Why can't we make our own game publishing platform?

[Flux]

Why do we need 3-4 large corperations do what we could do better than them? Why can't a group of people create a small game and sell it and be rewarded with thier spoils of war?
What is stopping us from making a very low end game console ourselves that's open to any indy game software publishers as well as high-mid range game software publishers?

The hardware specifications of the platform is both low power and small,and of course cheap. We are not trying to make money. We are trying to create an enviroment that individual game developers make money off of thier hard work.Not a privately owned corperate entity.

Platform Hardware Specifications:

OS: Windows Phone 7 (bulk license)
GPU: ARM Mali(x4)400MHz(fan,heat spreader,heat sink,larger case)
128MB 1T-SRAM(PoP)
CPU: ARM Cortex A9 2GHz
1GB DDR3(same memory as in the Apple A4 soc) RAM(PoP)
mass storage:16GB HDD Drive(low end)
standardized engine
game storage media :microSD card (up to 32GB storage limit)
or download directly to the HDD.

Game Company y:non profit game publisher/distributor/marketer(tax exempt)
Main means of income: advertisements,trialware,product endorsements

Demographic: customers that desire a affordable game console with affordable games.
customers that can't afford $150-$500 game consoles + accessories. They also don't want to buy $60 shovelware/a-turd-pressed-into-a-DVDrom/crap all year save maybe 6-8 good games spread accross four platforms.

They also want more ABOVE MEDIOCRE games than 6-8 a year. Quantity over quality aproach. At least now if a developer makes a crap/uninspired rushed mess game the unbiased market will penalize them for it. The true game designing talent will be rewarded.

The price of the console can be about $49.99. Its already packaged with windows freeware games,trialware games(like WoW) and other PC multimedia trailware(like netflicks or ABC,CBS,Fox streamed TV) preinstalled on the device. It also has loads of windows programs(like VB++or MSN messenger) that you might find useful.

By making game developement process cheaper(ALOT less payrole,ads revenue, and no software licenses) and faster(standardize engines,partially assisted developement/debugging support) the publisher can make more games and risk more.

Fun games made back in 1985 are still fun in 2010.Unified shaders or not fun is fun. Problem is when you only have 3-4 fun games a year because of insane cost overhead.
Overhead is toxic. People are out of jobs because of overhead.In our enviroment the developer sells software directly with the customer. No overhead other than the IRS.
Screw trying to make a profit off of selling software let's use the resources we have(ad revenue,surplus on our game software,surplus on hardware sales,private investors) to make the best game publishing platform ever.

 

[Dungeonscaper]

They could port Minecraft to it!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What's the point when the target audience already has a PC? That's the limiting factor - business. There'll be no money in such an endeavour. Any indie developer should just write for PC (which they do), where you can start for all of £50 with a language like DarkBasic or Blitz, or if you're more knowledgeable grab MS's XNA platform for free and make games available for a small fee to join the Creator's Club. Now with the consoles getting download minigames, even they are becoming and option.

Designing a new console and putting it into production to become obsolete is a lot of effort and money for no advantage.

Fun games made back in 1985 are still fun in 2010

I disagree with you adamently. Games that I played back then are often bland and boring, or stupidly frustrating. There's a lot more variety and interest these days. If you feel console gaming is mostly crap, you clearly aren't exploring enough of the Indie games that are produced by enthusiastic amateurs with no idea what they're doing!

It's perfectly possible for a group of amateurs to target PC these days. If that's what it takes to get a second Golden Age of Games, it'd be happening. And you do see some fabulous indie creations. But it's just on a par with what professional develoment produces, because at the end of the day talent only gets you so far and the rest is hard graft, which amateurs typically lack.

In short, I think you're whole premise is bunk! There's no need for a new console, current non-gqamers who can't afford a console won't be more discerning, and there's nothing particularly wrong with the games being made even if they aren't all your cup of tea.

 

[V3]

The platform you want is something like Flash. Not hardware. Something that can run on standard web browser possibly but design for games, ie fast interactivity.

