but time will tell.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And this will be the third attempt to make Google TV a viable commercial platform. The first generation is unsupported as are some of the earlier second generation devices. I'm not convinced games is what's missing but time will tell.

I'm not sure games are what's needed either. Here's an anecdotal example. I'm thinking of ending my Netflix subscription next year and switching to Amazon Prime. My PVR has Netflix supports but doesn't have Prime support - I'll need a play. Rather than hooking up tablet or console, a cheap Google dongle would turn the dumb TV into a Smart TV, so that has a lot of sense. Hence there's reasonable change of me hooking up a Google game-capable bit of kit to my TV without any interest in games.

These services I would have looked for in a console, but as they offer no synergy with mobile platforms (something MS is addressing), the console's purpose is very much relegated to game provider, giving games a chance to piggy-back on the utility provider.

I'm not going to profess Nexus TV or any other device will oust consoles in a big way, but I will commit to claiming that if there's a larger enough install base, specialised games will come.

 

[liolio]

I think you are wrong. Everyone wants streaming video, and a nice box that can offer this cheaply will be successful. But I have no idea why Google, Amazon and similar try to put games on the boxes.

well it seems that facts are proving me wrong and you right. Android TV is not really taking off whatever the reasons.
Apple Tv or Google chromecast might prove the better approach. Down the line Google could blend Android TV and Chromecast and things MSFT does with the One. it could take the form of a HDMI stick with a HDMI in and HDMI out.

Gaming definitely it is an important part of what makes mobile devices special, but I guess the market is still maturing. whereas touch inputs have theirs issues they are flexible and in some genres they shine when that happens mapping the gameplay to the controller is not trivial.
Tablets sales are slowing down, the intended public now know well that they are no replacement for laptop (or usually bigger 2 in 1 devices) but recreational and as such unnecessary devices. Gaming is a important function to such a device, so is affordability.
May be Google could release a tablet following their Android One approach. They could follow into the Amazon Fire HD6 steps as the form factor makes it a match for Kids and adults alike, it is also more pocketable than 7".

 

[rockaman]

Chromecast is fantastic, simply coupled with a tablet even my parents are easily able to stream HD content to our home TV (without any intervention by me required..... after a year of teaching ).

Paid $30 for the Chromecast and 2nd edition Nexus 7 for under $200 and it's been completely perfect for watching Youtube or Netflix on the telly. Right now we're in the midst of "consuming" Star Trek: The Next Generation from start to finish for the first time on Netflix.

Also we have a "dumb TV" which is my preference.... though it seems "dumb TVs" are becoming a rare breed! But I very much like the solution of Chromecast, it is very efficient, but at the same time I have yet to experience any Smart TVs so it's hard for me to know how they compare at the moment..... will be in the market for a new TV in a year about so I can find out then

It's a rare thing, but truly technology in this scenario genuinely made consumption faster, easier, more comfortable, and cheaper. All the things technology advertises it should do it actually did. And it's no surprise IMO that these devices are very popular.

P.S.

I also see very little opportunity for games on "home" Android boxes, because they are so dominantly used for consuming TV and movie and internet video content. I think that "gaming" on tablets/phones however will continue to be a big force, but also I feel many of those games which are F2P/P2W style.... those tablet/phone specific games will continue to be restricted to that platform. The audience there is very different from, and much larger and diverse globally than, the console and PC gaming audience.

 

[dobwal]

well it seems that facts are proving me wrong and you right. Android TV is not really taking off whatever the reasons.
Apple Tv or Google chromecast might prove the better approach. Down the line Google could blend Android TV and Chromecast and things MSFT does with the One. it could take the form of a HDMI stick with a HDMI in and HDMI out.

Gaming definitely it is an important part of what makes mobile devices special, but I guess the market is still maturing. whereas touch inputs have theirs issues they are flexible and in some genres they shine when that happens mapping the gameplay to the controller is not trivial.
Tablets sales are slowing down, the intended public now know well that they are no replacement for laptop (or usually bigger 2 in 1 devices) but recreational and as such unnecessary devices. Gaming is a important function to such a device, so is affordability.
May be Google could release a tablet following their Android One approach. They could follow into the Amazon Fire HD6 steps as the form factor makes it a match for Kids and adults alike, it is also more pocketable than 7".

I think if Apple or Google were really serious about the TV space they would simply produced a smartTV OS and give it to manufacturers with the ideal of splitting the profits generated by the app and game stores with the manufacturers.

However, when I think of Xb1 to Windows 10 streaming I don't think of streaming to a desktop or laptop, I think of streaming to something like Intel Compute stick so I can stream to other TVs.

 

[wco81]

If they were serious about TV, they'd work on acquiring TV content, especially exclusive content.

Amazon and Netflix shows are getting Emmy award nominations now.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Also we have a "dumb TV" which is my preference.... though it seems "dumb TVs" are becoming a rare breed! But I very much like the solution of Chromecast, it is very efficient, but at the same time I have yet to experience any Smart TVs so it's hard for me to know how they compare at the moment..... will be in the market for a new TV in a year about so I can find out then

An important point here is a dongle can be replaced. TVs can have, by accounts, lousy FW support and interfaces. Something like Fire TV or Android TV can be updated and, if the device is abandoned, replaced with a better device for a very low price. Integrated smart TVs are basically a dumb a idea, like all in one TV+DVDs.