 

[Flux]

What's the point when the target audience already has a PC? That's the limiting factor - business. There'll be no money in such an endeavour. Any indie developer should just write for PC (which they do), where you can start for all of £50 with a language like DarkBasic or Blitz, or if you're more knowledgeable grab MS's XNA platform for free and make games available for a small fee to join the Creator's Club. Now with the consoles getting download minigames, even they are becoming and option.

Well the idea is to create a platform for a private developement house to sell thier product. How much does a legitimate gaming PC cost? em... Yeah. Dude the vast majority of gamers play point and click games on thier browser. They are NOT going to buy a 200-300 machine or a 50-$60+ game. Alot of people are intimidated by the complexity of high end games. People don't like to lose. They like to win. People don't like to not interact with the game. They like to interact with the game. Simple. Make games that people can actually play not be intimidated of and developers can make a career off of it. Thats not possible with the current model of game developement not named mobile phone,Wii or DS.


Designing a new console and putting it into production to become obsolete is a lot of effort and money for no advantage.

The platform is not allowed to profit(as there is no ownership) off the games or the hardware licenses. Its purely ad driven.


I disagree with you adamently. Games that I played back then are often bland and boring, or stupidly frustrating. There's a lot more variety and interest these days. If you feel console gaming is mostly crap, you clearly aren't exploring enough of the Indie games that are produced by enthusiastic amateurs with no idea what they're doing!

Tetris is still fun. Super mario bros is still fun. Pacman is still fun. Rtype is still fun. No unified shaders no paralellism or vortex processing.Problem isn't the game.Its us. The old challenges get boring because we defeated them. I can beat rocky rodent,streets of rage 2, or return of double dragon no problem. There still fun games. Challenging no. Fun yes.
Now for challenging final fantasy tactics 1.3 is the 2nd hardest game I ever played. REALLY fun!

It's perfectly possible for a group of amateurs to target PC these days. If that's what it takes to get a second Golden Age of Games, it'd be happening. And you do see some fabulous indie creations. But it's just on a par with what professional develoment produces, because at the end of the day talent only gets you so far and the rest is hard graft, which amateurs typically lack.

Whats the difference between a amateur and a professional. Professionals make money consistantly.If a group of developers made a fun game that sold.Are they not professionals? Are they rich amatuers? lol

In short, I think you're whole premise is bunk! There's no need for a new console, current non-gqamers who can't afford a console won't be more discerning, and there's nothing particularly wrong with the games being made even if they aren't all your cup of tea.

Your opinion is noted

Whatever dude I'll agree to disagree. I have no problem with the quality of games made I just want MORE games. I can care less about graphics or physics. Give me a metal slug sequal,unreal,legend of zelda, or a new streetfighter 3 interation and I am a happy panda. Thats beside the point. Come on 6-8 decent games a year is pathetic. Tons of shovelware save a few exclusives is a joke. The platform is not going to compete with the other consoles anyway.We are not trying to.

Web designers can freelance and make money. Webmasters can freelance and make money. Sprite artists can freelance too. Composers and sound engineers can freelance why can't we freelance?

I guess we are not allowed to do such things.

 

[Xenus]

Well I'm not sure you can do worse then the abomination Panasonic just made..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Tetris is still fun.

done it. I'm bored of it now.

Super mario bros is still fun.

Never really took to that.

Pacman is still fun.

It's dull as ditch water IMO.

Rtype is still fun.

Yep, it was superb design. Of course, you can find a few gems in every generation. Uncharted 2 is fun, and undoable on old hardware. FIFA has been making football games better and better, thanks to the power to drive them.

Problem isn't the game.Its us.

I disagree.If you analyse the gameplay elements, old games were dirt simple because they couldn't do better. It had a novelty factor, which is why Space Invaders and Meteor Storm were played, but at their core you don't do much. There's little to occupy the mind. They're basically empty games. The reason no publisher is releasing simple, "fun" games like Space Invaders and Meteor Storm now isn't because they are blind to good games and just throwing deferred shaded micropolygons at a game to make money, but because they appreciate the market doesn't want such dull games. Such simple titles can be knocked up in a week on the PC. How many people do you know choosing these titles over MW2 and the like? It's not due to lack of availibility because no platform supports them, but because we want more stuff now. We're more sophisticated than when we were kids happy to play Pong.

[qutoe]Whatever dude I'll agree to disagree. I have no problem with the quality of games made I just want MORE games.[/quote]I suggest you start here.

I can care less about graphics or physics.

Most people can't. Uncharted 2 with progtrammer-art blocks and squares wouldn't feel the same. The visuals are part fo the whole experience.
[qyuote]Come on 6-8 decent games a year is pathetic.[/quote]Some will argue with that. It really comes down to taste. Plenty on this board have given lists of the many titles they have to play and not enough time to play them, for example.

Web designers can freelance and make money. Webmasters can freelance and make money. Sprite artists can freelance too. Composers and sound engineers can freelance why can't we freelance? I guess we are not allowed to do such things.

You can. But to do that you need an install base to reach and sell to, if you want to be a professional and not a amateur. And by professional, actually earn a living, rather than some pocket-money. The PC provides and install base of a billion users or whatever insane figure it is. How would a new console platform be a better investment and reach a larger audience than that? Whatever you'd spend on laucnhing a console, you could instead spend on creating your own indie game developer and publicising the title so it gets noticed among the many hundreds of other competing titles, and you might make some money off it.

Seriously, what's wrong with PC in your gaming vision? Why not just use Steam, which already exists? Or XNA? Between my links that's some 1500 titles I guess, all from free developers who aren't constrained by the puvlishers forcing them to develop cutting edge graphics. They must represent the creative potential of the wider developer community, and provide you with hundreds of great titles to play with, all without anyone needing to design a new console, put it into production, drum up developer support, advertise, etc.!

 

[Flux]

done it. I'm bored of it now.
-snip-

Well going by history your model is flawed. How well the Wii,DS, GBA, mobile phone software is going now kind of proves my point. The conservative route almost always wins.

If power house hardware(and expensive hardware) is the only thing people will buy why did a vastly underpowered Wii beat Xbox360 and PS3?

Why did DS beat PSP in sales?

Why did the GBA beat Ngage in sales and any other handheld?

Why did PS2 beat GC and Xbox in sales?

Why did PS1 beat N64 and Saturn both way more powerful than it?

Why did NES beat Megadrive in sales?

Why does PC software gaming always wins?

One reason. Games. Lots of fun/good games to choose from. Wide variety of good games while having respectable hardware ALWAYS trumps high end visual/physics simulator-like games every time.

Games are toys. Toys don't need to be realistic.They just need to be fun to the player. Thats all.See Wiifit and Wiisports. They can but its meaningless. Its how fun the game is, how creative the games are, the content,the features,its the whole package.

A lot of modern bulk buying smark gamers(hardcore) idea of fun(alot like mine)is a hyper realistic cinema style game. Pretty much a playable movie. Thats not everyone's idea of a fun toy/video game. Accept that video games can be more than just playable cinema.

Why don't women play video games at all but they do on the Wii,mobile phone,browser and DS? Guess women hate non-nintendo games or love cell phones and web browsers.

Why are the majority of bulk buying customers are young 18-35 men?

Nintendo already knew they lost that demographic last generation so they did like any company with a brain and marketed to other demographics that have different tastes. See they never played Super Rtype or Rtype 3, they haven't played mario bros on atari or super mario bros on NES. They have a low threshold for fun. Why sell to the enlightened and expensive smark when you can sell to the unknowing marks.

Same idea.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

done it. I'm bored of it now.
-snip-

Well going by history your model is flawed. How well the Wii,DS, GBA, mobile phone software is going now kind of proves my point. The conservative route almost always wins.

Going by indie games and lucklustre 3rd party sales on Wii, are you really sure of that? AAA graphics doesn't make a game. Neither does cheap, simple graphics. It's getting the whole mix right - graphics (whatever standard as befits the game), gameplay, design, etc.

If power house hardware(and expensive hardware) is the only thing people will buy why did a vastly underpowered Wii beat Xbox360 and PS3?

Who here said people only buy powerhouse hardware?! I never even vaguely suggested that! You're saying simple games aren't possible as powerhouse hardware attracts triple-A, poorly considered games that are nothing but eye-candy. I respond saying there's already a platform for every game you want that isn't at all constrained by uber-graphics. Where does, "people only want powerhouse hardware" come from??

Plus, you're only looking at this from one side. Wii didn't beat XB360 and PS3; it provided an alternative platform for alternative gamers. All those gamers who like graphics and sophisticated games all bought XB360 or PS3 or a gaming PC. Wii didn't displace them; it just found a parallel market.

Your hypothetical alternative console would not attract PS360 gamers who like eye-candy, and will go head-to-head with Wii and DS and other less visually appealing platforms which are all about the games and not the looks (according to you).

Why does PC software gaming always wins?

Wins what?

One reason. Games. Lots of fun/good games to choose from. Wide variety of good games while having respectable hardware ALWAYS trumps high end visual/physics simulator-like games every time.

Who said otherwise? However, having good games with high end visuals and sophistication beats good games without, every time. Pick your favourite games of all time and imagine the graphics replaced with flat squares (doesn't work if your favourite game is Pong, obviously! ). How entertaining are they then? How fun would Uncharted be with Mr. Polygon running around plain white blocks and shooting little cubes at the evil squares? Why the hell has the industry progressed in leaps and bounds in graphical rendering if nobody gives a damn?! People do care, hence graphics reviews on gaming websites, and people saying, "oh, that looks good" or not, when playing games without a clue about visuals. Just as they like movie special FX. Graphics just aren't the only deciding factor, just as gameplay alone is not the only deciding factor. Same as movies. I'm sure you've heard people say, "rubbish film but great special FX" (Avatar, anyone?). Great visuals do not make a great film. But then I'm sure you've also heard people comment on low-budget films let down by poor quality visuals that let it down, irrespective of how great the sotry might be. You need the whole lot right - every ingredient a quality ingredient and all expertly blended and cooked to perfection.

And all the rest of your post isn't what the intial post is addressing! The question is what's to stop someone creating an indie console. The answer is it's not needed. I linked you to over a thousand indie games on PC. Anyone who wants to create a title can do so. There's no need for another platform! Other than that, from what you're saying I don't understand why you don't just get yourself an Atari 2600 and have the bestest games in the world (on account of the graphics being so naff ).

 

[Flux]

Going by indie games and lucklustre 3rd party sales on Wii, are you really sure of that? AAA graphics doesn't make a game. Neither does cheap, simple graphics. It's getting the whole mix right - graphics (whatever standard as befits the game), gameplay, design, etc.

They are not getting 3rd party support because of the risk involved with the new play interface. They pretty much have to scrap all thier premade plans or redesign ports to make sense on the Wii. Problem is Wii/DS are unique in the fact that not being creative (not rehashing old game challenges) penalize developers. Why would anyone play Doom 3 on Wii if it was just a simple port without using the nunchuck/wand/whatever they mold in plastic? Make Doom 3 use the wand to do things you can't do on PC or Xbox1-2 games(like walk and shoot behind you regardless of your view or motion controled artifacts in the game). Thats the idea. How about a run/shoot rail-shooter game with the balence board and the gun ascessory? Better than Halo interation 9 with little new mechanics added to keep ol' smark gamers from being bored.

Who here said people only buy powerhouse hardware?! I never even vaguely suggested that! You're saying simple games aren't possible as powerhouse hardware attracts triple-A, poorly considered games that are nothing but eye-candy. I respond saying there's already a platform for every game you want that isn't at all constrained by uber-graphics. Where does, "people only want powerhouse hardware" come from??

Were? PC?...oh...most people can barely use them much less install/configure/optimize them. Oh and they are expensive. Probably talking about mobile phone games.

Plus, you're only looking at this from one side. Wii didn't beat XB360 and PS3; it provided an alternative platform for alternative gamers. All those gamers who like graphics and sophisticated games all bought XB360 or PS3 or a gaming PC. Wii didn't displace them; it just found a parallel market.

It out sold them pure and simple. Sony and microsoft is losing money from Wii just being in the same market. Taking margins away from your shareholders == competitor. Nintendo and microsoft kind of outsmarted Sony when they launched. But all 4 can bleed billions in losses (like sony does) its not going hurt any of them. Microsoft has 2 platforms and is trying to steal a 3rd one, the smartphone market, with windows phone 7(sorry symbianOS). Hell if microsoft captures smartphones they are going to dominate that market too not just desktops.

Your hypothetical alternative console would not attract PS360 gamers who like eye-candy, and will go head-to-head with Wii and DS and other less visually appealing platforms which are all about the games and not the looks (according to you).

Wins what?

Probably the ipad/iphone then 3DS then PSP2 etc. If we try to forcus more toward mobile gaming which we are not going to then we'll underperform. Battery life/efficiency is a science all itself. So we are a low-power game console instead.

Who said otherwise? However, having good games with high end visuals and sophistication beats good games without, every time. Pick your favourite games of all time and imagine the graphics replaced with flat squares (doesn't work if your favourite game is Pong, obviously! ). How entertaining are they then? How fun would Uncharted be with Mr. Polygon running around plain white blocks and shooting little cubes at the evil squares? Why the hell has the industry progressed in leaps and bounds in graphical rendering if nobody gives a damn?! People do care, hence graphics reviews on gaming websites, and people saying, "oh, that looks good" or not, when playing games without a clue about visuals. Just as they like movie special FX. Graphics just aren't the only deciding factor, just as gameplay alone is not the only deciding factor. Same as movies. I'm sure you've heard people say, "rubbish film but great special FX" (Avatar, anyone?). Great visuals do not make a great film. But then I'm sure you've also heard people comment on low-budget films let down by poor quality visuals that let it down, irrespective of how great the sotry might be. You need the whole lot right - every ingredient a quality ingredient and all expertly blended and cooked to perfection.

I disagree with you because you in my opinion(take that for what its worth) you don't understand what makes a good video game. A great game designer can make a great game out of anything he wanted to. The less emersive/realistic makes the designer have to try ALOT harder to be creative and unique. They still can but its alot harder to make a good NES/genesis game mechanic system(not the simulation portion of the game) than a mmo on a high end PC.Only the higher end games have exponentially more higher standards on physics,visuals and emersion like storylines,balancing, etc. On a high end machine you need to 1)have elite level emersion(shaders,lighting,physics voice overs etc)to warrant them spending hundreds on hardware 2) a good non-cheesy storyline with unique personalities and 3)slick user interface 4)halfway balanced and not broken challenge mechanics of gameplay.....oh and 5) a decent set of game challenge mechanics
that make it its own game.

With a low end game only #5 makes or breaks a title. No one is going to pay $60 for a turd-rom game if they know its a lemon.But no one is going to pay $60 for a low end game either.
The more expensive the game the more the developer has to do to sell software. The less it costs the buyer will understand if you don't have unified shaders or standard 1GB vram requirements. If you have a cheap game that is crappy then they won't buy it either. But differentiating yourself is harder because you can't really get away with gimmicks(or have to try alot harder to make ones that aren't stupid,unfun or rehashed ) until you get a fan base that likes your games.

And all the rest of your post isn't what the intial post is addressing! The question is what's to stop someone creating an indie console. The answer is it's not needed. I linked you to over a thousand indie games on PC. Anyone who wants to create a title can do so. There's no need for another platform! Other than that, from what you're saying I don't understand why you don't just get yourself an Atari 2600 and have the bestest games in the world (on account of the graphics being so naff ).

Can I buy thier games in Gamestop shelves,Toys R US shelves, or walmart shelves? Nope. Are they marketed on TV/radio. Nope. What about distribution to said retailers? Nahh.Its either they buy it off someones website or they don't make the sale. Thats a difference of millions in revenue or just little pocket change on the side.

What if they had a better platform to present thier freelance business?

 

[patsu]

You can write FaceBook and cellphone games if you want.

 

[ERP]

My 2c on this, why would anyone buy the platform until the software exists?
If you're an early dev on the platform, how do you re-coup your investment if no-one owns it?

There were points early in the IPad lifetime and the IPhone lifetime where having good titles alone moved units, at this point moving units on the app store even with a good title requires an investment in advertising, how do you avoid the same thing if you are successful.

I guess my point is what are you trying to achieve, more quality titles? I'm not sure how your achieving this. It's a talent/execution issue, no one sets out to build an average or bad game.
Lower cost of entry, compared to what? if I want to build an indy game I can do it on a PC today.
I can go do Cellphone development, IPad/IPhone development costs $100, XNA development $100.

Game dev was my work for a long time, I'm currently playing with a game idea in my spare time, I do it on PC, the tools/docs are good, I'm not concentrating on graphics, but I'm unsure why I would have any motive to target an unproven platform likely with poor tools instead of the PC.

The hardware is possibly the smallest/easiest part of the equation when it comes to a successful platform launch, ignoring the software side for a minute, a lot of it is smoke and mirrors, convincing devs/publishers to invest before you have a user-base to buy the titles, convincing early adopters the good games will be there when none exist.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I disagree with you because you in my opinion(take that for what its worth) you don't understand what makes a good video game.

...

A great game designer can make a great game out of anything he wanted to.

In some ways that's true, but you don't want a system that forces devs to create odd titles. There are plenty of geometric shooters and platformers and the like on XNA, but people also want realistic games like Uncharted or GT or whatever. What you're suggesting is a platform where those things never happen. So who is your audience?

The less emersive/realistic makes the designer have to try ALOT harder to be creative and unique.

Untrue. It's the need to differentiate that makes a designer try. Having lots of eyecandy doesn't mean a designer doesn't need to design any gameplay. It's very possible to make generic, uninteresting titles with no visual pzazz - just look at the geometry wars ripoffs that have appeared everywhere! Any talented designer who can create a great simple game should be able to create a great complex game too.

1)have elite level emersion(shaders,lighting,physics voice overs etc)to warrant them spending hundreds on hardware

Why do you think people spend hundreds on hardware if they don't care about graphics?

2) a good non-cheesy storyline with unique personalities and 3)slick user interface 4)halfway balanced and not broken challenge mechanics of gameplay.....oh and 5) a decent set of game challenge mechanics that make it its own game.

You're talking about AAA games as if they're the only thing available on the consoles! PixelJunk Monsters got my money. Great gameplay. Simple graphics. Low cost to make. PixelJunk Shooter was great. Simple graphics, cutting-edge physics because the hardware has the power to do it. Geometry Wars, top seller, world's simplest graphics. You don't have to make a AAA-visual game to sell on PS360. We have examples of games that were very cheap to make. However, better visuals helps!

Can I buy thier games in Gamestop shelves,Toys R US shelves, or walmart shelves? Nope. Are they marketed on TV/radio. Nope. What about distribution to said retailers? Nahh.Its either they buy it off someones website or they don't make the sale. Thats a difference of millions in revenue or just little pocket change on the side.

That's not true. It's possible to make millions off indie PC titles. It's possible to make no money at all off an 80 million strong Wii installation base. You can write an iPhone app that makes a few thousand bucks pocket change, or sells gangbusters, or gets ignored. That's all down to marketing and such, and not just the paltform. A new platform will end up with exactly the same problems as now. Initially developers (assuming you get any to write for the system) will have the whole market to themselves. Every game released will sell in sufficient numbers because there's nothing else to buy. But gradually the library will become more saturated with titles. People won't know which of many games to buy, so they'll need to be influenced by marketing, or reviews. They'll want games that differentiate themselves from all the others that they've already played. And you're back where you started! Developers making games that aren't selling, having to follow the marketing dollars, which they can't afford and so need to rely on a publisher, who in turn has influence over what they create. And you'll want eye-candy so that in the catalogue when shoppers are perusing, your game stands out and attracts their attention.

The hardware you've described has more capability than Wii. How much do you think it costs to make a Wii game that sells well? You think Mario Galaxies was $100,000 got together by a few mates, or several million dollars plus several million more on marketing, with all sorts of development team to make it look pretty?

What if they had a better platform to present thier freelance business?

So far I think you've only approached this considering what you want from a cheap console, without considering what it would cost to create, produce, market etc. the console. You're saying you don't want to spend out on making expensive games, but you're going to have to find hundreds of millions of dollars to launch this platform!

Why not take that money and instead of spending it on creating a new console, create a new PC gaming platform, or work with Steam, and advertise to the masses? Educate the existing PC userbase to run your simple games from a gaming website. Or just develop games for PopCap? Or create a normal PC title and advertise it and get it stocked in the games stores? Creating a new hardware platform will not the solve the problem with the current selection of software titles that you feel exists. Every successful platform will have the same issues with product visibility, requiring marketing, requiring big investment, leading often to publishers controlling creative output but choosing who to support.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Fun to think about in a "lets see what this hardware could do!" kind of way, but realistically on the business side of things, no. These days you can't just make something cheap and expect people to partake in buying as well as getting major developers on board.

As stated earlier, PCs offer a ready install base, plenty of hardware power for "indie type games" and beyond. It really just boils down to graphics hardware in my view, though you can still do quite alot with crappy Intel integrated graphics even from the 9xx series, especially if you have it paired to a dual core CPU.

So it would be wise to just aim for netbook like specs, and maybe have some extra features for those with machines beyond netbook capabilities. The install base of netbooks, laptops, and desktop computers is massive, probably as massive as the install base of TVs. It's of more importance to have a computer with internet access than a TV. It would be interesting to get some data on the home computer + internet access : home TV ratios in various countries. Just vouching for myself and my roommates, we have 5 computers : 4 HDTVs between the three of us.

What I would love to see though is a Unix/Linux + ARM based computer with scalability aimed at those wanting something to screw around with on the programming side of things. Yes, it doesn't have to be expensive, and it could be purposely used for other applications (car computers, etc, or it could be an adaptation of already available product of similar spec). As a game console purely, it would be an unimaginably bad idea though. The amount of money to invest would be quite high to develop a specific system, even if it uses already designed parts. It's got to be manufactured, shipped to stores, marketed, etc on top of software and OS development. And what about digital distribution, who handles servers? It's a big mess to jump into. I don't see how Panasonic's Jungle is going to survive unless it's specifically for MMOs that are already running in a version native to the platform but plays with players already on PCs. It's a niche market that perhaps in Asia could gain appeal, but it's still a big risk for Panasonic to market such a thing.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Fun to think about in a "lets see what this hardware could do!" kind of way, but realistically on the business side of things, no. These days you can't just make something cheap and expect people to partake in buying as well as getting major developers on board.

Yeah, even in Japan, which during the 80's and early 90's was flooded by cheap to make home consoles, has basically settled on the big 2.5 consoles (Wii, PS3, and far behind X360) as well as 2 handhelds (DS and PSP) and cellphone games (and the a lot isn't even iPhone based. )

Cellphones was an easy extension there as everyone from about 10 years old (give or take) and up has a cellphone.

New consoles? Not unless it's from a proven company anymore. And MS still hasn't convinced the majority of the Japanese that it's a "proven" console company.

If you want to do cheap games, there's PC (gaining a bit in popularity as the Japanese discover the internet) and cellphones. Heck if you want cheap 80's and early 90's type PC games, there are a TON of them sold in retail in Japan. Although they tend more to the naughty adult side side than to the type you can safely play with the family.

Anyway, as you were saying, there's just no way for any console (cheap or otherwise) to make it without massive funding, very VERY engaging producers that can push it, massive advertising campaign to convince consumers, and some type of unique "hook" (like motion gaming, oops the big boys are pushing that now).

Just look at the last real attempt for a cheap console. The Linux based Phantom console by Phantom Entertainment (and prior to that Infinium Labs).

The OP seems to be wanting to revive the Phantom Console except with WP7 OS and an ARM based architechture instead of Linux and a PC based arch.

Regards,
SB